Talk:Aleshia Brevard

More anon
Photos coming, and more content, too. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of line from lead
Hi User:Mathglot, I've removed the sentence from the lead because it has a number of issues. Most importantly, the article shows that it's not true that Brevard "lived her life as a woman outside of any sense of transgender community" as she became friends with other trans women, "Charlotte McLeod and Kathy Taylor, and they became a support network for each other". Second most importantly, it's not clear why it should be in the lead. Not being a part of a transgender community, "just going about developing her education and career" doesn't explain anything about her or her importance. Finally, the sentence is very poorly written and it's hard to understand what it means. Cjhard (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Cjhard, I don't disagree, and I can see a possible argument about not putting it in the lead. And you're right that it's poorly written and hard to understand.  I think there are probably two issues here that we need to resolve.  One is, she had her SRS so early, that the concept of transgender/transsexual wasn't understood, even by medical specialists outside of one or two pioneers worldwide, let alone discussed or understood by the press or the public.  HBIGDA/WPATH and the "Standards of Care" lay still in the future,  the landmark The Transsexual Phenomenon which first brought that word to the public's attention hadn't been written yet, and the word "transgender" hadn't been coined yet.  That's how early it was.
 * The other, is the sense of "community". Yes, of course, she had friends, "people like her", and one sense of the word "community" does cover that.  But I think that wasn't the intention here, when speaking about a "transgender community."  There were other lesbians in England in the 1920s when Well of Loneliness was written for example, and the lucky ones may have even found a kindred soul to live with as "unmarried spinsters", but fast forward several decades to Daughters of Bilitis, Dykes on Bikes, and the Ellen Show and we're talking about a completely different sense of "community" than just a few friends in on your little secret.  And however little community there was for lesbians in the 1920s, there was even less for transgender women in the early 1960s.  Basically, there was Christine Jorgensen from 1952, and that's it; for all anybody knew, she was the only one in the world, a completely unique case.  That was never the case for homosexuals, who although they were treated like dirt and despised by society and hidden in dark corners, but they were always known about, which is why governments passed laws against them.
 * So, coming back to the article: from Aleshia's own statements, she was never part of a transgender community or identified as transgender until she was in her 60s. She lived her life as a woman, not as a transgender woman.  Other than Jorgensen, there was no Caitlyn, no Laverne, no Janet, no public discussion, no awareness, and no community.  She was basically stealth until her 60s, although sure, she had some girlfriends who knew her situation, but that's like one's circle of friends, your "personal community", not a "transgender community" the way we think of it today.  So how do we best convey this difference of the lack of community, indeed invisibility, in which she spent almost her entire adult life, something which is so hard to imagine today when it is such a popular subject in the mainstream press and in other media? Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the problem words are "any sense".
 * Here's my attempt at a rewrite of the sentence in question and the proceeding sentence: "As a result of her historically early transition [and possibly some other reason (lack of interest?)], she lived her life outside of a wider transgender community. As a result, she was not publicly identified as transgender until publishing her memoirs in her later years."
 * What do you think? Cjhard (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Still mulling it over. I think I have a problem with "wider", but I'm still thinking about how to word this.


 * I Just came across a fairly recent interview, which makes the point clear. Aleshia was interviewed by a Chicago gay publication, the Windy City Times:"WCT: You had gender-reassignment surgery ( GRS ) in 1962, but kept it a secret. How welcoming do you think Hollywood would have been had you been open about it?

AB: There would have been no career—period. When all of this began for me, there was no gender community. Even though there is a community, not everyone is going to dine at the same restaurant, so I lived totally in stealth. After surgery I was married four times and my husbands did not know. I wanted a career and I knew that if there was any breadth of my history I would not have that career. I was very fortunate to 'pass.'"
 * So there was basically no community, not even a "narrow" one in the beginning. Later, of course, a community started to grow up around her, but without her because by that time, her choice of approach (stealth) had already been made: she had a career, and a husband, that might have exploded had she started to identify with the budding trans community.
 * Notice the poor choice of words for the surgery, btw? It's either gender confirmation surgery, or sex reassignment surgery, but certainly not gender reassignment surgery, as her gender was about the one thing that didn't change.  Anyway, we should probably work this ref into the article somehow, as it has a lot of good info.  I'll try to come up with a way to word the lead, but if you have more ideas, feel free. Mathglot (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Telegraph UK reliable for US obit?
Should we rely on The Telegraph, UK as a reliable source for a death notice for someone in the US, when there is no obituary from a single reliable U.S. newspaper or other source?

