Talk:Jan Morris/Former name discussion

This subpage contains discussion regarding whether it is appropriate to place Jan Morris's former name in the lede of the article, or whether doing so goes against NPOV by giving her gender transition undue weight. Gracehoper (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Further cleanup

I dislike the rhetorical device of using "transitioned from [birth-name] to [chosen-name]" as synecdoche for sex transition. Might as well tell it like it is. In addition, "female hormones" is an imprecise term, because both so-called "female" and "male" sex hormones occur in both (assigned) male and (assigned) female humans. Finally, not all trans people believe that surgery is the "culmination" of transition, so without a specific cite from Morris's memoir, this phraseology should be avoided.

This is a good example of how respect for individual identities coincides with the imperative to be factual and precise. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

At first I wasn't sure, but I think I like the idea of going to WT:BLP and asking to get wording suggesting that it's best to ask the subject whether they want us to use the alternate-gender name and what pronouns they want. Obviously, in rare cases, we'll have to refer to the previous name whether they want us to or not, if something really significant happened under the other name, and it's impossible to make sense of the article if we don't mention the name. But it would be nice to get some support in policy for respecting the subject's wishes whenever possible, and I would think no harm would be done to Wikipedia by respecting their wishes almost always. Does this sound like a good idea? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reading the WT:BLP archives, and we may not even need new wording (although we might). When talking about whether to reveal Lukas Ridgeston's real name (a porn star, but don't be put off by that, follow the logic here): "21 google hits is a joke when you compare the 78,000 google hits returned for his stage name. If there are only twenty or so places on the web that report his name, then it is not a widely known fact. From WP:BLP When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed..." That kind of argument appears to be quite persuasive at WT:BLP. So even if a birth name is widely known around the web, if it's much less widely known than the current name, and if the subject prefers that we not use it, we seem to be on solid ground already. Thoughts? I think the key is that we're not just talking about snippets of biographical information here (there'd be no need to gratuitously insert a former name), we're talking about actual biographies, and there won't be a biography on Wikipedia unless the person has significant coverage. So we'll generally be able to use the "look at all the hits under the current name" argument. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All the sectionedit links seem to have dissapeared! Anyway - on topic. Simply, the previous name is not sed for transsexual people unless there is a convincing and notable argument for it's use. The sources used to decide this do nt depend upon google hits, but as with all things on Wikipedia, they are decided by the most authoritative source... for example, see the pax britannica section below... If a book is published by Jan Morris, and the author who is famous for it is called Jan Morris, then Jan Morris it is. A bibliography might say another name, (James Morris), but whoever heared of a bibliography having the authority to tell a books publisher or it's author who wrote it?

Furthermore, any mention of an old name, if required, should NEVER be given as though it were that persons identity... the nature of changing a name is such that the previous name is not who you are, which goes for transsexual people and everybody else alike. For example... It is unacceptable to open an article "Joe Blogges (born Jane Bloggs) was...". In the article, it can state "Joe Blogs was assigned male at birth, and was previously known as Jane Bloggs." If it is absolutely nessecary, but if not absolutely nessecary, then it's not a notable or significant enough fact for inclusion, regardless of the numbers in google. Crimsone (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I explained my point well, Dan. I wasn't suggesting that the old name should not be used, or should be hidden out of respect for the subject. Obviously, the old name is public information. However, I think there is no need to repeat the old name once it has been mentioned, and (the latter is what I was trying to say in my first comment here), I don't like "went from James to Jan" as a synonym for "transitioned", because it implies that the subject was somehow assuming a new and different personality or something like that. And that implication is predicated on a particular POV about the nature of transsexuality. SparsityProblem (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's only one "POV" about the nature of transsexuality as far as wikipedia is concerned when dealing with such people - the one that holds a general medical/academic consensus (which I see your comment above conforms to.) If the old name is publc information, then it can easily be found - it doesn't make it particularly relevant to who somebody is or their wikipedia article though. It should only be mentioned if there is an overriding need to mention it, or if it's about a transsexual person who's acheivements are only particularly reknowned/published under their previous name. Otherwise, respect for the subject is paramount - ESPECIALLY if living. I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't do disrespect for the sake of it, or because someone believes that transsexual people should be tied down by their (unfortunate) pasts. Crimsone (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember I'm thinking as a Wikipedian here and not as myself, meaning that I'm trying to figure out if policy, and especially its interpretation at BLPN and WT:BLP, already nails your perfectly reasonable perspective; if it doesn't, then we need new language at BLP. I'm not a fan of the phrase "assigned male at birth", because of WP:JARGON: most readers will have no idea what you mean. They'll think there was some special ceremony, or that there was some hermaphrodism that forced the doctors to choose. Surely we can come up with clear and precise wording. The other thing where I may disagree is: I see you guys removed "James" from the article. Did anyone contact Jan and ask her if that's what she wants? I've skimmed the first 31 pages of her autobiographical Conundrum at books.google.com, and it's clear that she always had a female self-perception; I would guess from that that she would be delighted by the female pronouns. But that isn't proof that she doesn't want anyone to know the name "James", is it? In fact, she seems to have no particular embarrassment about the name or about her previous life, that I could see, and it wouldn't shock me if she was the one who wrote some of this stuff, including the "James". Shouldn't we ask, rather than assume? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not talking about putting "(born James...)" in the lead; I agree that's completely beside the point (in this case). I'm talking about whether we should be removing the word "James" from everywhere in the article, without discussion, on the assumption that she wouldn't want people to know that name, without asking her. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's fine to minimize the use of the former name in the article but we are an encyclopedia so there's no reason to remove the name altogether. We often have a list of aliases and pen names so that readers can decide for themselves who significant the information is. -- Banjeboi 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

