Talk:Charlie Anders/Archive 1

Please respect self-identification

An anonymous editor is repeatedly changing pronouns to "he". Sources including news articles and the person herself identify her gender clearly as female, for example, here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/31/BAG4G8GV741.DTL . Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons for guidelines on respecting the Wikipedia entries on living persons. --Lizzard (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was more concerned with the fact that it seemed editors were unaware that Anders wrote (under the name "Charles Anders") the book "the Lazy Crossdresser". I am quite happy to switch all the pronouns over to female, but I think the first step should be clarifying that C[J]A is MTF these days. 72.1.150.252 (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear 72.1.150.252, I understand that. The book citation is still there. I don't want to get into an edit war with you. But, please respect the I would like to refer you to this article on respecting transgender people: http://www.wikihow.com/Respect-a-Transgender-Person . Point two especially, on referring to people by the pronoun by which they refer to themselves. --Lizzard (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current version we have [1] is both factually accurate and respectful of CJA's identification. 72.1.150.252 (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I kept the book description, but put it further down the page in the Biography section since it's so far back in her past publishing history. Her fiction and work on io9 is kept up top. Cheers, and thanks for talking and negotiating! --Lizzard (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks too. The wikihow article was an interesting read. 72.1.150.252 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

not people

Poorly-sourced addition of contentious information

Regarding the disagreement over the inclusion of alternate names for Anders, I would note that this is a controversial issue and as such according to our biographies of living persons policy, any claims in the article ought to be supported by highly reliable secondary sources. As there do not appear to be any such sources verifying alternate names for Anders, the addition of such claims is inappropriate at this time. Skomorokh 23:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this a controversial issue? The L.A. Times isn't a reliable source? Nor are public political donation records? Also, there are no references in the article cited for anything in the personal life section. Why has someone footnoted to it? 01:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.140.29 (talk)

It is not the sourcing that is an issue, it's privacy and the WP:BLP https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy policy. The policy is pretty clear about not including people's full names, birthdates, family members, unless it is necessary and relevant. Here, I see a pattern of anonymous sources doing a fair amount of digging in order to reveal personal details about living people that are not relevant to the point of a biographical entry.--Lizzard (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Again -- please assume good faith. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

See my note elsewhere about why I'm reviewing this & my own COI disclaimer. Here's a few thoughts on this:

• On sources: I didn't see the LAT cited anywhere in the history? What did the LAT article support?
• Public political donation records are reliable but would constitute primary sources; see WP:OR and in particular WP:PRIMARY. So if there is information being dug out of various public records to connect people one to another, that is Original Research.
• My general take on personal relationships between two or more notable people is that the relationship ought to be publicly acknowledged to be included; if not, it raises a privacy concern. WP:BLP says: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Public acknowledgement includes open and full discussion by the subject in published sources. So:
  • Discussion using first names only (as in the Nerve piece) clearly does not qualify; first-name-only in fact suggests some effort to maintain privacy.
  • Regarding the Clean Sheets source for a partner, it's not great; first of all, the interviewer says it, but Anders never confirms it or responds to it in any way; I'm not sure that is really reliable as a source. I also note that it's old, and it certainly doesn't support a description of a relationship extending "since" a particular point in time -- even if we had confirmation from Anders in the article, we still don't know when it started, if it's still going on, or if not when it ended. So it would suffice to say that Anders had a relationship with the other person; but I'm not sure that qualifies as notable.
  • I finally note that the dearth of published sources strongly suggests that Anders attempts to maintain privacy about this aspect of her life; I think one should tip the scales towards privacy.

--Lquilter (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you raise these points at the discussion created by Lizzard at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard ::While I am appreciative of your comments and your honesty about poss. COI, I am a little worried at what seems to be happening here with seeming canvassing by Lizzard of Anders' ::friends or acquaintances. All editors -- including Lizzard need to understand that the wikipedia isnt a walled garden that can be controlled for their use alone. I suggest that COI editors best not edit this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Anders' relationship to Newitz, it is prominently featured in an article published on the couple in the Boston Phoenix (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/03315255.asp) "It was this recognition that inspired Anders and her partner of three-plus years — writer, San Francisco Bay Guardian culture editor, and syndicated columnist Annalee Newitz — to establish Other magazine, a bicoastal publication launched in Cambridge earlier this year and founded to give voice to "people who defy categories."". Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's a good additional source. --Lquilter (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: canvassing -- Just F[everyone's]I: GeekLizzard did not ask me to weigh in in any particular way; but to review the situation. Her request to me was totally within the bounds of WP:CANVAS. I will def. weigh in on BLP noticeboard if I have something to add & time to add it! --Lquilter (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proper capitalization

other magazine should probably be Other magazine. mechamind90 01:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

