Talk:Daniel M. Lavery

More biographical information
In this Dear Prudence column, she mentions attending a small religious college and that she's "out". That's not enough to categorize her as bisexual or lesbian, but I'll add her to an LGBT category. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I added a citation where she says she is queer. KKohn00 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Toast
The Toast probably deserves its own article separately to her. Any thoughts on this? I could probably create one quickly in the next few days. Done one for Cliffe. Blythwood (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update - decided to basically superglue sections of this article and what I wrote for Cliffe into a short article at The Toast. It's not very good and expansion would be desirable. Blythwood (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference for name "Daniel Mallory Ortberg"?

 * You moved the page from "Mallory Ortberg" to "Daniel Mallory Ortberg" on the justification that was what an IP wrote. How do you know the IP was correct? The only source was https://www.autostraddle.com/mal-ortberg-merry-spinster-coming-out-trans-412246/ which does say the subject is transitioning, but never calls the subject "Daniel Mallory Ortberg". In the title it calls them "Mal". There is a picture which might be of the subject, but even it doesn't say "Daniel Mallory Ortberg", it says daniel_mallory_ellis; and it doesn't come out and say. This is a BLP, so we can't just guess, we really need to Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. A person changing their name in a transition is pretty sensitive, I'd say it is pretty likely to be challenged. What is our reliable published source for it, please? --GRuban (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I had the same question but upon checking, I see Ortberg has also changed Facebook to use "Daniel Mallory Ortberg", and is replying to commenters using that name. Seems solid enough to me, and better to use than bouncing the back and forth amongst our own guesses. But if Ortberg wishes to have the page changed again, we will all be very happy to do so as many times as is required to reflect latest expressed gender self-identification (per MOS:GENDERID). Innisfree987 (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ortberg has posted this and this, so, seems pretty definitive. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes me feel better. How about we use that first Twitter post as the inline source and write something like: "On March 12, 2018, Ortberg transitioned to male and the name Daniel Mallory Ortberg"(ref)first Twitter post(/ref)? Personal life section, I think, but wouldn't argue too hard against the lead. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What would you think of just putting the Twitter source as a ref on the name in the lead and defer the explication 'til we have more info? Since Ortberg has not done a great deal of elaborating, I'm reluctant to pin so specific a date or really do much characterizing at all--don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. --GRuban (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool ✅ Innisfree987 (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo
Separate question - so I'll start a new section - you really think we should remove the photo? I mean sure it's outdated, but all photos are. We'd certainly be happy to also put a newer one in, probably more prominently that the old one, but that doesn't mean we need to remove the old one. We keep the male presenting photos of Caitlyn Jenner and Chelsea Manning in those articles, right? In The Wachowskis it's the sole photo we have, so it's even in the infobox. --GRuban (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Ortberg will, I suppose, likely always be out about being trans, I think including an old female presenting photo could be ok, but I tend not to think it should be the infobox foto, which is really meant to be identifying and so feels misgendering to me (i.e. wrong to do to subject and misleading to readers; better no info than bad info, whether written or visual. For same reason, I actually think the Wachowskis' infobox photo probably should be taken down 'til we get a better one; I might go over and boldly do that or at least raise the issue on the talk page.) I also think we should prob hold off including such a pic in the body of the entry until the prose is substantial enough that a second photo wouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to the transition. Finally, in Ortberg's case, the sources we have so far suggest he's still in the process of transitioning, and I think it's better to leave things out while waiting for firmer info, rather than include anything that could be misleading until adequately contextualized (per the above discussion).