On that point too, I'd be happier asking the subject. I can see a legitimate privacy concern, if they feel strongly about it, in which case it would depend on whether the article could omit the name and still make sense while including all the truly significant biographical information. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't mention that which is not notable on Wikipedia. As all that she is particularly reknowned for is under her name... Jan... for what purpose should her previous name be mentioned? - especially in the LEAD, and especially with regards to who she is. She is who she is, not who she was. A biography of Jan needs to make mention of the fact that she transitioned, because it's an important factor in her achievements and the notability of some of her work, but it does not need to refer to her by a previous name and identity, especially as it isn't particularly relevant to what she's achieved and is notable for. Crimsone (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Dan: I removed uses of "James" because they were not germane to the context in the article in which they were being used. It doesn't really matter what her preference is: for example, perhaps she was nicknamed "Spanky" as a child and would not have a problem with anybody mentioning that, but it would not be relevant to an encyclopedic article about her. I didn't remove her former name from the lede -- it was Crimsone who did that, and can provide rationale for that choice (personally I think it's appropriate in the lede, just not elsewhere.)

Regarding "assigned male at birth", I'd love to see your alternative phrasing for that that (a) doesn't imply trans people are not products of nature; (b) doesn't imply infants are born "men" or "women"; or (c) doesn't imply gender is determined by genitalia. Of course, a phrasing that implied any of (a), (b) or (c) would be unacceptable POV. "Assigned male at birth" is the shortest phrase I know, and describes a "ceremony" that happens to every baby born in Western culture (we just don't usually think of it as a "ceremony" since it usually doesn't occur to us that we could have any doubt about it.) SparsityProblem (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

←For biographies of people for whom that is true, I can easily support that, Crimsone, but I think it's possible that's not true for Jan. Click on the last external link, and you'll read things like "he claimed one of the century's greatest scoops". She did lots of notable stuff under the name James, and I'd need to look at how much of that information is still running around. Also, again, I'd want to ask her; maybe she wants the name James to appear in the article, to help people successfully search for information about her former accomplishments. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

For such (few) instances, the phrase "during her life prior to transition, she claimed one of the centuries greatest scoops..." would address that. Transition can even be wikilinked. The fact that she claimed the scoop is particularly notable and of importance to the article. The previous name she did so under is not particularly notable, and is an aside to the article. Crimsone (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Notability is the relevant guideline; I don't see anything there about discarding names on the grounds that "the name is not notable". Is there a guideline that says that? (Of course, guidelines are not policy, so we have some wiggle-room, but WP:N might be the most "policy-like" guideline there is on Wikipedia.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, but then, it wouldn't need to. Some things come down to common sense and showing common courtesy with regard to a given article. Clearly, Jan doesn't want in any way to be referred to by her previous name, for if she did, she wouldn't have changed her name, nor would her publishers have changed it on her books (though mention of it for a given purpose is a different issue - what would be the purpose is the important question to be asked here.) Fundamentally, if it doesn't add anything particularly notable to the article, and if the article can be adequately written without mentioning her previous name (which as demonstrated, it can be), what would be the reason for mentioning it? As I said earlier, wikipedia is not in the business of advertising that which is not particularly pertinant to an articles subject, nor is it in the business of disrespect for the sake of it. Of what overriding significance is linking her to a name which she no longer holds (and hasn't for decades), and what purpose would it serve in the article - why does it need to be there?