According to charliejane.com/, it isn't capitalized, but is italicized. Skomorokh 01:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what's the emphasis that should be placed on a proper name? mechamind90 03:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth Date

Is there a source for the 1970s birthdate? My understanding is that she was born in 1969 (I have no source for that though). Perhaps leaving the date blank is best. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede works

I'm a wee bit confused -- dragofly deletes Choir Boy and the Lazy Cross Dresser (two of her best known, best selling works) as he claims individual works are not to be in the lede -- yet leaves Shes Such a Geek in that same lede. His reasoning seems at best inconsistent. Assuming good faith, I'll accept the claim re indivdual works not being in the lede and delete Shes Such a Geek. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal Story for Biographical section?

Should we add this quote from "The Lazy Crossdresser" in the Biographical section? As a part of improving this entry into more than just a resume of Anders' writing, I think maybe we should include in her Biographical section personal experiences that helped shape her work. Anders is more than a writer and performance artist, she's a public figure who's unashamed of who she is. It's brave and inspirational to share one's early, fumbling transgender experiences with others. But I wasn't sure, so I thought I would propose it here rather than just add it in.

• Re-adding improperly censored quote: (from Introduction: My Story)" Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

(QUOTE DELETED)from Introduction: My Story) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.100.213 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've deleted this quote. I think it is in violation of [WP:BLP's privacy of names] section as well as the part about privacy of family members. Can you re-read the sections on Privacy of names, family members, and relevance to an article please? Thank you. --Lizzard

(talk) 17:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP does not talk about appellations, only actual names of family members, so that claim is unsupported. Questions about adding content are relevant in the Discussion page. Whether they are relevant to the article itself is a separate question. 64.183.41.146 (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote deleted again. I am going to refer this to an admin now on the [Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard]. Your lengthy and controversial quotation is inappropriate because it reveals personal information that would be inappropriate on the main page. You're "asking" disingenuously, in the guise of a query on the talk page, which is covered by BLP. --Lizzard (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE assume good faith Lizzard, I think you are misinterpreting BLP privacy -- and per the admin's response on the BLP noticeboard, I am not the only one. I suggest that you revert your edits to anon's additions as they are in the right here. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am deleting your quote again. I am sorry. I sincerely don't want to be in an edit war. That is why I referred this issue to the Noticeboard. WP:BLP says: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot.". Your repeated "question" that includes the entire quotation is doing exactly that. --Lizzard (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't restore it again, but you really seem to be going against wikipedia conventions of consensus by enforcing your own opinions and will on the article. Furthermore, you started a discussion on the BLP noticeboard and appear to be ignoring arguments raised by a non-involved editor there that suggest that your actions are inappropriate. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Remove BLP violation, do not post contentious material on talk pages please mark nutley (talk) 21:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Geeklizzard asked me to look at this article. COI disclaimer: I know Anders, but not well, and am not familiar with the specific facts here. So this is my opinion on looking over the article & revision history. The quote seems disproportionately long at this point in a fairly cursory biography. Given the absence of information about education, career, and so forth, it reads to me as undue weight to a personal account of one aspect of Anders' life. I would not include it unless there was considerably more (sourced and relevant) information about Anders' personal life for the whole thing to be balanced. --Lquilter (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you raise these points at the discussion created by Lizzard at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard ::While I am appreciative of your comments and your honesty about poss. COI, I am a little worried at what seems to be happening here with seeming canvassing by Lizzard of Anders' ::friends or acquaintances. All editors -- including Lizzard need to understand that the wikipedia isnt a walled garden that can be controlled for their use alone. I suggest that ::COI editors best not edit this article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above: Re: canvassing -- Just F[everyone's]I: GeekLizzard did not ask me to weigh in in any particular way; but to review the situation. Her request to me was totally within the bounds of WP:CANVAS. I will def. weigh in on BLP noticeboard if I have something to add & time to add it! --Lquilter (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Potential Conflict of Interest Here

