Talk:Emily St. James

Untitled

(copied comment from the draft page)

Was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff in March. Haven't looked at the sources in detail, but it seems the only new coverage which might count towards WP:GNG is this piece from July. If there is other coverage, it would be quite helpful it it were pointed out on the talk page. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

These represent new coverage since July references represent new coverage since July:

1. Tameez, Hanaa (2020-07-01). "The Trans Journalists Association launches, with workplace advice and a style guide". Niemen Lab. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
2. Beauchamp, Zack (2020-07-22). "The "free speech debate" isn't really about free speech". Vox. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
3. Wulfsohn, Joseph (2020-07-08). "Tensions among Vox employees erupt on Twitter after journalist signs 'cancel culture' letter". Fox News. Retrieved 2020-09-15.
4. "Trans Writer Says She's Getting Death and Rape Threats Over Her Reaction to Harper's 'Free Speech' Letter". Mediaite. 2020-07-09. Retrieved 2020-09-15.

This new coverage, along with additional emphasis and cited coverage of VanDerWerff as a prominent transgender woman, contribute to her being a notable person. Her role in the controversy over the Harper's Letter received extensive coverage in third party news sites. So the overall case for her notability would be that she has a significant body of television criticism comparable or exceeding other critics with existing articles, has a published book with a major publisher, is one of if not the most well-known transgender arts critics in the US, and has been the subject of mainstream news coverage. --Markgbaker (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Just trying to see whether she has received enough significant coverage to overturn the previous deletion discussion: Number 4 above does include significant coverage of her and does count towards WP:GNG as mentioned, but the others don't seem to: Number 1 only quotes her tweet but doesn't discuss her, number 2 doesn't appear to mention her, and number 3 does mention her but doesn't include significant coverage of her. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources that cover the info in 3 and 4 that she appears in more prominently, so I can switch those. And there are more articles about her work as a TV critic under her former name that can be included if it will help. Is there a critical mass point for coverage when simply the amount of mentions becomes significant? The significant coverage is fairly subjective. Markgbaker (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think comparing her coverage here with that of other prominent critics like Jody Rosen or Anthony Lane makes a good argument, on top of your critical mass argument. She is referenced constantly in news articles and academia regarding her reviews. Nonetheless, I understand that is generally not the convention of determining significant coverage. If you have sources that more directly discuss her, that would be great. :) ƒin (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think our notability criteria are exceptionally difficult for fairly major media personalities to qualify under. VanDerWerff, as Markgbaker notes, is someone who is far more prominent in her field - a major field too it's not like we're talking something obscure like - than many people who SNGs pesume notability for far more easily. Personally I think she is one profile in a a major publication or a second book away from being slam dunk notable. But the fact that we're talking about a huge leap from "not notable" to "slam dunk" is part of why I think our standards in this field could be improved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Added a cited article where VanDerWerff is prominently featured as an influential TV critic (Herman, Alison (2018-07-31). "Previously On: How Recaps Changed the Way We Watch Television". The Ringer. Retrieved 2020-09-18) and replaced another citation with an article that focuses on her role in the Harper's Letter controversy more prominently. (Sheets, Megan (2020-07-09). "Twitter feud breaks out among Vox staffers after editor joins JK Rowling and Margaret Atwood and signs an open letter condemning 'cancel culture'". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 2020-09-18) Markgbaker (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Birth name

The subject's birth name has been removed, referencing WP:DEADNAME, saying the subject was not notable under that name. And yet, 3/5 of the career section describes events that happened before her transition. While she didn't have a Wikipedia article until recently, it seems the subject would have been considered notable enough to have one and it's not just the more recent events that pushed her into notability. Fnordware (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Except we know that isn't the case. VanDerWerff was deleted as not notable in March of this year under this name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Not as conclusive but VanDerWerff was twice declined at AfC in 2019 under her birth name as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, that's a pretty good point. Is there a way to see a record of the deletion?

