![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. - Raul654
I started the article and tried to make it neutral. It includes a sensitive topic. It is beneficial to discuss changes and try to find consensus on controversial elements of the article. Topjur01 ( talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Prior to transitioning, (i.e., when born, then growing up as a kid, then swimming on the men's teams, etc.), I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included.This has been answered. Note that this article already does discuss Thomas's early life, and does without mentioning the name Thomas was using at that time, as per guidelines. If any one of the three editors had thought that
Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct?as you seem to think they do, they could have deleted that section. But they didn't. No one has, so it appears that your objections that information about her pre-transition life should not be deleted is a disagreement you are having with nobody. (And your disagreement with the name issue has been thoroughly addressed.) Egsan Bacon ( talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
She won 2nd place in Ivy League swimming competitions at the college level. If you look up the records, the only way to verify it is if you know her birth name. Otherwise, there is zero way of proving that those accomplishments did or did not happen. Getting a 2nd place medal at the collegiate level is "notable". Just because nobody chose to write an article about her past accomplishments is another story.
Why is a woman's maiden name published? For example, if you read the article "George Washington", Martha Washington is listed as "Martha Dandridge", but 99% of the people in the world if you say the name Martha Dandridge would not know who you are talking about, but would know who you are talking about if you say "Martha Washington". There is definitely a redirect article to "Martha Washington" from "Martha Dandridge, and the article definitely says "Born Martha Dandridge June 2, 1731[1]" And she was definitely NOT notable BEFORE she married George Washington, and she would never have been notable if she had not married George Washington. Why has this practice been standard and acceptable since the beginning of Wikipedia, February 2003 for Martha Washington's Article and July 2002 for George Washington's article? That sounds "sexist" to me. That you have one set of standards for women and another set of standards for "men who transition to women". If they are truly "women", then they should be held to the same EXACT standards as women have been held to since the beginning of Wikipedia (and is current today), to include all histories of their names from birth to the end of their life. Once a person is notable to have a Wikipedia article about them, then basic information, like their name on their birth certificate is standard knowledge. Not to mention that she would not even make the front page if she had not transitioned, not to mention that she would not have won any of the swimming events she had won if she competed against men. 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.76.144 ( talk)
Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It is silly not to include the birth name which may still be the legal name of the person
Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm very confused by this as well. The argument being made is that Lia's personal feelings trump objective reality - that is, factual information. That seems like a very odd position for an Encyclopedia. Quoting Wikipedia's definition of Encyclopedia "An encyclopedia (American English), encyclopædia (archaic spelling), or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline.[1] Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries that are arranged alphabetically by article name[2] or by thematic categories, or else are hyperlinked and searchable by random access. Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[2] Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.[3][4][5][6]"
Further, Lia appears to recognize 1/1/2020 as her rebirthday. Hence, any reference prior to that time should reference factual information. This is not meant to harm,
Does Wikipedia intend to change its definition from that of an encyclopedia?
Here is a Wikipedia entry with similar factual circumstances. Lia Thomas perceives herself as female although objectively male. Yet you do not list her male name. Rachel Dolezal perceives herself as black, although objectively is white. Logically, the forms of argument are the same: Person A perceives themselves as X, different from objective observation.
Yet Wikipedia treats the two people differently:
"Nkechi Amare Diallo (/nɪˈkeɪtʃiː əˈmɑːreɪ diːˈɑːloʊ/; born Rachel Anne Dolezal, November 12, 1977), commonly known as Rachel Dolezal[fn 1] (/ˈdoʊləʒɑːl/;[9] is an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite having been born to white parents. In addition to falsely claiming black ancestry, she also falsely claimed Native American descent.[10] She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president."
Facts are real. Logic is real. Thus we see Wikipedia is inconsistent in its treatment of individuals and of facts.
kbachler ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
personal feelingsrather than being part of
objective realityis a WP:FRINGE view, in the context of the reliable sources on the topic. By contrast, the idea that there is some kind of "racial identity" equivalent to gender identity, and that a person can therefore be "transracial" as a parallel to being transgender, is equally unsupported and is equally a WP:FRINGE view. You may hold the minority view that transgender identity and transracial identity are equivalent, but your view is not supported by reliable sources and is therefore not part of
objective realityas we know it.
ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATION, Wikipedia is based on the factual information as reported in independent, reliable sources. You state that
One can only change identity moving ahead, but the great mass of reliable sources does not agree with your
perceptionas an
individual, whereas MOS:GENDERID represents a broad, community consensus based on the participation of hundreds of editors over many years. Since community consensus aligns with the sources, your political judgements of
opinion, information, factand
falsehoodare irrelevant. Your judgement that the
ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATIONconcerning transgender identity and "transracial" identity is
the sameconflicts with all available, reliable sourcing, so Wikipedia will continue to ignore your unsourced opinion. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants to state the actual facts of Lia Thomas, her name at birth... We don't! Thank you for your time, goodbye. -- Pokelova ( talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
factsand
falsehoods. This won't lead anywhere you want to go, I believe. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Topjur01,
Very recently sixteen of her teammates issued a letter to various media organizations regarding how "...Biologically, Lia holds an unfair advantage over competition in the women’s category, as evidenced by her rankings that have bounced from #462 as a male to #1 as a female". This has been reported by RS media, such as [1] with headline stating, "Sixteen Penn swimmers say transgender teammate Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete".
