Talk:Juno Dawson

Notability

Just wanted to establish Dawson's notability since a notability template was added to this page. Dawson has received significant coverage both for her writing (she is a well-known young adult author) and for her work on LGBT advocacy and her writing about her transition. As such, there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources covering her life and works - many of which are cited at the bottom of the article. She has attended several of the most prestigious literary festivals including Hay Festival and the London Literature Festival, published bestselling works of fiction, and has won or been shortlisted for various awards. ---Supervegan (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

deadnaming and book titles

There have been accusations in edit summaries about "deadnaming". The issue is nothing to do with transgendering as such, but only about name changes. People change their names for a wide variety of reasons, the commonest being the change of surname by women on getting married or divorced. In fact probably nearly half the population changes their name at some stage. Use of an outdated form of name is not offensive as such, though it might be in particular cases.

When talking of time past, it is reasonable to use the form of a name that was current at that time. When quoting book titles it is most helpful to make reference to the form of the author's name with which the book was published. A good example is given by Pope Francis#Writings. Are we to see that as "deadnaming"? Do we need a separate RS when quoting the title of a book? This all seems a bit ridiculous. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! your change has been undone by a number of editors, both because it is unsourced (the "source" you provide is not a reliable source usable on here) and for other reasons provided in the edit summaries. You need both reliable sourcing and consensus for your edit, and AFAICT you have neither. -sche (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As for sourcing, the whole of the Works section was unsourced except for the reference to Spot the Difference, so why should a higher standard of sourcing be required for my modest clarification? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A list of books (or other published works) should show the author's name as it actually appears on the work concerned. We should not change history: if you have the book concerned and it said "James Dawson" on the cover when you bought it, it won't have magically changed to "Juno Dawson" whilst sitting on your shelf. Consider it a nom de plume - some authors wrote books under more than one different name - Robert A. Heinlein, for example, published under at least six different names.

For books that were published under the name "James Dawson", a source should be simple to find - a book review dating from around the time of publication is certain to show the author's name as it appears on the cover. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You're so right. Thanks very much. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

All the books mentioned have since been republished under her proper name, so if you want the name 'as it actually appears on the work concerned', Juno Dawson is the right name. In the 'Life and career' section there is already mention of her deadname, which would suffice to make the link, and I believe adding her deadname under the books section as well, would be putting WP:UNDUE weight on her deadname. Just because one person agrees with you here, while multiple people have disagreed and reverted your edits, doesn't mean you can just add it in again. Achaea (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, on a procedural note, using citation templates in article text is not supposed to be done AFAIK (they're for formatting references, in ref tags or at least in Works cited / Further reading / References sections. For a bibliography, AFAIK the norm is just to list title and date. Wikipedia is not a card catalogue (there are, indeed, a lot of things Wikipedia is WP:NOT), and given that we're merely listening the books this person wrote (not that on this one the name was originally given in serif font while on that one it was originally sans, and on this one the middle initial is included, and so on, at least in other articles), and especially that they've been republished under this name, I don't see a basis for giving the other name so much weight. -sche (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this subject at User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 14#Juno Dawson edit war. It might be good to continue it here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@SamuelTheGhost: No it wouldn't - WP:TALKFORK, WP:MULTI, WP:FORUMSHOP etc. etc. all apply. Please remember that discussions about an article's content belong on the talk page of that article, i.e. right here. In short: keep it in one place. Also notifying Ivanvector so that they are made aware of this existing thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Perhaps I should explain that you have completely misunderstood my remark above. When I wrote "continue it here" I meant here, that is Talk:Juno Dawson. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some responses to the remarks above:

• I was the first to take this disagreement to the talk page. The arguments I gave there were completely ignored by -sche and then Achaea. For instance the example I gave of Pope Francis#Writings was intended as a real question,, but no answer has been given for cases like that. No real dialogue was on offer.
• The initial source I provided for my editing was entirely adequate in the context, but subsequently I provided much fuller sourcing and my latest version, here is far better sourced than the current version on display here
• Those two editors have both appealed to WP:WEIGHT. That section includes the words: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So, looking at the current form of the article, we have in the sources Juno: about 7; James: about 6; and in the article's own text, Juno about 4; James 0 (that's zero), so the "weight" argument actually goes the other way.
• I've noticed in wikipedia over the years that the word "consensus" is almost only ever used when consensus is absent. Consensus means that everyone agrees, so when that is the case it is not necessary to say so. Appeal to consensus never takes a discussion forward; it is a way of avoiding argument, not of assisting it. I am willing to engage in rational discussion about this article, if others are too. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Deadnaming is considered highly offensive in the trans community and Juno is a trans person. She has clearly made efforts to change old publications and does not want to be referred to by her deadname. Please do not keep on referring to her by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.23.22 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and therefore should represent the world as-is, not as one would want it to be. Dawson's work up to and including Mind Your Head was first published under her deadname, which means that Dawson was notable by that name. Had Dawson never been published previously, the removal of the deadname would be non-controversial. But as she was, it is a fact which should at least be acknowledged - without giving undue weight to it. H. Carver (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dawson was notable under her former name, so per MOS:GENDERID this name should be mentioned in the article. The guidelines also say "In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)"." If a book or article she published is still only available under her former name, we should use that name. Fences&Windows 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Name

