Permanently Deleted
It's definitely not against the rules to fix pronouns if someone's correct pronouns are sourced.
That also really confused me, because I was surprised how fast Abby's wikipedia page was updated, all correct pronoun usage.
This post is either a bit, an op, or is just detached from reality.
The Wikipedia organization must express support for the left wing
Wikipedia must work with the CCP to ensure a fair representation of China on its websiteTake a guess
Or for a more known person: Elliot Page. I went to check the page when I saw his coming out and it was already moved and most of the pronouns changed (a few were just missed).
Wikipedia's actually pretty good about this iirc, at least aside from the whole 'if they were notable before transitioning, their deadname must be there' thing, but please correct me if I am wrong and/or a dumb cis boy please trans comrades :trans-heart:
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.
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.
From Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name: Laverne Cox (born May 29, 1972) ...
A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with "born" or "formerly":
From Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name: Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ... From Elliot Page, notable under prior name: Elliot Page (formerly Ellen Page; born February 21, 1987) ...
Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). In articles on works or other activity by a living trans or non-binary person before transition, use their current name as the primary name (in prose, tables, lists, infoboxes, etc.), unless they prefer their former name be used for past events. If they were notable under the name by which they were credited for the work or other activity, provide it in a parenthetical or footnote on first reference; add more parentheticals or footnotes only if needed to avoid confusion. Gender identity
It's pretty much a soft funded arm of alphabet agencies, so good luck. Wikipedia can't get minor details of popular movies and foreign dishes right, if you expect them to get something more nuanced right or to stand in a way to not create divisions among the people, I've got a sweet deal on an teacup shaped satellite.
Nothing is stopping us from simply copying the entirety of Wikipedia and editing it from there. I call it hexbearpedia.
There's prolewiki.org by some folks at lemmygrad trying just that iirc. The peoples' wikipedia is probably the best way to go, make our teachers that knew it was shit back when it first launched proud.
google doesn't fund editors though, the wiki community hates the WMF (which takes googles money)
Agreed, the early life section has become a meme among chuds because it always mentions Jewishness.
I thought the psychology pages were good on trans people last time I checked
Why is it wrong to mention Jewish ancestry on a biography page? Isn't this in the same line of flawed thinking as racial color blindness? Libs use "I don't see color" as a means of denying that racism exists. Similarly, chuds use the line of thinking to deny the need of diversity and to heighten segregation. Jewish people have faced discrimination historically. Not including ancestry information in the bio section of Jewish people seems like erasure.
edit/ Something that I'd like to specifically point out is that the post says not to mention Jewishness if it is "not relevant". From a privileged perspective, how would one know if the subject's Jewishness is "not relevant"? A person of privilege would likely not understand how a person being part of a discriminated group has contributed to their identity or life decisions.