The article on Aleshia Brevard has had repeated incidents of editors marking her deceased based on unconfirmed reports in unreliable sources such as blogs (TransGriot), unsourced websites (Andrea James) and also IMDb. In the latter case, I wrote to IMDb asking for their sources for this, and they retracted the death notice in response. Andrea James's source was a Tweet, and that person has not responded to inquiries. The blogger at TransGriot has not responded to inquiries either.

Aleshia lives/lived in Santa Cruz, and there is no obit in the Sentinel or the Mercury-News, the local papers covering that area. Only the Telegraph has an obit, which has details about her life, possibly culled from Wikipedia, but no information about a hospital, an illness, a funeral home, a funeral service, a cemetery, a place to send flowers or memories, or any of the normal trappings of an obit. Just general information about Aleshia's life, kind of like the TransGriot article.

Now, Aleshia is/was 79, and could well have passed, but this question is one of paying strict attention to WP:BLPSOURCES. I'm trying to determine whether we should accept this very-weak appearing obit from the The Telegraph, in the face of not a single obit in a U.S. newspaper. My guess is, that The Telegraph is copying one of the blogs, or IMDb before it retracted. (I have contacted The Telegraph and am waiting for a reply.)

This is a BLP, and the article lists her as dead, and I'd like to revert this as not based on a reliable source. May I do this? And how should I word the edit summary, since I assume The Telegraph is usually considered reliable? Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, if there's a clear sense that this should be reverted, it might be better if someone else did it, as I have reverted three or four *clearly* unreliable sources on this article already. Since this case seems borderline to me, if a revert is needed, I'd rather someone else did it.  Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this as you suggest. Ordinarily, I'd say the Telegraph should be a reliable source for anything... even if I don't always agree with their editorial line, it's usually regarded as a reputable paper. In this case, though, the evidence from elsewhere is so starkly lacking, that I think I have to agree with you. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This is actually a tough call. Telegraph is usually accepted as a reliable source, but it appears that false obituaries have appeared. (There was a similar case regarding Pola Illéry, who may have died in 1993 but got a Telegraph obit that said 2012.  It's still not entirely clear which is correct.) That being said, it seems no one is denying that Brevard died and she has been living a rather quiet life for many years now, so it is conceivable that the local newspapers overlook her.  But then, I also searched under her birth name and her personal site and found nothing on either.  I think I will post this on WP:BLP/N to try to get a consensus.  EternalNomad (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, EternalNomad.   Where there's a lot of smoke, there's probably a fire, but *none* of the local papers have reported this, and the Telegraph obit lacks standard obit data and looks fishy to me.  Now, Aleshia could totally have passed on at home, say, but as a minor celebrity, the local papers should totally have a big article on her, certainly at least as big as the Telegraph, which smells to me of having picked up the blogger or IMDb's report (before they retracted it), and run with that, without actual data.
 * What's been driving me so far, is that when something is a tough call on a BLP you err on the side of caution. As soon as we get a legit obit in the Sentinel, The Mercury News, or the SF Chronicle, I'll be the first one in line to post the notice.  (I've contacted the Chronicle and am awaiting their reply.)
 * On a related matter, I've already reverted twice at Deaths in 2017 for two different sources, and now someone has reverted me, adding the Telegraph reference this time. I won't revert that one, but if you agree that this should not be reported yet, I would that hope you or Amakuru or someone else would consider doing so until this is resolved. Thanks again for your help, 00:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding BLP/N link for the record. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even the most reliable sources can and do get caught out, but unlike the tabloid press, they usually issue retractions, make changes and apologise where appropriate. The Telegraph obit was published on 20 July, and looks okay to me, but I know nothing about Brevard. I'm UK-based, and have used Telegraph obits for US subjects. Edwardx (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to wait for one more reliable source or any other kind of confirmation before re-including, both here and at Deaths in 2017. I have reverted both. There's quite a lot of material on her from when she was alive, so I find it very surprising that there's no more sources if she is indeed. It's certainly still possible that the Telegraph are a victim of following fake news, and in the uncertainty we should err on the side of not calling her dead per BLP policy, should we not? &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it has been confirmed by the SF Chronicle that she has died. EternalNomad (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it; her death was confirmed by her landlord, and by her sister in N.C. The Chronicle article can be relied upon. Thank you for posting the update.  Mathglot (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, there we go. RIP to her. Odd that it took so long for other sources to catch up, but I think we probably did the right thing in not reporting her dead until there was more confirmation that it wasn't just a rumour or "fake news". &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It was definitely the right thing. Sometimes they just don't hear the news until someone tips them off. The Chron (SFGate) should've been lead on this, so a little birdie contacted Sam, and sure enough, they hadn't heard. He had it written within a couple of days, but still did a better job than anyone else, with lots of corroborating detail, including the info from her sister in NC, and her friend/landlord in Scotts Valley. The Telegraph got back to me, and just said they heard it from "a friend" of hers, but were very cagey, still could've been just ripped off the web, but the Chron came through with full details, and multiple sources.  I trust them.  Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Citations style and reverted edits
Hello Mathglot! I modified the citation style on this article because there was an issue with WP VisualEditor not being able to recognizing the two different citations styles (resulting in lots of duplications of numbers), I am sorry I did not consult Citing sources prior. Right now the Brevard citations are all being hide within the alternative style, which makes it more difficult for any good faith editor(s) to replace these sources due to the article being tagged BLP primary sources since 2016. With the revert of my edits there was also a revert of new sources and new content too. Jooojay (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see this issue falls into duplicate citations since VE doesn't work this current style of citation. However, I would like to hear from others including Mathglot on this topic, since a lot of edits/work have now been reversed. Jooojay (talk) 06:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Jooojay, I'm not quite sure I understand the full import of what you are saying, although I gather there's some kind of issue with WP VisualEditor concerning citations. Can you be more specific? All I can say without knowing more, is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines trump any difficulty that might be the result of a tool like visual editor.  If, in fact, the tool is causing issues with citations, cannot recognize certain styles, or whatever the problem you're having is, then I would suggest you raise the VE issue at VisualEditor/Feedback or Village pump (technical), and link the one from the other.
 * In the meanwhile, how can I help? Mathglot (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Mathglot, The problem I have with your suggestion is that Visual Editor is now part of Wikipedia (as of 2015), it's not just an add-on tool now. It was designed to encourage new WP editors, perhaps ones that don't like coding. I assume you have been editing awhile and maybe you don't care for VE, which is totally fine (its completely buggy and I understand that). But since nobody owns this WP article, can you understand how this articles current layout might be discouraging other editors (other editors than yourself) from improving it? Jooojay (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why this citation style was chosen? Jooojay (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jooojay If you take care not to delete any current citations or sourced material (primary or otherwise), then please feel free to add your content back with citations in any style you choose, and I will fix them up after you are done editing.
 * As far as your other points about the tool itself, this is the wrong venue to address that. If you raise an issue on one of the pages suggested and ping me there, I’ll be happy to take part in the discussion, but it should be open to all, not just to the (very few) editors who happen to pass by here, as it could affect all pages on wikipedia and all users who use VE, therefore way beyond the scope of an article talk page.  Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