 * Does that make sense? Am I overlooking something (very well could be)? Innisfree987 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with not having it in the infobox, and understand your reasoning. But I do think we should have it in the article, properly labeled with the date (March 2, 2015), and - if you like - something like "pre transition". It's an accurate representation of the subject as of that date, and we shouldn't throw it out just because the subject has a different presentation now; at most we should just explain that. Career section, maybe, since that is the section that describes that time period? --GRuban (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No, we should not. Photos can be "outdated" for many reasons: a person may get a tattoo, put on weight, simply age. We don't remove a photo because it is outdated. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To the point: ‘Mallory Is Not Gone’: Daniel Mallory Ortberg on Coming Out As Trans. It seems pretty clear the subject does not feel offense at having old pictures about. --GRuban (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And even so, we don't remove pictures based on personal preference. It's worth knowing, I guess but it's not a policy here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the source--that RS is the kind of thing I was thinking we should wait for so we have a better sense of how to make sure the photo is an accurately/adequately contextualized (I had been about to reply re: WP:NODEADLINE but here giving it a day, you've already found a good source). And your suggestion of putting the pic with the Career section seems to reflect the source ("Toastified Mallory"), so I'm in favor of that.
 * And I've begun but will continue expanding the entry so there's not undue weight on the transition. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me but the status quo should remain until there is consensus to change it. (e.g. see WP:BRD.) There is no consensus to remove a perfectly valid picture because of one person's preferences. Please do make bold changes but don't assume the onus is on everyone else to justify what has been the status quo for years&mdash;it already has tacit consensus. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, just want to make sure you know my reversion was in good faith; my best understanding is that the WP:BRD process is by its own description optional whereas WP:V makes it policy that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So the fact that there was already discussion underway about if or how to keep the picture made it disputed content as best I understood the question, and thus appropriately to leave out until the matter was settled. My best-faith understanding at the time. But in any case sounds like we'll find a good resolution now. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No doubt--I 100% believe that you want to have a better article in a better encyclopedia. Of course, anyone could call anything "disputed" and that in and of itself doesn't make something disputed (imagine a Holocaust denier running rampant deleting content and demanding consensus on every WWII article, etc...) ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can certainly agree some disputes are legitimate and some are not; however--and this is putting it very mildly--I do not consider questions about making certain to represent someone's latest expressed gender self-identification accurately to be anything like Holocaust-denying disruption. To me the comparison makes for a tidy summary of the common-sense difference between when to adhere to WP:ONUS and when to WP:IAR. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sweet mercy, I'm not comparing what you're suggesting to Holocaust denial. I'm choosing an example where we would obviously agree. All content on the site that lasts for a length of time has a tacit consensus and there is no excuse for removing valid content. We don't have to have the most up-to-date or "accurate" photo of a person. Yes, generally more up-to-date photos are preferable for someone who is still alive as this actually helps to identify these individuals. But see (e.g.) Cat Stevens a photo of him how he presently appears, including an Islamic beard and photos from the '70s before his conversion. We don't only represent him as a publicly-facing Muslim. Etc, etc. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (EC) I mean, to put it differently, we had three different experienced content contributors with three different opinions, all of which were clearly in good faith and invoked policy. To me that's the definition of a valid dispute, triggering WP:ONUS. But the threshold for what content should be kept during dispute/what counts as a legit dispute probably becomes more of a question for possible revision of ONUS/the corresponding talk page, should anyone wish to keep pursuing it; I probably have said as much as I have to say on that specifically, but if someone really wants more of my opinion over there, I suppose go ahead and ping me. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am very much interested in your perspective and I don't want to be dismissive. I'm just having a hard time understanding it: can you think of any other example where we had a photo of a person which was free media and we removed it? I'm just not seeing why we would do that here. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually involved in a few. This may be because adding pictures to articles is a noticeable part of what I do here. Here is one: Talk:Brianna_Wu/Archive_1. Of course that was not a very good depiction of the subject. Then there was this one. It was a drawing rather than a photo, and someone objected on that basis. Then, finally, there was this one: User talk:Dtzuk1. There, I eventually gave in, because it was the Christmas season and I was feeling compassionate. (I'm almost certain my rabbi doesn't read Wikipedia talk pages.) It's a picture of the actress in bruise makeup, and the editor claimed to be her representative and that the picture was a hardship for her. There might even be others. It's rare, but does happen. --GRuban (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have argued for removing line drawings before as well but a clear (not perfect) and certainly representative photo with no copyrite issues? I have never seen that removed nor do I know why it would be. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo redux
Resuming the photo debate. I'll try for the common sense argument: It's a crummy picture by all measures that isn't even identifying the subject (the intended purpose of the infobox photo in particular). There's no rule that says we have to use a photo at all. I think the article is better without it. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, especially that it's not necessary at all to include a photo in an article if there is no suitable decent-quality accurate photo of a person. In general, an inaccurate and outdated photo/illustration/diagram of any subject can harm a reader's comprehension more than no image at all. This is especially important for biographies of living people -- as editors we must hold ourselves to high standards for BLPs.