In any case, it should not be mentioned in the way it currently is... for two reasons. It conflates who she is with who she was, but who she is now is not who she was then. Secondly, the LEAD is a summary of the most significant points of an articles content, not an addendum. Her previous name is not particularly significant to the article anyway, and especially not deserving of a place in the lead even if it's in the article at all. Crimsone (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede is exactly where it should be mentioned, in this case briefly and without unneeded fanfare. Per do no harm and BLP policies we can minimize this material but if multiple reliable sources make it clear this was their former name we really have no good reason to leave it off except a bias that we think the information is somehow damaging or untrue - neither seems the case. I'm not sure I would support removing this even if Morris stated they personally wished it removed. And i doubt she would based on even a glancing look at Conundrum. Google book pops over 100 hits [1] connecting the two so, IMHO, it's a bit silly for us to have our heads in the sand and be protective of something that needs no protecting. -- Banjeboi 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, on this particular article it's the principle of the matter. A good reason to leave it off is because it doesn't add anything of particular note to the article (ie, it's not particularly important, nor nessecary), and the previous name was renounced in law, and as such, is not who Jan Morris is, by either identity or by state recognition. It's not heads in the sand - it's basic respect for a persons identity. Please explain however why it is that you claim that the Lead is "exactly where it should be mentioned", for not only is the previous name NOT who she is, it's not mentioned in the article itself either. In any case, the current format conflating two disperate identities, one of which does not exist, is improper. "Joe Blogs was assigned male at birth, and was previously known as Jane Bloggs" is an example of an acceptable format for the mention of a previous name. The current format is not. Crimsone (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some things come down to common sense": see WP:NOCOMMON. Also, if Person X has done many notable things in their first 30 years before they transitioned, but we're claiming that their name at the time wasn't notable, so we get to remove it without discussion and without asking the subject on the grounds that our notability guideline forbids non-notable names ... well, that doesn't come across as a common-sense exception to policy to me. Although, this may not be what you're saying. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Jan doesn't want in any way to be referred to by her previous name, for if she did, she wouldn't have changed her name". That's an odd thing to say. I get it, Crimsone; most people don't understand that identity issues are deeply personal, and that some discretion is needed. But you're crossing over from being supportive and concerned to being arbitrary. Without asking Jan, how can we know whether she wants her former name mentioned or not? She was quite well-known under that name, and might want people to find sources that have that name. It almost sounds like you're making an argument that we get to forbid people from having more than one name mentioned in Wikipedia articles, on the grounds that they've renounced all rights to previous names by choosing a new one. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it wasn't what I was saying. I must say here however that many things are governed niether by policy or guideline - regardless of WP:NOCOMMON, common sense is thus the only thing at ones disposal. Names are an intrinsic element of identity... there is no longer anybody that identifies as "James Morris". The article is about "Jan Morris", which is the only identity/subject surviving to this day. The previous name was notable at the time, but is no longer so. With regards to "that's an odd thing to say", it is not. If you read my comment closely, you will notice that I made a marked distinction between referring to somebody by a previous name, and mentioning that somebody achieved something under a previous name. We should never refer to someone by a previous name. It is however acceptable to mention that somebody had a previous name which they are no longer identified by under which they achieved things, and indeed, what that name was - but why would you do so unless there was some reason or value to doing so?

"Jan (born James on...)" has a different meaning in terms of identity to "Jan (previously known as James, born on and assigned male at birth)". Further... "James won the prize" is different to "prior to transition she won the prize)", or if nessecary, "Jan, while previously known as James, won the prize" (none are suggested - just examples). There's a big difference between referring to someone by an old name, and mentioning the old name.