You are treating this article as if it was your own by giving me permissions to do so - it took me hours to clean it up and add, replace citations as well as other general copy edits and tables. And it was removed with what seems like no cause and with little consideration or review. I am waiting for your feedback as to what caused you to make this decision, because the link to Citing sources seems weak, when reviewing the state of mess this articles current citations are in (there are actually citations used that are not even in the master list aka "sources"). And on top of that nobody here is explaining why this citation style is being used here. If you want to work together, I need more from you. Jooojay (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and you don't need permission from anybody to do so. I know it must have taken you a while to create the tables, and as I said in the edit summary of the revert, they were fine, and You're welcome to add the table changes back in. I'm sorry if you saw that as "giving permission"; I didn't mean it that way, I was trying to say that the table would be a fine addition to the article.  The reason I reverted was because instead of proceeding in separate edits, you bundled the table addition into the same edit with some citation changes that are against content guidelines, namely, changing an established citation style in the article. Perhaps I should have reverted only the problematic half of your edit and kept the other half, but that takes more work and I didn't have enough time then, and so I took the easy way out.  If you like, I'll put your table back in myself, or you could; just let me know which you prefer.
 * On the other hand, please don't make changes to the citations merely to change them to a style you prefer. I understand that you say the current citation style is problematic for you, or looks messy in Visual Editor, or whatever; however, that simply is a much bigger topic than could, or should, be discussed here, as the Talk page should be reserved for discussions on how to improve the article.  If articles in certain citation styles appear messy to you, I strongly urge you to raise that issue at WP:VPT or the VE page where there are people present who could address it and possibly do something about it. Maybe this nav template will have some useful links:


 * HTH, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I am unclear if your intentionally not taking responsibility for this mistake? I don't have the ability to roll back your reversed edits. And there is no way I would re-do all that work at this point, so you suggesting that I take responsibility for your edits reversal is rude. I did not change the citation style because I thought it looked messy - I am sorry if somehow you are still misunderstanding me. I changed the citation style because the current citations are broken right now (and this is not just based on VE, there are obvious editing issues with the citations as they currently are and I can fine tooth comb each and every WP reference but I don't think there is a point). I am fine with leaving the citations as they are - but what about all the other edits which included tables and new sources? Jooojay (talk) 01:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Film/TV & Theater tables you added in this edit which I reverted, I asked above if you would like me to restore the tables, and I didn't hear a clear response either way. If you want me to, I will restore the tabular content in sections 6 and 7 for you.  There is a complication, which I will take care of, which is this:  you added those tables using a different citation style; so restoring the two tables might have to happen in two steps: step one: restore all the content first (without the footnotes) and step two: recreate all the footnotes.   I'm happy to do step one for you for now; step two might have to wait a bit. A halfway-house might be just to pick up the already existing footnotes from the version before yours and use those.
 * Regarding the citations, there does seem to have been a communications problem, and I did misunderstand you about the citations and the motivation for your changes. What I now understand you to be saying, is that you changed the citations not because you didn't like the citation style, but because the citations as they were before your edit were broken, and now after my revert of your edit, they are once again broken. Is that a fair statement of your position?
 * If that is your position, then I must disagree. None of the citations were broken before your edit, nor are they broken now. Or at least, I am unable to see any problems with them, and if you can, then I need more information from you.   I've spent a considerable amount of time trying to understand what the problem with the citations is, without success.  You say things like, the current citations are broken right now, and there are obvious editing issues with the citations as they currently are.  But I'm telling you that I see no issues with the citations right now, and I'm aware of no editing issues, unless you tell me what they are.  If you want help fixing a problem, you have to be able to describe clearly what problem you see, or what it is that you want changed, and even with all the back-and-forth above, I still haven't the faintest idea what you think is broken and needs fixing.  Maybe I'm a dunce and need more description than the average person, so okay, fine, humor me: explain the problem to me as clearly and simply as you can, as a sequence of steps to reproduce the problem: "1. go here and do this, 2. then do that, 3. then do this; and 4. now, notice how XYZ is broken: it should do abcd but instead it does pqrs."  Something like that would be good. If there is a problem in the wikicode relative to the citations, I will fix it.  At the risk of repeating myself for the n-th time, if you are referring to an editing problem having to do with how Visual Editor processes citations, I'm utterly unable to help with that; I've already mentioned twice where you can go to request assistance.
 * If we're having a communications problem, then all the more reason to keep it simple and take things one at a time so we can make some progress here; so: would you like me to restore the tabular format that you added in version 865883409 of 20:09, October 26, 2018 (diff) back into sections 6 & 7 (Film & TV, Theater), yes or no? I hope we can at least get that taken care of, for starters.  Thanks,  Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. Please add back the tables from the reversed edits and the other edits that were not related to changing the citation style - including the new citations. Jooojay (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Step one is done. Mathglot (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Mathglot. It seems there is a lot of other information still missing from that edit - I assume that is what your considering as "step 2"? Jooojay (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything missing other than citations that need to be converted. If you do, please tell me specifically what content is missing. Regards, Mathglot (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Brevard 2015" is being used as a source - without any associated reference - this had been fixed in the earlier edits. Also the tables had citations prior, which are now missing. Jooojay (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Mathglot I was trying to fix the missing citation from 2015 (if you had actually fixed it the first time) - and using the talk page to edit collaboratively. The &lt;better source tags> are because they are primary sources literally written by the subject of this article - which are not proper sources for WP. Please do not attack people in edit history, it's not civil behavior. I had removed the extra ref tag - I did not add one. Jooojay (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's what you were going for, you unnecessarily changed some cite params, mixing up param  for   which were correct before you started. Your fix to the   tag was correct and I've reinstated it. I've placed primary source tags (rather than better source on the Brevard books in the Sources section; tags are not needed in the Works section, as that is simply a bibliographic list, and not used for referencing. As far as attacks, see your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing it Mathglot. I only added back the 2015 reference that was deleted in the last edit. Jooojay (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by Gshaezoll (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)