Just a suggestion. 108.34.231.7 ( talk) 12:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion [...] are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Beccaynr ( talk) 06:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Beccaynr ( talk) 07:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Mostly revert -- It doesn't seem like anyone on the talk page agrees with you (it is not a rumour or gossip that the letter contained this statement), but for the avoidance of doubt, it may be clearer if it is left as a quotation, but this Talk page includes diffs of a previous disputes by two other editors over the inclusion of this content. I also agree that including contentious claims that reliable sources have for whatever reason failed to verify seems problematic per WP:BLP policy. So I encourage you to self-revert and let's consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard for a wider discussion instead. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 07:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men's team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women's deck.I've started a section below about these figures, and there are directly quoted. SkylabField ( talk) 07:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle) in men’s competition to the top-ranked swimmer in women’s competition ... Thomas still holds the top time in the country in the 200-yard freestyle[2] Did she have the top time previously but then slipped down to 5th? Swimming world also quotes a seperate petition which claims 462 -> 1 in the 200, and 65 -> 2 in the 500:
Lia has gone from being ranked #462 in the country in the men’s 200 yard freestyle, to #1 in the women’s 200 yard freestyle. She has gone from being #65th in the men’s 500 yard freestyle to being #2 in the women’s 500 yard freestyle.
The 22-year-old had previously competed for the university as [deadname] for three years and was ranked No.462 in the NCAA(it's not very hard to get around newspaper paywalls these days...). I think Wendy Murphy is an opinion columnist, so we probably shouldn't use that, though: [3].
I changed the term "female swimmer" to the more biologically correct term "collegiate women's swimmer" According to Merrriam-Webster's Dictionary a female is "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" [4] which a transgender woman is not. The Cambridge dictionary provides a similar definition. [5] Bluesfan86 ( talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section "transgender status and swimming," change "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and one transgender man transitioning from female to male (without hormones), Iszac Henig" to "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man (transitioning from female to male without hormone therapy)." Tayuro ( talk) 06:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
✅ Done. Thanks for the suggestion! - TenorTwelve ( talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under “swimming” Thomas is quoted as swimming for “Penn State” which is a different university than the “University of Pennsylvania”. 107.127.49.142 ( talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
If someone with the permissions could please change this to “member of the LGBTQ+ population” or similar, I would appreciate it. 2601:600:9A80:2360:4033:BA26:FE3F:74C6 ( talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is written not reflecting the individual’s current gender identity. This needs to be rewritten. 71.121.252.121 ( talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the pronouns and do not use the dead name. It is Lia, not (Redacted). And her pronouns are she/her. 92.247.187.191 ( talk) 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
... 80.43.94.149 ( talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
we must get the article right.Beccaynr ( talk) 06:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The article states Gov. Desantis “misgendered” Lia and then provides the following quote, “…a male identifying as a woman.”
If “male” refers to Lia’s biological sex and Desantis settlement included, “identifying as a woman”, then how did Desantis “misgender” her? 136.49.95.71 ( talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,” and criticized the NCAA for failing to protect its female athletes.I think we should alter the misgendered verbiage to say:
During a March 22 press conference, Florida governor Ron DeSantis incorrectly described Thomas as "a male identifying as a woman" and declared second-place finisher...This would be more consistent with the RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
References
In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,”(emphasis added). Misgendering is a paraphrase of DeSantis making this incorrect statement and links to relevant encyclopedic content. Context from earlier in the paragraph includes:
In February 2022, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, featured Thomas in a campaign advertisement asserting that "Women's sports are for women, not men pretending to be women", which was described by CNN as "a transphobic trope belittling trans women".( source). Beccaynr ( talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Misgenderedis a tricky word that has some undertones. That' kind of like if an RS said "these comments were racially charged" and we wrote "these comments were racist". There some words, like misgendered and racist, you just don't use when paraphrasing. I think using incorrectly, like my proposition above, is probably the most neutral thing to do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial.This part of the section reflects my sense about including the wikilink:
It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate.Beccaynr ( talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I have found two reliable sources discussing Ms. Thomas's ranking in swimming, comparing her ranking when she [swam for the Men's Swim Team] to her current ranking [on the Women's Swim Team]:
Lia Thomas competed in the men's division, in 2018-19. There, she ranked 554th in the 200-yd freestyle, and she is now fifth in the event this year. Furthermore, in the 500-yd freestyle, Thomas was 65th in the country. Now, she ranked first place in the event this year. Finally, in the 1650 freestyle, she is now eighth in the nation, as opposed to 32nd in the men's division.
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men's team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women's deck.
Some points:
SkylabField ( talk) 07:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The number isn't 462 -> 1. It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle)This is incorrect, they are not contradictory, and I have made it explicit why in the article. The Swimming World piece is quoting statistics for her final races in March 2022 in which she came 5th; if you look at the article as it was published in February via archive.org, the numbers were different (they quoted 554 -> 1, actually), and then updated after her races. The rankings don't contradict each other and the rankings in the letter were probably accurate at a time; she probably was 462nd in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the men's team and we know she was 1st in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the women's team, and other reliable sources -- e.g. Axios (see its RSP entry) and The Australian (see its RSP entry) -- were happy to quote that in their own voice. So I think it's fine as it's worded as of writing this comment. Endwise ( talk) 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your good faith edits. Regarding the 462-1 statistic, can we mention that it has been disputed? Source [1] - TenorTwelve ( talk) 07:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
"462 to 1" appears to be misleading because it does not refer to a specific race, and two outlets uncritically parroting the claim does not make it less misleading. I think the entire quote from the letter should be removed from the article, and the reliably-sourced statistics published in sections about her career. If secondary sources were paying critical attention to the letter, I would have a different view. But here, I think WP:SCANDAL/ WP:BLP applies - it is a poorly-sourced sensationalist claim, so it should not be included. Beccaynr ( talk) 10:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Something's not right here. The swimmingworldmagazine article says "During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19..." But you can see clearly here that she competed on the men's team in the 2019-20 season
Are the rankings quoted in the article really from 2018-19, or are they really from 2019-20? This is a significant difference because
In my opinion, unless we can find a reliable and consistent source for her rankings in these particular years, this information should be removed from the article.