I am concerned about a potential COI here involving the editor and administrator DragonflySixtyseven. The fact that this is clearly a controversial article and the said editor is also an admin makes this of heightened concern. My concerns arise from DragonflySixtyseven's apparent possession of non-public information re Ms Anders, which causes me to wonder if DragonflySixtyseven knows Anders personally. If so, he should probably not edit this article. The information which seems to be non-public (that is -- not listed in any of Anders' works or listed on the web) was presented as follows:

"True, verifiable, but irrelevant. You might as well mention "Captain Spacerat", the pseudonym under which she contributed to NotesWar-L"

Talk page message at 23:36, 6 August 2010

"Anders has legally changed her name; therefore, the 'Charlie' is not a pen name. There are other details to consider as well.

Now, I can find no mention of Anders writing as Captain Space Rat or indeed of what NotesWar-L is or was. Moreover, I can't see any mention of Anders' name change in any of her numerous articles or interviews.

It seems therefore not unlikely that DragonflySixtyseven has a COI. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Editor Lizzard has now admitted to a COI at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I met Charlie at Worldcon 2009, and we talked for a pleasant 20 minutes or so, two evenings in a row. This is where I learned about Captain Spacerat. Also, while I was at Worldcon, I got Felix Gilman's autograph and subsequently wrote an article about him - does that count as a CoI? DS (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. In a 20 minute conversation, she mentioned her Captain Space Rat persona, something called NotesWar-L, and the fact that she legally changed her name. All of these facts you then perfectly recall when you -- along with a handful of other acquaintances and employees of Anders -- just happened to engage in lengthy destructive edits on this page. I find that a little hard to believe. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's how I know her (two twenty-minute conversations), and she subsequently asked me to look into the article. DS (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see. I find it disturbing that you -- as an admin -- didn't reveal that Anders' asked for you to review the article when you first locked and edited it (nor at any time when you relied upon private information given to you by Ms. Anders). Surely you might've revealed that at the time. There seems to be a pattern of heavy editing by Anders' colleagues, friends and acquaintances that is not obviously based either on community consensus or wikipedia policy.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit note at 19:59, 6 September 2010

Lizzard- You may wish to restore all the edits you've made to Anders' page and withdraw from the discussion, as you are in fact a blogger for "other" mag, which represents a huge COI on your part. Your user page has your name and information that points clearly towards your writing work outside of Wikipedia and for "other." (http://www.othermag.org/blogit.php)

