Talk:Cidny Bullens

Untitled
Cindy Bullens announced some time ago that he is transgender and would like to be known as Cidny Bullens and use male pronouns - would it be possible to respect this in the Wikipedia article about him? Thanks. 176.249.122.137 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's cool; it's okay by me. I started this article many years ago.  However, as with Wendy Carlos, the article also needs to reflect that most of his public work – the Bob Dylan tour, backup singing with Elton John, Grease, the Refugees, etc. – is under the name of Cindy, not Cidny.  The coming out as transgender dates from 2012.  "Bullens" might be a better way to identify him rather than one "he" after another. Shocking Blue (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Overhaul & page move
In reviewing this article, it seems that there is undue weight within the lede section that should be incorporated within the article itself under Career; since there is no further information to follow up on what is first introduced (as is considered "good writing" on WP). Also, since the subject goes by and is known as Cidny and not Cindy; I suggest a page move, since the French WP has already done so. If there are no objections, I will go ahead and clean-up the article and then administer a page move similar to other subjects, i.e. Caitlyn Jenner. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect name change
I see that you have changed the content name within the article to confusingly misplace it in several places to Cindy and Cidny. Bullens is not "also known as Cidny Bullens" as you have referred to him in the infobox. Cidny has made it publicly known that he has legally changed his name to Cidny and his gender identity to a man. The article has been changed to Cidny, and therefore the tense should remain: "formerly known as Cindy"; not "now known as". You have given no reason in your edit summary, and no reliable sources to many of your changes. I've also noticed that you have created the page: Somewhere Between Heaven and Earth. For which you have provided no reliable sources or citations and may be placed for AfD due to promotional verbiage. Until you can provide reliable sources to back your claim for the changes to this article for the name change, I will be rv'ing them unless consensus is reached. The correct terminology for transgendered subjects is "formerly known as" with the present day name that they identify by associated with the article and subject. (Please see reference above and discussion at BLP Board of this subject / article) You will also need to provide a reliable source for "Cynthia". Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP standard: Caitlyn Jenner Infobox and Lede. Also: Chaz Bono. Maineartists (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

"Bring it to the talk page"
Why do we need to point out in the discography section which material was released "pre-transition" and "post-transition"? It's already covered by noting his name change and under what name the releases occurred. It is discussed in the prose that Cidny transitioned. His transition is not relevant to point out in the discography section and omitting it is not something I should even need to discuss as if it's some BLP issue or like I'm trying to censor the fact they're a trans man. It should be known by the time a reader gets to the discography that Cidny transitioned. Or if a reader skips to the discography section and are confused as to why "Cindy" then "Cidny" occurs, they can consult the prose. I don't see why we need to say "pre-/post-transition" at all there—it seems gratuitous and plainly unnecessary to point out in a simple discography listing.  Ss  112   04:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may have mistaken my edit as being somewhat personal; as your replies here and in the summary seem slightly confrontational. Let me be clear: I have absolutely no dog in this fight. Since this is all new territory at WP and editors rely on policy and a clear history of edits based on consensus and discussion; it is best to have a recorded discussion for future editors to back their claim as to why a discography does or does not need to include "pre-" / "post-" transition status in a BLP WP article. Similar to editors wishing to omit the lede statement: "formerly", there is a clear history of consensus that states it is an agreed style at WP. I am pinging since they edited the section back in May 2022. If you recall, they changed "female folk trio" to "band". A discussion needs to take place in support of inclusion or opposition toward deletion. That way, it can serve as a model for those in the future who wish to know how this very element of title should be used or not. I for one do not feel that "pre-" or "post-" needs to be included, since simply stating "Cindy" and "Cidny" is quite informative enough for the record label itself. The discography has nothing to do with transition of the artist; only the actual text name on the album and liner notes imply such. However, that is just one opinion. I am sure others may see it differently. But my vote would be in support of name only: i.e. Cindy Bullens (1978 - 2010). Hope this helps. Maineartists (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but there doesn't appear to be any contention in the article history about needing to mention when he transitioned in the discography section, so reverting me like it's something we need to "clarify" as if it's divisive was heavy-handed and unnecessary because there's no such opposition. This is being far too careful over a non-issue. If there had been opposition, I would feel your revert was justified. That is Theaquariumest's only edit to the article—they haven't edited Wikipedia since October and aren't a very active Wikipedia editor, and all they did was rewrote/properly formatted the headings. They weren't saying they thought the "pre-/post-transition" needs to be present. You agree—there's no need to mention in the discography that Cidny transitioned or what was released "pre-" or "post-transition", so that's two versus...nobody insisting the opposite. There's nothing binding us to using those headings in policy around BLPs of transgender individuals so I don't see why it can't already be removed without the need for discussion. Again, there has been no opposition or insistence we need to mention transitioning in the discography.  