Talk:Rachel Pollack

Capitalization

The "P" in her last name should be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.22.195 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 May 2005

Moved. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Transsexual?

Isn't Rachel Pollack a male-to-female transsexual? Shouldn't the article mention anything about that? 惑乱 分からん 16:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

She's written articles about them and is quite involved in transsexual rights. But as far as I know, she was born a woman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.22.195 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 16 April 2006

She's categorized as one, apparently. 惑乱 分からん 22:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Categorized as one" meaning as a transsexual woman? That's correct, although she's kept silent about it in recent years to focus on Kaballah and the Tarot. The article links to some of her trans-related writings, in which she talks about her own experience. Susan Davis 18:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's correct, it should be mentioned in the article. If incorrect, she should be removed from the list of trans authors. If it is a matter of public record, there isn't any good reason to leave it out. Rhialto (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about this after seeing a random comment on an article and made a quick search, this interview goes into some detail but i'm still uncertain about source guidelines. Czarnibog (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Needs NPOVing

Someone is obviously not a Pollack fan. Regardless of how one feels about Ms. Pollack's work, the critics did like her, whether or not the fans did (and sales figures would suggest they didn't) Either way it is NPOV to suggest that her run on Doom Patrol was a complete failure. Also, it is often McKeever who is blamed for the runs cancellation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.164.198 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 7 October 2006

Religion

The article describes her as a unorthodox Jew, but for some reason she's also in the Wiccan category. Does she combine elements of both faiths, did someone put her in the Wicca category by mistake, or did she leave the religious aspects of Judaism for Wicca? Some editing needs to be done to the article to make this clear. Right now it reads like she believes in Judaism but is in the Wicca category for some reason. Ash Loomis —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:23, 19 November 2007.

Rachel was raised a modern Orthodox Jew. She does not call herself Wiccan. I don't know where that idea came from. She honors and is an expert on all religions but has never defined herself as Wiccan. She is an expert on divination practices such as the tarot, I Ching and scrying. She is a member of the eclectic, liberal 'Woodstock Jewish Congregation' in New York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ding dong the witch is dead (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 December 2007

Original research much?

Some editors seem to have strong opinions and/or personal knowledge of the subject. There are some unencyclopedic details her (the dog, her cooking preferences, etc.). Maybe someone could try to find some reliable sources? Surely the people who seem to be personal friends of the subject could simply ask her for online references. Avt tor (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal info

The personal biography is now full of unsourced contentious material and material that is not written in a neutral style, regarding this transexuality issue. —Preceding unsiged comment added by 24.85.86.239 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The repeated inclusions of personal material are getting out of hand. I've just removed wildly inappropriate personal material. --Anniepoo (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Following more reinsertions of the same libelous material I've requested that this page be protected. --Anniepoo (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But her transsexuality should definitely be mentioned. It is important both a personal info (although i can understand people not wanting to mention it for only that reason) and her work. She has written on the subject, and it influences her fiction a lot (trans character pop up all the time).Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Anniepoo, for both removing unreferenced personal details and for adding references as well as an extensive list of publications. As far as I know, transsexuality is a major biographical factor and should be mentioned. Unfortunately this is a biography of a living person and accuracy is of paramount importance to cover our collaborative rear, as a courtesy and because people have been harassed and briefly detained because Wikipedia vandals carry the day. The implications are fortunately not the issue here, but biographical material in the article must be accompanied by a reliable source for the information. If you, dear reader, are uncertain about the usability of your source, go bug someone about it on his talk page. Such is the beauty of a collaborative environment. --Kizor 19:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been more insertions of unsourced, inappropriate personal material in this biography. The subject is, reasonably, discussing legal options to stop this nonsense. People have been more than harassed and briefly detained. People have been killed. What will it take to protect this page? 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 July 2008

The page can always be actually protected. If they are going as far as investigating legal action then it would seem like a good idea. Do you have any sources for that? (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC))

This is a talk page, not an article. Source rules are different. But I know the subject, and it's a pretty good informed opinion. Certainly she's (justifiably) upset. Some time ago she asked me for advice about how to proceed against the vandalism. At that time she was investigating her legal options. In response I suggested that she work with the wiki process. I doubt I'll counsel that again if this page isn't protected in the next 24 hours or so.

