Talk:Calpernia Addams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Crime

I've deleted the sentence stating, "Despite the obviously bigoted basis for his murder, the military tribunal did [sic] convict Glover of a hate crime." I assume the author meant to say "did not convict Glover of a hate crime. In any case, the UCMJ does not have a provision for categorizing certain murders as a "hate crime" and others as not a hate crime. Whether you hate the person because they are gay, or are a Jew, etc, or simply hate them because they stole your parking spot three weeks ago, you still fall under the same article; in either case the victim has been wrongly murdered. Astarf 02:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, so hating someone enough to murder them entirely for their "supposed" sexual orientation is "just a crime". If a Nazi murders a Jew it is the same as if anyone gets murdered. The DoD is in itself an entirely homophobic organization that fires it's soldiers based entirely on "sexual orientation". Because a government institution is fraught with latently gay people running it does not excuse hate crimes. Whether he was convicted of it or not, it is still a hate crime. DarlieB (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article needs grammatical and syntactic editing. I agree with some talkers here that Calpernia Addams' birth name should not be part of this article because Calpernia Addams and many other women like her are often subject to harassment and ridicule. Inclusion of her birth name would likely cause it to be used a weapon to ridicule and disrespect her, and her often publicly stated wish that it never be revealed. Calpernia Addams in particular has been the victim or her boyfriend's murder, and has been subjected to unwanted public scrutiny because of that tragedy. Calpernia Addams was not publicly notable before she corrected her legal name. Thankfully, her other name is not generally known. Regarding other similar women noted in this talk section, reading any of their own writings will reveal that they often detest being referred to by previous names, or the use of pronouns other than female and feminine ones. In this context, the exclusion of previous names, is primarily a matter of respect. It is difficult enough for transsexual women to garner public respect. At least this context should provide some of that much needed respect.janniejdoe 14:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo ! I totally agree. At times like this I forget I live in the cesspool of stupidity, America .DarlieB (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth name

I was also wondering about Addams's birth name, so I googled around and found a review/interview that states she refuses to reveal her birth name and isn't in contact with her family. I added the information to the article because I think birth names are encyclopedic, and in the case of a transwoman her refusal to reveal her birth name is doubly encyclopedic. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 19:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is "doubly encyclopaedic"? It's baloney like this that makes wikipedia a non-credible source of information. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a source trivia information. If she refused to reveal it in interviews then it would be nice of you and others to respect it. You would not find Encyclopaedia Brittanica trying to hunt down a transgenders birthname, but then again wikipedia is just a source of a bunch of trivia. --Jamisonhalliwell (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now that her birthday is finally here, it's easy enough to get her real former name from nashville city hall. Birth Records and Name change records are a matter of public information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwinaMonsoon (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I spoke too soon . LeaHazel , you seem curious about the least important aspect of Ms Addams life . Do concentration camp survivors like to be called by the tattoo's on their arms ? DarlieB (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with LeaHazel's "doubly encyclopedic" statement, I do think Jamisonhalliwel and DarlieB's reactions are disconcerting. Firstly, I don't know of any situation in which one should consider deleting information in order to be "nice". That is just plain silly and pointless. Secondly, I'm not sure why one would consider the entire former half of a notable individual's life to be unimportant. Especially when considering the fact that there is information in the current article alluding to her previous identity ("...served as a Hospital Corpsman with the Navy and United States Marine Corps.") I'm certain that the name/identity "Calpernia Addams" is not written in any of the Navy/Marine Corps service records and therefore her "former name" should be included in the article. Otherwise, it makes little sense to leave the article up at all, seeing how we're picking and choosing what is "nice" information and what is "MEAN" information. -Coldrun (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to not be a part of Wikipedia

For the record, I'd love to not be a part of Wikipedia, nor any sort of encyclopedia. My life has been a series of cruel humiliations amidst strangers who discuss the morality, science and curiosity of my existence like people looking at a bug. Since childhood, I have been a simple person who loves to put on a show and win a bit of applause in an otherwise cold world. I'm sure that the name assigned to me at birth, an assignation one has no power over or input into, will come out eventually. I will endure that indignity with the same strength I've had to muster throughout a lifetime of teasing, bullying, vilification and loss. But I do care because, unlike discussing Bill Clinton being born as "Blythe", or Marilyn Monroe being born as "Norma Jean", my birth name casts doubt on my very gender in the mind of the reader/listener and rips aside whatever dignity I've managed to construct for myself. This site may run under the banner of providing information, but my experience is only that of a person swept up into a callous machine determined to vivisect my life regardless of the impact it has. I am not the President of the United States. I am not an allegedly murderous football star. I'm a simple entertainer and nothing I do is ever going to change the world. I wish Wikipedia would just leave me alone, delete me or otherwise ignore me. User:calperniaaddams 04:18, 10 February 2008 (PT)

