Talk:John/Eleanor Rykener

Acceptable sources

Disregard

Are we only accepting academically-published writings as sources in this article? There's been increased interest from non-academics lately, and they've written stuff that I can't find in any papers (not that I'm particularly good at using JSTOR). The article says that “Modern interest in Eleanor Rykener has not been confined to academia”, but only really discusses the prevailing academic view formed… fifty years ago? If we can't even agree to fix the remaining third-person personal pronouns outside quotes (nor even replace them with "they"), we can at least consider reducing the bias somewhat.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't hesitate in making such edits to the article, but as it was featured I'm not sure of the expected behaviour. Adding in information from nonacademics, even with a really high bar for inclusion, would end up as a significant change to the content of the article. Judging by WP:POVFORK, I'm guessing that we shouldn't have a separate article for "academic consensus on" v.s. "views outside academia on"… but I don't know to what extent (potentially) drastic edits are permitted to featured articles. wizzwizz4 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what sources are you talking about, and what bias? --John B123 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't answer the sources question right at the moment – I recently had a tab clear-out – but Eleanor's Making Queer History article explains what I mean by bias. (And I suppose it could be used as a source, but it doesn't meet the really high bar.) More information can be found in the Bisexual erasure Wikipedia article, though Eleanor wasn't just bi. To sum up my argument in one sentence: We shouldn't just be paying attention to academic writings on this topic, because academia isn't good at queer history. wizzwizz4 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite; academia isn't good at queer history No blogs today, thank you. serial ^# 18:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I read Eleanor's Making Queer History article, the biggest thing that struck me was "There is a danger in applying modern labels to historical people". I would take that further, there is a danger in applying modern thinking (LGBT in this case) to historical people.--John B123 (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Writing {{citation needed}} is appropriate self-deprecating humour, not to mention I'd already linked a Wikipedia article… but is this Wikipedia footnote (note 2) sufficient? It's got two citations, from academic works as well! Or, you know, you could read a '70s biography of Michaelangelo – or even just take a look at his Wikipedia article, where you'll find the words In modern times some scholars insist that, despite the restoration of the pronouns, they represent "an emotionless and elegant re-imagining of Platonic dialogue, whereby erotic poetry was seen as an expression of refined sensibilities". (My JSTOR isn't strong enough to find proper academic citations to back up my assertions, so Wikipedia excerpts backed by published articles and books will have to do.) Is this enough, or should I find direct quotes from academics who've noticed this systematic problem within academia? (A problem which is, I'll note, getting better; credit where credit's due.)

Anyway… back to the topic, instead of defending my assertions: WP:RSSELF says Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, but what does it mean to be an expert on a single historical document? (Suitable definitions should class people like me as inexpert, but some others as expert.) That's what I'm asking about, here. A lot of people have a lot to say about Eleanor, but only some people's equally-(un)substantiated views are to be accepted.

@John B123: We're already applying modern labels to historical people; "transvestite" is an (outdated) modern term, and has been in the article for quite a while (apply standards consistently, please, or you could be accused of the same things I've been asked to provide evidence of). And the article's use of "he" in those remaining few places is an editorial decision, don't forget… one that's been explicitly chosen, when "they" would be preferable (and when I, and many others, would write "she"). wizzwizz4 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I am wrong here, as per WP:DUE: specifically, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. (Whilst this is clearly a case where everyone should make an exception to the rule, that's what they all say.) Even ignoring that, my proposed solution is worse than useless. The ratchet of academia turns; I'll wait for it. wizzwizz4 (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Singular "they"

I'm still not sure why we can't use singular "they" (and declensions) to replace the two(?) unquoted occurrences of "he" (or declensions). I'm trying not to be WP:ICANTHEARYOU about this, but all I've taken away from the previous discussions is that singular they is somehow "ungrammatical" – despite it being in common use, including in other Wikipedia articles.

Given that the gender of the article's subject is unknown / disputed, surely WP:NPOV dictates we shouldn't editorialise here? (Unless you think that some of the stances are revisionism and should therefore be excluded, in which case I don't know which policies would apply.) wizzwizz4 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We've been through this twice before, WP:DROPTHESTICK springs to mind. --John B123 (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

We've yet to come to a consensus, or even a conclusion, yet editing decisions are being made on it. And besides, this specific query about Wikipedia policies has not been answered in the previous discussions. I'm not beating a dead horse, because nobody's killed the horse yet. (I can't find the policy I want to cite, but WP:DISCUSSED is close enough.)