I cannot speak for the other editors who have been trying in vain to improve this page, but I am trying to add useful information to flesh out Ms. Anders' entry. It looks like everything I and others have added is sourced. If she is worthy of a Wikipedia entry at all, it cannot simply be a resume. As a notable public figure, she deserves a quality article with interesting, true, and verifiable information! Should the entry on Sandra Bullock omit all discussion of her recent adoption and split from husband Jesse James, because they are not directly related to her acting work? Please do not ruin the aims of this site by reducing the entries of people you know personally to vanity pages. :76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. No, I would not want to reduce Wikipedia to vanity pages. But you should be able to see the pattern of the edits here, as focusing on sex, gender, sexuality, and then linking in family, which I think was a deliberate trolling and harassment, not an attempt to improve a biographical article. Some of the talk on this page may be in good faith, but a lot of this is a smoke screen for harassment. That isn't good for Wikipedia. --Lizzard (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, recent contributor to Anders' page dannyobrien has previously edited the Boing Boing entry, adding info there on author Danny O'Brien's work for them. Writer Danny O'Brien has appeared at one of Anders' "Writers with Drinks" events. (http://www.writerswithdrinks.com/past.html) 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What's your point, here, 76.169.140.29? If you have an objection to the edits, per se, I'm happy to discuss them. I don't see any of my edits as contributing to a "vanity" entry, or omitting any notable or encyclopedic information. On the contrary, I've striven to maintain the encyclopediac, neutral tone of the piece, despite a pattern of edits from anonymous IP addresses that appear to move the article away from a perfectly acceptable encyclopediac piece into what seem to be a prurient overemphasis on issues that touch on harassment. COI is definitely a constant attractor away from neutrality, and any editor must be conscious of that (I'm aware, for instance, that I spoke at a Writers With Drinks years ago, though I don't see that as affecting my edits). Without presuming bad faith or outing you in any way, can I ask directly if you or any other IP number editors have any conflicts of interest in this area? --Dannyobrien (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot speak for any other editors anywhere, but MY point is exactly what I've said: your association with Anders suggests possible COI, especially since you are now the second person who knows Anders personally to join in (in addition to Anders herself editing the entry). On the discussion board (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard), I have responded to Geeklizzard's assertion that COI doesn't matter for editors of this entry, because everyone in SF knows Anders anyway. In your edits, you claimed that the articles cited to did not include the information included in the entry -- I have added a direct quote in one instance from the cited article to now attempt to rebut such a claim. As I told Geeklizzard, I'm happy to add more, if you're not seeing the information in the articles, and think that the entry should similarly give readers more direct attributions. It's fascinating (and relevant) information, and quotes wouldn't hurt at all. This article was in serious need of additional information, having been little more than a resume of Anders' work. She's a great writer and seems like such a fun person (O, to someday attend a Writers with Drinks!) - but more information will only BENEFIT this entry. I understand (from the Noticeboard linked to, above) that Anders wants the article to have certain information, and exclude other information, but this is not her website. If I may go so far, she's an icon; let's celebrate that, not censor information - for example, about her being transgendered. (Why is there an anti-trans motion here, anyway?) This is something that makes her inspirational and helps her rate an article in the first place.

As for my interest here, I loved LC and Choir Boy, and always her funny writing on io9. I'm only an occasional editor, but I thought I could really help here. I'm glad I've inspired some other people to join in, anonymous or elsewise. It's tough, though, to be working so hard to collect and include good, verifiable, factual details, and present them all in an interesting, thoughtful context. And then to have the subject try to flatten the entry is disheartening and frustrating. I hope we all can work this out to the benefit of Anders' entry. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand it's disheartening, and it's not exactly fun for me to have this discussion either. I do think there's a danger of us all spiralling into assuming bad faith, given the sensitivity of the topic. I apologise if I was overzealous in editing, though I'm pleased the edits made yours stronger; I hope you will understand that the pattern of your edits, and edits from your IP address range, look to others like more than just zealous "collecting facts" for a strong WP article. It's one of the perils of editing BLPs, and it's one of the things that makes tempers flare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyobrien (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"I do think there's a danger of us all spiraling into assuming bad faith, given the sensitivity of the topic." I am glad you say this, however; the editors associated with Anders -- including Dragonfly67 and Lizzard -- have so far not merely spiraled into assuming bad faith but assumed it right off the bat. I hope that that will not continue. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a wiki etiquette alert re this behaviour here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Repeated_failures_to_assume_good_faith_and_abusive_blanking_of_sections_of_talk_page

Simply knowing someone is NOT inherrently a COI. I am not sure that any continuation of this "discussion" will lead in any way to improving the content of the article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's why I headed the section as "potential conflict of interest". I'll note that wikipediqa guidelines on CoI state: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." Not one of the editors linked to Anders -- with the exception of Lquilter -- chose to do this, despite the fact that one was an admin. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And reitterating that fact again on this talk page is not going to move the article forward. There is a potential conflict of interest. It has been identified. Now we move on with that knowledge. If the potential COI is causing disruptive editing, then other forums are out there to deal with that - this page is for how to create a better article about Charlie Anders. Focus on the content not contributors. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I copied a users suggestion re next steps for the article in the section immediately below. Hoping to hear other views on it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion at BLP noticeboard

I am copying user ⌘macwhiz's suggestion here. I hope that editors can discuss it and come to a reasonable solution. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we may be near a solution here. Here's what I suggest:

• The quote shouldn't go in the article at this time.
• It's reasonable and proper to discuss adding the quote in the future on the talk page. To avoid conflicts, I suggest that next time, someone who believes the quote is relevant and inspirational could add the quote (properly attributed and consistent with fair use) to their personal page, noting that it's a quote they personally find inspirational. They can then raise the issue of adding it in the article's talk page, and instead of quoting it there, they can refer people to their personal page: "There's this quote I find inspirational, it's on my page here->, I think we might add it to the article, what do you think?" Calm, constructive discussion can then follow.
• Ms. Anders has offered to supply leads on potential sources on the talk page, which is excellent all around.
• Other editors, preferably editors who are not acquaintances, co-workers, or employees of Ms. Anders, can use those sources to improve the article. It's conceivable (but by no means certain) that the controversial quote might not be "undue emphasis" after this work is done; that should be decided by consensus on the talk page before it's added.
• I hope that all involved with this article will take a deep breath, step back, and realize that each one of you wants to make this page better; you all mean well, it's just that you disagree on the methods. Stop fighting and find common ground! :)

Does that sound reasonable? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Anders here. This sounds mostly reasonable -- I'll try and find some of those links soon. In the meantime, I looked at the Wikipedia pages for fellow transgender authors Kate Bornstein and S. Bear Bergman, and I'd really appreciate it if other people could have a look at them too. They seem to be to be a reasonable model for what a trans author's page could look like -- they cover the facts in a fairly low-key fashion, without including a lot of sensationalistic details. I would really like everybody to agree that those pages are a good model for what my page could look like. CharlieAnders (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

macwhiz, it sounds partly reasonable to me in that it is clear the quote should not go on the article or the talk page. Thanks for that. However, there are still other issues, which I will continue to address. Also, I would like to point out that yesterday I added 3 new sources, all from 2010 and from interviews with major publications. Perhaps that will be useful to someone.--Lizzard (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Anders again. Here are some sources that I dug up. It's amazing how much stuff from just a year or two ago has been taken down or is behind a paywall:

Interview with Locus Magazine about io9 and Writers With Drinks http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2010/08/spotlight-on-charlie-jane-anders-author-editor-blogger-emcee/ Interview about Writers With Drinks: http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-11/entertainment/17872914_1_literary-history-magazine-moves Personal essay about grandma dying http://www.freshyarn.com/32/essays/anders_theweek1.htm A somewhat mixed review of Choir Boy http://www2.citypaper.com/arts/review.asp?rid=9118 --CharlieAnders (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll read the Kate Bornstein and S. Bear Bergman articles -- they may, as Ms Anders suggests, be good templates of sorts. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove unsourced content from article page

The unsourced content on the article page should be removed. 76.169.140.29, you might as well put on any random person's Wikipedia entry that they have not had some kind of surgery. It has no point in a biographical entry about a living person, is unsourced, and should be an alert to admins involved that the edits are following a pattern of harassment. --Lizzard (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, please refrain from the sort of aggressive and bullying behaviour that -- I thought -- people had agreed to not engage in when this was discussed at the BLP noticeboard. You may perceive the anon comments as a pattern of harassment, but your view is in the minority and no matter how much you shout and bully, this will not change until you can provide reasoned arguments to support your claims. Why did you bother raising a discussion at the BLP noticeboard if you choose to ignore its outcomes? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Lizzard, I don't understand. Charlie herself just suggested two entries for trans authors as models for hers, above - and Bornstein's specifically includes information on her gender reassignment surgery. Additionally, it features quite a bit on her gender theories. One paragraph is on her connection to Scientology (not related to her professional work, just family issues). Bergman's is somewhat different, but it's not much more than a list of her work - and quite a bit of that is connected to GLBT topics. I was surprised to see that it lists her family members by name.

As for my "citation needed" tags and your argument below that I shouldn't source to talk page discussions... I hoped per MacWhiz & Charlie's agreement, the cites for these things Charlie said would be available very soon. The Bay Area Reporter article includes Charlie's "pre-operative status", but I didn't cite to that, because I was hoping we'd get a new interview soon where Charlie might talk further about the discrimination against non-women-born women that she's spoken out against in the past. I also hoped Charlie would soon say in an interview what she's already said here: how she feels she should be seen professionally and she's been a fully transitioned woman for quite a while now.