Leaving aside issues of you proving you really are who you say you are Ms. Addams. I can easily imagine how you feel about this. (sigh) However, the fact is things that are in Wikipedia are all matters of public record. All this website does is compile them. Really honest we are not supposed to do our own investigation, ask Andrea. The only way your birth name or anything else that you do not want to be public knowledge would appear in Wikipedia is if it already appeared somewhere else. Aside from deleting this article perhaps you can tell us anything you don't want in here and We'll zap it. The whole article is probably going to be kept. Sorry.--Hfarmer (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you give yourself quite enough credit, Ms. Addams. Your activism & even the simple act of being on a dating show IS changing the world-- perhaps not so drastically as your Caesars & Khans, but still notably. Wikipedia may be "callous" but the purpose of that sort of mechanization & policy is to PROTECT the subject of the entries, not to leave them open to attacks. Any teasing or bullying here would certainly be removed. I'm very sorry that you feel slighted by your inclusion here, but I hope you'll find that your fears don't materialize. --mordicai. (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's attention, and consideration. Again, I am not angry, only sad. While my information may be public record, the aggregation and promotion of it here is harmful to me. A rock on the ground is public property, but if used to bludgeon someone it becomes a weapon. I consider Wikipedia's inclusion of me in its project as bullying and abusive, which I state emphatically for the record, and I further state that I personally consider anyone's further support of this article as participation in that bullying. I don't plan to take any action against anyone, because that is not my style, and because Wikipedia's ability to railroad people relies heavily on our lack of resources, but simply know that I feel that those supporters are hurting me as a human being and a member of society. Congratulations. --User:calperniaaddams 13:53, 21 February 2008 (PT)

Birth Name & Transgender

Is there a forum to discuss the "Birth Name" dilemma when referring to transgender people? I am not sure it ISN'T encyclopedia-worthy, as "birth name" appears in all cases where appropriate, but I do see merit in the argument that it could be seen as being negatively critical of current gender status. A discussion & consensus on the subject would be wholly beneficial. --mordicai. (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Over at WikiProject LGBT I've started up a discussion on the subject. Something essential that was pointed out to me is MOS:IDENTITY which states not uncertainly:

A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference as to how this should be managed. Nevertheless, write to avoid confusing or seemingly logically impossible text that could result from pronoun usage (e.g., she fathered her first child).

So that is good to know. I'd encourage any one interested to weigh in over there &/or here with thoughts & opinions. --mordicai. (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference 1

Does the reference shown as reference 1 really have that title? The link doesn't go to that page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia's wishes

I'm looking at Calpernia's wishes to have the article removed as she does not feel herself to be notable enough to have an article and she also has a (well-founded?) fear of her birth name and info being added to the article. Now I know we consider her to be a notable figure as a result of the AFD discussion, but I also know we have precedent for removing her birth name/information if it gets added to the article... see Brandy Alexandre. But that's a reactive stance and I'm wondering about a proactive stance... how do people feel if I were to permanently semi-protect the article? That way only registered (and presumably long-term) editors will be able to modify it. Tabercil (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the protection policy, articles are not protected as a pre-emptive measure. I do not see how this could be construed any other way. If the information is somehow ascertained and added to the article, the edits in question can be deleted and oversighted, per BLP policy and Calpernia's wishes. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I had forgotten about that particular clause. Tabercil (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

pursuant to WP:NOR

I will be removing any and all statements from this article that do not have a propper citation to back them up. Anyone who want's to add to this article will have to find those references. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I re-entered the crucial and well-cited details of the case (which were backed up by the existing 'An Inconvenient Woman' article), but Hfarmer removed them again pending cites. I've put in the cites (much of the information was already supported by the 'inconvenient woman' article, and I added an IMDB and 2nd NYTimes article cite), and hopefully Hfarmer will not repeat that deletion.

The information in question is relevant for this article (who was Winchell to Ms. Addams, what happened that made any of these people notable, what were the circumstances vis-a-vis Ms. Addams) and has been re-introduced to provide this needed context for readers.

