A fact from Magdalene Visaggio appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 September 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was created or improved as part of the Women in Red project. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
While I am sympathetic to the general desire for birth names of trans people to not be included, in this case, its use here is justified because this person started their comics career using that name and there multiple, independent, and reliable sources in the comics industry that reference it with regards to their early work. I've only included a couple sources to avoid WP:OVERCITE, but they are readily accessible to anyone searching that name. That name is also, of course, prominently part of the written credits stated in those early works. MOS:CHANGEDNAME refers to handling of birth names in the lead sentence, and I believe that the number of sources and the interest of readers (to know how to locate both present and past works of this person) necessitate inclusion in the lead sentence. Even if there is disagreement on this point, this birth name is most certainly necessary in the main body of the article and that's out-of-scope of MOS:CHANGEDNAME. As such, I am restoring the name to the lead and the infobox, but open to discussion about whether it should move from the lead down to the Personal life section. -- Netoholic@ 09:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Bleeding Cool a respected news site that covers the comics industry, and they report Visaggio "drew the ashcan of her sci-fi LGBTQ comic book Kim + Kim, released in NYCC, as"[1] their former name. While these aren't reliable sources for article purposes, several product sites for Kim & Kim list that former name as the writer.[2][3][4][5][6] I don't know what's up with that (I don't own this so I can't confirm what the written credits state). In any case, certainly even with Kim & Kim there is a need for the former name to be included to help readers. Of course, there are plenty of additional reliable sources that cover their work on Stronghold and Andrews Jackson as I mentioned above - and those were pre-name change. -- Netoholic@ 02:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The digital copy I have of Kim & Kim #1 credits the author under her current name, as does the Comixology page; I don't have a physical copy, but the Bleeding Cool article you linked says that the published version uses Magdalene. I think only the ashcan from NYCC, of which there are undoubtedly a tiny number out there, lists her old name. And yes, there are a handful of articles out there about Stronghold (aka Sanctuary) and Andrew Jackson, but not many, and certainly not multiple significant articles from multiple respected sources specifically about her under her birth name. It's perhaps worthwhile to note that nobody considered her notable enough to create a Wikipedia age about until September 2019, 3.5 years after the Bleeding Cool article about her changing her name. Compare to Rayna Russom, who was notable enough for a Wikipedia article seven years before she came out publicly, and who is credited under her birth name in more than oneacclaimed album – her deadname appears only in the infobox. Or alternatively, Lynn Conway; she co-created an extremely influential computer architecture scheme under her birth name, which does not appear in the article at all. I don't see how Visaggio's birth name is at all comparable to those two figures. I don't see how it's at all necessary in the lead. Epistemenical (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite possible you found two example articles which themselves are mistakenly not including an obviously relevant former name. I see a recent discussion on one of those talk pages, and the removal of the other birth name was recent and not stated in the edit summary so just might have been missed. As for the rest, there is WP:NODEADLINE so precisely when an article is created is not often an indicator of when they achieve "notable" status - many articles are deleted each day for non-notable people, and the WP:WikiProject Women in Red that created this article is focused on subjects that they believe are long overdue for inclusion, sometimes even by hundreds of years. Its very hard to look at the state of sources as they were 4+ years ago and really know if at that time the subject was or was not notable. -- Netoholic@ 03:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the explicit WP:NAMECHANGE policy, I'd be interested to see an existing article about a different comics writer with eight self-published issues to their name, with two Amazon ratings, four Goodreads logs, and maybe five capsule reviews on small comics sites between them. In any case, I just do not see who it benefits to have her deadname in the lead of the article rather than in the Personal Life section and Bibliography, as you yourself suggested. I can't imagine there are more than a handful of potential readers who know her extremely small library of self-published comics but not her more recent, far more successful work, and these hypothetical readers would be perfectly well-served by scrolling down. On the other hand, emphasizing her deadname does harm the public perception of her: from Wikipedia:Gender identity#Transphobia, Many people consider questioning or disregarding a person's gender identity — including by intentionally using a former name of theirs or by using pronouns which do not correspond to their current gender identity — to be transphobic and dehumanizing. Wikipedia policy has decided that when it's significantly in the reader's interest, this is okay. It just really, really does not seem to be significantly in any substantial portion of readers' interest here. Epistemenical (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the person, there is a lot of information on Wikipedia that can "harm the public perception" of someone or even cause them distress, but we are WP:NOTCENSORED. What you quoted is an essay of opinion held by some editor(s) but not a guiding principle we follow. That quoted statement is itself deeply harmful as it implies that any editor seeking inclusion of a subject's birth name is "transphobic and dehumanizing" which is counterproductive to the process and a subtle attack on those editors. This decision has to be coldly rational and for the benefit of readers. It is a fact that this person gained some level of notoriety for their early work using a different name, and the article has to reflect that otherwise they might think this is two different authors, possibly related to each other. Already, Amazon, GoodReads, Comixology, and others have separate entries in their databases for this author due to some level of confusion. It is probably their goal that all works for an author are under a single profile, and Wikipedia may be used to facilitate that process as a reference for them as long as we are accurate and complete. -- Netoholic@ 05:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That page is a draft, and like the essay mentioned above, isn't a binding guideline or principle. -- Netoholic@ 09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is really no need for the name in the lead. All of the published issues and TPB's for Kim & Kim are credited as Magdalene Visaggio (I do own all the issues in print) and by the end of Stronghold this was also the name credited and also the name under which the comics are credited on Comixology. Richardm9 (talk) 09:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why certain prominant persons have the right to privacy while others are denied it. Stop special priviliges. 