But I still find it strange when much of the article's content centers around the subject being transgender and their pre-transition career is discussed with sources that use their old name, yet we're saying that it should be kept off the article as "a privacy interest" per WP:DEADNAME. While the subject was not previously deemed notable, the earlier career stuff is contributing to their newfound notability. But I guess this might be a gap in the guidelines. Fnordware (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff should have been—and now is—linked at the top of the talk page. I have to say that I have mixed feelings about this case, as WP:DEADNAME is clear that we shouldn't mention the name anywhere in the article, but I can see the encyclopedic/research value to mentioning the deadname of someone who publicly published a substantial body of news media under it. I can imagine it causing confusion to someone familiar with the deadname but not current name. — Bilorv (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been a minute but I believe when she transitioned her byline was changed at most of the places she'd previously written. I definitely know it was at AV Club and Vox. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. — Bilorv (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

True, but the sources about her, which are the important sources, still have her name as it was. Fnordware (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

BTW, AV Club is actually using "Emily Todd VanDerWerff". It's a little tricky on this page because her old name is actually in the title. Fnordware (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Had my edit adding the subject's previous name reverted and directing me to this page. I wasn't aware of the ongoing discussion here when I made the edit. However, having read it I don't believe a consensus has been reached that her previous name should be removed, and I believe the suggestion that the subject was not notable under her previous name is dubious. The _Career_ section of this article contains citations for a decade of writing under her previous name, including senior editorial positions at major news and entertainment websites (AV Club and Vox) and a commercially published book. There is also a citation of an interview with the subject regarding her transition, which arguably would not exist if she wasn't somewhat notable pre-transition. I think there is enough material here to establish notability under her previous name, so, respectfully, I am reinstating my edit. Feel free to discuss further. carelesshx _talk 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The edit is not accepted per MOS:DEADNAME if the subject was not notable prior to transition, per the text In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily VanDerWerff established consensus that VanDerWerff was not notable slightly subsequent to transition, let alone prior, and you cannot overturn this consensus by just your own argumentation. These are the only two facts we need to establish consensus against the specific edit you made, which added the birth name to the lead sentence, and citations and due weight are irrelevant because they are superceded in this particular case by MOS:DEADNAME. You'll notice that I don't even particularly agree that it is best to omit the name. Yet policy is incredibly clear in this matter. It even says If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it (emphasis mine). — Bilorv (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully I have undone it. I agree this is a borderline case but I think there is, as I've done above, enough to say that it should be omitted. We do, after all, have literal evidence, in the form of both a deletion outcome at AfD and declined AfC, that VanDerWerff was not notable under previous names. Notability is a cumulative situation. The weight that most of the evidence for notability came under a birth name does not mean she was notable under that name. Instead, the notability accumulated and she became notable under this name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Using a previous AfD to support this decision is dubious, frankly. A deletion outcome from AfD means that the article as it stood at the time did not establish notability, it doesn't mean that the subject of the article was not notable, or that an article that supports the subject's notability could not be written. This article is not the same as the article that was deleted, so we should judge this article on its own merits. I believe that there is enough evidence in this article to suggest that the subject was notable for at least some time before their transition, and that omitting their previous name is unjustified. carelesshx _talk 23:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean sometimes an AfD means that the article at that time is not notable. However, according to guidelines it should be based on the topic's inherent notability. That's why WP:BEFORE exists. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A deletion outcome from AfD means that the article as it stood at the time did not establish notability is almost exactly the opposite to how I would describe AfD in a sentence if asked. The purpose is to assess notability. See WP:BEFORE, WP:AADD etc. I see from this that you've not really participated in AfD much since 2007, carelesshx, so perhaps standards have changed—for instance, the most recent AfD I began (1) was kept on the strength of sources not in the article at the time (and shows a failure on my part to find them before nominating). Nonetheless, if you'd like to argue notability prior to VanDerWerff's transition then could you present the sources and rationale clearly? I don't really follow your argument in the detail you've given. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You argue (and correct me if I'm wrong) that because a previous article on this subject was deleted, this proves that the subject was not "notable" at the time of deletion, and, by extension, any time before (because [n]otability is a cumulative situation); and this proof justifies omitting the subject's previous name from this article. I disagree, for the following reasons: First, the decision in March 2020 was extremely marginal, and the AfD had to be relisted twice. It can hardly be described as conclusive. Second, the decision to remove was because the existing sources ... are not substantial enough to base an article on. I can't judge this for myself because I can't see the old article. It's clear that the outcome was based on the lack of citations in the article, rather than the "inherent notability" of the subject. Third, most of the sources cited in this article would have been available in February 2020, which suggests that the decision itself might not be sound (again, I can't judge for myself because I can't see the previous article). I argue that, for the reasons I have set out, the AfD outcome of March 2020 (on a previous article) does not justify omitting the subject's previous name on the grounds of lack of notability.