- Nate Biggs ( talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
References
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-swimmer-trans-ncaa-b2042715.html Xx236 ( talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Her height being 6’1 is not accurate, she is 5’8 86.6.92.66 ( talk) 08:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Marsha Blackburn mentioned Lia in the Jackson hearing as a "biological male." Presumably this means she hasn't had bottom surgery. I'm very surprised that we can't turn to her wikipedia article to verify the truth or falsity of Blackburn's claim. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:5329:2995:AF03:6699:1569 ( talk) 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
and you can't change your genderis somewhere in the dense Venn overlap of unsourced POV opinion and ideology. It's a good thing nobody is trying to have this reflected in article space. I doubt you even have a RS for Lia's chromosomes - and don't misgender her, please, even on Talk. That is UNCIVIL and violates WP:BLP principles. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The "Public debate" section of this article is getting unwieldy, so much so it's threatening to overwhelm what is supposed to be a biographical article. It's time to exercise some editorial discretion about which reactions to include instead of including the opinions of every single person with a WP article that chooses to weigh in. People involved in the swimming world make sense, as do the various governors, but if there's a glaringly obvious cut it's Joe Rogan. A podcaster. Really? Anyone can be a podcaster or Youtuber, it's not anything special. He has no prior connection to college swimming. He's not in any position to pass or sign legislation. He's just a guy who likes to give his opinion about stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon ( talk • contribs)
@
Newimpartial: reverted
[13] my edit without explanation changing the known_for infobox description from First openly
transgender athlete to win an
NCAA Division I national championship
to Athletic achievements as a
trans woman
.
Thomas is not primarily known for winning NCAA Division 1. She is primarily known for winning swimming competitions as a transgender athlete, not specifically winning the NCAA championship. My revision is more accurate to what RS has identified her notability to be. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Athletic achievements as a trans woman. How is that not translating Thomas's success as a transgender athlete? The one you reverted to is this:
First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship. The one I'm advocating for is the "(stable) shortdesc" Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Newimpartial's preferred description is too many characters to be a short description. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, so the larger public debate probably should be minimized, at least in the infobox, in favor of a focus on her accomplishments as an athlete. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
She was already well-known in the media before her NCAA victory. She is known for her successes as a trans athlete, not one race on one day in particular; the infobox as it's written is far too narrow. I'm not sure if this field in the infobox is even needed though. Endwise ( talk) 03:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Most of the content to the article was added before her win. Sizewise, the article is almost three times as big today than it was on March 16, the day before her championship win. (35,362 bytes vs 12,037 bytes) Here's what her article looked like then. There wasn't very much about her athletic achievements at the time. The section on her college swimming career hadn't even been written yet. Only one race is mentioned, and it was a race where she finished sixth. There's nothing weird at all at saying an athlete is best known for a single superlative performance, especially when it's also a first. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Status and achievements as a transgender athlete. This would accompany all her athletic acheivements as well the public debate, which is her primary call to notability, as many editors have pointed out, she was notable prior to any achievements, including her NCAA championship. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
the primary vehicleof sensationalism. The infobox is prominent in search results, including the "known for" field, so this seems to be another reason for caution. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I will add my thoughts: I support "First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship" as it currently stands. Prior to her win, I think mentioning her accomplishments as a transgender athlete may have been appropriate. She was already notable, but with her championship, that is a jump in notability and the award is notable in and of itself. That is what I support for now. That may change if Thomas ends up at the Olympics and the wording could be reassessed. - TenorTwelve ( talk) 02:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team, particularly by the coverage after her NCAA win. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should Joe Rogan's comments be mentioned under debate [14]? X-Editor ( talk) 02:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Opening duplicate discussions wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. Intentionally forking discussions may be interpreted as forum-shopping or canvassing.In the interests of avoiding confusion, this one should be hatted. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 03:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
A quote by Supreme Court nominee Brown on this page is far from being part of Lia Thomas’ story. It seems Wikipedia is pushing their own version of history. Presenting a quote taken out of context to push trans ideals on its readers. Wiki’s are about the truth right? Then don’t add in your personal views. 2603:6081:5443:C1CA:F9D7:87DB:47A9:BBD9 ( talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@
Rab V and
Endwise: could we stop the edit war, and discuss the issue of the swim rankings please? There does seem to be some merit for what Rab V is saying. The NY Times piece that has been the centerpiece of this edit war seems to be an opinion piece, and not factual reporting. It also The NY Times piece directly cites Swimming World as the source of rankings used. While this could be used, it would need to be done with the qualifier per
WP:RSOPINION.
I've tried searching for other sources, excluding those that reference in some way the rankings of Swimming World, and came up with an article in The Independent. Unlike the NY Times piece, this does appear to be a report in which they state that Swimming World's statistics may be unfair and misleading, due to Lia's best categories changing post transition. They also go into detail averaging her times against her peers, both pre and post transition, by directly assessing the NCAA records for the last six years of competition. They make note that Lia's best competition categories changed post-transition, with her endurance levels decreasing and her best events shifting from the 1000 and 1650 yard freestyle to the 200 and 500 yard freestyle post-transition.
There may be other articles that may be of more relevant use here for factual reporting. Unfortunately my own lack of familiarity with sports reporting is hindering my search for them. Hopefully you two, or someone else here who is familiar with sports reporting can find other relevant sources. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Struck part about NY Times piece being an opinion. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
When Ms. Thomas entered women’s meets, she rose substantially in national rankings.the word
rankedis hyperlinked to Swimming World. The subsequent text is near verbatim copied from the hyperlinked Swimming World article. That is one common way that news organisations cite third party sources.
