Talk:Veronica Ivy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nonstandard way of referring to an athlete's gender?

I've just made an edit to remove "who competes against female cyclists" from the first sentence of the post. On a quick scan of other biographies of athletes, including transgender athletes, it does not seem usual to say what gender athlete they compete against (usually their own gender). Mwphil (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

McKinnon competes against other sportwomen of her own gender. The changes you removed were vandalism and should be treated as such. I have added the discretionary sanction notice, so that sanctions for any transphobic abuse on this article can be handled swiftly (in theory).

Any user that appears unaware of the DS may be alerted using {{Ds/alert}}. --Fæ (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Relevant categories

In diff I have readded what are rather obvious categories for this subject as they are notable and well reported by the press as a trans woman cyclist.

These LGBT+ related categories should not be removed en mass, without engaging in discussion on this talk page. There is overwhelming evidence in reliable sources to support them. --Fæ (talk) 07:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been a strange omission then. Glad you have reconsidered your previous revert and are now being BLP compliant. Thanks. Jevansen (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing info from.education

They published:

Reasonable Assertions: On Norms of Assertion and Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About

Which is freely available online to download.. DravenRainrix (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've added this (in fact McKinnon's PhD thesis) in the education section. Alarichall (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2019

Add to 'Early life and education.'

She was born in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.[Source]

Her early sports career focused primarily on baseball, golf, and badminton. But she also participated in rugby, climbing, backcountry hiking and snowshoeing.

Golf: In 1997 she was the Junior Club Champion at Cedar Hill Golf Course.

Badminton: Rachel competed primarily in British Columbia at the provincial and national level. She represented her zone at the BC Winter Games (Vancouver Island, Zone 6) twice, in 1996 and 1997. She was the U16 Junior Singles provincial champion in 1997.

In 2014, during her time in Calgary, AB, she won the Glencoe Masters Badminton events in 30+ Women's Singles, 30+ Women's Doubles, and 30+ Mixed Doubles.

She took up competitive cycling post-transition after her move to Charleston, SC in 2014. She began racing March 2015. Canuckbelle (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I've looked for newspaper sources for these statements in the LexisNexis newspaper database. I couldn't find sources for everything but would be very happy to add more of the above if we can find third-party sources. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Canuckbelle: @Nikkimaria: Hi there! Further to this, the newspaper source I found for the sentence 'she won sport climbing competitions, was a junior champion at badminton at provincial level, and was a junior golf champion at regional level' was the Daily Mail. Nikkimaria removed this on the grounds that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. I understand where Nikkimaria is coming from, but it seems unlikely that these particular details were invented by the Mail! Could we either reinstate the sentence and reference or could someone suggest a better sources? Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Badminton is sourceable here; don't think a club championship is notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sceptre (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Should include both podium finisher quotes

If we're going to include this line "The silver-medal winner, Dutch athlete Caroline van Herrikhuyzen, supported McKinnon" under "Controvery" we should also probably include the quote from the bronze finisher who did not support McKinnon and did argue that there was an unfair advantage.71.218.92.241 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixing pronouns

According to Wikipedia's policy McKinnon should be referred to using she/her pronouns. I edited the entry today to change "he" references to "she." Given the transphobia in the reaction to Rachel's recent win, this might be an ongoing battle. Is there a way to lock down the pronouns used in this entry? I am very new at this and would appreciate help/advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamJaneB (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already requested a period of page semi-protection as we have seen vandalism from several different IPs. That will stop all unregistered (IP based) editors. Unfortunately that will also affect the other IP editors who have been helpful in reverting the vandalism but it seems like the best option for the short term. I have also been warning the IPs who have been vandalising the article but, as they are clearly intentional vandals, it is unlikely that they care. With luck the administrators will process my request shortly and the page will be protected for long enough to persuade the vandals to go away. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2020

Change "Ivy said she received more than 100,000 hateful comments on Twitter." to " Ivy said she received more than 100,000 hateful comments on Twitter. " Andronimo1959 (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: I have removed this passage per WP:SPS. Elizium23 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but if we don't allow self published sources, why then are we changing her name from Rachel to Ivy. The only source for that change is McKinnon's personal website, Seems like the rules are flexible, depending on who's doing the edits.