I certainly sympathize with the desire to keep private information private - but this information (the circumstances of her relationship with, and the subsequent death of, Barry Winchell) is public and well-cited and neither NOR nor BLP applies. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Um. Is there a reason to have a quotation for each of the refs? Seems to me the three France refs and two Clines should be combined and the quotations removed - if anyone wants to read them, they're welcome to, but the extra text doesn't really add to the article.

And is there a need to have so much info on Winchell and his murder in the article about Addams? Per WP:BLP1E and WP:UNDUE, I'd like to trim some of that back. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think it can/could be reduced. However, as the information was blanked as 'uncited' despite the existing cite, I wanted to make sure each assertion was specifically cited, so decisions can be made about what stays and what goes without blanking. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that was more about the subject's complaints than it was about the refs. Thanks for your work on it, though, that helps keep it up to BLP standards! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ain't nothing but a thing :) Glad to help. Thanks Satyr. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I reduced the bio's grisly details into the germane biographical aspects of the case, in my humble opinion. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope by the strictest interpretation of the no original research policy each and every statement in this article should be backed by a good solid citation. I know how this goes because I got really involved in this for other people. Thier are things that it can be said "everybody knows". But in reality not everybody knows and having this here will inform more people. In particular the person this article is about has asked that it be totally deleted. We should really cover WP's backside and make sure we are on good ground in case a lawsuit happens at some point. --Hfarmer (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

'Transgendered' in intro

Hi folks. I made this edit. My reason is that without it I could not find anywhere in the article that explains why the rest of the article's details occurred (why Winchell was murdered, why Ms. Addams is a transgendered-rights activist, why the relationship was exploited by political groups, etc. It's not to 'tar' or otherwise label her, it's because without it, it's not clear why these events occurred. The categories at the bottom are helpful but they're not part of the editorial content, and this sort of up-front description appears to be in line with other articles under the 'transgendered and transsexual actors' category. Thoughts? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it got accidentally removed recently during a vandalism clean-up, so I have restored. — Satori Son 15:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange...

...how nobodies are getting their own pages these days. Time was, you had to do something to get in an encyclopedia. Obviously that has changed. 70.53.111.195 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the mean-spiritedness of this comment and stifling my speculation as to why you felt the need to bother, if you have some concern about the notability guidelines as they apply to this article then take it up at WP:N. But you might want to make an account first, since the opinions of anonymous hit-and-run editors tend not to carry any weight. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to worry, I won't be bothering to bring it up anywhere else because the response would be about the same whether or not I created an account. There is no mean-spiritedness; this person has not done enough to warrant an article. I shouldn't have bothered saying anything because I know the type of people who edit this encyclopedia. They do not listen to anyone who does not already think as they do. 70.53.111.195 (talk) 01:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If not deleted, then stripped down to essentials

Again, I am very upset about this page, and as I mentioned above I want it removed. Since Wikipedia uses it's arcane-to-outsiders methods of operation to stonewall dissent, it is very difficult for me to have any effect on this, outside of stating my wishes. Since no one is interested in how I feel about this, instead I want this article stripped of anything that is not absolutely "essential" according to your guidelines. Outside of my reality dating show, which is hardly notable in an encyclopedic sense, my only event of national significance is the coverage of me related to the murder of PFC Barry Winchell.

An article about me is unnecessary at all in my opinion, but if Wikipedia must continue to harass me, I don't want any information in this article other than the absolute bare bones minimum that relates to events of national and newsworthy significance. Feel free to pare this article down even further and remove any other information.

Please leave me alone.

Reread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP if needed.

Calperniaaddams (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Callie, but you don't get to decide what does or doesn't go in the article. Everything in the article is verifiable by reliable sources, and that is the standard for Wikipedia articles. I find it odd that you cry how hurtful it is to have an article about you on Wikipedia yet tried to add information to the article. Like it or not, you fall under notability guidelines for Wikipedia and you have repeatedly put yourself into the spotlight by giving interviews and starring in reality dating series. Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Callie" is a nickname reserved for my friends. Please don't use it. I attempted to edit the article (which I hate) earlier because it implied that my career as an entertainer began the moment Barry was killed. One of the many reasons I do not like having this article here. This attempt to ameliorate the damage this article does to me was reverted immediately, reinforcing my feeling that the continued inclusion of irrelevant information about me is being done maliciously.

My participation in a "reality dating show" is hardly encyclopedia worthy material.

