This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Links related to the 17 October 2022 jury trial in Alameda County, Califorinia.
Rorybowman ( talk) 12:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is the Alameda County mugshot of Rivers in hospital gown not posted here? Is it a policy issue, or it simply that no one has bothered? Rorybowman ( talk) 17:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
According to https://twitter.com/AirDhatu/status/1592673404200845312, the jury has found him guilty on all charges. 80.250.14.227 ( talk) 00:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Dansky writes:
I attended the closing arguments in the trial of Dana Rivers (a.k.a., David Warfield) on Monday, November 14. [...] The jury started deliberating on the morning of Tuesday November 15 and the verdict came down just before 4:00 p.m. that day - guilty on all counts: Murder in the first degree in the killings of Charlotte Reed, Patricia Wright, and Benny Wright and arson, with all special circumstances (particularly vulnerable victims, use of deadly weapons, etc.) being found to be true.
See https://karadansky.substack.com/p/closing-arguments-and-verdicts-in.
77.240.96.198 ( talk) 21:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm making three edits to bring the article in line with MOS:GID. First, the pronouns should consistently be "she/her," even when talking pre-transition. There was a good faith edit to use gender neutral language, but that doesn't really apply here. WP:DEADNAME is pretty clear on this.
Second, her deadname should be removed, as "pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name." Again, WP:DEADNAME is very clear on this. The only argument for notoriety pre-transition is that she was a popular teacher that received a grant and was on a school board. The oldest article about her is from 1999, after she changed her name.
Third, the clause in the intro, "a male identifying as a woman" should be removed. It's completely unnecessary.
One more edit I think should be done is remove the unnecessary sentence about penile inversion surgery and breast augmentation. That's more tabloid content than encyclopedia.. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 21:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
We need a reliable source for the birthdate. It's not in any source cited yet. Generally, an birthdate (especially an exact one) is considered private unless/until a reliable source publishes. So, something like a court database wouldn't qualify. I'm also perplexed why an editor who wants to keep a birth name private (which I agree with, since it's non-notable, not essential) but wishes to expose an exact birthdate, which is even less notable. What possible purpose is there in showing a person's *exact* birthdate? Wikipedia has millions of notable people who aren't famous. We shouldn't be publishing exact birthdates on every non-famous person, just because some random website happens to mention it. Lots of personal details can be found combing through court records. It's not our job to do this, or to repeat what some random site has done. Rather, we should just be following what reliable sources have done. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. Unfortunately, what's likely to happen, is somebody keeps re-adding it to Wikipedia, which other sources will repeat, and it will eventually be fully public, and we'll and up citing that. -- Rob ( talk) 04:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it still accurate to refer to Dana as a "transgender activist" in her description line? It seems to me that for the past few years, she is most known as being a murderer, not an activist. I do not want to make any changes without requesting feedback, but this seems a bit misleading to me as a description.
I realize that I am new to editing Wikipedia, so if policy is that people should be referred to as what they first made the news for vs. what they've made the news for in more recent years, I am eager to learn more! Codexica ( talk) 05:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I highly recommend to remove Reddux as a source. It is a fake news website, that is at least pretty inaccurate and leaves out important information on purpose. It writes highly misleading articles, in the least.
~~~
77.20.46.10 (
talk) 21:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The addition of "mass murderer" to the article and the change from "transgender advocate" to "transgender rights activist" was a politically motivated edit by an account named "Actually, TWAM".
Moreover, it does not seem accurate to describe her as still being an activist, as she is not, to our knowledge, currently involved in any form of activism. To state that she "is an American transgender activist" implies she is actively involved in activism, which has not been the case for years. - Lekale35 ( talk) 01:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious other's opinions, on using Kara Dansky as a source, re Camp Trans. Previously, I didn't use her, as the info was posted on her personal blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. Does the fact she wrote in an a book make her a valid source now. I'm not too worried about it, since Rivers' mere attendance at Camp Trans isn't contentious. But I think some statemetns by Dansky (see https://www.karadansky.com/state-v-dana-rivers-updates ) do go into contentious territory, and probably would need better sourcing than the blog or the book, if used to state facts regarding a living person. -- Rob ( talk) 21:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.
As the "activism" section is DR talking about her own case to the press, it is not a distinct subject from the section above. The sections should be combined and the activism heading removed unless there is something else to say. Compare Lynn Conway, who has a record of activism on behalf of transgender people other than herself. 67.180.143.89 ( talk) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
. 71.211.240.101 ( talk) 17:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Why does the Lede list her activism first and that she is a murderer second, when her murderer status is more noteworthy? Also why does the section "related articles" include "people who have been killed for being transgender" which does not apply, and not "transgendered people who have committed murder", which does apply. Dana Rivers is not the victim here; the people she murdered are the victims. 72.181.112.54 ( talk) 14:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems like it is a big part of her story from media coverage. I was going to add the below:
She was also an activist at Camp Trans, an annual protest outside the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival against the rule that only biological females could attend that women's music festival. [4] [5] [6] Bhdshoes2 ( talk) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. The Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source per WP:DAILYMAIL, because it has a
reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. The Toronto Sun is considered unreliable for any BLP reporting per a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard.
No-one here is getting special treatment. Per policy, unreliable sources do not count when determining weight. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, or 100 unreliable sources that assert something, if they're unreliable they do not count. As for the four extra publications that you've named but not linked, it's a little difficult to assess their reliability without having links to the articles in question, as reliable sources can often publish opinion articles that look like factual reporting, however of those three only Del Norte Triplicate seems to be reliable, though it has a very small distribution size. Could you link to the specific Del Norte article please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Links related to the 17 October 2022 jury trial in Alameda County, Califorinia.