If you'd like to argue notability prior to VanDerWerff's transition then could you present the sources and rationale clearly. On this point, the evidence is the same as I mentioned earlier: the citations already in the article are enough to establish notability over a ten-year writing career up to the time of her coming out in 2019. Finally, on a different point, the argument that it is necessary to omit her previous name on the grounds of privacy fails because she is credited as Emily Todd VanDerWerff at Vox (her current employer) and AV Club (where she wrote previously). I can only assume that this is with her consent. carelesshx _talk 01:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You've understood my argument correctly, yes. Privacy is not really part of it though—it may be a factor in policy being implemented, but not the only one, and not the one relevant here. I'd also dispute the counterargument It's clear that the outcome was based on the lack of citations in the article, rather than the "inherent notability" of the subject because I would expect that if more citations existed then someone would have introduced them to either the discussion or article as part of the research that AfD contributors are expected to do.

To be fully clear, you are saying that the following sources show notability: Tor (primary source), Ringer, IndieWire, Daily Republic Or have I missed any? I think most people would not view this is a sufficient claim to notability, but if you are confident that you would get something better than the narrow AfD consensus then I would expect that your best bet is a neutrally worded Request for Comment with a question something like "Was Emily VanDerWerff notable prior to transition?" — Bilorv (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The article strikes me as well-sourced for its length, and the specific sources you mention are evidence of a distinguished writing career under her previous name. I can't comment on whether they are enough on their own because, as you pointed out, I am not very familiar with the AfD process (and I don't know what sources were cited in the previous article). Request for Comment seems like a good way to proceed, so I will do that. carelesshx _talk 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It should be noted, MOS is a guideline', not a policy. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

RfC about including the subject's previous name in the opening paragraph

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to exclude, in line with MOS:DEADNAME. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the article include the subject's previous name in the opening paragraph? This has been omitted citing WP:DEADNAME because a previous version of this article was deleted. Does the fact that a previous version was deleted prove that the subject was not notable at the time? If so, does this proof satisfy WP:DEADNAME, specifically that the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name?