The Independent compiled a dataset of swim times for all top 8 NCAA women's finishers over the last six years of competition in various events. 2020 was excluded because all NCAA championships were cancelled that year due to the pandemic.and their rankings differ significantly from those reported by NY Times/Swimming World. How do you reconcile the two different statistics? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
this was just announced, regarding elite swimming competition. That report also contains links to other perhaps pertinant articles that may provide useful input for this article. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, in this edit I removed material about FINA's new ruling in the "public debate" section that was duplicated in the "swimming career" section. The material exclusively about FINA and not Lia Thomas I moved over to the article on FINA. Let's not make this article a WP:COATRACK for the broader topic of the debate about the participation of transgender women in women's sports. If it's not about Lia Thomas, can we keep it in Transgender people in sports, or in this case for FINA's ruling, extended discussion about the ruling in FINA? Endwise ( talk) 07:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest using something other than she to reduce confusion. He, they, or something else especially in the first paragraph. 2603:7080:4D01:9540:8559:AE8D:4927:7062 ( talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.That is why we refer to her as she throughout the article, so there is no confusion about her gender identity. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(This post is blatantly one sided. It needs significant editing to eliminate antagonistic rhetoric) Petemcl99 ( talk) 17:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".Cullen328 ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
1.I think, that on the beginning it should be written that Lia was born as a biological male or at least mention that she is transgender. Maybe: "Lia's assign at birth as male"? Or maybe right on the beginning :" transgender person"? Or something like that. It will help some readers to understand the next phrase: "She competed on the university's men's swim team from 2017 to 2020". Humor ("Daddy! Why this girl was swimming in the men's team?"). Remember, this information comes before it is mentioned that this is a transgender person.
2.In any article about any other public figure who legally change the name (married, nick name etc) there is a note about previous name. Many of the movie stars change name before become famous, but we still include the previous name. Maybe: "Knows previously as..." or something like that. I understand privacy concerns, but this is Wikipedia. We collect the knowledge. I saw the comments: "everybody knows that Lia was previously known as X". I do not know that. Do I have to know? Personally? I do not. But we can not dictate what someone should think. Maybe someone in 50 years will like to know. This is the reason of having encyclopedia. You look for the facts that you do not know.
3.I think that article is inconsequent. It was said: we do not add the birth name/deadname because that person was not known in that time, but we still add information on Lia's career when Lia was 5. We address her "She" in relation to time, when even Lia did not use that pronoun to herself. And as we know gender identity" is is: "the personal sense of one's own gender".
4. You mention many times Manual of style/Gender identity. Yes, but those are guidelines. And they can be wrong in that particular case. WADR: Remember, This is Wikipedia. We need to leave the interpretation of facts to the reader. As long as you want to be neutral and not to "Mind Shape" the readers in your own way. Pnarkiew ( talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for explanations. I understand. I agree to disagree. DanielRigal I am sorry but what make you think that term "biogical male" is offensive? Its not my intention to offend anybody so do not impose on me something that is not a truth. Was Lia assign as male at birth? Yes. Did Lia make a decision in highschool about her gender identity? Yes. It is written in that very article. I did not say anything that is not a historical fact. Pnarkiew ( talk) 01:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
biological maleis an expression of POV and comes across to many as a dog whistle, whether intended that way or not. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
So.. Is that offensive or POV? And why historical fact is POV? Every single opinion is POV. That is why we are sharing different POV to see better.But anyway. I do not want to be a troll. Agree to disagree. Have nice day Pnarkiew ( talk) 12:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not looking for any support from any group. Just sharing my thoughts and my POV. I am just a simple man trying to make my way through the galaxy. Pnarkiew ( talk) 16:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is missing information pertaining to the birth demographics of this person. The reason it is not included is because of the push for gender identity politics. The policy cites that the birth name will not be included if they do not perceive it as relevant. However, as this person did compete at the collegiate level as a male on the UPenn team, the biographical information is an incomplete history. The incomplete information is furthermore why Wiki should not be considered a reliable source for school work, academic research, or other topics. 2601:549:C100:E450:914:C95B:7708:6037 ( talk) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The swimming record before the gender transition should be stated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.43.28 ( talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is far too long for a College sportsperson whose only claim to fame (so far in a young life) is to have transitioned. All the details about each and every minor swim competition are far too much, and totally disproportionate to other similar competitors.
If there is consensus, I would gladly put the work in to delete 9/10s of the content.
As for all the comment on the social aspects, I would suggest putting this into a separate article eg 'Lia Thomas transition debate'. Either that or recommend that editors go to social media to debate the issues. Clearly Wikipedia is an attractive medium for some to vent themselves over this issue.
Wikipedia's role here is to mention the debate and cite sources. A long article only opens the opportunity for people to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to vent themselves. The very length of this Comments page shows the article has spun out of control. TGcoa ( talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Length alone does not justify division. Based on that alone, I'm not seeing any policy or guideline reason to split this article. Additionally I agree completely with what DanielRigal has said, even if we were in SIZESPLIT territory, excising content into a proposed "transition debate" or "Harassment of" articles is not the right way to solve this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “ Lia Catherine Thomas (born 1998/1999)” to “ Lia Catherine Thomas (born [deadname], 1998/1999)” for historical and factual accuracy.
Otherwise identifying events before name change as the same person becomes difficult. This is done for others who have undergone name changes, such as Ye (Kanye West). Please be objective for accuracy. 209.251.153.131 ( talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This has already been discussed extensively, and there's no point in discussing it further. SamX ( talk) 02:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The original birth name should be added in the same way we use 'nee' for married women. 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. - Raul654
I started the article and tried to make it neutral. It includes a sensitive topic. It is beneficial to discuss changes and try to find consensus on controversial elements of the article. Topjur01 ( talk) 14:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Prior to transitioning, (i.e., when born, then growing up as a kid, then swimming on the men's teams, etc.), I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included. I think. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
I assume Thomas was known by some other name ... not Lia ... correct? This should be included.This has been answered. Note that this article already does discuss Thomas's early life, and does without mentioning the name Thomas was using at that time, as per guidelines. If any one of the three editors had thought that
Everything before 2019 must be deleted ... correct?as you seem to think they do, they could have deleted that section. But they didn't. No one has, so it appears that your objections that information about her pre-transition life should not be deleted is a disagreement you are having with nobody. (And your disagreement with the name issue has been thoroughly addressed.) Egsan Bacon ( talk) 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
She won 2nd place in Ivy League swimming competitions at the college level. If you look up the records, the only way to verify it is if you know her birth name. Otherwise, there is zero way of proving that those accomplishments did or did not happen. Getting a 2nd place medal at the collegiate level is "notable". Just because nobody chose to write an article about her past accomplishments is another story.