Dawson's books were first published under the 'James Dawson' name, up to and including Mind Your Head. As a result, Dawson has prior notability under the deadname. The information has been carefully added per the guidelines given in MOS:DEADNAME. H. Carver (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Former name

I have restored the former name James Dawson to the lead and article, with sources. There is no doubt Dawson became initially notable under her birth name. She writes in depth about her transition from James to Juno in her 2017 book The Gender Games: The Problem with Men and Women... From Someone who has Been Both. Her earlier books, including This Book Is Gay were published under the name James Dawson, and Dawson's subsequent transition was well covered with respect in reliable sources, some of which continue to mention the fact that she was formerly called James:

• Lynch, Dónal (28 May 2023). "Juno Dawson: 'Transwomen like me experience the same kind of misogyny that any woman does'". Irish Independent.
• Taylor, Marianne (28 May 2017). "'Transition is exhausting. No-one does it to be trendy': Author Juno Dawson on her new book The Gender Games". The Herald. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
• Strudwick, Patrick (24 October 2015). "Internationally Bestselling Author Comes Out As Transgender". BuzzFeed.
• Flood, Alison (26 November 2015). "James Dawson criticises parents who attacked his LGBT guide for children". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
• Williams, Joe (24 October 2015). "International best selling author comes out as transgender". PinkNews. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
• Dawson, James (2014-09-04). "Why my book is gay: and I'm proud of it". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-10-05. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
• Harrington, Suzanne (22 June 2017). "Author describes what it's like when a man becomes a woman". Irish Examiner.
• Dawson, James (6 October 2015). "James Dawson: how I stopped hating poetry and became a poet". The Guardian.

Per: MOS:GENDERID, In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". The same guidelines also state: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Thus it is appropriate to note that This Book Is Gay was initially written under the name James Dawson, as well covered, and it is undoubtable that Dawson became first well known under the name James, in the same way Elliot Page first became notable under the name Ellen. This should not be obscured. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAnotherCompanion: Please see this message and the previous discussions on this page. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I did see the previous discussion on this page. I also looked at the edit history of the article. This showed that there was a previous, stable version of the article that mentioned the information in line with MOS:GENDERID. All I'm doing is restoring that previous, stable version. Your additional edits are WP:UNDUE, I believe, as they put an increased emphasis on the deadname. That's why I believe it is better to revert to the previous, stable version.

Given that, I believe WP:BRD applies. There was a previous, stable version. You have BOLDLY edited this stable version to add extra information, which I have REVERTED, and therefore it should be DISCUSSED if you wish to restore the changes. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think two references to Dawson's previous name is excessive. Her birth name is mentioned in the lead and doesn't need to be referenced continually throughout the article. Wormbug (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

An older version of this used "also credited as" instead of "formerly", e.g. Special:Permalink/1097163511, which seems like a good way to present the information without needing to expand on intimate details of her private life in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this as a solution, @Animalparty @JustAnotherCompanion thoughts? Wormbug (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wormbug That could work. I think I prefer "formerly" because newer editions of the old books are now credited to Juno Dawson, so "also credited" doesn't feel quite right in that respect. However, I'd rather have a consensus solution that the community is all happy with than try and keep a version of the article that others don't feel is good enough. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Formerly" is more intellectually honest than "also credited as", as if Dawson continues to alternate between the two names like pen-names (which she doesn't). And the reason I added "James" to the body as well as the first sentence was in line with MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as well as MOS:GENDERID, in which generally the lead should summarize salient points of the body and there should be no unique elements in the lead not covered elsewhere. Dawson first became famous under her birth name. Dawson wrote books and articles as a proud gay man, and under that name was well-known in youth literature before transitioning (see Dawson on This Morning in 2013). In her 2017 memoir she herself mentions her former name dozens of times, and refers to things she did under that name and gender. I think it's rather silly and medical (and "private") to keep the phase "She began hormonal transition in early 2016", while totally glossing over the fact she initially became widely known as the bearded gay author who wrote This Book is Gay for gay youth under a masculine name. Dawson's former name isn't on the same level of Bruce Jenner, but her pre-transition persona and her transition itself received significant coverage from many responsible, sympathetic outlets, as I've demonstrated above (see also [1][2]), lending WP:DUE weight. Misrepresenting history by obfuscating significant coverage is not WP:NPOV, and erasing well-documented past just because the subject is transgender comes across as special pleading. We of course need not dwell on her birth name, nor misgender her today, nor write crudely and demeaningly anywhere. But we also should also not rewrite the past.--Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)