I'm deliberately not asking her now to avoid triggering the litigation rule. but also, frankly, I'm tired of calling friends up to tell them they've had their privacy invaded by bigots. I'm also tired of spending time and energy on this issue. One of the most wearing things about being transsexual is constantly fighting people who don't seem to have any legitimate reason to be intruding in one's life.

If this page can 'always be protected', then it is long since time that it WAS protected. The longer this goes on, the deeper the legal and moral hole Wikipedia digs itself into. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs) 02:35, 9 July 2008

Can I assume she has followed the advice at WP:LIBEL? Ultimately there is no way to stop a determined vandal (usually the best that can be done is reverting it as soon as possible) but it may be possible to ramp up the level of protection on the page to keep it down to a minimum, while trying to avoid hampering the edits of legitimate users - it would help if she has already contacted Wikipedia about this. I'll also ask for a few more eyes on the page (and other ideas on solutions). (Emperor (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

I assume this is all related to this edit? I don't understand that edit. Is she transsexual or not? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The point is, if there are no reliable sources to support such a claim then such a statement can't be added to the page as it violates WP:BLP. (Emperor (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

It took me five minutes to find page 147 of this book. I also found numerous independent-looking web sites. And here's a book with an essay by Ms. Pollack (which I'll admit I haven't read). So what's going on now? Of course the ridiculous edits with details, etc. are way off-base, and quoting surgery years may even be questionable (I haven't corroborated any of those) but it doesn't sound like those are what folks are taking issue with here. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

But what does page 147 say? She has written extensively on transgender issues so will turn up in Google searches but that may not be a sign of anything and they would need to be reliable sources. I did find her bio from the second book you mentioned [1] which seems to give the dates of her surgery and the background (although even if we could prove that I am unsure we'd need to include it) although it might be difficult to pin that down as a source as the bios on such volumes are often submitted by the contributor themselves and such biographies are often frowned on as not being independent. I do think it is worth mentioning if we can get a good source as it is a topic which clearly comes up in her work time and again and such information puts that into context (as might the bit about her being both male-to-female and a declared lesbian). As you say it would be helpful to know what her specific concerns about this are, which makes it difficult to address them properly but as it stands the insertion of the claim without reliable and independent sources is breaking WP:BLP, which is my concern. (Emperor (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Wait, what? You found the book that she contributed to but you don't consider it a reliable source? So you're actually removing reference to a trait about her that she admits to? What is the point of this whole thing? I think we're missing the point of WP:BLP which is in place to prevent the subjects of articles from rightfully getting angry about content regarding them, but you're removing something about the person that she is apparently quite proud of. And why shouldn't she be? Surely I'm missing something here. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To address your points: People write on transgender issues who aren't transgender so contributing to such a book isn't proof. Equally self-penned autobiographies (if that is what it is - problem is I don't know) are not independent enough on their own to use but it could certainly be handy as a backup to a better source. I haven't removed reference to anything concerned with this issue - I'm here to try and make sure we can steer a course through various conflicting opinions to reach a solution that is best for an article in an encyclopaedia and that means properly sourcing claims about things like sexuality (or other personal issues) and that means making sure everything is properly sourced and so far I haven't seen anything that is clearly a solid independent source (although The Testosterone Files might be, but I don't know what it actually says on page 147 - if anyone can drop in a quote that'd be handy). (Emperor (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Good resources on this clearly exist. I'll write a section for the article that deals with it not as a tabloid subject, but in the context she's presented it with relation to her own work. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay but edits like this almost make it sound as though it's bad to be transsexual. That's the vibe I'm getting here. Am I way off-base? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with that edit. As it is unproven in the article you can't add the category in. Claims about people's personal lives (including sexuality and medical issues) need to be relevant and well sourced. I'd argue it is the former, but not yet the latter. (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, Emp, I'm not getting this one. I feel like adequate sources for the statement that Ms. Pollack is a trans woman have been demonstrated already. The cite from The Testosterone Files alone should be sufficient, I think. It's not some tabloid, it's published by Seal Press, for pete's sake, with which I am familiar through my day gig as a purveyor of college textbooks, as they are maybe THE foremost source of information on transgender topics. If Ms. Pollack has libel issues, she needs to take it up with some print publishers first. Ford MF (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally in this this podcast she participated in, she is described as a "prolific trans writer". Ford MF (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the category with a note in the lede, mainly as something to hang the refs on. If there was a "personal life" section, it could plausibly go there instead, but there isn't. Ford MF (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that she isn't transgender or that it shouldn't be included here, just that it needs to be sourced (which the recent round of removed edits haven't been). The Testosterone Files may be good for a source - I simply asked what it says, as there is no preview on Google Books. I have no idea what her legal issues are and that isn't really my concern at the moment. As Phil Sandifer there are good sources and this can be written up in way that put things in context. As he is working on it I'd recommend see how that turns out. If is is properly sourced then the category can be added back in. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - if someone had done this in the first place then there wouldn't have been any major issues (although as I say I don't know what Rachel Pollack's specific concerns are but she has clearly mentioned it in relation to her work and it is relevant to what she works on so it is legitimate to mention it in the article and I can't see if it is worded and sourced properly that it can be considered libel, but perhaps someone would like to clarify what her concerns are about). (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