Why is a woman's maiden name published? For example, if you read the article "George Washington", Martha Washington is listed as "Martha Dandridge", but 99% of the people in the world if you say the name Martha Dandridge would not know who you are talking about, but would know who you are talking about if you say "Martha Washington". There is definitely a redirect article to "Martha Washington" from "Martha Dandridge, and the article definitely says "Born Martha Dandridge June 2, 1731[1]" And she was definitely NOT notable BEFORE she married George Washington, and she would never have been notable if she had not married George Washington. Why has this practice been standard and acceptable since the beginning of Wikipedia, February 2003 for Martha Washington's Article and July 2002 for George Washington's article? That sounds "sexist" to me. That you have one set of standards for women and another set of standards for "men who transition to women". If they are truly "women", then they should be held to the same EXACT standards as women have been held to since the beginning of Wikipedia (and is current today), to include all histories of their names from birth to the end of their life. Once a person is notable to have a Wikipedia article about them, then basic information, like their name on their birth certificate is standard knowledge. Not to mention that she would not even make the front page if she had not transitioned, not to mention that she would not have won any of the swimming events she had won if she competed against men. 11:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.76.144 ( talk)
Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It is silly not to include the birth name which may still be the legal name of the person
Please don't modify this discussion. MOS:DEADNAME is a settled issue. TenorTwelve ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I'm very confused by this as well. The argument being made is that Lia's personal feelings trump objective reality - that is, factual information. That seems like a very odd position for an Encyclopedia. Quoting Wikipedia's definition of Encyclopedia "An encyclopedia (American English), encyclopædia (archaic spelling), or encyclopaedia (British English) is a reference work or compendium providing summaries of knowledge either general or special to a particular field or discipline.[1] Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries that are arranged alphabetically by article name[2] or by thematic categories, or else are hyperlinked and searchable by random access. Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[2] Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms.[3][4][5][6]"
Further, Lia appears to recognize 1/1/2020 as her rebirthday. Hence, any reference prior to that time should reference factual information. This is not meant to harm,
Does Wikipedia intend to change its definition from that of an encyclopedia?
Here is a Wikipedia entry with similar factual circumstances. Lia Thomas perceives herself as female although objectively male. Yet you do not list her male name. Rachel Dolezal perceives herself as black, although objectively is white. Logically, the forms of argument are the same: Person A perceives themselves as X, different from objective observation.
Yet Wikipedia treats the two people differently:
"Nkechi Amare Diallo (/nɪˈkeɪtʃiː əˈmɑːreɪ diːˈɑːloʊ/; born Rachel Anne Dolezal, November 12, 1977), commonly known as Rachel Dolezal[fn 1] (/ˈdoʊləʒɑːl/;[9] is an American former college instructor and activist known for presenting herself as a black woman despite having been born to white parents. In addition to falsely claiming black ancestry, she also falsely claimed Native American descent.[10] She is also a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter president."
Facts are real. Logic is real. Thus we see Wikipedia is inconsistent in its treatment of individuals and of facts.
kbachler ( talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
personal feelingsrather than being part of
objective realityis a WP:FRINGE view, in the context of the reliable sources on the topic. By contrast, the idea that there is some kind of "racial identity" equivalent to gender identity, and that a person can therefore be "transracial" as a parallel to being transgender, is equally unsupported and is equally a WP:FRINGE view. You may hold the minority view that transgender identity and transracial identity are equivalent, but your view is not supported by reliable sources and is therefore not part of
objective realityas we know it.
ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATION, Wikipedia is based on the factual information as reported in independent, reliable sources. You state that
One can only change identity moving ahead, but the great mass of reliable sources does not agree with your
perceptionas an
individual, whereas MOS:GENDERID represents a broad, community consensus based on the participation of hundreds of editors over many years. Since community consensus aligns with the sources, your political judgements of
opinion, information, factand
falsehoodare irrelevant. Your judgement that the
ACTUAL FACTUAL INFORMATIONconcerning transgender identity and "transracial" identity is
the sameconflicts with all available, reliable sourcing, so Wikipedia will continue to ignore your unsourced opinion. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
If Wikipedia wants to state the actual facts of Lia Thomas, her name at birth... We don't! Thank you for your time, goodbye. -- Pokelova ( talk) 18:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
factsand
falsehoods. This won't lead anywhere you want to go, I believe. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Topjur01,
Very recently sixteen of her teammates issued a letter to various media organizations regarding how "...Biologically, Lia holds an unfair advantage over competition in the women’s category, as evidenced by her rankings that have bounced from #462 as a male to #1 as a female". This has been reported by RS media, such as [1] with headline stating, "Sixteen Penn swimmers say transgender teammate Lia Thomas should not be allowed to compete".
Just a suggestion. 108.34.231.7 ( talk) 12:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion [...] are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others. Beccaynr ( talk) 06:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people. Beccaynr ( talk) 07:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Mostly revert -- It doesn't seem like anyone on the talk page agrees with you (it is not a rumour or gossip that the letter contained this statement), but for the avoidance of doubt, it may be clearer if it is left as a quotation, but this Talk page includes diffs of a previous disputes by two other editors over the inclusion of this content. I also agree that including contentious claims that reliable sources have for whatever reason failed to verify seems problematic per WP:BLP policy. So I encourage you to self-revert and let's consider taking this to the BLP noticeboard for a wider discussion instead. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 07:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men's team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women's deck.I've started a section below about these figures, and there are directly quoted. SkylabField ( talk) 07:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
soared from a mid-500s ranking (554th in the 200 freestyle) in men’s competition to the top-ranked swimmer in women’s competition ... Thomas still holds the top time in the country in the 200-yard freestyle[2] Did she have the top time previously but then slipped down to 5th? Swimming world also quotes a seperate petition which claims 462 -> 1 in the 200, and 65 -> 2 in the 500:
Lia has gone from being ranked #462 in the country in the men’s 200 yard freestyle, to #1 in the women’s 200 yard freestyle. She has gone from being #65th in the men’s 500 yard freestyle to being #2 in the women’s 500 yard freestyle.