As a complete aside, I find it curious that such an issue should be an issue on an encyclopedia that grants users a "right to dissapear" and come back under a new and disperate identity. The old username isn't foisted upon the "new" user in any way... I say again though, this is an aside. Crimsone (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. We can't co-mingle policies for users with policies on content. Certainly there are common practices that all relate to the same basic principals but we do have different standards. If you really believe there is a case for leaving off someone's birthname as a right to privacy/do no harm issue I think that will be a change in policy. In this case you don't have just cause for leaving it off as the person themselves has published a book about it. We do have article where we leave birthnames off because we have evidence that 1. the person wishes it so and 2. the birthname is not widely reported in reliable sources. I would think a similar test should be applied to gender identity issues as well. -- Banjeboi 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We do have a policy that covers this already: which has nothing to do with gender issues in particular, but applies quite neatly here. To mention Morris's previous name in the lead violates WP:UNDUE:

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

I do not believe that Morris's previous name is sufficiently significant to her biography as to lead the article with it, but you may argue to the contrary if you like. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"We can't co-mingle policies for users with policies on content" - I think you'll find that I myself wasn't doing so, but making a comment on it. You have also failed to provide the rationale I have requested (on why the format and placing of referral to (or rather, in it's current format, by...) the previous name is justified when alternative format an placement is available, and failed to note why inclusion of the name in the article is of significant importance to the article. She didn't publish a book about her previous name. She published a book about the fact that she had one and transitioned to female thus changed it. Actually, her name isn't even the subject of the book - the transition itself is. The name is but a tiny part of that)

In short, you've answered nothing I have asked, and have even failed to take heed of my own statement of intent to comment rather than "co-mingle". Not to mention everything else I've said by the looks of it. Crimsone (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pax Britannica

For purposes of clarifying an issue, Pax Brittanica is published as written by "Jan Morris", as demonstrated at Amazon. Crimsone (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Most bibliographies which I have seen use "James Morris" for the first of the Pax Britannica trilogy and for obvious reasons, the original editions have not had the name of the author changed. --Harlsbottom (talk | library | book reviews) 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - unless the publishers went around with a marker pen to change it on every copy sold, then that would be rather impossible. However, it remains that the Pax Britannica is published as written by Jan Morris. It is published in this way both because Jan Morris wrote it, and James Morris no longer exists - that's what happens when you change your name by deed poll, let alone when you transition from male to female and become recognised in law as a woman and only a woman. She still owns the rights, she still wrote it. Her publishers publish it as Jan Morris currently, and it is available currently, hence it is a work of Jan Morris and not James Morris. Past editions become anomalous in such a context. There is no reason to include the former name, and to do it on the basis of a book that isn't published under that name would be fallacious. The sources... the current ones, which are most relevant (no less because this is a living person and the publishers are still publishing the work) state that it is written by Jan Morris... and it is. The publishers and Jan herself are the ones who declare who it is written by. If bibliographies are still claiming it to be written by James (unless citing an ISBN of a previous edition which is no longer available, and thus irrelevant to the fact that she's famous for it), then the bibliographies are wrong, not the publishers, and not Jan. Crimsone (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We could just throw it in a footnote that it's attributed to James. -- Banjeboi 23:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't. It's attributed to Jan. Jan and the publishers of the book themselves say so, by nature of it being published as by Jan. Crimsone (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing POV principles

I hear Crimsone trying to say that "Jan (born James at birth...)" implies false innateness (a name is not an inherent quality of a fetus or baby, but is imposed from without). As well, the gender that is assigned to a human at birth is, as well, imposed from without, based on observations of the infant's external genitalia. (Often, the gender is assigned accurately, but this fact has little to do with the less-than-direct relationship between externally assigned genders and internal identities.) So there is a common principle here: Don't make a label that is affixed to a person by third parties seem like an innate characteristic of that person. To violate that dictum would be POV. I hope this is clear, and that my understanding of Crimsone's comments was accurate. SparsityProblem (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly as I would have put it, but I can't argue with it, and I do agree with it.

The additional concern, and an equal if not larger one in my book, is that the disparate identities are conflated by the statement, and thus by reading. Being disparate identites, they cannot be conflated, and thus the current (true) identity naturally takes precedence, without hinderance. Anything else is to illegitimately re-impose an itentity that was originally imposed from without and later rejected outright. Essentially, it's wikipedia stating somebody to be who they are not, just because somebody else did so at birth. In any case, it's wikipedia stating somebody to be someone they are not, for they are only who they are currently. One should not identify a person by a previous name, but rather, should mention that they achieved something under that previous name if that name is relevant, and if the information is current (for example, pax britannica's publishers now publish the book in Jans name, not James, and so Jan is correct, yet a journalism award in a given year would be achieved as James - if the name is significant enough in that to need mentioning). Crimsone (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, if the name must be mentioned, your compromise edit looks good to me. If it's going to be used, that's exactly how it should be used. Crimsone (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Per WP:Lede the lede needs to be a standalone summary. The entire article needs work but undoubtably some mention would be in the lede as the subject did write an autobiography concerning this. -- Banjeboi 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The autobiography is only one of many things she is notable for, and by no means the greatest. Niether was the autobiography about her previous name, even if it was mentioned. It was about her transition, and why it had to happen. In fact, her autobiography can be rightfully construed as an utter rejection of all that she wasn't in favour of all that she is. If the lead must reflect anything to do with the book, it is that - it's most important point. It can best do so my not illegitimately conflating disperate identities. Crimsone (talk) 01:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Further, as a summary of the important points of an article, that she transitioned is of importance only in reference to conundrum and a marriage. As such, it is the only thing that should be mentioned in the lead. Her previous name is not of significant importance in the article, nor in her current life (read: her life), save for the fact that it happened because it had to. In any case, a biography is about who she is, and to summarise that, you do not state who she is not. You especially do not state it as who she is. Crimsone (talk)