Oh, I do disagree with Bigdaddy, in that I think the quote from LC should stay off the Discussion page. I wasn't thinking about how it might appear from another perspective. Am I allowed to delete it myself if it gets put back? 76.169.140.29 (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi 76.169.140.29. I sincerely apologize for assuming you were editing in bad faith. I think that you should not edit into an article what you think is true, and what you hope that a person will then confirm or deny in some future interview. If that is actually what you would like to know, or if you would like to hear Anders' opinion on discrimination and battles against it, you should ask her directly. Actually I think that starting a magazine and then interviewing people for it would be a great idea. But that process shouldn't happen on Wikipedia, even on its talk pages. Could you delete your unsourced material from the page? I am holding of on editing for now. --Lizzard (talk) 03:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bornstein is very open about surgery issues. Until and unless we have a published cited source for Anders, I think surgical matters of this nature ought to be presumed to be private. Accordingly I am deleting it, under WP:BLP's presumption of privacy. That information can be replaced when (if) a published cited source is found for the information. --Lquilter (talk) 12:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, I see a published cite was recently added for this. Will leave it in, then, for now, although I'm not convinced about its relevance / encyclopedic tone given Anders' stated focus on being a writer rather than a trans personality. --Lquilter (talk) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be that information on surgical status is not needed, but I don't think that Ms. Anders' stated focus is the deciding factor. Rather the decision should be made about whether it is relevant, given the body of work that makes Ms. Anders notable. At present her notability rests more on her works on gender identity than on her science fiction work. Of course that may be changing and the article should reflect that when/if it does. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is not SF versus gender-related writings; it's writings versus surgical procedures. Anders doesn't generally talk or make a big deal out of surgical status; neither does the media about Anders. Writing -- even writing about gender identity -- does not (IMO) render information about surgery relevant. Consider for example: If someone is an anti-circumcision activist, is it necessarily the case that the article should talk about whether the person was circumcised at birth? If someone critiques lobotomies, is it important to state that they did or did not have brain surgery? It could be relevant, but only if the person makes it relevant -- if they critique those issues as a member of an affected community. If Anders made that issue an identity point, it would definitely be relevant -- and it would be widely documented in the materials. That there is only one passing mention in one article suggests its irrelevance to her identity and to the view of her in the world. So it seems like unencyclopedic trivia to me. YMMV, but the onus is on those who support inclusion to justify it. --Lquilter (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Its relevant only if Anders makes it relevant (in her works) or if discussion of her in other sources (interviews for instance) makes it so. I don't think that the fact that Anders is trans and writes on gender issues necessarily means it is relevant to the article in any way. And indeed, its up to the editor who adds such details to show its relevance -- as always. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move Charlie's non-operative status to the section on her Activism, as it might be more relevant there? 76.169.140.29 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Statements on WP:BLP noticeboard are not a source

The statements sourced to the BLP noticeboard should be removed. It is not encyclopediac to stir up controversy on Wikipedia and then use the reactions as a "source", nor that controversy as an event.--Lizzard (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL and refrain from making attacks on other editors and the motives that you imagine that they have. It is very frustrating to have to keep reminding you to treat other editors in a respectful and tolerant way. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for sounding inflammatory, or if I was uncivil in suspecting bad faith. The edits are still not in line with Wikipedia sourcing policy, and should be removed. I think that 76. has explained their motivation in putting unsourced edits very clearly and I now see their purpose. But, they do not belong in a Wikipedia article. As I said above, I am holding off on cleaning up the badly sourced edits for now, figuring someone else will fix them soon. --Lizzard (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! For now, until Charlie gets the statements she's said she wanted into print, here are the two items that I put in without citations: the "full transition" comment she made here, and the change in career emphasis she also wanted to touch on.

However, Anders has recently stated that as of 2002, she was "fully transitioned" to being a woman.

Anders has stated in interviews that she would prefer to be seen primarily as a sci-fi writer, and not as a transgender personality.

76.169.140.29 (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Direct quotes would specifically require actual sources WP:V, so the above suggestion is not within policy- although I think they are the type of "non-controversial" claims about herself that something on an "official" Charlie Anders website would be sufficient source, if rephrased appropriately. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-22/Charlie Anders

Mediation was requested on this article. I have offered to mediate. Please indicate if this is acceptable to you at the case page. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)