You can use self-published material for claims about the author for which there is no reasonable doubt, which a name falls pretty squarely into. But the exact number of hateful comments she got on Twitter sort of begs the question of "did she really count them?". Personally I would say merely that she got hateful comments on Twitter instead of removing the entire line, because she's unlikely to be mistaken about that. Loki (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Section "Death comments"

I have restored the section "Death comments" because it has ample sourcing and no rationale was provided to delete it. I am happy to entertain a discussion here about its inclusion, but removal without comment is disruptive editing. Elizium23 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a lot of fuss about nothing, in which a comment about one person was misinterpreted as referring to somebody completely different thus causing discourse and drama on twitter.com. But it was picked up and covered by RS, so I'm not going to argue for its removal although maybe it is a little overblown.

I think that you were right to change the heading (which really was awful) and move it out of the irrelevant section it was in. Maybe we can think of a better heading but it is certainly no worse than it was before.

I'm not sure that we need the "by whom" tag as clicking through to the linked article covers that, but we could reuse a reference from there, if one is felt necessary. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The section should be removed. It is misleading, not notable, and runs afoul of the BLP policy: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_victimization. Further, the person is relatively unknown: "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#People_who_are_relatively_unknown.

It's completely irrelevant to the subject's notability and disproportionately assigns weight to what amounts to two tweets. She wrote an entire academic monograph -- a substantial original contribution to her field -- that doesn't receive a third of the coverage of these two irrelevant tweets. The removal was correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ienpw III (talk • contribs)

I am beginning to take a dim view of this section. It is actually poorly-sourced. The Indy100 source had nothing to do with Ivy or McKinnon, it was about "JK Rowling the TERF". A Twitter link pointing to McKinnon's dead account is dead. We need an archived copy; what's more, we need a non-WP:PRIMARY source that describes this dust-up better. Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it is overblown but I am neutral on its complete removal. I think our coverage follows the Inside Higher Ed source fairly well. On the one hand it is a Twitter spat about pretty much nothing, triggered by an initial misunderstanding and then carried on far too long seemingly due to animus against Ivy. On the other hand, it did get RS coverage and, to this day, people seek to misrepresent what happened (as recent edit warring shows), which suggests that maybe having content that briefly explains what really happened might be beneficial. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Flaherty reference addresses the tweet (and confirms it was about Koch). I don't know that the section is important to the article and is necessary to include, my efforts have been reverting the editor who keeps rewording it to say that her tweet was about Berns. Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Name change: Veronica Ivy

The subject of this article now goes by the name Veronica Ivy; see her website, Twitter, and byline on an article published today. As this is apparently a very recent change, I'm posting a notice here rather than immediately moving the article. Funcrunch (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I see that her original website has not been updated or redirected yet but I think we could move and update the article soon, or even now, based on what we have. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The cyclist's official website is still rachelmckinnon.com so its not clear if this is a permanent change or if its more of a nom-de-plume — Preceding unsigned comment added by BudapestJoe (talk • contribs) 20:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That could be possible, although it seems unlikely given the way she phrases it. Also there is another news article here that might help substantiate the name change. We can hold off for a short while until we are sure but I think this is looking like a true name change. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Based on going through her tweets trying to find if there was some announcement of the name change, I think she is still in the progress of building out and transferring content to her new website, and so hasn't redirected the old one yet. Funcrunch (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Directly from the source: "My name is Dr. Veronica Ivy. I am a professional interdisciplinary philosopher, a two-time masters track cycling world champion and world record-holder, and an activist for human rights. Here you can find information on each of these facets. I used to go by Rachel McKinnon, but that has changed since December 2019."

http://veronicaivy.com/

EarthSprite^∞ 18:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As there have been no objections it seems this article should be moved to Veronica Ivy sooner rather than later. I'd prefer someone with more experience in page moves and redirects do the job. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. How do you think we should reword the opening sentences? We will need to mention her former name as, unlike her deadname, she was notable under that name, and much of the reference material uses that name. It seems a bit clunky to open with "Veronica Ivy, previously known as Rachel McKinnon, (born 1982) is a..." I mean, it's is not totally awful but if anybody can think of anything better...