The line in The Testosterone Files says, "Transsexual science fiction writer Rachel Pollack has described transsexual identity as an experience of revelation." But actually, the Transgender Care book seems even more useful for bio information. Regardless, I haven't seen where anyone questions this issue. I think the concern here was over some of the more graphic vandalism edits to this article - and those I completely agree with removing. I simply think "we" went overboard in removing all references to Ms. Pollack being transsexual which she clearly is - and openly so. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is quite a good quote as it links it with more esoteric matters as well as her writing on the topic and using the theme in fiction. The Transgender Care bio should be handy for details and must have at least been 'approved' by her. I also don't think there is a problem with discussing it - the problem seems to be no one has used any sources. Whether that is the short bits of text that have been removed recently or the more extensive bios that have also been removed (compare that version with the next edit). The latter also has interesting information in that would be notable if it can be proved. That is the key we might know something is true but it has to be demonstratable especially on difficult and contentious areas like sexuality. If she openly discusses it then it shouldn't be hard to source it and it would certainly make it difficult to remove something neutrally written and well sourced (and I'm afraid that poor sourcing of contentious material can and does end up with a lot of material being removed, hopefully we should be able to get the relevant information in and sourced and work on further improving this article). (Emperor (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Legal issues

Any legal issues are for the Foundation to deal with, not editors. As long as we adhere to BLP & have our sources straight (Seal Press, for instance) then we're doing our jobs. Factual, encyclopedic information is not libel. I would vigorously oppose any POV claims, statements, or contexts on the subject of any trans status, but if the statement can be sourced, then it certainly is notable. --mordicai. (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Occult Tarot

An editor edited the heading Tarot to Occult Tarot. I checked with Rachel, she tells me that while some tarot is indeed occult, not all is, and that simply 'Tarot' is probably a better description of her work. The editor has made similar changes to a number of pages, so possibly they're pushing a NPOV agenda. Anyway, I've reverted it. Hopefully the original editor will leave a note here explaining the change. Anniepoo (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, simply reverting to "tarot" is still not adequate. What type of tarot did she write about? It should be specified that she focused on the divination, if not "occult" uses of the cards. Tarot, like Runes, has a cultural life other than its use in divination. I've made similar edits to articles treating Runes. On her website, Pollack did use the term "divination" so it's seems appropriate to say she's an expert on "tarot divination" http://www.rachelpollack.com/tarot/tarot.html Smiloid (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bio rachel.jpg

Is that really a free image? Doesn User:Anniepoo have permission from RP somehow? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked about this and even if someone gives you permission it is probably not good enough (as it is difficult to prove someone has given you permission to basically give away their copyright) and it is best to get either the subject or the person who took the picture, to upload it. (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Or contact WP:OTRS. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Commentary by Bornstein

I've just reverted this According to the book 'Gender Outlaw' by trans activist Kate Bornstein, Rachel paints the transsexual story into her tarot cards.

because a) it was unsourced (yes, it gives the book, but I don't have a copy of the book in front of me and I'm not going to go digging for that quote) b) it doesn't belong in that section, but probably in the influences section c) I'd rather have asked the contributor to give a proper city, but it was an IP

I have no problems with sourcing to a book instead of a specific page number. I'd return the claim to a more appropriate place. That said, I may have Gender Outlaw somewhere - I'll have a look tomorrow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:undue Undue Weight

We're beginning to have undue weight here -

Amelia Earhart went on a tour of the country stumping for municipalities to provide bond money and construct airports. The tour became a shambles because the sexist press reported on her rather than her message. Coverage would be about what she wore, that she was attractive, and so on and ignore anything to do with aviation.

