This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
An image used in this article, File:Rose Venkatesan.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This article was brought to my attention by another editor, prior to it being locked out from editing. The lock on this article will expire shortly, so I thought I'd add my 2 cents regarding this use of her birth name or "dead name" within this article. The MOS:IDENTITY guideline used to more clearly prohibit the use of such names within articles on transgendered people. I'm not sure why the language of the guideline was softened, but even as it is currently written, I think that is a reasonable application of the guideline to avoid using the dead name. It appears to me to be within the spirit of the guideline to do so. Moreover, it is my opinion that the presumption in favor of privacy policy should apply here. To whit, "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Even though that is contextually referring to crime victims, it's a good standard to use in this case. Moreover, "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." [Emphasis mine] I used to fall on the other side of this issue, so I recognize that there are other opinions to consider. However, I encourage you to consider these points when establishing consensus. --GentlemanGhost(converse)07:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GentlemanGhost, I will vigorously defend the rights of any transgendered person who wishes to exclude their originally given name from public discussion. In this particular case, this person began their interview with the Times of India by saying, "I was born and raised as a boy named XXXX XXXX." If the person begins their own account of their life story in this fashion, then who are we as Wikipedia editors to decide that their own freely chosen statements about their originally given name should be excluded? That is, unless there is any evidence that the statement was not freely made. Your thoughts, please? Cullen328Let's discuss it07:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To that, I say, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." To my mind, one source hardly counts as widely published. I would still choose to err on the side of caution. --GentlemanGhost(converse)
07:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This increase in reliable sources makes for a more compelling argument. And the Times of India article[6] seems to contradict my thought that the dead name is something which was intentionally concealed in this case. There probably is, within the rules of Wikipedia as currently written, an argument to be made for the permissibility of the inclusion of the dead name. My next question is, does it significantly add to our knowledge of the person to include it? What do we gain from knowing the so-called "real" name that we don't ascertain from the fact that she is a transgendered person?
It's a tumultuous political issue, to be sure. There was just a discussion at the Village Pump about the wording of the gender portion of MOS:IDENTITY as it pertains to "event" articles (as opposed to biography articles). Personally, I am inclined not to include the dead name, even though it might be acceptable, to help prevent establishing precedence that might be construed as being acceptable for all articles about transgendered people. I'd much rather leave it out from articles as a default and only include it when there is a pressing need to do so, e.g., Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning. --GentlemanGhost(converse)22:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the sources well enough, but a quick question that can mean a lot: was Venkatesan primarily notable under her deadname at any point? If she has done notable things under her deadname, then that's a fine reason to include it in the infobox and lead as an alternative name one might know her as. However, seeing as quite a few well-known sources have published her deadname, I don't see too much issue in including it in the personal life section. It's not like the information isn't easily and reliably available anyway. As always, we report what our sources report. ~Mable (chat) 11:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that inclusion of her deadname doesn't violate WP:BLPPRIVACY because of the Times of India interview and those other sources. However, I think placing it in bold in the first line of the article gives it undue weight. A better place for it would be at the beginning of the "Personal life" section. -- Irn (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to this. I've personally been in the position of having a court order me to disclose my birth name. I refused, and nearly ended up in jail. Does that trump my privacy rights? How about if it happened under torture (as has happened)? Or what if someone divulges it to the police to avoid being beaten (happens all the time)? Lets be honest - what's going on here is that some people just like to bait trans people, and this is a handy way to do it. The question is, do we empower them? Anniepoo (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the news websites that have posted Venkatesan's deadname are known for respecting the wishes of the person in question when it comes to privacy concerns. I would have difficulty believing a publication like The New York Times just casually throwing in a deadname if the subject objects to it. Just because there are horrible people in the world, doesn't mean everyone is a horrible person. The Globe and Mail isn't a trans baiting website. ~Mable (chat) 18:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anniepoo. I'm sorry for what you've gone through. I just wanted to let you know that there are complaint mechanisms at Wikipedia which allow a person to report when their person information is being revealed inappropriately. In thise case, the relevant page is Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Given the circumstances here, which are that Rose has chosen in the past to talk publically about the deadname as reported in a reliable newspaper, I think it likely that the only way the excision of it would stand up to consensus would be for Rose to file a case with RFO directly. So that is an avenue she can persue if she so chooses. And, of course, the consensus (as I see it) regarding article could change. I hope it does. As far as the bad faith behavior and trans-baiting, there are mechanisms for reporting that as well (Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive editors). --GentlemanGhost(converse)05:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support your claim. The source also says her original name is XXXX, but some devoted fan of hers objects to referencing her backstory. In fact, the article is locked such that only admins can edit it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