2001:871:22B:ECB4:312C:3A16:F370:C70C (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I currently read the consensus here to not include the birth name. Unless that consensus changes, Netoholic, kindly do not re-add it. Primefac (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: What an odd little "note" here. It reads like you're trying to close this discussion summarily and dissuade further participation. All while actively inserting your own edit into the back and forth - very much like a WP:SUPERVOTE - and I think you should strike that implication and participate as a peer. As for your removal as "unsourced", the subject has used that full name themselves in the writing credits of their early work. Surely this is good enough... and proves the necessity for including that name for the benefit of readers. -- Netoholic@ 15:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that you're edit-warring to keep the name in, and the consensus is to keep it out. You are correct that my edit summary was slightly in error (I had not checked the talk page), though in fairness I did not see any references provided in the article to substantiate the deadname. I am not dissuading further discussion, and in fact encourage it. You'll note that I have never edited this page previously - I was alerted to it because of your edit warring and removed the content in an administrative manner. I probably could have left this note on your talk page, but given the change in question is of a BLP/privacy nature I did not want to shine more light on the situation. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'd be interested to hear how, in the flurry of thousands of daily edits across Wikipedia, you were "alerted to it" by virtue of my edits yet have missed my extensive participation in (and initiation of) this talk page thread. You use the term "deadname", so I have to ask, is this an issue which you have strong feelings about? I'm interested to hear how you square removal of "the content in an administrative manner" with the principles of WP:INVOLVED which advises that you shouldn't be using your status as an admin in a content dispute in that case. -- Netoholic@ 22:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki communication does exist, and that's all I need to say about that. As for the terminology I used, as an oversighter I come across situations like this often and that is the term the OS team uses. I can honestly say I have no strong feelings about whether this individual's birth name is included in the article, other than the general desire to hold to BLP and consensus. I made the original edit as an editor, and made my comments here as an admin commenting on the edits being made on the article. The two can happen without there being any "involvement". If you have a problem with my behaviour you are welcome to bring it up for review at AN. Primefac (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: So to confirm the sequence of events. First, in some unaccountable off-wiki communication (WP:MEATPUPPET) you became aware of my edits and this article content issue (but somehow not this existing discussion thread). Next, you became part of the content issue by making your edit, using an edit summary of "unsourced" when really it was because you disagreed on the inclusion of the "deadname". Last, you make a post on this talk page in an administrative capacity directing me to retain your preferred content version. -- Netoholic@ 01:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot confirm your sequence, because it is not true. First, there are about four dozen people who can verify there was a conversation that led me here (or rather, to the problematic article content). Second, I removed an (in-the-article-)unsourced deadname, which I would have done for any controversial, unsourced piece of BLP information; it was clearly controversial, given the edit history. Third/last, I made a post in an administrative capacity asking you to not edit war and follow the emerging consensus (you haven't "officially" broken WP:3RR, but 5 reverts in a week is still rather problematic). Primefac (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Are you aware that these 5 reverts were strictly due to the article subject themselves tweeting their displeasure, which directed several IP and largely-inactive logged-in accounts to make these removals? I was the one that opened this discussion here. Is it really a "emerging consensus" when dozens of twitter followers and four dozen people in your off-wiki discussion have descended on this page? Again I refer you to WP:MEATPUPPET. -- Netoholic@ 02:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, us Oversighters all got together and had a grand discussion about how to stack consensus against you. I dropped enough hints earlier, you probably should have figured out that it came through an OTRS ticket. Primefac (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Well, then that seems like a overreach by the Oversighters, if indeed you are acting on their collective behalf. If this was an Oversight-able situation, you would have removed the name and rev-deleted everything including it. Since the person confirmed that this indeed accurately their birth name, there is nothing an Oversighter needs to do because the information is accurate, non-defamatory, and is public information. I've made the case for its inclusion in the lead (and minimally in the Personal life section) based on current guidelines. So far, not many un-involved (non-MEATPUPPET) voices have been heard in this discussion. -- Netoholic@ 02:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've clearly made up your mind that you're getting railroaded here somehow, so I'm done explaining. You're just going to try and turn whatever I say against me anyway. If you don't like the consensus, start an RFC to get more opinions. Primefac (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: You called me out by name on this talk page, invoking your authority as an admin and, as it turns out, Oversighter. And yes, if you say something which points to bad acts on your part, expect it to be used against you. I personally don't think there is a need and an RfC at this point. The discussion before you arrived was about inclusion in lead vs. Personal life section, and I am sure there is a reasonable solution here which balances against MOS:CHANGEDNAME. But your insertion here due to off-wiki discussion raises questions. Since you didn't rev-delete the info... I can assume that the Oversighter discussion resulted in no direct action and a polite "sorry, we can't help you" to the OTRS request. That means you came here in a personal capacity as an editor. But then... why invoke your status as Admin and Oversighting in this discussion at all? -- Netoholic@ 02:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: Usual policy is to include the birth/official name. I see no significant reason to not do this here. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 00:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Who is now unemployed due to their bad choices of self inserting themselves into their work killing readership.
(This is FACT! If you consider yourself a source for facts? You will add this very real truth.) 69.117.184.58 (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Liu1126 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: Usual policy is to include the birth/official name. I see no significant reason to not do this here. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 00:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)