As I said, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP

Specifically: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material" "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calperniaaddams (talk • contribs) 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• First, my apologies for the use of the nickname. I did not realize that it was reserved for friends.
• Second, please understand that you have my utmost respect, not only for the pain you have endured but for the things you have done.
• Finally, the information in the article is all verifiable and the content you are removing strikes me as being in no way harmful to you. My feeling is that you need to show that this is harmful to you before it can be removed from Wikipedia. Considering that the information you seek to remove is derived from interviews that I presume you gave freely, it is difficult to see how information that you yourself gave out freely suddenly becomes harmful to you because it is included in a Wikipedia article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own policies regarding the biographies of living persons are in line with what I want (if removal is not possible): A pared down article related only to the single nationally relevant event in my life, respectful of my privacy and devoid of material irrelevant to that story. The "story" of historical relevance can be fully told in the Barry Winchell article, as he is the person to whom things happened and around whom the national debates swirled.

I fundamentally dislike and disagree with Wikipedia for many of the common reasons cited by non-Wikipedia fans, which I won't go into here. Even if the information in my article weren't harmful to me, I still prefer this "encyclopedia article" to focus on relevant material and otherwise leave me alone. Aggregating and promoting (through search results) collected information about me is harmful and unnecessary and not in line with the suggested policies Wikipedia has established for biographies of living persons.

The article as it existed implied that I started an entertainment career based on Barry's murder. It maintains the position that my life is forever defined almost exclusively by his murder. Although this is another debate entirely, I maintain that being an entertainer does not abrogate my right to privacy or influence over what information about me is promoted.

As a non-Wikipedian, I am aware that anything I say or do here will be done slightly "wrong" in terms of SOP, and anything I say will be seen in the same way that a fast food employee sees a complaining customer: as something worthy of an eye-roll and dismissal. But this afternoon hobby of Wikipedia editors has real impact on my life.

There is just no reason to include every detail about my life here, and I can only infer that maintaining this information when I specifically want Wikipedia to adhere to its own suggestions regarding biographies of living persons is being done out of some cruel intention or spitefulness. Again, please just leave me alone. Please. Calperniaaddams (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is in Wikipedia that means it is elsewhere too - the press, on google. We have more stringent rules than they do. Why is it any more offensive on Wikipedia than anywhere else? This may sound harsh but like it or not your actions and world events have made you a public figure. Maybe it will help to think of the words of William Shakespeare from Twelfth Night: "Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them." Wikidemo (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Since this article is under discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard I suggest that it be left alone until the issues there are resolved. This constant back-and-forth is disruptive and does not serve the project. Otto4711 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is very clear. We err on the side of exclusion. Including poorly sourced material, just once, is prohibited. But, it can be removed as often as is necessary. Also, detailed discussion of this article should occur here, not on the noticeboard. The purpose of the noticeboard is to get "notice". Once noticed, people should discuss the article on the article talk page, so, the discussion is kept in one spot, and can be easily referenced in th future. --Rob (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are utterly and completely wrong. An interview with the person in question is reliable. To suggest that the words spoken by Calpernia Addams about herself are not reliable is stupid. Show me where it says that an interview with the subject of an article is unreliable because it happened to have been included in a podcast. Are you suggesting that she lied when she said that she took her name after seeing it on a tombstone in a movie? Are you suggesting that the source of her name, which she revealed her own self, is "controversial"? Nonsense. I understand that Ms. Addams doesn't want to be included in the project, except when it serves her purposes to add material to the article, but she is a public figure who easily meets our notability guidelines. Otto4711 (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You haven't addressed issues of privacy and notability. By your logic, all Wikipedians could become reporters recording conversations, uploading them, and using that as a source for articles. For contentious material we need third party secondary sources. For contentious material primary sources are not ok. The definition of what's contentious, is that which is contested. Apparently, the bio subject contests everything. Legitimate secondary sources don't just pass raw information as-is to the public, they analyse it, determine what's accurate, and also determine what's signficant. Also, please realize being notable, doesn't make somebody a "public figure". --Rob (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that anything sourced to the podcast isn't accurate? What, specifically, is inaccurate? Are you suggesting that the material is insignificant? What, specifically, is insignificant? And what of the material are you suggesting is "contentious"? That she served in the Navy? That she appeared in The Vagina Monologues or on a reality series? How contentious could that possibly be when she includes every bit of it on her own promotional website? She can't claim on the one hand that she is damaged by having the information collected in one place and on the other hand collect the information in one place for her own purposes. And in what way is this person, who was in the national spotlight for a horrible event, consulted on the dramatization of her life for an award-winning film, published an autobiography, co-founded a media distribution company, made herself a spokesperson for LGBT rights by joining the board of directors of a national LGBT rights organization, is actively pursuing a career in mainstream Hollywood productions, uses her celebrity to promote anti-hate crimes activism through PSAs and appeared on a nationally televised reality dating series not a "public figure"? She may have first appeared on the national stage against her will, but in the intervening years she has absolutely acted to keep herself in the public eye. She has no claim to being a private figure at this point. Otto4711 (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information Reverted by Otto4771