I'm going over to WT:LGBT to add something more general, but relevant to this thread, too. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on some of those points. When in doubt though we can rely on reliable sources.

• Writer Jan Morris remarries wife she wed as a man including "Morris described her transformation from male to female in two autobiographical works, Pleasures of a Tangled Life and The Conundrum."
• JAN MORRIS: A PROFILE First two sentences - "Few have enjoyed a life as full or as colourful as Jan Morris. Born a man, he fathered five children before having a sex-change operation in 1972."
• Over Jan Morris's Dead Body "Morris has had, to put it mildly, a colorful career and life. Born James Morris, she underwent sex reassignment surgery in Morocco in 1972 and has written more than a dozen travel books, several memoirs and countless essays and magazine articles. In its review of The World, PW called Morris “one of the most admired and imitated travel writers alive.”"
• Jan Morris "Jan Morris lived and wrote as James Morris until she completed a change of sexual role in 1972. James Humphrey Morris was born in Somerset in 1926 but, says Morris, "I was three or perhaps four years old when I realized that I had been born into the wrong body, and should really be a girl."

I'm sure i can find more but you get the gist. I doubt anyone can imagine an obituary about Morris that doesn't have similar information hovering in the lede. Unclear why Wikipedia should either not follow what reliable sources are doing or worse, lead in hopes that others will follow us. Neither seems terribly acceptable. We are an encyclopedia and expunging information as such is quite unencyclopedic. Having stated that the entire article needs to be rewritten, generally, and there is plenty of sources to pull from, seemingly all of which confirm that this information is considered an important part of this person's life enough to mention it.

Finally here's from Morris own publisher, Norton, who will be publishing her post-humously;

Jan Morris, from Farewell the Trumpets: An Imperial Retreat (1978) "James (now Jan) Morris (1926– ), historian, traveler, and travel-writer, was educated at Oxford University and worked on the editorial staff of The Guardian newspaper from 1957 to 1962. Her many books include Coronation Everest (1958), an account of the first successful ascent of that mountain, which s/he covered as a journalist; Venice (1960); and Conundrum, an account of the sex-change operation by which James became Jan. Her masterpiece may prove to be the three-volume history of the British Empire: Pax Britannica: The Climax of an Empire (1968), Heaven's Command: An Imperial Progress (1973), and Farewell the Trumpets: An Imperial Retreat (1978)."

All of these would be good sources to add to the article which is in dire need of sourcing. -- Banjeboi 02:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