Why do you think this editorial decision doesn't violate WP:NPOV? wizzwizz4 (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There have been two discussions where there has been no consensus to change he/she to they. Policy is clear here, where there no consensus then the original content should remain. As far as I'm aware, this is not time-limited, so making the changes a few months later is not acceptable. Unless you have something new to bring to the discussion, such as something significant happening outside Wikipedia that is relevant and likely to alter other editors viewpoint, or a change in Wikipedia policy since the last discussion, then revisiting the issue is pointless. Keeping bringing it up until you get the article changed to how you think it should be is not the way Wikipedia works. I doubt anybody would see WP:DISCUSSED as applicable after only 3 months without there being any significant changes that need to be taken into account. --John B123 (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Based on the most recent discussion of pronouns (now in the most archive), the article had been being reworded to just not need/use pronouns, like also e.g. the James Barry (surgeon) article. I think that's still the best approach, and will figure out (or someone else will) how to reword the few remaining instances. -sche (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As to why: with one exception, all articles I know of which use singular they do so because the subject expressly uses that pronoun exclusively (and the MOS is clear that it's appropriate and necessary to use singular they in that specific case). But in cases like this and James Barry and Albert Cashier, where there's no indication the person used they, but rather there's intractable/unsolvable disagreement over whether to use he or she, articles are (in my experience) rewritten to avoid pronouns instead. To be clear, I don't oppose using the they, I just think that when the debate is over whether any occurrences of a pronoun should be he or she, avoiding pronouns is a better compromise than using some third-option pronoun we seem to all agree isn't one the person used. -sche (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

It was updated to remove almost all of them, but there are still a couple of places where it'd be really clumsy to do that; I don't particularly want to obfuscate an article in the name of neutrality. There's still a minor edit war over them every several weeks (the latest of which, I'm ashamed to say, I participated in). It'd be good to be able to come to a consensus – or at least clarify whether the status quo is a NPOV issue –, because "you can remove the pronouns when you can contort the wording to permit it, but changing them to anything other than he is forbidden" doesn't seem like a good long-term compromise.

If anyone can eliminate the remaining few third-person personal pronouns referring to Rykener without making the sentences hard to parse, then this issue will stop being relevant – at least, until the next time it crops up again. wizzwizz4 (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

There's still a minor edit war over them every several weeks There's been one occasion, a few days ago, where the pronouns were changed since the previous discussion ended 3 months ago. --John B123 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I count two. wizzwizz4 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, two then, within 12 hours of each other on 15/16 May. Presumably, as you brought up edit wars, there needs to be more than one change to make an edit war. The point was 26th January to 15th May is hardly "every several weeks". --John B123 (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably need to learn the ukelele for a bit. Starting arguments over two words isn't likely to improve the article, and neither is going off my memory when I suspect looking things up will prove me wrong. Perhaps I'll come back in a few months with something productive to contribute, iff I have anything. wizzwizz4 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I've reworded three more sentences (which are now two sentences) to avoid pronouns. (One of the rewordings is a little clunky, and could be improved further, but I think the other two are clear improvements.) If there are other instances of pronouns, try rewording them yourself. -sche (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Pronouns (3.0)

Hi @Serial Number 54129:! I see you object to how this article has been, for some time now, been being rewritten to avoid pronouns based on previous discussion. If you would like to seek consensus for using masculine pronouns, please do so! Cheers, -sche (talk) 08:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi -sche! No, WP:FAOWN is the relevant policy. All the best, serial ^# 08:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't say I'm very impressed with the process (fawning to the current political correctness rather than the actual rewording). The article has been through a GA review, peer review and finally a FA review, all by experienced editor, without comment on pronouns. I have watched Serial Number 54129 take this article from a stub to FA, obviously spending hours and hours in the process. It really annoys me that when somebody has put in such effort, someone who's contribution to WP are minimal comes along with a bee in their bonnet to tell us how wrong the article is.

