Hacker News Reader

Comment by listenallyall | Hacker News Reader

In that link, why doesn't Wikipedia mention the subject's "Born" name, like they do with others who change their name? Natalie Portman, Teller, Elton John, just to name a few.

View on HN

Wikipedia's name policy is to include names that someone was notable under.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biog...

This includes trans individuals, such as Chelsea Manning or Elliot Page, who have their birth name in their respective articles. For some reason, these Wikipedia editorial decisions are extra controversial around trans people, so Wikipedia has a MOS section to explicitly address this in the case of biographies of trans people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biog...

Elton John was notable as Reginald Kenneth Dwight?

His career started in 1962 as RD and he legally changed his name to EJ in 1972. I think 10 years of being a reasonably famous musician under a name is notable, no?

By that logic, this is a rather impressive and notable CV, the majority of which was pre-transition:

https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/rachel-levine.html

ADM Levine was a Professor of Pediatrics and Psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine. Her previous posts included: Vice-Chair for Clinical Affairs for the Department of Pediatrics, and Chief of the Division of Adolescent Medicine and Eating Disorders at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center.

The notability requirement is specifically for transgender and non-binary individuals.

This is not true either. The "Presumption in favor of privacy" section, especially the "Privacy of names" part might interest you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...

There's two separate concerns:

1. Privacy of names in general

2. Treatment of people who have changed their names.

For #2 there is a specific rule dealing with deadnaming:

> 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 separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name.

Ah yes, I think I misunderstood what you meant by the notability requirement. AFAIK there are no cis people with pre-notability name changes covered under the privacy interest guidelines.

Isn't that, itself, bias? Why wouldn't Muhammad Ali receive the same consideration, given that he considered his birth name representative of racial oppression?

1. Ali specifically is moot since he won an Olympic Gold Medal (and his first professional world championship) under his birth name.

2. If calling black Muslims by their birth names were currently used as a way of signalling racism, then I suspect WP would adopt a policy for that as well.

As has been noted, Admiral Levine had significant accomplishments under her birth name. The point is, Ali isn't even granted the possiblity of having his birth name unexposed, because ONLY transgender and non-binary individuals are eligible for non-exposure.

> For some reason, these Wikipedia editorial decisions are extra controversial

Because there is a significant group of people who will insist on using a trans person's birth name even if it's no longer correct, being deliberately hostile but trying to hide behind a thin veil of plausible deniability.

Because Wikipedia tends to err on the side of respecting the wishes of the subject. For a less political example, CPG Grey's page doesn't have his legal name or photo despite them being pretty easy to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGP_Grey

If someone legally changes their name, that would indicate to me that the subject wishes to be known by the new name. Yet Wikipedia will still list the birth name.

People change their names all the time when they get married or immigrate and have no problem with their birth name's being available. I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement about this.

And some trans people "have no problem with their birth name being available," even if they have stopped using it. "Blanket statement," and all that...

>Because Wikipedia tends to err on the side of respecting the wishes of the subject.

Unless that subject is right wing.

Wolf Blitzer:

>Wolf Isaac Blitzer (born March 22, 1948) is an American journalist, television news anchor, and author who has been a CNN reporter since 1990, and who currently serves as one of the principal anchors at the network.[1] He is the host of The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and until 2021, served as the network's lead political anchor.

Seems fine, right?

Tucker Carlson:

>Tucker Swanson McNear Carlson[5] (born May 16, 1969) is an American television host, conservative political commentator and author who has hosted the nightly political talk show Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News since 2016.

But Tucker is labelled conservative.

Founder Larry Sanger: "Wikipedia is Badly Biased" https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

And you don't have to be right wing to see this. I'm a registered Pacific Green.

You've confused Tucker Carlson for a journalist. It's a mistake sufficiently common that his lawyers have had to explain in court that he is an entertainer and his words are to be taken as opinion. Journalists and entertainers are generally held to different standards, especially in court. A better comparison would be to Rachel Maddow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow

>Rachel Anne Maddow (/ˈmædoʊ/ (listen), MAD-oh; born April 1, 1973) is an American television news program host and liberal political commentator.

Maddow has used the same defense against litigation as Carlson. The 'conservative/liberal' tag is applied when a person is described as a political commentator.

>You've confused Tucker Carlson for a journalist.

Having the same bias as Wikipedia isn't evidence of their impartiality.

I'm sorry if that sentence made you think you had enough information to assess my political leanings, and I'm even more sorry if I gave the impression that I care about the politics of TV personalities. I'm strictly speaking in terms of how Wikipedia describes people on television. I may as well have said "You've confused Wolf Blitzer for a political commentator," as Wikipedia doesn't classify him that way, and he's never represented himself that way in court.

I've got no problem with your characterization of Carlson, but do you honestly believe Blitzer is an objective arbiter of truth?

I don't, and I think this myth among so many in "news" media has done more to misinform people than any of the pundits who are honest about their biases. See also, Dan Rather and Brian Williams.

I never said anything about believing the news. Wikipedia labels the political leanings of people they identify as political commentators, and they don't label the political leanings of people they identify as journalists.

In this case, both Maddow and Carlson have used the argument in court that a reasonable person would not take what they say as fact. Regardless of our personal opinions about him or his employers, Blitzer has not made that claim.

If we're trying to ascertain whether Wikipedia is biased in how it describes people on television, comparing a political commentator to a journalist is not going to be a very instructive example. Comparing to another political commentator is going to be more useful. I'm not making any assertions about how I feel regarding these people.

Wikipedia's editing policy is to only include the birthname in the article if the individual was famous/well-known with it prior to changing it -- otherwise it's considered a privacy issue.

Rachel Levine is listed as an explicit example of this in their guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gend...

Actors don't change their name because they're changing their identity, actors often act under a different name because they are required to have a unique name to participate in certain organisations (e.g: screen actors guild). An actor may be known as Natalie Portman but who knows what's on her passport? Transgender people are typically changing their identity, which is a different process.

In some cases, it is only a professional identity, and their legal name is unchanged. But others do change their legal name, and Wikipedia still mentions the birth name. Same with married women who take a spouse's name.

> Transgender people are typically changing their identity

This is not a thing that is possible, although the idea that it could be has lead to at least a few transgender women claiming in court that they are innocent of the crimes they committed before their new name and presentation.

Because "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased" according to founder Larry Sanger: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

He thinks Wikipedia is biased because it describes (correctly) that "alternative medicine" is bullshit? And also he is a climate change denier? Why is he not complaining that there is bias against the flat earth people on wikipedia? Sorry, "scientific minorities". This article proves nothing other than the author is useless.

I read the article and I must have missed where it's stated that he is a climate denier or that alternative medicine is or is not bullshit. Those are just two of several examples where he tries to show the lack of neutrality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com