Ss  112   15:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavy-handed? I'm not quite sure that my reversion merits such definition towards supporting division. You are correct. There has been no opposition to the inclusion. The consensus had been from May 2022 until January of 2023 by way of non-reversion. The only opposition for its inclusion was yours, 9 months later. Regardless of how many edits an editors makes at an article, the consensus stood for that period of time without contention. There have been over 20 additional edits by recurring editors to this article that did not find the original edit to be not in keeping with WP policy enough to revert it. Lastly, I'm not quite sure what argument you are trying to achieve by stating: "there has been no opposition or insistence we need to mention transitioning in the discography." This would certainly speak equally toward a non-policy inclusion and more for consensus at the individual article level. Which in this case proved for the past year to be acceptable until now; which a discussion has now been started. Maineartists (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, happy to let you know my intentions with the edit I originally made! As @Ss112 brought up, the goal of my edit was to reformat the headings without removing any information that was already there. Also, as you mentioned, I'm not a frequent editor, so I'm not familiar with a lot of Wikipedia policy; however, as a transgender person, I'll say that I do prefer the "As ..." language that only emphasizes the needed information. I'll weigh in that @Ss112's edit seems to align more with policy. It confirms that Cidny is just a person who has gone by two different names, without needlessly mentioning it, and matches policy for music artists who use stage names (e.g. Chet Faker). I just didn't think of any other phrasing at the time I made my edit. I'm happy to support the change, even if my version was unchanged for a while, because I agree this is new and evolving policy. If better language is found, it should set new precedent. Theaquariumest (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ss112's edit summary "not necessary" was all the explanation needed for that edit. Reverting it with "Bring it to the Talk Page", without giving any indication of what your objection might be... was not. See WP:BRDREVERT for guidance on how to revert more constructively. (In particular, don't say "I don't have a dog in this fight", when you started the fight.) As for the content in question: There's no need for a discussion about it here because this is not actually "new territory". It's well established WP policy for trans subjects who were notable under another name that we acknowledge that name and explain the change, but we don't place unnecessary emphasis on it. Spotlighting his gender transition in the discography is literally "not necessary", and unless someone has an argument for why it is necessary... why are we discussing this? There is not statute of limitations or grandfather clause that says that anything that's been in an article for a while has to be left there; that would be ridiculous. Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi You are right. I could have been less abrupt in my summary. For that I apologize, re:Ss112. However, I do not see this as a fight, so I cannot accept your description of my intent. That being said, long standing content is far from ridiculous. There have been numerous examples where article edits have been reverted by editors and even administrators based solely on "long standing content". If Theaquariumest had added the content a day or so ago and Ss112 reverted it, then yes, one could see the revert being uncontested. But this content addition had stood for months with several additions since without reversion. I did feel, given the nature of the content, it warranted discussion, at least. But, as you pointed out, I could have gone about it in a less confrontational manner. Last, I am fully aware and quite familiar with the territory when it comes to trans subjects and WP articles. However, to blanket across the board expectation for all trans persons is not considerate of each individual subject. Bullens as an artist has been very open about their transition and has not only talked about it in sourced interviews but incorporated it in their work as many do trans artist. To diminish or deny their own acknowledgement of who they were during a period of creativity of expression is not our right of choice as WP editors. Especially if the subject themselves have incorporated into their art or shared publicly as shown in cited sources. Cheers to all. Happy editing. Maineartists (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks and  for putting into words what I didn't.  Ss   112   02:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)