Previous discussion of this question starts above. Here is a revision showing how it might appear. carelesshx _talk 16:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• No the dead name should not appear. We have evidence, at both AfD and AfC, that VanDerWerff was not considered notable under the deadname. Her past writings do not appear under the name proposed for inclusion (at some sites it includes the dead name as a middle name). This is, for me, a reason we have the WP:DEADNAME guideline and I do not see those advancing inclusion of her name having met the criteria for inclusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, essentially for the same reason as Barkeep49. Per this AfD, the subject was not notable prior to (or slightly subsequent to) transition; then, MOS:DEADNAME says that we should not mention the birth name in the article anywhere barring a particular reason (If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article), which I don't see here, and definitely not in the lead sentence. — Bilorv (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, the article should include her previous name, for reasons explained earlier. This is an edge case where strict application of WP:DEADNAME is inappropriate. Much of the source material that this article relies upon to support notability now derives from the subject's work under her previous name. It follows, therefore, that the same material also evidences notability under her previous name. This does not prove that she was notable under her previous name, but neither does the previous AfD outcome prove that she was not. In edge cases like this, we should err on the side of accuracy and completeness - a reader coming to Wikipedia for information about Todd VanDerWerff would be underserved by this article. carelesshx _talk 20:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
• No, plainly her activities under her previous name are not what makes her notable. The mere existence of sources using that name or the fact that the article notes work under that name is not sufficient to demonstrate notability (if it were, there would be no need for MOS:DEADNAME at all, since obviously we could not mention a deadname for which no sources existed.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment, are practices akin to wiki's DEADNAME in widespread use among other mainstream publications, journals, etc? tbh, I have never heard of the concept ANYWHERE other than wikipedia, and its tactical implementation seems a bit...for lack of a better word, totalitarian. In particular, I find it somewhat insulting how it basically treats the entire trans population as a single monolith, who all have the exact same feelings, opinions, and preferences as every other trans person. and subsequently, a single set of rules get applied across the board to every individual, and have precedent over everything else, including individuals' own thoughts/opinions. (I don't know what this lady's outlook is, but if all these publications about her are making prominent use of her DEADNAME.....I figure, it can't bother her THAT much? Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I wonder how much time you spend reading other organisations' style guidelines. Most people haven't spent any, but if you haven't then there's no reason you would have heard of the concept elsewhere. It is common practice in all major style guides, which was a large part of the argument behind the community adopting MOS:DEADNAME (you can find the discussions if you want and notice what changed between when portions were rejected years prior and when they were accepted recently—in large part, style guidelines of respected publications changed). I find it an odd comment that "a single set of rules get applied across the board" is supposed to be a criticism of a style guide. Really? Nonetheless, I hope you also make these criticisms about all BLP-related MOS guidelines that could similarly be considered an overreach or as treating a demographic as a "monolith" because otherwise there's some subtext to why you're singling this case out. I also wonder what "totalitarian" should mean. What state or government is enforcing these rules on you? I thought this was a community-run encyclopedia who adopt MOS based on community discussions and consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• No, as per WP:DEADNAME, which covers precisely these sort of situations. Not notable before transition, no deadname in the article. I also feel like any possible initial confusion on the part of the reader searching for the deadname and ending up on this page is going to be dispelled quickly because of her pretty specific last name and the article mentioning her being trans. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I personally find it interesting/humorous that we are going to such pains to keep her deadname out of the main article when it is plainly visible in the References section. Fnordware (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trying to make an obvious correction

Pretty sure this is a "DUDE". CapitalED (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This is incorrect. VanDerWerff is a woman. — Bilorv (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Emily St. James

Given that she is now using the name St. James as a professional, it seems that this name should be incorporated into the article and perhaps the article should even be moved.[1] Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Very interesting—thanks for the tip-off, Barkeep49. It looks like she announced the plan on Twitter in January (interesting side-note), and that most of her past articles are now credited to "Emily St. James" (e.g. AVClub, Vox).

We should mention "Emily VanDerWerff" still to avoid confusion (VanDerWerff said in January that she did not consider it a deadname), but switch to "St. James" as the name we refer to her by here, and move this article to Emily St. James. There's a question of whether we should change all the citations to her reviews so that they use the name she is now credited by in those reviews (as I did once before when she switched to "Emily"). I think we should, and it should be faster than last time with AWB because no pronouns need changing and there'll be almost no cases where the replacement "VanDerWerff --> St. James" will hit a false positive.