The 22-year-old had previously competed for the university as [deadname] for three years and was ranked No.462 in the NCAA(it's not very hard to get around newspaper paywalls these days...). I think Wendy Murphy is an opinion columnist, so we probably shouldn't use that, though: [3].
I changed the term "female swimmer" to the more biologically correct term "collegiate women's swimmer" According to Merrriam-Webster's Dictionary a female is "of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs" [4] which a transgender woman is not. The Cambridge dictionary provides a similar definition. [5] Bluesfan86 ( talk) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section "transgender status and swimming," change "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and one transgender man transitioning from female to male (without hormones), Iszac Henig" to "Thomas finished 6th place in the 100m freestyle race, losing to four cisgender women and Iszac Henig, a transgender man (transitioning from female to male without hormone therapy)." Tayuro ( talk) 06:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
✅ Done. Thanks for the suggestion! - TenorTwelve ( talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under “swimming” Thomas is quoted as swimming for “Penn State” which is a different university than the “University of Pennsylvania”. 107.127.49.142 ( talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
If someone with the permissions could please change this to “member of the LGBTQ+ population” or similar, I would appreciate it. 2601:600:9A80:2360:4033:BA26:FE3F:74C6 ( talk) 02:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
This article is written not reflecting the individual’s current gender identity. This needs to be rewritten. 71.121.252.121 ( talk) 21:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the pronouns and do not use the dead name. It is Lia, not (Redacted). And her pronouns are she/her. 92.247.187.191 ( talk) 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
... 80.43.94.149 ( talk) 22:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
we must get the article right.Beccaynr ( talk) 06:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The article states Gov. Desantis “misgendered” Lia and then provides the following quote, “…a male identifying as a woman.”
If “male” refers to Lia’s biological sex and Desantis settlement included, “identifying as a woman”, then how did Desantis “misgender” her? 136.49.95.71 ( talk) 03:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,” and criticized the NCAA for failing to protect its female athletes.I think we should alter the misgendered verbiage to say:
During a March 22 press conference, Florida governor Ron DeSantis incorrectly described Thomas as "a male identifying as a woman" and declared second-place finisher...This would be more consistent with the RS. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 03:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
References
In a statement posted to Twitter, DeSantis incorrectly said Thomas is a “male identifying as a woman,”(emphasis added). Misgendering is a paraphrase of DeSantis making this incorrect statement and links to relevant encyclopedic content. Context from earlier in the paragraph includes:
In February 2022, Vicky Hartzler, a Republican Senate candidate in Missouri, featured Thomas in a campaign advertisement asserting that "Women's sports are for women, not men pretending to be women", which was described by CNN as "a transphobic trope belittling trans women".( source). Beccaynr ( talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Misgenderedis a tricky word that has some undertones. That' kind of like if an RS said "these comments were racially charged" and we wrote "these comments were racist". There some words, like misgendered and racist, you just don't use when paraphrasing. I think using incorrectly, like my proposition above, is probably the most neutral thing to do. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial.This part of the section reflects my sense about including the wikilink:
It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate.Beccaynr ( talk) 05:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I have found two reliable sources discussing Ms. Thomas's ranking in swimming, comparing her ranking when she [swam for the Men's Swim Team] to her current ranking [on the Women's Swim Team]:
Lia Thomas competed in the men's division, in 2018-19. There, she ranked 554th in the 200-yd freestyle, and she is now fifth in the event this year. Furthermore, in the 500-yd freestyle, Thomas was 65th in the country. Now, she ranked first place in the event this year. Finally, in the 1650 freestyle, she is now eighth in the nation, as opposed to 32nd in the men's division.
During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men's team, which was 2018-19, she ranked 554th in the 200 freestyle, 65th in the 500 freestyle and 32nd in the 1650 freestyle. As her career at Penn wrapped, she moved to fifth, first and eighth in those respective events on the women's deck.
Some points:
SkylabField ( talk) 07:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The number isn't 462 -> 1. It's 554 -> 5 (200 freestyle), 65 -> 1 (500 freestyle), and 32 -> 8 (1650 freestyle)This is incorrect, they are not contradictory, and I have made it explicit why in the article. The Swimming World piece is quoting statistics for her final races in March 2022 in which she came 5th; if you look at the article as it was published in February via archive.org, the numbers were different (they quoted 554 -> 1, actually), and then updated after her races. The rankings don't contradict each other and the rankings in the letter were probably accurate at a time; she probably was 462nd in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the men's team and we know she was 1st in the 200-yard free at some point swimming for the women's team, and other reliable sources -- e.g. Axios (see its RSP entry) and The Australian (see its RSP entry) -- were happy to quote that in their own voice. So I think it's fine as it's worded as of writing this comment. Endwise ( talk) 08:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your good faith edits. Regarding the 462-1 statistic, can we mention that it has been disputed? Source [1] - TenorTwelve ( talk) 07:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
"462 to 1" appears to be misleading because it does not refer to a specific race, and two outlets uncritically parroting the claim does not make it less misleading. I think the entire quote from the letter should be removed from the article, and the reliably-sourced statistics published in sections about her career. If secondary sources were paying critical attention to the letter, I would have a different view. But here, I think WP:SCANDAL/ WP:BLP applies - it is a poorly-sourced sensationalist claim, so it should not be included. Beccaynr ( talk) 10:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Something's not right here. The swimmingworldmagazine article says "During the last season Thomas competed as a member of the Penn men’s team, which was 2018-19..." But you can see clearly here that she competed on the men's team in the 2019-20 season
Are the rankings quoted in the article really from 2018-19, or are they really from 2019-20? This is a significant difference because
In my opinion, unless we can find a reliable and consistent source for her rankings in these particular years, this information should be removed from the article.