Doing the actual page move is pretty easy. It will make the redirect by default. I can do that if you prefer. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I’ve made the Lead changes. Someone else can tackle the article itself and add a sentence for the name change. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that reads better than what I was proposing. I've swapped the name over in all other places in the article, taking care not to mess up the references, and moved the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks folks for doing the updates. Funcrunch (talk) 05:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I was looking at the Wikidata entry and, being even less familiar with name changes on that platform, am not sure how best to go about updating it; whether to simply change the description, "given" and "family" names, or add new values while keeping the former as well (since this would not be a deadnaming issue). Funcrunch (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Deadnaming, misgendering, and extended off-topic debate over such with a now-blocked IP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Deadnaming" should be required,not prohibited,in any full biography.The subject of this article spent his (cq) first 29 years as (harassment redacted) The policy pro-trans-biased editors cite for erasing transgender persons' birthnames from their articles actually only applies to lead sections.In this case I think the name change to "Veronica Ivy" is a tactic to duck the bad press and "start fresh".--12.144.5.2 (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC) References IP, the subject of this article is a woman and goes by she/her pronouns, regardless of your opinions or those of the author whose article you linked to. Discretionary sanctions apply to talk pages as well as articles, so please choose your words carefully. Funcrunch (talk) 06:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC) Silencing disagreement and suppressing information are not commendable.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC) I have redacted the deadname and the link you posted, while leaving your comments otherwise unchanged. Please be aware that doxxing and harassment are unacceptable. Maliciously deadnaming people is both of those things. This is not a "disagreement" because harassment is not an expression of opinion, it is an act of aggression against specific individuals. Your IP is already on final warning for previous offences of transphobic and other vandalism dating back more than 2 years. You need to stop your disruptive behaviour before the IP address gets blocked from editing. From the editing history of the IP address, it looks a lot like it could be shared with other people, maybe a whole organisation. If it gets blocked then maybe the other users will start to ask why and discover what you have been doing. Seriously. You need to pack this in. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC) I have controlled this IP address for 19 years and am the only person ever to have used it to edit Wikipedia.Attempts to suppress a person's birthname from the person's biography have no place in a credible encyclopaedia.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC) OK. Thanks for clarifying that this IP address can safely be blocked without affecting any innocent parties if you continue to abuse Wikipedia. In this spirit if helpful clarification, I'll return the favour by drawing your attention to our actual policy on this: MOS:DEADNAME. This states that we only include the deadnames of people when they were notable under those names. The birthname of a trans person who was never notable under that name is not relevant to an encyclopaedia. It is private information and publishing it is harassment just as much as publishing their home address or bank account number would be. If you feel that Wikipedia is not "credible" then you are very, very welcome to leave. We will not tolerate harassment. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC) To quote what I said in the remark someone here hid and you then censored,"The policy pro-trans-biased editors cite for erasing transgender persons' birthnames from their articles actually only applies to lead sections." To quote from that policy itself as per your link,with emphasis added: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people,birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name." It in no way discourages the inclusion of the name in the body of the article,which is something one should regard as essential to giving a complete picture of the person's life.Gerald R. Ford was never notable as Leslie Lynch King and Robert C. Byrd was never notable as Cornelius Calvin Sale,but their birth names are part of their biographies and this is duly noted.Anne Perry has the name under which she committed murder as a child,which was hidden for many years,right at the top of the article.There is no basis for using that language to confer upon the transgendered a unique right to erase their histories.--12.144.5.2 (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC) I tire of this disingenuous nonsense. There is only one reason why some people delight in inserting deadnames in articles and it is not a compulsion for completeness. You have already received an official final warning some time ago. You have confirmed that it was you who received it, as nobody else uses your IP address. That warning remains in effect indefinitely. There is nothing to discuss here. Looking at your edit history, I see you participating constructively on other articles. (This is why I assumed that there was more than one person using the IP address, as the two behaviours seem so completely inconsistent.) Please drop the stick here and continue with that instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC) I tend to leave articles alone after getting into long arguments about them.I doubt you will honestly evaluate your motives for wanting to suppress "deadnames" but I hope one day consensus will evolve to make your position untenable.(I also find people perplexed by my consistent,vehement advocacy of abortion rights and opposition to same-sex marriage,but my concern in both cases is the false claims of equalities that lead to harmful conclusions).Goodbye.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC) I don't see any need to enter the birth name in this article, but can we stop pretending that MOS:DEADNAME is anything more than a Manual of Style guideline. AIRcorn (talk) 04:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC) It’s, at its core, designed to save lives. Trans women lives’ are threatened routinely, and a micro aggression that compounds their stress is deadnaming. It’s a safe bet that someone deadnaming simply doesn’t respect the rights and life of a trans person, and likewise their right to breath. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC) This ridiculous hyperbole causes as much, if not more, problems than the actual transphobia it is trying to prevent. AIRcorn (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Should there not be a note or something which mentions that the athletic medals were won under the name Rachel McKinnon? I assume there'd be confusion if someone tried to look them up with the name Veronica Ivy. Or perhaps a note that mentions what years the name Rachel McKinnon was used and the year Veronica Ivy began being used? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409: Hi, you removed the years after "formerly Rachel McKinnon" and your edit summary just said "c/e". I wasn't sure what that meant so could you explain please? I mention above why I thought it was important to note the years. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