However, given the extremely uncivil response I was met with by one particular editor last time I made this change (despite discussion that had consensus), I'd like as broad a consensus as possible before trying to implement this myself. — Bilorv (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, we need comments on three questions: (1) should we refer to the subject of this article as "VanDerWerff" or "St. James"? (2) Should we move the page to Emily St. James? (3) Should we change instances of "VanDerWerff" in other articles, where the references now have the byline "Emily St. James", to "St. James"? — Bilorv (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I have BOLDLY moved the page and updated the name here given the lack of dissenting opinion. I am neutral about updating the name on other articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Barkeep49 has already handled regarding (1) and (2); with regards to (3) I would say that the references should be changed as otherwise they would create confusion when readers try to verify them. GreenComputer (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd vote that a) We should set "St. James" as the subject, b) We should change "VanDerWerff" to "St. James" in this article, and c) We should switch the name in other articles.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 19:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra feedback, folks, and it looks like (1) and (2) is now resolved. I believe Kingsif has begun implementing (3) in both prose and refs without any pushback, so it seems safe to continue. There are currently about 600 instances of "VanDerWerff" that need replacement, I believe. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Seeing pretty unanimous consensus here, I did so; I have changed refs where either the source itself, or the website it is at in their staff list, use St. James. This is basically all of them, though. Still a few to go through, and I am unsure how to approach wikilinks to the original deadname. Kingsif (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there's enough consensus to do so. IMO wikilinks to Emily VanDerWerff are not really a problem, but there's no issue with changing them too if you're also changing something else in that article. — Bilorv (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

An IP has recently changed the name she's referred to when she was leading the AV Club to St. James. As last I've seen she's said she doesn't consider Vander Werff a deadname I would suggest that MOS:MULTINAMES says we shouldn't call her St. James for her work at AV Club. Thoughts from others? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought similarly, especially with the name being used within many of those articles not changing (i.e. the frequent AV Club review section "Get to the point, VanDerWerff") - the byline has, by merit of the author ID changing and every associated link doing so with it, but the section itself has not updated. Kingsif (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Was her birth name "Emily"?

I'm surprised to be reverted on this but there you go. In dispute over the parenthetical (born Emily Nicole VanDerWerff, November 30, 1982) vs. (formerly Emily Nicole VanDerWerff; born November 30, 1982), I wrote that [The former] is untrue - St. James birthname was not "Emily", while 92.10.13.209 wrote that She was assigned male at birth but she was always female - and when she came out she chose Emily as her name. Ergo, she was born Emily as her assigned name was never her name - simply what she was assigned. Please discuss before reverting this time.

St. James was not born with the name "Emily". It's as simple as that. You could say that she was "always female" or "her assigned name was never her real name" or even "her real name, Emily, chose her", though not all trans people identify with this narrow interpretation, but you simply cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that somebody was "born" with a name that they chose in their late 30s. Can we get a third opinion to resolve this? — Bilorv (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary This is ridiculous. We use "born as" for legal names assigned shortly after birth, not for random names, legal or otherwise, that a person has been known as. We use "known as" for those. Newimpartial (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

With regards to your previous edit - can u just be nice to me please and stop being hostile? Calling someone's edit ridiculous is not constructive and u know it. You're the one accusing me of bad faith when u could have just calmly discussed the edit here 92.10.13.209 (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You are right that I was unnecessarily irritated when I called your edit "ridiculous" in my edit summary. Sorry.

The edit was, however, inappropriate, unsourced and counter to policy - as it remains. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Irrespective of her gender, her name at birth was not Emily. Saying "Born Emily..." would be incorrect. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edit template

Since issues about this have come up on the talk page, I propose the following editnotice(s):

• {{AmE}} in the form of {{amE|form=editnotice|expiry=indefinite}}
• An instance of {{editnotice}} that includes the following parameters:
  • expiry=indefinite
  • text=The author has previously published under other names and consensus is against inserting all of those names. Please see the talk page for more information and do not add all previous names without prior consensus.

Note that there is an editnotice here to this effect, but I added it in spite of an editing restriction that I had forgotten about. I have requested the template's deletion and am seeking prior consent to recreation per the restriction's requirements. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)