Talk:Sarah McBride

Latest comment: 22 days ago by Raladic in topic Re: Birth name

Birth name concerns

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.


For those wondering as to why Sarah McBride's former name isn't included, please refer to the FAQ. Thank you! LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 08:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

American Zionists category

The article itself details with sources McBride's stated Zionist views. Quote:

In an August 2023 interview with Jewish Insider, McBride "framed herself as a staunch supporter of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship, as well as a committed fighter against antisemitism". She supports the Abraham Accords and has called for a new Iran nuclear deal. She also supports the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and was a co-sponsor of Delaware legislation to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day and celebrate the 75th anniversary of the creation of Israel.

Considering this has already been established, I would argue that the American Zionists category is an appropriate category to place her in. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The category itself is a WP:BLPCAT violation without a self-identification from the BLP in question referring to themself as such, the category should actually be tagged that only BLPs that do so can be included in it, as is customary for other such potentially contentious categories. Raladic (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
So the person specifically has to refer to themself as a "Zionist" in order to qualify? "Staunch supporter of Israel and the US-Israel relationship" should suffice as being Zionist, since that is precisely what Zionism is. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Are there reliable sources using this term or reporting its use by the article subject? We don't include labels in Wikipedia articles based on interpretation by other editors. – notwally (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's right; as Raladic has pointed out above, per WP:BLPCAT we do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like. See also MOS:LABEL; per our article on Zionism, it is often considered a colonial/racist movement. AviationFreak💬 00:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Transphobia is a perception not a fact

The section called "transphobia…" should be renamed either "house bathroom controversy" or "women's bathroom bill" or something less opinionated. As currently titled, it aims to editorialize that the reason for the bill is "fear" of trans people. Regardless of how one feels about the bill, or McBride, or Mace, Mace, herself has said she's advocating for it to protect women. Even if one doesn't agree that the bill does that, we shouldn't put opinion and conjecture into Wikipedia. George R. Brumder (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mace would say that, wouldn't she? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't follow. I'm simply saying that Wikipedia isn't (wasn't, shouldn't be) a place for opinion. Using the hot-button word "transphobia" in reference to a proposed bill being clearly suggests that the proposer is afraid of trans people and that the bill has one goal in mind. I'm telling you, if y'all don't remember Jimbo's original intent with Wikipedia, this beloved, shared, and community-policed site will go the way of the dodo. Please seriously contemplate that advice. George R. Brumder (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not opinion. It's cited in WP:RS. Here's a couple: [1][2] We require secondary sources because why would we ever take a subject at their word? No, Wikipedia has always been about neutrally reflecting what is in RS. And Mace admitted that she targeted McBride specifically. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Use of the word transphobia especially in the subject header ("Transphobia in US House") is not cited. (Personal attack removed) The heading is wrong and should be changed. Otherwise, Wikipedia isn't being used correctly. George R. Brumder (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Trans women are not "men who think they're women". Such hate speech is not permitted on Wikipedia, including talk pages. Funcrunch (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Transphobia is about prejudice and discrimination, which, according to reliable sources, is exactly what this bathroom bill proposes to enact. It's not necessarily or solely about fear. Funcrunch (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re: Birth name

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.


Why does Caitlyn Jenner show the birth name like 20 times, but this one doesn’t? Not to mention your “FAQ” states nothing. @LilianaUwU Mistletoe-alert (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why was I pinged? But Caitlyn Jenner was previously well known under her former name, unlike Sarah McBride, if that's what you want to know. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That makes sense. Thank you. “For those wondering as to why Sarah McBride's former name isn't included, please refer to the FAQ. Thank you! LilianaUwU” Mistletoe-alert (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to add, the FAQ states: Per WP:DEADNAME: "If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest."notwally (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.