c/e is standard for copy edit. Zero need to use dates of her former name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Birthname in infobox

The subject's birth name was added to the infobox. Although I believe this was added in good faith I have removed it. The reference that was used, which I am deliberately not linking here, is an opinion piece that was very clearly defamatory in that it also accuses Ivy of cheating (and misgenders her throughout). We have no way of knowing whether the name given in that screed is even correct. Given that the source is so obviously motivated by pure malice against Ivy it should not be used to support any factual claims. It is not journalism. There is no reason to expect that any specific factual claims it makes have been checked in line with any journalistic standards. It is just a writer on a rant. For all we know the author of that screed might have found the name they allege to be Ivy's birth name on some random unreliable doxxing site, and simply repeated it without corroboration. I also see no need to include the name even if it is correct. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, no need to include it anywhere really unless she was notable under that name, and then should likely only be in the early life section. Gleeanon409 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I added it back in with a better source before I saw this comment. I apologize for the previous source, but why do you say it should not be included even if it is correct? mos:deadname says it shouldn't be included in the lead (unless they were notable by that name) but why shouldn't it be in the birth name infobox parameter? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME is weirdly incomprehensive right now. In particular it doesn't even incorporate other existing policies, like WP:BLPPRIVACY, which is why the past few edits adding that name were struck from the history entirely.

Plus, if you look at the Talk page for MOS:DEADNAME there's an RfC which has overwhelming support to change that line to the entire article plus some other clarifying information. Loki (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

The general (slash unofficial) consensus and common practice on these matters (at least from an administrative standpiont) is that if an individual was not notable and/or well-known under their deadname, it should not appear in the article. Obviously there is nothing wrong with saying they have transitioned, but the name itself should generally not be included. Primefac (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

An utterly illogical policy. Why does Wikipedia include the maiden names (nee) of women who went on to win fame under their married names, when they were not notable under their maiden names? Why are we told Irving Berlin was born Israel Beilin, when he was non-notable under that name? 79.71.191.118 (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are not examples of MOS:DEADNAMEs, unique to trans and gender variant people who are routinely harassed, persecuted, and tormented by trolling them with reference to their gender assignment at birth, and former names, usually misgendering in the process. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. When I try to think of comparable examples of cis people with good reasons to want to keep former names private I conclude that we would nearly always do the same for them. Imagine that some famous person was descended from, and previously shared a surname with, an infamous war criminal. Imagine some famous person who had still living parents in a witness protection programme. If their birth name was not already publicly known and commented on in reliable sources then we would have no cause to write about it and doing so would not only be WP:OR, it would be an act of vindictive cruelty. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Link to Transgender people in sports

This seems an appropriate article to link to, but I feel the placement against the text "belief that her birth sex gave her an unfair advantage", although the obvious place to put it, could be viewed as POV. Please have a look if you are passing and amend etc as needed. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Uni

Per Ivy's Twitter, Ivy has 'resigned' from the university, is no longer a professor and is heading immediately back to Canada. Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Veronica Ivy is no longer listed on the faculty page as of 15 May, 2021. Plug the name into the "search CofC website" box, and it brings you out of the site and onto Google. They wasted no time taking the name off....