Trans people often face a similar pattern - We often find ourselves being asked to give a discussion of some unrelated topic, and then facing questions during a Q&A session like 'how long have you felt like a woman?'

Here we have somebody who is notable as an author and happens to be transgendered. While her work has indeed been influenced by being trans, and while that's accordingly a legit topic to discuss, virtually every addition to this article is one more reference to her transsexuality. Since a great deal of offensive prurient interest is a common part of the experience of oppression by trans people, we should be particularly sensitive to repeating this pattern of oppression.

wp:undue Anniepoo (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I greatly agree with this sentiment. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bad argument. But as Pollack has written on trans topics, I don't think her own trans status is ungermane to her biography. Ford MF (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to see merit in this, I don't think WP is guilty of putting undue weight on her being trans. It is a notable piece of information, & deserves encyclopedic mention. Focusing the article on it would be a mess, & wrong, & I would oppose any prurient dwelling on the subject, but I think a mention is due. --mordicai. (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the comment on undue weight after a number of contributors added additional examples of mentions of transsexuality in her writing. The problem isn't a mention, it's that the validity of a mention is an excuse for the pattern I describe above. You should check the history before commenting. 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)

So if a mention--which is appropriate in this case--isn't a problem, why do you keep reverting? Ford MF (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

And there were refs for the lede, you yourself deleted them with the deliberately misleading edit summary "tightening up first paragraph", which is borderline disruptive behavior. Ford MF (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I had a look around at other articles specifically British gay performers where the homosexuality was part of the act and none of them mention the person's gender in the lead (see e.g. Graham Norton, Paul O' Grady and Julian Clary - the last one doesn't even mention his sexuality) and where it is mentioned it is relevant to what is being discussed. Which would suggest the best route is to leave out issues of gender in the lead but mention it if/where it is relevant (which for this would be in the "Themes" section, currently called "Influences" but themes seems more accurate. Something like "as a transwoman(REFS} she returns often to this theme...") - I think as we can source that she is a transwoman and that she has written on these themes (that annelawrence.com article being a good overview from Pollack herself) that it is relevant and worth inclusion and such an approach wouldn't give undue weight to the topic. An additional angle of attack could be expanding the other sections, as she has written a lot of material and expanding the various sections about her work would make the themes section less prominent. Rather than battling over a handful of words it might be best to reach a consensus here and then push forward with the rest of the article. (Emperor (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

I agree with you all points. It's only in the lede now because the article's kinda flimsy and there really isn't another place for it that doesn't essentially necessitate the creation of a "SHE IS TRANS!!" section, which would give it more undue weight than it already has. Ford MF (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I think the obvious place for it is where the themes are examined, as it is a piece of the jigsaw explaining where she is coming from and why such themes crop up but the fact only really needs mentioning in passing. It isn't a big deal but seems to have become one and its strikes me if we can come to some consensus then we can start moving things forward and not having to return to this time and time again. I have stated my opinion: it is worthy of mentioning if we can source it (which it appears we can) but only where it is relevant, which is the themes section where we already (rightly) discuss things like transgender issues, etc. (Emperor (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

I'd agree that it's appropriate to mention that she's trans in the section on trans influence. I reverted the addition in the lead because it's undue weight, not because it was unsourced. Since the source doesn't make any difference to the undue weight argument, lets move it to the section on trans influences. 18:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)

Sounds good to me. (Emperor (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

undid undo by User:April fool's Lass because they didn't put any note about why they were undoing or comment here and that last edit was, per above, following at least some rough concensusAnniepoo (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd have undone it if I'd have spotted it first. (Emperor (talk) 03:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