←Benji, I think one point that Sparsity, Crimsone and I are agreed on is that this is one issue where we don't follow typical journalistic practices. I've had to argue many, many times on style guidelines pages that we generally adopt journalistic rather than academic values, because journalist have to popularize, and they don't tend to be influenced by their sources and their peers in the ways academics are. But on this one issue, titillation, WP:BLP flatly acknowledges that our values are completely different from the values of journalists. What was the point of the Daily Mail story you just linked? Were they discussing the outstanding writing skills of Jan Morris? No, they were about details that are considered "naughty" and "outrageous" by their typical reader. Good for selling papers, but gossip about sexual behavior or perceived behavior, or gender transition, or secret ethnicity or religious preferences are not (as a general rule) useful in an encyclopedia, and as I mentioned at WT:LGBT, potentially harmful. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do believe that Jan's publishers are Faber and Faber, per the amazon link I posted earlier. Your link is an online anthology - effectively, a bibliography... and here's the curernt published edition of the book at amazon Crimsone (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dan entirely here. We do not have to follow the journalistic standards of the 1970s, on gender identity or anything else. "...an account of the sex-change operation by which James became Jan" reflects an outdated, biased POV. We can be more neutral and do better. SparsityProblem (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread at WT:BLP#Titillating sources. I am kind of slammed for time so I don't know how much I'll be able to participate. A word of advice: be very crisp and succinct in policy discussions. Read the policy page first, and some of the past discussions. People's eyes glaze over very quickly on policy pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe Norton is Morris' current publisher as of March 2008, Norton seems to be publishing her post-humous book. I completely disagree that we should start a trend of each article getting a case-by-case treatment that deviates from a standardized approach. We're an encyclopedia, not their press agent or a magazine or any other media outlet. I remain utterly unconvinced that we should remove this information from the lede. -- Banjeboi 21:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  Your link doesn't say that - indeed, the date you mention is merely the date of the article. Further, norton themselves say in the article "Then, of course, there's the waiting. Brockett said Norton is “weighing its options” regarding the book's publication—specifically, to crash, or not to crash?", which rather quite clearly means they don't know if they'll be publishing it. The "standardized approach" you speak of, is firstly, not standard... just common amongst many publications of similar attitude, and secondly, is specifically a media approach, intented to titilate and sell papers/gain readers. As you yourself said, Wikipedia is not a media outlet, thus there's no reason to follow such an approach. There are policy and guideline positions to support not following such an approach in this and similar instances, but so far, the thrust of your argument is "the daily mail thinks it's good, so we should follow". This isn't a matter of any unusual application of a case by case basis - mention in the lead, being a summary of an article, mentiones the most important points. Her previous name is not such a point. WP:UNDUE. She and her achievements are the important points, and she is currently only who she is, not who she was. Further, issues of titilative reporting are covered by BLP..., ant the very least in spirit. The current debate over there is not whether that's wrong, but whether the policy already says it clearly enough (at this moment in time, at least).

• There is no question of following a "standard approach" because there isn't one. If there was, and wiki followed it, there would be no article on Jan Morris, as other encyclopedias don't have one. There is however NPOV, through state,ment, language, and lack of undue weight. There is also basic respect for people where there is no need to demonstrate disrespect, and there is that wonderful thing on wikipedia - that the onus is on an editor to explain why something should be included, how, and where (and why there) - not on convincing anybody that it doesn't beong there... and sorry, you have yet to come up with a convincing argument. Crimsone (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(See above) "However, it remains that the Pax Britannica is published as written by Jan Morris." I see. It was written by Jan Morris because it was written by Jan Morris.

"It is published in this way both because Jan Morris wrote it, and James Morris no longer exists." Charles Dickens no longer exists. He died in 1870. Are we to remove his name from the books he wrote?

I have no wish to insult Jan Morris - she is one of my favourite and most admired authors. But the earlier books were written by someone called James Morris. This is a fact. It cannot be made otherwise by subsequent bits of paper. I have no problem with modern reprints being attributed to Jan Morris - that is now unquestionably the author's name. But in falling over ourselves to be Politically Correct, we are introducing at worst falsehood or at best misleading information into Wiki. This is not what Wiki is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.121.230 (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Placed former name in lede

• The lede refers to books written by Morris when she was James, and still published as such until the mid 1990's. Morris has not made a secret of her past, as she details much of her life as James in 'Conundrum', where she details her experience of transition and surgery, including events covered under the section 'Career' (which happened while she was James.

• On the 'born as' matter, we can only verify from 'Conundrum' that she was registered 'Humphrey Morris', but we know she was called James, because her news reports (such as from Everest) which she refers to in that book, were filed as James, and her books were published as James, and later changed to Jan. The way I have arranged this we avoid the possible inaccuracy of James, avoid problems of 'born as' rather than 'registered as' (more appropriate for trans people), do not feature it as prominently and emboldened, yet ensure it is in the lede so that people directed here looking for "James Morris" will be able to know they are on the right page by reading the lede. Mish (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to imply that the trans status of a transsexual person is one of the most important facts about them. Thus I've removed this from the lede, leaving it in the "Personal Life" section where it belongs. SparsityProblem (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If Morris was coy about it, I would agree, but she's written a whole book about her gender identity. She thinks its worth reading about. The lede goes out of its way to say that she defines herself as Welsh, which is important because she writes about Welshness, so why not also say that she's a transsexual woman, given that she writes about being transsexual? Cop 663 (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)