- Nate Biggs ( talk) 14:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
References
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-swimmer-trans-ncaa-b2042715.html Xx236 ( talk) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Her height being 6’1 is not accurate, she is 5’8 86.6.92.66 ( talk) 08:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Marsha Blackburn mentioned Lia in the Jackson hearing as a "biological male." Presumably this means she hasn't had bottom surgery. I'm very surprised that we can't turn to her wikipedia article to verify the truth or falsity of Blackburn's claim. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC65:5329:2995:AF03:6699:1569 ( talk) 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
and you can't change your genderis somewhere in the dense Venn overlap of unsourced POV opinion and ideology. It's a good thing nobody is trying to have this reflected in article space. I doubt you even have a RS for Lia's chromosomes - and don't misgender her, please, even on Talk. That is UNCIVIL and violates WP:BLP principles. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The "Public debate" section of this article is getting unwieldy, so much so it's threatening to overwhelm what is supposed to be a biographical article. It's time to exercise some editorial discretion about which reactions to include instead of including the opinions of every single person with a WP article that chooses to weigh in. People involved in the swimming world make sense, as do the various governors, but if there's a glaringly obvious cut it's Joe Rogan. A podcaster. Really? Anyone can be a podcaster or Youtuber, it's not anything special. He has no prior connection to college swimming. He's not in any position to pass or sign legislation. He's just a guy who likes to give his opinion about stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon ( talk • contribs)
@
Newimpartial: reverted
[13] my edit without explanation changing the known_for infobox description from First openly
transgender athlete to win an
NCAA Division I national championship
to Athletic achievements as a
trans woman
.
Thomas is not primarily known for winning NCAA Division 1. She is primarily known for winning swimming competitions as a transgender athlete, not specifically winning the NCAA championship. My revision is more accurate to what RS has identified her notability to be. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 23:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Athletic achievements as a trans woman. How is that not translating Thomas's success as a transgender athlete? The one you reverted to is this:
First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship. The one I'm advocating for is the "(stable) shortdesc" Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure Newimpartial's preferred description is too many characters to be a short description. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, so the larger public debate probably should be minimized, at least in the infobox, in favor of a focus on her accomplishments as an athlete. Beccaynr ( talk) 03:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
She was already well-known in the media before her NCAA victory. She is known for her successes as a trans athlete, not one race on one day in particular; the infobox as it's written is far too narrow. I'm not sure if this field in the infobox is even needed though. Endwise ( talk) 03:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Most of the content to the article was added before her win. Sizewise, the article is almost three times as big today than it was on March 16, the day before her championship win. (35,362 bytes vs 12,037 bytes) Here's what her article looked like then. There wasn't very much about her athletic achievements at the time. The section on her college swimming career hadn't even been written yet. Only one race is mentioned, and it was a race where she finished sixth. There's nothing weird at all at saying an athlete is best known for a single superlative performance, especially when it's also a first. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 04:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Status and achievements as a transgender athlete. This would accompany all her athletic acheivements as well the public debate, which is her primary call to notability, as many editors have pointed out, she was notable prior to any achievements, including her NCAA championship. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 22:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
the primary vehicleof sensationalism. The infobox is prominent in search results, including the "known for" field, so this seems to be another reason for caution. Beccaynr ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I will add my thoughts: I support "First openly transgender athlete to win an NCAA Division I national championship" as it currently stands. Prior to her win, I think mentioning her accomplishments as a transgender athlete may have been appropriate. She was already notable, but with her championship, that is a jump in notability and the award is notable in and of itself. That is what I support for now. That may change if Thomas ends up at the Olympics and the wording could be reassessed. - TenorTwelve ( talk) 02:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team, particularly by the coverage after her NCAA win. Beccaynr ( talk) 17:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should Joe Rogan's comments be mentioned under debate [14]? X-Editor ( talk) 02:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Opening duplicate discussions wastes editorial time, scatters editorial input, and can even lead to conflicting outcomes. Intentionally forking discussions may be interpreted as forum-shopping or canvassing.In the interests of avoiding confusion, this one should be hatted. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 03:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
A quote by Supreme Court nominee Brown on this page is far from being part of Lia Thomas’ story. It seems Wikipedia is pushing their own version of history. Presenting a quote taken out of context to push trans ideals on its readers. Wiki’s are about the truth right? Then don’t add in your personal views. 2603:6081:5443:C1CA:F9D7:87DB:47A9:BBD9 ( talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
@
Rab V and
Endwise: could we stop the edit war, and discuss the issue of the swim rankings please? There does seem to be some merit for what Rab V is saying. The NY Times piece that has been the centerpiece of this edit war seems to be an opinion piece, and not factual reporting. It also The NY Times piece directly cites Swimming World as the source of rankings used. While this could be used, it would need to be done with the qualifier per
WP:RSOPINION.
I've tried searching for other sources, excluding those that reference in some way the rankings of Swimming World, and came up with an article in The Independent. Unlike the NY Times piece, this does appear to be a report in which they state that Swimming World's statistics may be unfair and misleading, due to Lia's best categories changing post transition. They also go into detail averaging her times against her peers, both pre and post transition, by directly assessing the NCAA records for the last six years of competition. They make note that Lia's best competition categories changed post-transition, with her endurance levels decreasing and her best events shifting from the 1000 and 1650 yard freestyle to the 200 and 500 yard freestyle post-transition.
There may be other articles that may be of more relevant use here for factual reporting. Unfortunately my own lack of familiarity with sports reporting is hindering my search for them. Hopefully you two, or someone else here who is familiar with sports reporting can find other relevant sources. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Struck part about NY Times piece being an opinion. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
When Ms. Thomas entered women’s meets, she rose substantially in national rankings.the word
rankedis hyperlinked to Swimming World. The subsequent text is near verbatim copied from the hyperlinked Swimming World article. That is one common way that news organisations cite third party sources.