 * In addition, I believe having a pre-transition (or otherwise substantially and meaningfully outdated) photo as the only or main photo in a biography article puts undue weight on the person's outdated appearance/presentation. Reliable sources and undue weight says "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Dreamyshade (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a fine photo. If we can get a better one, we should use it (either instead or as well); in fact I wrote the subject asking for one, but he did not respond. Until then we use what we have. It identifies the subject at one moment in time, that's all any photo does, it is literally, a snapshot in time. --GRuban (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ortberg uses he/him pronouns, not they/them pronouns, according to this source and others. MOS:LEADIMAGE says lead images should be "natural and appropriate representations of the subject", and it's not natural or appropriate to primarily represent a trans person with a pre-transition appearance -- it's misleading and confusing to the reader. MOS:LEADIMAGE goes on to say "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Dreamyshade (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite so, thank you, changing pronoun. --GRuban (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Come on, it's a crummy photo. The shadows are bad, the expression is strange, the subject's looking off at ??, there's the mic which I don't even care about but is often a subject of complaints when photos come under scrutiny on WP. Given that it additionally has the issue of whether it helpfully identifies the subject, I think it serves the reader better to just read the entry than have this not-very-good photo. I reiterate: it's not required we include it, much like infoboxes, or anything really, are not required but just included if it improves the entry. And here I think the entry is better off without it. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So, your objection is to the quality of the photo? Not to the presentation? So if it were an ideal photo of the subject at the same moment in time you wouldn't be objecting? That seems quite different to what you wrote before. In fact, your deleting the photo seems different to what you wrote before, where you apparently agreed that the subject does not feel strongly about hiding all aspects of his pre-transition life, and seemed fine moving it to a different section. If you are truly worried about photo quality, here is a 24 minute long Creative Commons Attribution licensed video of the subject, please feel free to grab a frame and upload it; I see you have a Wikimedia Commons account. Or, if that will satisfy you, say about where you believe the best image to be, and I will grab a screenshot, I've done it before. I recognize you have issues with the current image, and would love to meet them as much as possible. --GRuban (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually considered making the suggestion that someone with better technical skills than myself do just that (found it searching https://search.creativecommons.org/ in hopes of something from the recent book tour); however, I think Dreamyshade makes a good point about due weight, and I'm not persuaded that if we only have a pre-transition photo, even if placed elsewhere in the entry, we satisfy that requirement, and more to the point, that we add to the reader's understanding of the subject rather than muddying it (which is ultimately what due weight aims for--help make sure we give the reader an accurate portrayal). Reading back from the previous, it seems that's pretty much what I thought before. And I also continue to take a view that no deadline applies. If we had a good current photo, that'd help with the due weight but it's still a relatively short entry so two photos might dominate it inappropriately; hard to say without seeing it. So I'm inclined to wait and see. It's clearly still on my watchlist, so, I'll see it if someone comes up with a recent photo... Innisfree987 (talk) 02:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't write "I think including an old female presenting photo could be ok"? Or is the point that it shouldn't be the lead photo? I can compromise if you're willing to move it down to another place. But that wasn't what you did in your edit. --GRuban (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also think we should prob hold off including such a pic in the body of the entry until the prose is substantial enough that a second photo wouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to the transition. At the moment we don't even have a first good one. Let alone two good enough to merit inclusion. In principle I can think of a situation where it would be ok to include a pre-transition photo but I don't think that is now. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, but I am afraid I don't buy that Perfect is the enemy of good argument. The four of us seem stuck. We need to get others to weigh in. WP:RfC seems best. --GRuban (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Replaced with a much clearer photo that was easily obtained. Those arguments can now be ignored. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This inaccurately summarizes the above discussion, which included several more concerns the new image did not address. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC on article image
Should this article include a picture of the subject before Transitioning (transgender)? --GRuban (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Discussion can be seen above. Photos can be seen at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mallory_Ortberg or theoretically at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1ui7LCC6So