Rorybowman ( talk) 12:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Why is the Alameda County mugshot of Rivers in hospital gown not posted here? Is it a policy issue, or it simply that no one has bothered? Rorybowman ( talk) 17:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
According to https://twitter.com/AirDhatu/status/1592673404200845312, the jury has found him guilty on all charges. 80.250.14.227 ( talk) 00:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Dansky writes:
I attended the closing arguments in the trial of Dana Rivers (a.k.a., David Warfield) on Monday, November 14. [...] The jury started deliberating on the morning of Tuesday November 15 and the verdict came down just before 4:00 p.m. that day - guilty on all counts: Murder in the first degree in the killings of Charlotte Reed, Patricia Wright, and Benny Wright and arson, with all special circumstances (particularly vulnerable victims, use of deadly weapons, etc.) being found to be true.
See https://karadansky.substack.com/p/closing-arguments-and-verdicts-in.
77.240.96.198 ( talk) 21:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm making three edits to bring the article in line with MOS:GID. First, the pronouns should consistently be "she/her," even when talking pre-transition. There was a good faith edit to use gender neutral language, but that doesn't really apply here. WP:DEADNAME is pretty clear on this.
Second, her deadname should be removed, as "pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name." Again, WP:DEADNAME is very clear on this. The only argument for notoriety pre-transition is that she was a popular teacher that received a grant and was on a school board. The oldest article about her is from 1999, after she changed her name.
Third, the clause in the intro, "a male identifying as a woman" should be removed. It's completely unnecessary.
One more edit I think should be done is remove the unnecessary sentence about penile inversion surgery and breast augmentation. That's more tabloid content than encyclopedia.. Sativa Inflorescence ( talk) 21:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
We need a reliable source for the birthdate. It's not in any source cited yet. Generally, an birthdate (especially an exact one) is considered private unless/until a reliable source publishes. So, something like a court database wouldn't qualify. I'm also perplexed why an editor who wants to keep a birth name private (which I agree with, since it's non-notable, not essential) but wishes to expose an exact birthdate, which is even less notable. What possible purpose is there in showing a person's *exact* birthdate? Wikipedia has millions of notable people who aren't famous. We shouldn't be publishing exact birthdates on every non-famous person, just because some random website happens to mention it. Lots of personal details can be found combing through court records. It's not our job to do this, or to repeat what some random site has done. Rather, we should just be following what reliable sources have done. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources. Unfortunately, what's likely to happen, is somebody keeps re-adding it to Wikipedia, which other sources will repeat, and it will eventually be fully public, and we'll and up citing that. -- Rob ( talk) 04:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Is it still accurate to refer to Dana as a "transgender activist" in her description line? It seems to me that for the past few years, she is most known as being a murderer, not an activist. I do not want to make any changes without requesting feedback, but this seems a bit misleading to me as a description.
I realize that I am new to editing Wikipedia, so if policy is that people should be referred to as what they first made the news for vs. what they've made the news for in more recent years, I am eager to learn more! Codexica ( talk) 05:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
I highly recommend to remove Reddux as a source. It is a fake news website, that is at least pretty inaccurate and leaves out important information on purpose. It writes highly misleading articles, in the least.
~~~
77.20.46.10 (
talk) 21:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The addition of "mass murderer" to the article and the change from "transgender advocate" to "transgender rights activist" was a politically motivated edit by an account named "Actually, TWAM".
Moreover, it does not seem accurate to describe her as still being an activist, as she is not, to our knowledge, currently involved in any form of activism. To state that she "is an American transgender activist" implies she is actively involved in activism, which has not been the case for years. - Lekale35 ( talk) 01:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious other's opinions, on using Kara Dansky as a source, re Camp Trans. Previously, I didn't use her, as the info was posted on her personal blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. Does the fact she wrote in an a book make her a valid source now. I'm not too worried about it, since Rivers' mere attendance at Camp Trans isn't contentious. But I think some statemetns by Dansky (see https://www.karadansky.com/state-v-dana-rivers-updates ) do go into contentious territory, and probably would need better sourcing than the blog or the book, if used to state facts regarding a living person. -- Rob ( talk) 21:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.
As the "activism" section is DR talking about her own case to the press, it is not a distinct subject from the section above. The sections should be combined and the activism heading removed unless there is something else to say. Compare Lynn Conway, who has a record of activism on behalf of transgender people other than herself. 67.180.143.89 ( talk) 16:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
. 71.211.240.101 ( talk) 17:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Why does the Lede list her activism first and that she is a murderer second, when her murderer status is more noteworthy? Also why does the section "related articles" include "people who have been killed for being transgender" which does not apply, and not "transgendered people who have committed murder", which does apply. Dana Rivers is not the victim here; the people she murdered are the victims. 72.181.112.54 ( talk) 14:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Seems like it is a big part of her story from media coverage. I was going to add the below:
She was also an activist at Camp Trans, an annual protest outside the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival against the rule that only biological females could attend that women's music festival. [4] [5] [6] Bhdshoes2 ( talk) 04:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. The Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source per WP:DAILYMAIL, because it has a
reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. The Toronto Sun is considered unreliable for any BLP reporting per a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard.
No-one here is getting special treatment. Per policy, unreliable sources do not count when determining weight. It doesn't matter if you have 1, 10, or 100 unreliable sources that assert something, if they're unreliable they do not count. As for the four extra publications that you've named but not linked, it's a little difficult to assess their reliability without having links to the articles in question, as reliable sources can often publish opinion articles that look like factual reporting, however of those three only Del Norte Triplicate seems to be reliable, though it has a very small distribution size. Could you link to the specific Del Norte article please? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 13:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)