A series of edits were made in an attempt to make this article more balanced. For instance:

• A photograph of Calpernia is included for identification. The caption identifies the person on the left as "Andrea James." Ms. James is not noted anywhere else in the article, so what is the justification of publically identifying her? The photograph maintains its purpose by simply identifying Calpernia only. For anyone who wishes to keep the name of Ms. James in the caption, I challenge you to justify how it is relevant to this article. Just because we know her name, does not mean it needs to be listed.

• Andrea James is Calpernia's best friend and business partner, who has her own Wikipedia article. It is standard practice to identify everyone in a photo whose name is known. I have added additional information about Ms. James to the article.

• A sentence was rewritten to remove the fact that Barry Winchell "was training at a nearby military base in Fort Campbell, Kentucky." How is this relevant to Calpernia? I understand that this is true, and that's why it should be included in HIS article. Mr. Winchell's death IS relevant in Calpernia's biography as it explains the series of events leading to the production of Soldier's Girl. However, where he was training is irrelevant!

• Including where Winchell was training when the two met strikes me as a reasonable bit of information to include in the article. It detracts nothing from the article whatsoever.

• Some political groups wished to exploit Barry & Calpernia's relationship. Okay, got it, why does THIS article need to delve into the politics of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy? Calpernia has nothing to do with the fallout over Mr. Winchell's death. If some editors wish to note that "some political groups attempted to portray the relationship between Addams and Winchell as 'homosexual', so they could exploit Winchell's murder in order to protest the U.S. military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy regarding sexual orientation," then they may consider adding such information to Mr. Winchell's article.

• The notion that the attempted use of Winchell's murder had no effect on Calpernia is ludicrous on its face. Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just before it is noted that Calpernia "won the title of Tennessee Entertainer of the Year 1999," it is stated that Barry Winchell was murdered. Hmmm, did Mr. Winchell's death have a part in Calpernia's winning of the title? No! Why is it mentioned then? Just because we can? My point is that there are grossly too many references to Barry Winchell. If Calpernia does not have an identity outside Barry Winchell, she shouldn't have an article.
• Likewise, why is it neccessary to note that Troy Garity played Barry Winchell in the film? This might be noteworthy in Mr. Winchell's article, but how is it relevant to Calpernia's? I made an edit that I thought moved the focus back to Calpernia by saying Troy Garity STARRED in the film.