Getting back to pronouns, I know a few transpeople. Some think the use of the singular "they" is plain stupid, others strongly object to it. They feel the use of "they" has a negative impact, singling them out as "not normal" rather than letting them blend into their chosen gender. I don't know anybody who it effects who supports its use, and most would rather be referred to by the wrong pronoun than they. --John B123 (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@John B123: The relationship of your comment to my comment above, which never mentions the singular they, is ... unclear. Care to clarify? (Perhaps you are doubly confused and thinking of the previous section, but also misread my arguments there, which were against introducing the singular they? This is not even to address the ad hominem portion of your comment, which makes me wonder which user you even think you're addressing, given that you speak of "someone who's contribution to WP are minimal" while I've been a Wikipedian for a decade, longer than you, or indeed than serial number 54129, lol.) -sche (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi -sche. My remarks weren't directed at you, apologies if it came across this way. I view you as a "peacemaker" in all of this, rewriting to avoid pronouns and the arguments that comes with their use. As you might have noticed, I'm getting increasingly frustrated with a handful of (usually) fairly new editors who want to change WP to suit their politically correct ideas. The argument over the opening sentence of trans woman is still rumbling on, there's a RfC at Whitechapel murders as to whether the victims were actually prostitutes and even if they were, why do we need to mention it in the lead, etc, etc. It's bad enough applying pc to modern topics, but to apply modern thinking to historical subjects is absurd. Times change, society's standards change as does language, including words taking on different meanings. Well established sources are discarded in favour of a modern reinterpretation of events. I'm half expecting attempts to re-write articles about 1930s films to show the leading actor was gender fluid because he used the line "I feel gay today". --John B123 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Trans in the lead

I've moved the unqualified description of Rykener as a trans woman out of the WP:LEADSENTENCE, and into a new paragraph in the lead, and modified the wording to be less categorical. This shouldn't be stated categorically in Wikipedia's voice anywhere in the article, and especially not in the lead. Currently, I've left it as indirect attribution, following the model in the final sentence of the lead at Albert Cashier, but perhaps this should be further tightened by using intext attribution. Adding -sche. Mathglot (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you, I think that's a good call. Could we perhaps fold the orphan sentence into the final paragraph? Cheers, gnu57 02:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gnu57, Well, I really did think about that choice. Let me explain why I set it as a stand-alone paragraph, and then we can leave it up to consensus to determine what should happen to it. Normally, I dislike stand-alone paragraphs, for the same reason I dislike menus or outlines with only one bullet item in a sub-list. A paragraph seems to cry out for at least two sentences, normally. But, I do think there are cases when it is justified, and I believe this is one of them. I'll confess that one reason (the less important one, perhaps) is that I thought that the before-after transition from having a clear statement of something right in the defining sentence, to something "tacked on" to a paragraph, where it would kind of disappear, would be rather dramatic, especially if there are strong proponents for keeping it the way it was before. So, you could say I was offering an olive branch in advance, to some that might not like this change in the first place.

The other reason, is that my reading of the WP:WEIGHT of this view (and I could be wrong) while not sufficient, perhaps, for a presence in the lead sentence (especially not in Wikipedia's voice; I think that's the only part of this that is a slam-dunk) is nevertheless strong enough to have its own paragraph, to be set off by blank lines, leaving it kind of highlighted, in a way, like a secondary headline in a newspaper article. (Secondarily, and this is a fairly minor point, at my browser width and font, and with the image taking up about a third of the window width, the stand-alone sentence folds into three lines for me. Had it been only a single line, I would be more opposed to it.)

I may be overthinking this (but at least I was thinking), and in the end, I was trying to pull off a tricky balance of stating something important in the lead, while neither placing it in the lead sentence, nor burying it in the middle or end of a paragraph somewhere. That said, I would not be opposed to moving it lower down, as standalone paragraph three or four. (In that case, however, it falls just below the image in my set-up, but still occupies two lines, so is marginally okay, but does look a bit thin, compared to three lines.) I don't have a *really* strong objection to your proposal, but I really did think about this ahead, so it didn't get that way by accident, and this was the position and emphasis that I thought was best for the article and the reader. Needless to say, I'll go with whatever the consensus is. And, thanks for asking! Mathglot (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Serial Number 54129's edit removing the floating paragraph is supported by WP:MOS, which says: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. wizzwizz4 (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, shame the added material wasn't supported by that very criterion. Also, see LEADCITE (efs in lead). Also see WP:UNDUE (whether the material is of relevance). Mainly, though, please respect the policy which is pretty clear that the material should not have been unilaterally inserted in the first place. All the best, ——Serial 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Apply MOS:DEADNAME?

Naming someone by both their (preferred) name and their deadname, especially in the title, does contravene against MOS:DEADNAME, so is there any better way to title this article or refer to the subject in question? Casspedia (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME only applies to BLPs. Equivamp - talk 16:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Apply MOS:GENDERID

@Serial Number 54129 reverted my recent move as it was undiscussed. My apologies in not thinking it would be an issue and checking in here. I was trying to follow manual of style guidance. So let's discuss.

As I stated in my edit summary at the time, the primary researcher (Karras) who brought about the contemporary understanding of this person has said that we should consider them a transgender person. As such I attempted to rename the article to reflect their name. Per MOS:GENDERID, MOS:GIDINFO.