https://philosophy.cofc.edu/faculty-staff-listing/index.php

SpaceCoastGirl321 SpaceCoastGirl321 (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

New Controversy - Performance Review

Ivy publically released her poor performance review and rescinded it. There is an archive copy here -https://archive.md/mwiDP It's too new to be added, but might be important to keep in mind in case her files a law suit. 74.46.66.212 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Overall "satisfactory" - not poor. Springnuts (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Satisfactory" is poor, especially when there is an "unsatisfactory" in one of the three main categories. 2600:1700:6E10:4E20:2504:E64C:670B:DAD2 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

On March 19, there was a resignation from CoC tweet:

Dr. Veronica Ivy

@SportIsARight

I'm officially free!!!!

They accepted my resignation and all of my conditions!

I'm SO FUCKING HAPPY!

--Tallard (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Professor as occupation. (Am I missing something here?)

I am genuinely bemused by the removal of "professor" from the "occupation" field in the in infobox (diff). I fail to see how anybody who has made tenure can possibly not have that listed as part of their occupation. Is there some policy about what goes in that field that I am missing? The description "professor" has been in the infobox since late 2019. The editor who added it is blocked (for unrelated reasons) but, as far as I know, nobody has challenged its inclusion until now. I don't want to get into an edit war, particularly not with an editor who has been on the site longer than I have, but I just don't get it. Can anybody explain? Does anybody have any opinions on whether this should be included or not? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted to the status quo version for now. That is not intended to pre-empt the discussion, just to put us in the most stable place to start from. DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It should be straightforward. She is no longer a professor, or at least not at the College of Charleston; she resigned after a poor performance review. Perhaps the reasons don't matter, but the truth is that she is no longer a professor. 2600:1700:6E10:4E20:2504:E64C:670B:DAD2 (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it should be included is it is a notable part of her career. We don't just put "Occupation: Retired" on articles about retired people. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

She was an associate professor. I dont think she ever attained the level of professor. She is no longer either but she remains a philosopher. Hazardous to Health (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Why You Don't Need to Know What You're Talking About

@User:DanielRigal @User:I dream of horses Is Ivy/McKinnon's dissertation (Reasonable Assertions) a reliable source on how reasonable Ivy/McKinnon's assertions are? If so, I would like to take the time to expand the article using it. Hazardous to Health (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hazardous to Health Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with reliable sources discussing the reasonability of the dissertation. Wikipedia, being a tertiary source, is supposed to be referenced with secondary sources. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 02:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair do's. External link is less work! Hazardous to Health (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Naming conventions on Wikipedia

It has been over 10 years since I was really active in Wikipedia, so I'm asking a question about something that puzzles me. Why is it that Veronica Ivy is where I will find the article about the person most famously known as Rachel McKinnon, but the article on Nkechi Amare Diallo is located at Rachel Dolezal? Both Rachels have changed their names, but it looks like Wikipedia respects one change but not the other. I have no idea if this is policy or an internal inconsistency, or what. Could someone explain this to me? Unschool 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is probably what you should read. Wikipedia has no internal consistancy between articles, and there are specific naming conventions on LBTQ articles that do not apply to articles outside that area of the project. Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; that was perfect. Unschool 23:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

Ivy was not suspended for the "die in a grease fire tweet" as wrongly reported by the far right wing outlet National Review https://web.archive.org/web/20220215085038/https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/rachel-mckinnon-is-a-cheat-and-a-bully/ Ivy was briefly suspended for her tweet https://twitter.com/SportIsARight/status/1111596918449278977 that she did not want transphobes to literally die in a grease fire. National Review articles are NOT reliable sources. Canadaredpanda (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. That whole paragraph was sourced to unreliable sources, and without them I'm really not convinced that a single mean tweet or a temporary suspension from Twitter has sufficient WP:WEIGHT to be included in the article at all. Loki (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Job

It's probably relevant to mention that Ivy is no longer a professor at the College of Charleston; she quit after a weak performance review. The evidence has been scrubbed from the Internet, but in any event she is no longer listed on the faculty here:

https://philosophy.cofc.edu/faculty-staff-listing/index.php 2600:1700:6E10:4E20:C940:8C1D:2CB0:5B2B (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)