 * Yes. All photos are outdated, they're literally snapshots in time. In interview with the subject (‘Mallory Is Not Gone’: Daniel Mallory Ortberg on Coming Out As Trans), he has been clear he isn't interested in hiding his past, it's a part of him. We shouldn't leave out past photos just because we don't have a more recent one. --GRuban (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment if somebody tweeted at we could probably get a public domain and recent photo. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried emailing months ago, no response. --GRuban (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not at this time. As the subject recently transitioned, we do not currently have an identifying photo. Posting only a pretransition photo would only put undue weight on that aspect of the biography. There's no deadline; given what's currently available, the entry serves readers better without any photo. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How are photos from 2015 "undue weight" any more than photos of Elizabeth II as a child undue weight to her having been young? They are just photos of the subject: they aren't about transitioning or aging; they are just depicting the subject of the article. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a photo of Princess Elizabeth as the lead image on her article. Also there are plenty of photos of her as a young, middle-aged, and elderly woman to provide balance, which is how "undue weight" is countered. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of undue weight: it's one of greater accuracy. We aren't weighing how she currently looks against how she used to look, nor are photos supposed to be representative of some process that occurred when the photo was taken. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For an article with only one image, the image we use inevitably creates an emphasis on that part of the subject's life. If it is a recent image, it is clear that we are favoring recency, which is a neutral point of view. If it is an image from an earlier part of their life, then it suggests we are emphasizing that period instead, for some reason, and that should be avoided. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course Why not? We have photos of Arthur C. Clarke when he was living (he's not anymore), Penn Gillette when he was obese (he's lost a lot of weight), Elizabeth II as a child (she's old now): there is no reason to exclude a photo because it's not presently accurate. I agree that 1.) a better image is better and 2.) a more recent image of a living person is generally better. If other users want a better image in the infobox (as do I), then 1.) get one and 2.) move the current image to a different place in the article. See what happens if you try to remove File:Bruce Jenner discus PanAm 1975.jpg or File:Bradley Manning US Army.jpg from Wikipedia... Famous public figures at those points in time can be represented by photos. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The policy-based arguments are a stretch at best. This is ridiculous. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Not at this time. Until we have a photo of Ortberg post-transition, a female-presenting (and poor quality!) photo fails to meet the criteria of MOS:LEADIMAGE and provides WP:UNDUE weight to his transition. —   OwenBlacker (talk; please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 11:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at this time. Per OwenBlacker's rationale. --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as the lead image. "Obsolete" photos (e.g. young Liz, fat Penn) can have a secondary role in articles covering a long career, but for a living person the lead image should be representative of a person as they are now. Particularly when a person has undergone a gender transition or other dramatic change of appearance, it's important not to mislead the reader about that. For example, someone looking at the article now might easily conclude from it that Ortberg uses a male name but visually presents as female, which is not the case. MOS:LEADIMAGE supports leaving it out. When a more representative image becomes available to use as lead image, the older image could be added back as a secondary, historical image... but I don't think an article this brief calls for one. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "for a living person the lead image should be representative of a person as they are now" Is there a policy or guideline that states this? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not in those words, but it seems to me a reasonable conclusion from "natural and appropriate representations", "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works", "visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". A magazine profile piece about a living person rarely leads with a photo of them looking like they did 10 years earlier; they use something current. (This practice changes after a person dies, of course.) Particularly going forward, as more people know Ortberg as male, someone coming to this article would be increasingly surprised or confused to see him presented like this. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No. As I referenced in the earlier discussions above, MOS:LEADIMAGE is clear that lead photos should be "natural and appropriate representations" of a subject, and a pre-transition photo of a trans person is not the natural or appropriate lead photo of the person -- it's confusing to readers. Even without being the lead photo, if an article primarily includes a pre-transition portrait photo, that is in many cases WP:UNDUE weight on a person's pre-transition presentation, and it also puts undue weight on transition in general -- including a pre-transition photo at all can be undue weight. In the discussion at Talk:The Wachowskis, User:Mathglot brings up an additional helpful piece of the Manual of Style, MOS:GENDERID, that we should use words "that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise." I agree with Mathglot that this also guides editors toward using transitioned photos, omitting pre-transition photos unless absolutely relevant for specific reasons (such as Caitlyn Jenner's previous significant celebrity in her pre-transition appearance). Additionally, this is a WP:BLP, which means we must use the highest standards of respect and standards for this article - it "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy", "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously". It is not responsible or cautious to by default include pre-transition photos for a trans person just because those photos are available and CC licensed. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless I am misconstruing what you are saying, you are recognizing that a public photo of a public figure (e.g. File:Sonny and Chastity Bono 1974.JPG) is still appropriate, just not necessarily as the image in an infobox. Is that correct? I think that this is the consensus forming and I want to be sure that I'm not misunderstanding you. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe it can be appropriate (as a secondary photo in an article that has an up-to-date main photo), if there is a specific situation where the pre-transition photo is absolutely relevant. This is uncommon, mainly for significantly famous people with significant celebrity in a pre-transition appearance. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * To be more specific: I would not include pre-transition photos in this article or The Wachowskis. I would not advocate for removing File:Sonny and Chastity Bono 1974.JPG from Chaz Bono. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm confused as to why: they were all public figures. I don't see the distinction. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's important to look for the distinctions between many possible levels of being a "public figure" -- it's important to apply comprehensive and thoughtful and sensitive analysis to how to accurately and respectfully write articles about the lives of living trans people, and as editors we have many policies and standards to support doing good work on this. It is a relevant and significant part of Chaz's life that he was highly visible on television for a broad audience, with his extremely famous parents, as a child who appeared to be a girl, and that publicity photo represents that part of his life, with one of his famous parents. So if I consider that context responsibly and cautiously, it seems appropriate to include that as part of his story, when balanced with the two recent photos of him as an adult that reflect his current gender presentation. The Wachowskis and Ortberg are notable for the creative works they have written/created, and they have not been highly visible for their appearances -- the Wachowskis especially have mainly preferred to stay out of the public eye, as covered in the article (The Wachowskis). Ortberg is also definitely not a "public figure" on the level of somebody like Chaz Bono. It's not specifically and absolutely relevant to include pre-transition photos for them, so by default we shouldn't. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes your position clearer--thanks for writing. Altho we disagree, there's no need to hash it out as such. I'm glad that you took the time to present your (thoughtful) perspective so I don't misunderstand or misrepresent you. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in general agreement with Dreamyshade's comments (though we differ on some of the specifics). There are cases (e.g. a reclusive writer who was not notable before transition) where pre-transition photos would simply not be appropriate. But I don't think a blanket policy against them - if presented in context in the article - would be a good idea, because there are cases like Chaz Bono or Caitlyn Jenner where they clearly are appropriate. And there are in-between cases - e.g. film directors who've done the convention circuit - where discussions are needed to reach consensus. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not as the lead image. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No photoAboudaqn (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not as the lead image. Not representative enough for a lead image. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  20:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there a timeline for closing the RfC? If so, please state it. If it's passed, please close it and give a consensus opinion. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When no one commented for a week after September 8, I requested closure here, seeing no reason why this should be left unresolved if no more comment was forthcoming. We subsequently had two more participants but now it's been another week with no comment. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Once it's closed and someone has assessed the consensus, then please edit the article to reflect it. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Typically the closer will but yes undoubtedly if they do not, I or someone else watching the page will. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Could you please weigh in on whether the close finding consensus that the entry should not include a picture of the subject before Transitioning (transgender) applies to the pretransition video that I removed following the close but has restored, or if the community needs to go through a second RfC? Thanks. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm fine with the historical video of DMO being in the article, providing it is not given sufficient prominence to be regarded as an identifying photo. As DMO himself has said, "Mallory is not gone". The issue in the first RfC was whether the infobox should carry an image of Mallory-as-was as the visual representation of DMO as a person, rather than Daniel as he now is. However, if you'd like to start another RfC, please do. -- The Anome (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm we understand the RfC question quite differently--I understood it as asking whether the image should be included at all, and as I read the responses of OwenBlacker, ChiveFungi, Jason A. Quest, and Dreamyshade, all expressed the view I have, namely it's undue to add a historical image in absence of a current one; and I understood that to be reason for your close and the removal of the image altogether. As the video is also an historical image, I removed that as well, in what I understood to be the spirit of your close (I thought actually you probably hadn't noticed it because the cover image is text), but am I misunderstanding what you see as consensus, ? (My strong preference is not to start another RfC because WP:NOTBURO and also just, fatigue.) Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about the video in the body. On one hand, a sole image in the body is pretty close to being the "lead image" by default, which I'd rather avoid. On the other hand, it doesn't display the subject unless you play it, so it's less assertive an image. On the third hand, how much value does a video clip of the subject add? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent about videos in general, but I only see a clear consensus against a pre-transition image in the infobox; it's less clear about any other images. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm a trans literary scholar working on improving these articles, and I was able to obtain a new representative photo with permission from Ortberg that he sent to me personally-- may I upload? Will that help settle this debate? Ccaassss (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For licensing purposes, it's simpler if he (or the photographer... whoever owns it) can upload the image, since it's more difficult for you to prove that you have permission than it is for him to assert ownership of it. But... yes: a recent photo would definitely help. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Photo added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccaassss (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Engagement announcement
Koavf recently removed a sentence about Ortberg's engagement, saying it came from a self-published source. (Ortberg announced his engagement on Twitter and he has around 47.5K followers.) I put the sentence back up, because I thought it met the requirements laid out in WP:ABOUTSELF, which says Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves as long as 1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; 2. it does not involve claims about third parties; 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. Koavf took it back down on the basis that an engagement announcement is a claim about a third party. I don't have strong feelings about this, and can see Koavf is a much more experienced editor than I am, but I just wanted to run this by other people. Does his fiancée count as a third party, and should the sentence stay out? Wandering Wanda (they/them) (t/c) 03:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I've only been aggressive about removing self-published sources lately, so there's no reason to think I'm an authority. Others may well know more than me. Thanks for posting, Wanda. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To me a self-published source (such as a tweet) is reasonable for an engagement announcement, especially in a case like this where his fiancée has also written publicly about this engagement. There's no reason to doubt the accuracy and verifiability here. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I also think it's OK to use as a source; : if there is matching writing from Lavery, that would be great to add as an additional source. I'll put it back and if there are more opinions, we can discuss further. --GRuban (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Naming
Although we should avoid deadnaming Lavery, there is no need to remove every mention of his former name when mentioned in a historical context, under which he became quite well-known, and is still likely to be searched for. As Lavery himself has said "Mallory is not gone". -- The Anome (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmm, agreed. I'm aware of Wikipedia's policy on the matter, but I think this is one of the cases where it would be appropriate to mention the subject's 'deadname' in the article, since they first became known under that name and are perhaps still better known under it. I can't be the only person who came to this article after wondering what the heck had happened to 'Mallory Ortberg'. Robofish (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. He has published books under his now deadname. There is no privacy issue here, as there so often is with deadnames where the subject was not notable under their deadname. It is already in several of the references and the name is redirected to this article if you search for it. We can and should include it in the body text of the article in a limited, appropriate and respectful way. We should probably consider whether we should include the video clip though. I'm not sure what purpose that serves. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy specifically says that his former name should be included here, for these reasons. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the pre-transition video. It wasn't serving any purpose sufficient to justify keeping it. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect
Any reason there shouldn’t be a redirect here via Daniel Lavery? I just tried to link to it and it came up redlinked. Will make one unless there’s a reason not to? Innisfree987 (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've made it. It's not like anybody was using it for anything else. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)