Talk:Barbara Amesbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 January 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was KEEP.

Note that a comment incorrectly posted at the top of this page pertaining to the following discussion, has been moved to the bottom of the page in accordance with proper format of a talk page. The comment has not been removed.

[edit] Requests for comment

What is the appropriate way for Wikipedia to write about a transgender person who was already notable before transitioning?

This article was recently edited by an anonymous editor (possibly, but not verifiably, Amesbury herself) who removed all references to transgender and rewrote it to leave the impression that she was always known as Barbara. I fully understand why a transperson might want that, but there's a problem: when she was still publicly known as Bill, she had a Top 40 hit called "Virginia (Touch Me Like You Do)", which is still frequently played on Canadian oldies radio stations (and which is the primary reason she even warrants an article in the first place.)

Anyone who's ever heard the song on the radio heard a male singing voice and a DJ saying the artist's name was Bill. Anyone who ever bought the single, or has it on a K-Tel "hits of the 1970s" compilation, sees the song being credited to an artist named Bill. Anyone who wants to Google the song for more information on it has to search for Bill. Anyone searching for it in the CHUM Chart archives has to search for Bill.

Bottom line, we have to acknowledge that "Virginia" was credited to a performer named Bill. We cannot imply that she was known as Barbara at the time, because it's far too easily verifiable that she wasn't.

So there are really only three possible approaches:

1. The article acknowledges Barbara's transgender status, whether it's what Barbara wants or not.
2. The article is rewritten to be strictly about "Bill", and makes no mention of her gender transition or her current name.
3. The article is deleted, because if we eradicate "Bill" from the article, then "Virginia" has to go with it — and without "Virginia", unfortunately, she doesn't merit an article.

Any comments? Bearcat 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Assuming there's some reliable source regarding her being transgender, I think the current version [1] handles it fine. It isn't outing her if there's already public information about her being transgender. And since she's notable for things before she transitioned, and the songs are still attributed to her birth name, it'd be misleading/confusing to not mention that and the fact that she transitioned. --Mairi 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that option 1 is the only conceivable policy for a reputable encyclopaedia. Subjects do not get to censor their own biographies in other respects. Barbara Amesbury was formerly Bill, and while we can say that transgender people were born into what they feel was the wrong physical gender, the fact remains that that was how they used to live. You can change your future but not your past. Incidentally there are other famous transgender people who changed gender after becoming notable: travel writer Jan Morris and bandleader Angela Morley are two British examples. Am about to see if those links are blue or red ... just hold on now ... David | Talk 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) (Oh look! Both are blue, so you can compare and contrast. David | Talk 23:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

The Jan Morris article has its own problems, I think. "She served in World War II in British Intelligence" but she was a he at the time! I'm tempted to rewrite it, but as this is a sensitive issue I think I'll leave be for now. --kingboyk 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's normally proper to refer to a transgendered person by the pronouns of their chosen gender identity, even when discussing periods that precede their transition. The issue in this case has more to do with the presence or absence of Amesbury's old name, and whether the article identifies her as transgendered at all; nobody has suggested at any point that the article should actually refer to Amesbury as "he" or "him". I'd revert or rebuke them if they did. Bearcat 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC Response: I agree that the current article [2] handles it just fine. It bolds the male name, so someone can easily find it if that's what they're looking for, and the redirect from Bill Amesbury is very efficient in getting someone here. Also, the reference to "Bill" cannot be allowed to be deleted; as is argued above, if you take away this part of the person's past, you eliminate their notability. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC response: If the article's subject wants an official change then she can write to Wikipedia admin and make it their call. Until and unless that happens, my inclination is to treat this as unjustified deletion of verifiable encyclopedic material, possibly POV pushing by some other transgendered person. It's a leap of faith to assume the identity of an unregistered editor. Durova 01:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The IP number in question resolves to Toronto...which is admittedly still not definitive, but it significantly increases the likelihood that my initial assumption was correct. Bearcat 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC response: Check out the very good article on Wendy Carlos. An elegant Wendy Carlos (born Walter Carlos), and then it carries on from there without much of a fuss. MattShepherd 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Another example is Donald McCloskey, the economist, who became Dierdre. In some articles she is referrred to as Dierde (nee Donald) which I think is pretty witty.