I just undid a change because

1. It's wp:undue weight on her being trans
2. It's wp:blp unsourced gossip in a BLP article
3. It's wp:privacy a list of her friends. While it's arguably notable that she's widely admired in the trans community, I'm not sure how a list of friends who are prominent trans activists supports that. I acknowledge it's reasonable to note in Frank Sinatra that he had lots of mobster friends, if one can make a list of such friends and demonstrate actions that imply friendship. But that's notable mostly because it's suprising and implies something. It's unsuprising that an author from a tiny community knows advocates for that community.
4. It's incorrect. Anne Ogborn doesn't have an E on the end of her last name. {{cite drivers license | name=Anne Ogborn |state=california | inspected=11-24-2008 | points=0 | donor=yes | absurdity=high}}
5. I don't know if it's even true. While it's obviously true for that editor, it's original research based on a sample of one. Rachel's not written much of relevance to the trans community of late, and the trans community has a high turnover.

Anniepoo (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable - it is an odd statement to tag onto the lead (which should be a summary or introduction) and doesn't seem worthy of including in the bulk of the article (as no sources or further information are given and there are notability issues it makes me wonder "so what?"). Again I'd have removed this if I'd spotted it first.

I'd also question a couple of other edits:

• This just seemed tagged on the end and doesn't add anything. If it is correct (and no sources are provided) then it would be better in the essays section of the bibliography unless anyone has any other details or information which might add to it.
• This seems awfully "fannish" and, while it isn't connected with issues of undue weight, it hardly seems the kind of thing that we'd include in an encyclopaedia. Perhaps if there was an interview where she expressed an interest in writing more comics then we could source a quote but the opinion of fans is another "so what?" issue (unless it became newsworthy in its own right - like people picketing the publishers offices. Until then....).

I'll delete those two later unless anyone comes up with a better way of dealing with them. (Emperor (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

I did a half-measure. The weasel-worded part about "fans clamoring" had to go, so I got rid of it. I also don't think it's that important that she wants to do more comics, but I didn't delete that part yet. It's unsourced, though, so we can remove it at any time. That other addition you mention probably would be better moved to the bibliography. I just did some copy-editing to it as it was incorrectly formatted. As for the undue weight, I'm inclined to agree that putting her transsexuality in the lead section overemphasizes it. That's not to say that we should whitewash (pinkwash?) it entirely. I think it is an important context in which to consider her work. However, we're not the ones who should be considering it. Do too much of that and we're falling into WP:OR territory. It's better to link to reliable sources where this is discussed. Cheers, GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly - it is mentioned in comics and discussed in more detail (and, more importantly, in context) in the influences section. If we can get the article to a B then the push on aiming for higher quality assessments then the lead will need expanding and will have to be included in it then but the longer lead will also allow us to not give it undue weight and put it into context as one of the themes that recur in her work. I also agree we should try and avoid original research - what the article needs at the moment are plenty more sources. (Emperor (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

I just reverted an edit by User:Scent of jasmine because it was a steamy passage taken out of context from one of Pollack's books. It's certainly undue weight. It's a strange choice of quotes - it doesn't seem to do anything other than that Pollack once wrote about a transsexual woman's experience post surgery, and it's oddly cut so it lacks context - in the original it's a description of a transsexual woman's reaction to SRS, rather than a pornographic passage. Certainly it doesn't belong in this article.

I've also reverted an edit about her "linguistic skills" - the list is, I believe, incomplete, and seems to lack notability unless it can be tied to her writing. It's also unsourced. Anniepoo (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Anniepoo's edits. :-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, I put her birth name back into the article. I don't agree that it's an invasion of privacy, as suggested by the removing editor. I did, however, do a quick spot check to see if this was common practice in other articles about transgendered people before putting it back in. My observation is that the broader consensus is to include the birth name of the transgendered individual. This is not to say that we absolutely have to do so here within this article, but in general the practice does not seem to have been a source of much controversy. As always, dissenting opinions are welcome. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the practice is widespread is that this particular form of bigotry is widespread in society. As a trans person myself, I've gone to the extreme length of facing jail rather than give out my birth name, but all of us have to choose our battles.

The usual reason someone wants to know the slave name of a transsexual woman is that they can use this as a way of publicly humiliating the person. A famous case of this was the Gwen Araujo case, where the defense very effectively managed to make Gwen out as some sort of sexual predator by consistently referring to her as 'Eddie'. I've certainly been subjected to the same sort of thing personally.