The Independent compiled a dataset of swim times for all top 8 NCAA women's finishers over the last six years of competition in various events. 2020 was excluded because all NCAA championships were cancelled that year due to the pandemic.and their rankings differ significantly from those reported by NY Times/Swimming World. How do you reconcile the two different statistics? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
this was just announced, regarding elite swimming competition. That report also contains links to other perhaps pertinant articles that may provide useful input for this article. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:54, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, in this edit I removed material about FINA's new ruling in the "public debate" section that was duplicated in the "swimming career" section. The material exclusively about FINA and not Lia Thomas I moved over to the article on FINA. Let's not make this article a WP:COATRACK for the broader topic of the debate about the participation of transgender women in women's sports. If it's not about Lia Thomas, can we keep it in Transgender people in sports, or in this case for FINA's ruling, extended discussion about the ruling in FINA? Endwise ( talk) 07:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest using something other than she to reduce confusion. He, they, or something else especially in the first paragraph. 2603:7080:4D01:9540:8559:AE8D:4927:7062 ( talk) 14:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.That is why we refer to her as she throughout the article, so there is no confusion about her gender identity. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(This post is blatantly one sided. It needs significant editing to eliminate antagonistic rhetoric) Petemcl99 ( talk) 17:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".Cullen328 ( talk) 17:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
1.I think, that on the beginning it should be written that Lia was born as a biological male or at least mention that she is transgender. Maybe: "Lia's assign at birth as male"? Or maybe right on the beginning :" transgender person"? Or something like that. It will help some readers to understand the next phrase: "She competed on the university's men's swim team from 2017 to 2020". Humor ("Daddy! Why this girl was swimming in the men's team?"). Remember, this information comes before it is mentioned that this is a transgender person.
2.In any article about any other public figure who legally change the name (married, nick name etc) there is a note about previous name. Many of the movie stars change name before become famous, but we still include the previous name. Maybe: "Knows previously as..." or something like that. I understand privacy concerns, but this is Wikipedia. We collect the knowledge. I saw the comments: "everybody knows that Lia was previously known as X". I do not know that. Do I have to know? Personally? I do not. But we can not dictate what someone should think. Maybe someone in 50 years will like to know. This is the reason of having encyclopedia. You look for the facts that you do not know.
3.I think that article is inconsequent. It was said: we do not add the birth name/deadname because that person was not known in that time, but we still add information on Lia's career when Lia was 5. We address her "She" in relation to time, when even Lia did not use that pronoun to herself. And as we know gender identity" is is: "the personal sense of one's own gender".
4. You mention many times Manual of style/Gender identity. Yes, but those are guidelines. And they can be wrong in that particular case. WADR: Remember, This is Wikipedia. We need to leave the interpretation of facts to the reader. As long as you want to be neutral and not to "Mind Shape" the readers in your own way. Pnarkiew ( talk) 05:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for explanations. I understand. I agree to disagree. DanielRigal I am sorry but what make you think that term "biogical male" is offensive? Its not my intention to offend anybody so do not impose on me something that is not a truth. Was Lia assign as male at birth? Yes. Did Lia make a decision in highschool about her gender identity? Yes. It is written in that very article. I did not say anything that is not a historical fact. Pnarkiew ( talk) 01:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
biological maleis an expression of POV and comes across to many as a dog whistle, whether intended that way or not. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
So.. Is that offensive or POV? And why historical fact is POV? Every single opinion is POV. That is why we are sharing different POV to see better.But anyway. I do not want to be a troll. Agree to disagree. Have nice day Pnarkiew ( talk) 12:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not looking for any support from any group. Just sharing my thoughts and my POV. I am just a simple man trying to make my way through the galaxy. Pnarkiew ( talk) 16:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is missing information pertaining to the birth demographics of this person. The reason it is not included is because of the push for gender identity politics. The policy cites that the birth name will not be included if they do not perceive it as relevant. However, as this person did compete at the collegiate level as a male on the UPenn team, the biographical information is an incomplete history. The incomplete information is furthermore why Wiki should not be considered a reliable source for school work, academic research, or other topics. 2601:549:C100:E450:914:C95B:7708:6037 ( talk) 05:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The swimming record before the gender transition should be stated in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.43.28 ( talk) 16:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
This article is far too long for a College sportsperson whose only claim to fame (so far in a young life) is to have transitioned. All the details about each and every minor swim competition are far too much, and totally disproportionate to other similar competitors.
If there is consensus, I would gladly put the work in to delete 9/10s of the content.
As for all the comment on the social aspects, I would suggest putting this into a separate article eg 'Lia Thomas transition debate'. Either that or recommend that editors go to social media to debate the issues. Clearly Wikipedia is an attractive medium for some to vent themselves over this issue.
Wikipedia's role here is to mention the debate and cite sources. A long article only opens the opportunity for people to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to vent themselves. The very length of this Comments page shows the article has spun out of control. TGcoa ( talk) 10:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Length alone does not justify division. Based on that alone, I'm not seeing any policy or guideline reason to split this article. Additionally I agree completely with what DanielRigal has said, even if we were in SIZESPLIT territory, excising content into a proposed "transition debate" or "Harassment of" articles is not the right way to solve this. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 17:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Lia Thomas has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change “ Lia Catherine Thomas (born 1998/1999)” to “ Lia Catherine Thomas (born [deadname], 1998/1999)” for historical and factual accuracy.
Otherwise identifying events before name change as the same person becomes difficult. This is done for others who have undergone name changes, such as Ye (Kanye West). Please be objective for accuracy. 209.251.153.131 ( talk) 17:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This has already been discussed extensively, and there's no point in discussing it further. SamX ( talk) 02:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The original birth name should be added in the same way we use 'nee' for married women. 203.46.132.214 ( talk) 00:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
|