I'm sure I'm alone on this, but I feel the simple approach, especially given the current lack of *cited* sources, is to simply treat this as a woman named "Barbara Amesbury (formerly Bill Amesbury); with no statement "she was a he" whatsoever (though the name would give something away). Unless there are published accounts of her changes, in reputable sources, then we shouldn't delve into that at all. I think for sensitive matters like this the source citation must come with the content, and not be asked for after (I'm getting tired of asking for sources, why don't they appear in the first draft of the article, why must they be asked for?). Also, I really see no great relevance. As an analogy, suppose somebody changes their last name to re-acknowledge their ethnic background. If there's nothing published about the reasoning of the name change, we merely state the name change. I suspect there are hundreds or thousands of such cases, with no delving into the meaning of the name change. If the name change was a notable event, in enough of itself (Cat Stevens=> Yusuf Islam), then it's well worth mentioning. However, sex changes are no longer automatically big news in the world anymore. If no notable source cares, we shouldn't care. If notable sources care, then we should care. The key here is it important to the public (probably not), not is it important to the individual and those close to them (probably so). --Rob 08:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate way for Wikipedia to write about anyone is accurately. the current article is not accurate, the spelling and references about this person are not accurate. Bearcat, self-proclaimed writer is inaccurate in much of his information. The editing to the previous version can in whole be attributed to me, not Ms. Amesbury. What I wrote (although not accurate) was about as accurate as what Bearcat purports to be fact. Because Wikipedia relies solely on the kindness of contributors, this leaves it open to misinformation by self-aggrandizing pompous purveyors of 'truth'. I know of at least 3 factual errors in the online listing of Ms. Amesbury.

The discussion of who and when to 'out' a transperson is also fairly limited by the limitations of the contributors. Binary interpretations of gender are based in an old patriarchal system of thinking. Additionally, basing gender solely on the physical is a limited system of thinking.

Transphobia is everywhere. It is the homophobia of the 1950's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.164.130 (talk • contribs) .

If the article contains inaccuracies, kindly be specific about what they are. As for interpretations of gender, we somehow have to acknowledge the distinction that the songs are credited to a performer named Bill Amesbury. So how, then, would you propose that we address that fact without simultaneously "outing" her? And can the unsupported assumptions about my "intellectual limitations". Bearcat 23:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC Response: Although regrettable that Ms. Amersbury objects to the contents of the article cencorship is not within Wikipedia policy. It is custom to mention the most important parts of a persons life in their biography - such as marriage, children, career - and in this case philanthropy and sex change. The article deals with the subject in a neutral and professional manner without focusing unnecesarily on the disputed matter and I see no reason to ... um... reduce or change anything. WanderingWiki 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weird blanking

Does anyone know who removed the reference to the fact that Amesbury is Joan Chalmers' partner and why? Carolynparrishfan 21:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What particularly worries me is that it seems to be have been an admin decision, as any record of the sentence ever being put in has been removed from the history. Carolynparrishfan 21:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And I am definitely not hallucinating because my user contributions show that I personally edited that sentence on 2 September 2005 at 20:50 from an earlier version that called Amesbury Chalmers' "friend and colleague". Carolynparrishfan 21:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I found your edit in the history, and it can be seen here. It was taken out in this edit by User:Bearcat on January 6th. You'll have to send him a message to find out why it was changed. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence because the anon blanker was disputing it, so I reviewed the matter and noted that I couldn't find any verifiable evidence in a Google search as to whether they were still partners, or had broken up, or what. So I felt it better to remove it for the time being, and trust that if somebody was able to confirm whether they were still a couple, they'd eventually come along and reinsert it. (Admins don't have the power, incidentally, to entirely strike material from the edit history...if you can't find the original edit, you're just not looking in the right place.) Bearcat 06:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)