Trans people are a small minority. Many of us have hard lives and don't have the excess energy to put into as non survival directed an activity as wiki editing.

Persisting in a bigoted practice because it's been commonly done in the past seems a poor way to proceed. It seems better practice for Wikipedia to extend a little human dignity to the people described in it's pages.

Anniepoo (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While not being opposed to their name being added there is a presumption in favor of privacy. This came up over James Robinson (comics) when there was a conflict between someone claiming to be Robinson and an alleged family member (I don't think we ever resolved that issue). If the individual's details aren't well known then they can have the details removed (so someone could ask to have their marriage details removed unless the marriage was in all the papers or they've blogged about it). Obviously the main reason this comes up is identity theft but it can clearly be an issue in these sorts of circumstances. It would be worth trying to find out Pollack's feelings on this, rather than just assuming what they might be (as I have read plenty of articles where transsexuals freely discuss their pre-operative identity), but we should err on the side of caution. (Emperor (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for responding, Anniepoo. I now understand better where you're coming from. I'm sorry that you've had to endure such persecution. It's interesting that you mention Gwen Araujo because that was one of the articles which I looked at before making the decision to revert. Her birth name does appear in the article, albeit only once and near the bottom of it. But what takes place in one article does not dictate what happens in another; each article must arrive at its own consensus. It's not that important to me to include the birth name in this article, nor do I feel it adds that much to our understanding of Rachel Pollack. My primary concern was that its removal seemed to be against the spirit of "Wikipedia is not censored". However, Emperor has a good point about the presumption in favor of privacy policy (something which I hadn't looked at recently, if ever). So, I won't continue to revert it. Thanks for being willing to talk about it and I apologize if my action was offensive or caused you anguish. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually more germaine in Gwen's case since it was a major issue in the conduct of the trial. I'd have simply said her mother changed her name posthumously and left the old name out. The page is locked, as well.

Similarly it'd be absurd, if George W. Bush reassigned tomorrow, to suggest not using her previous name- she'd be a public person under it. On the other hand, using that name to refer to her in the present tense would indeed be offensive.

Re Pollacks feelings on the matter, she'd be offended. She's expressed that to me personally.

Further, African American rappers can get away with using the word nigger. I most certainly cannot. Trans women are not under some requirement to hide their previous lives in order to make nons comfortable. Nons, as the oppressor class, are indeed expected to avoid offense. Deliberately using a trans woman's slave name as a way to say she's an imposter falls in that catagory.

interestingly there's an entry in the MOS: "# A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference. Nevertheless, avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (e.g., she fathered her first child)."

MOS:IDENTITY

the MOS is probably better, IMHO, for a general guideline than the looser guide I suggest above, simply because it's foolish to assume there won't be people pushing an agenda who would abuse a loophole to 'out' every trans person. Anniepoo (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The MOS link is great! I think that covers it quite clearly. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[This page] by composer Wendy Carlos discusses the problem more articulately than I can here.Anniepoo (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Weasel worded fans clamoring

GentlemanGhost deleted some obvious puffery (see above) about fans clamoring for a meeting of wonder woman and coagula. An IP undid this edit. I'm redoing it - it was a good edit, the IP didn't explain the revert.Anniepoo (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This also comes up on Coagula. (Emperor (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC))

fatigue

I have to confess, I'm beginning to get tired of this. You all have infinite time to do this sort of trans baiting, but when I suggest that somebody with more technical wiki skills than I deal with the persistant and obvious sock puppets, I'm told you're too busy.

It was actually Rachel who first pointed out that this is the nature of much trans women's oppression - a trans woman comes to a place. There's an emotionally draining and time and energy exhausting battle to acheive acceptance on institutional terms. The trans woman eventually 'wins', but by this point they have become the focus of a polarized organization, they have made enemies, and the space has become emotionally uncomfortable for them - they've lost socially, and/or spent time and energy for no productive purpose, just to survive the bigots.

You're replicating that here - you're baiting a trans woman, making other trans women (we do this for each other when we can) spend their time and energy in a childish battle of wits and willingness to spend energy. That this is, after all the energy put into this, a pretty skeletal article demonstrates what I say.