I'll add, upon reflection, that the MOS also states, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." Emphasis mine. Given that the researcher’s comments are recent (in 2016) and after a cursory search, I am unable to find any more recent reliable sources to counter this, I recommend we rename the article.

In fact in my quick search a 2019 essay from a researcher at The University of Iowa also reaffirms that Rykener was transgender and should be "understood as a transgender woman". So a plus one in that column. :)

For the curious, I learned about this after listening to the Vagina Museum's Apr 28, 2021 podcast episode where the issue is discussed (transcript). Ckoerner (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Ckoerner; luckily, as a featured article, it already adheres to the manual of style: it has to. MOS:GENDERID applies, as you note yourself, to those that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification. Please point to where J/ER or E/JR made this self-identification. Basically, I'm afraid this only applies to BLPs. As the effective author of this article, I made sure to take into account the most recent scholarly research—you'll note that Karras is probably the single most used source in the article. Cheers, ——Serial 01:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly.

It’s commendable the amount of work you put into this article and I think it’s great that it reached featured article status in 2019. Thanks for pointing that out. There have been many conversations since regarding gender identity. I’m curious if you think perhaps the title should be reevaluated given more recent conversations? I haven't looked at all of them, but it seems this is an area where adaptation continues. Hence why I'm taking the time to suggest such a change.

Please point to where J/ER or E/JR made this self-identification.

That would go back to the original transcript of the interrogation would it not? "calling [himself] Eleanor, having been detected in woman's clothing". In which they identified as Eleanor. More contemporarily, Karras admits that she would have evaluated Rykener as transgender, hence my argument that we should consider this in the naming of the article.

I’m under the impression that MOS:GENDERID doesn’t strictly apply to BLP‘s, but to all biographies. The particular section I linked to in fact, talks about biographies of both the living and deceased. Perhaps I’m mistaken, and please, I’m looking for clarification here. Not trying to argue. I don’t wanna fight with another editor who I think is on the same side. :) Ckoerner (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

My main interest here is the undiscussed move part of the story. Although editors are encouraged to make bold moves, that's only within the boundaries of uncontroversial moves. For controversial and potentially controversial moves prior discussion is needed. The guideline lists two points identifying a potentially controversial move of which this is the second one:

• someone could reasonably disagree with the move.

That covers a lot of ground, which leaves the "uncontroversial" move taking the rest of it, namely, that no one could reasonably disagree with the move. The only things that are covered by the latter, in my view, are spelling mistakes, and other blatant errors. Anything else is *potentially* controversial, and should not be carried out unilaterally. If it's a slam-dunk change, you'll only have to wait a week to get buy-in, and with that consensus in hand, you can then make the change. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

It’s been a few days and so far there’s only a few people having a conversation. I’m curious is there an appropriate way to bring more people into this conversation? Mindful of WP:Canvassing of course. Ckoerner (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You could notify a relevant WikiProject, or start a request for comments. I'll also try to have a look at this when I have time. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

There's not much point in continuing informal discussions when it's clearly a controversial move. Either start an RM discussion, or let's leave it alone - no other sort of forum be able to effect a title change. FWIW I asked about this issue when the article was at TFA, as I did find it a little odd, but the title wasn't arrived at by accident and I think I would oppose any change, unless a very strong rationale were presented.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Came from notification at WT:LGBT Please point to where J/ER or E/JR made this self-identification. Reading the article, footnote 1. Using the translation as I'm not sure many of us speak Latin, John Rykener, calling [himself] Eleanor (emphasis mine). If Rykener referred to themselves as Elanor in an official interrogation, then that's pretty strongly a self-identification for the purposes of GENDERID.

Basically, I'm afraid this only applies to BLPs. That is not true. While there are certainly provisions within the guideline that only apply to the living, chiefly the second and third paragraph, the remainder of it applies to any biography. This broader interpretation of the guideline was affirmed within the close of a May/June 2023 RfC of the guideline there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion (emphasis mine).

If I were to compare this article to other noteworthy deceased trans person, like Victor Barker, or Sonia Burgess, or James Barry (surgeon), those articles follow the guideline by using their chosen name and pronouns. I would suggest that for this article, it would be appropriate to say something like Eleanor Rykener, born John Rykener, was a 14th-century... at the start of the lead, keeping the footnote after mention of Rykener's former name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your points here and the lead should be changed along the lines you suggested. GENDERID does and SHOULD apply here. Historyday01 (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Eleanor Rykener, born John Rykener, was a 14th-century... seems to be a good way to handle this, I agree. Jessamyn (my talk page) 00:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, MOS:GENDERID applies here. We should bring this article in line with others as well as GENDERID, the times have changed since the article was written. Amberkitten (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)