Anniepoo (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to GentlemanGhost for responding promptly to this with action. Anniepoo (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I can't guarantee the end result, but it's a start. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am busy but have been asking around to see if the case was solid enough not to be thrown out on a technicality (as there are many dozens of WP:SPAs it is a big task to assemble them all and I'd not want to waste what time I have if there is a better approach). Thankfully GentlemanGhost has gone on point on this and I'll lend what help is required.

Also a note on motivation for whoever this is: From edit summaries it appears this might be an example of "over-enthusiastic" "activism" (in the way some gay activists felt it was important to go around outing people). Of course, that could just be their "cover" but I thought it a point worth making. Technically, whatever the motivation it is still violating WP:BLP and consensus, so it is persistent vandalism, which should, hopefully, mean we can address the problem and get it sorted out. I'm afraid though that this does take some time - to establish patterns, do the research and get the wheels rolling - not helped by the sheer scale of the potential issue (and that is only on the handful of articles that seem to be the core of this problem). Fingers crossed we should have some progress soon. (Emperor (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC))

There are some problems on here. Whether Pollack be transgendered or not, the biography should be about her career as a writer. She is a successful writer and her works are what is important. Sexual or gender identity is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AND NONE OF OUR BUSINESS. Her Judaism is important to know about since Jewish values and Kabbalah have influenced her writings. Jewishness is not an ethnic group as AnniePoo has called it, but a religio cultural group. There are Jews from many countries and racial backgrounds such as white European Jews, black African Jews, Chinese Jews e.t.c Pollack's Jewish identity is important to be on her wikipedia bio. Transgendered or not status is not necessary and is invasive. Wendy Carlo is irrelevant to any discussion of Rachel Pollack. I think there should be more of the article devoted to her work for human rights. Being raised an Orthodox Jew has influenced her work for social justice. She has used the idea of Tikkun in her works. Her fiction works are always touching on the need for Tikkun.

I don't know if belonging to (PERSONAL INFO REMOVED) is relevant to post on here or not. The Rabbi of that congregation has greatly influenced Pollack with his Torah teachings. I don't know if that is too personal for posting or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.230.2 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed some personal info here. I'd say the name of her local synagogue would be personal info. Anniepoo (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

I reverted an unsourced edit by 156.110.130.194 and they put it right back, so I've just reverted again. Since this has many of the signs of our old sockpuppeteer. Anniepoo (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiccan?

I note that she's currently placed in the category of 'American wiccans'. The word 'wicca' does not occur at all in the article. Does either Tarot or Kabbalah (or both) justify her inclusion in this category? Valetude (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rachel Pollack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509155406/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/rp_tempagy.htm to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/rp_tempagy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201074405/http://worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html to http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Pollack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529061952/http://www.techgnosis.com/gaiman.html to http://www.techgnosis.com/gaiman.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rachel Pollack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/archetypal.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727081855/http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/the-story-behind-the-child-eater-by-rachel-pollack to http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/the-story-behind-the-child-eater-by-rachel-pollack

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Someone has just added the image request. The article once had an image, it's been removed for copyright, and I couldn't figure out how to get around the demand that Rachel personally upload the image. She's not very computer oriented, and it just didn't happen.

I'd be happy to add her publicity headshot, but it's already been removed once.

Advice?

Anniepoo (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Deadnaming

Wikipedia really does need a separate "WP:DEADNAME" policy, rather than it being a sub-section of "Changing Names" in the general Manual of Style. But anyway, as per the manual, Pollack was non-notable prior to her name change, which means that there is no reason to deadname her in this article. I have already removed the birth name. Much of the conversation on her "transsexuality" back in 2006 reflects outdated assumptions, understandings, and knowledge about trans identity — specifically that sex is assigned rather than immutable. Even Twitter has a policy on it. Twitter. KermitO (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems her entry has been re-edited to re-deadname her. I for one would love to see the deadname removed. 2603:8000:F301:C8FD:E19A:C5DA:14E1:EB21 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Funny. I just read a book with a story by "Richard A. Pollack" in it. Based just on that, I probably have a more comprehensive understanding of the author's work than you or any of the other people whinging on here. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)