• It is confusing not to mention the part played by Garity, because the actor who played Calpernia is mentioned by name earlier in the article. Noting who Garity played adds clarity to the article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try to revert the changes as I believe they were made in bad faith. A description was listed with each original edit. For Otto4771 to perform a global revert for the sole reason that "this information seems reasonable to include" is insufficient. I do not want to start an edit war, so I am posting my detailed reasons here. Before any information is re-reverted, I sincerely hope editors will post their detailed justification why such information is needed and how it contributes to CALPERNIA! Sincerely, Stephen Eakin (unregistered user)216.199.224.138 (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will address your reasoning in detail later, but for now I must protest your failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• The validity of this article, both its content and its existance, is fiercely debated. As such, it seems prudent to avoid making changes that fan the flames. Thus, I would recommend that editors reinforce their edits in this particular article with extensive justification. I tried to bring balance to this article by directing focus back to Calpernia and away from Barry Winchell as much as possible. It is my opinion that the extensive coverage of Mr. Winchell created undue weight in the article. I do believe there is more to Calpernia than this tragic incident. In fact, I only became aware of her after watching Transamerican Love Story (great show BTW), yet there is minimal coverage of this! Moreover, there is minimal coverage of her books, her activism, and her music. If we at Wikipedia wish to claim Calpernia is more than a victim of a one time event, then let's create an awesome article describing THE OTHER THINGS she is known for. In any case, you were fully aware that there was objection (my objection) to the material I removed. Rather than make a case on this talk page for why it is critical to be included, you simply reverted it, all of it. I believe my justifications are solid, yet you dismissed them with a simple conclusion that they seem reasonable. Moreover, I have read the fierce debates on the validity of this article (its been nominated for deletion twice for goodness sake) enough to realize you are quite aware of the controversy. Your case that the revert was in good faith would be more convincing if you didn't attempt a complete revert and provided an explanation why the material was so important. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin (unregistered user) 216.199.224.138 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Look at the edit history of this article for one second and you'll see that I've been one of the main people trying to bring more balance to the article. Before Ms. Addam's most recent attempt to delete the article and the attempted removal of material I had added, the article was about 50/50 between coverage of her relationship with Winchell and the other aspects of her life. I have not spent any significant time on the article for the last several days because there were no fewer than three different discussions about it in various fora. The standard is to assume good faith. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• It is entirely reasonable to include information about Ms. Addams' relationship with Winchell, however it is not prudent to include information that is to do solely about Winchell. Such as the most recent reversion: Why mention that Winchell was harassed and eventually murdered? That information is not relevant in an article about Ms. Addams. Preda1ien (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• You must be joking. The harassment and murder of the boyfriend of Ms. Addams is irrelevant to Ms. Addams?! I find that incredibly disrespectful of Ms. Addams and her relationship with PFC Winchell. Omitting mention of his death makes much of the rest of the article make absolutely no sense. Why would anyone make a movie about them? Why would anyone try to exploit the relationship? Of course his death is relevant to her article, and if you truly believe otherwise then there is no point in continuing this discussion because it is obvious that we will never come to any agreement about anything regarding this article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I was referring to the context in which it was placed, not the actual sentence. I am not acting in bad faith, I am trying to give helpful insight, and I sincerely do apologise if my latest entry was misleading.Preda1ien (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Excirial, with all due respect, DO NOT revert any of the changes I have made without justification. I have described in great depth the reasons such changes were needed. You must be aware of the controversy of the material removed. If you are truly acting in good faith, then post your arguments for the re-inclusion of the material here, and allow discussion BEFORE changes are made. But, absolutely DO NOT revert simply for your unjustified personal opinion! By the way, you are absolutely incorrect. This is an article about a living person. We do not add UNNECESSARY and IRRELEVANT information that only serves to offend. I understand that Calpernia has actively tried to remove this article and, failing that, large blocks of text. However, it is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia to take vengeance on her by creating an article that is unbalanced by focusing on a single, tragic event in her life. As I stated earlier, if we suggest that Calpernia is known for more than the death of Mr. Winchell, then let us write about THAT. If you, or anyone else cannot find anything worthy to write about that doesn't make reference to Mr. Winchell, then Calpernia must be a pretty boring person and unworthy of an article. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin P.S. I apologize that the edit history makes it appear that Otto4711 made the revert. I meant to write "revert to Otto," not "revert by Otto."72.187.73.145 (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• You really need to read WP:AGF. I mean really. Right now. Your continued attempts to paint me as some vindictive queen out to punish Calpernia for daring to seek the removal of her article is disgusting. If you continue to do so, I may feel compelled to seek sanctions against you for your uncivil behaviour. Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Otto4711, prety please stop adding irrelevant information to this article. I have already tried to logically explain why it is inappropriate. For instance, you continue to identify Andrea James in the caption of the photograph despite the fact that such identification serves no purpose in this article. For a detailed explaination on why other material needs to be removed, please see the top of this section. You promised you would provide an explaination for the necissity of such information, but as of yet you have not. Please remember you are not the sole editor of this article. If you dispute a claim of irrelevantcy, please discuss it here BEFORE making changes. Now then, before you accuse me of painting you as anything, please take the time to review the text that disgusts you so much. The previous paragraph was written to user Excirial, NOT YOU! Excirial took it upon him or herself to revert without justification. In fact, although I made a typo in the edit log, I publically corrected myself and apologized for any misunderstanding. You, on the other hand, are out of line for stating that I have painted you as a "vindictive queen." I have made no such references to you! And, since you are so fond of the "Wikipedia policy: Assume good faith," then I ask that do so for me. Assume my edits were made in the best interests of the article. If you don't like my edits, then prove me wrong. Write me a list of reasons that the arguments I used to remove the information is false. And, for the record, "seems reasonable to me" doesn't count. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin 72.187.75.32 (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Otto4711, I notice you edited the text about the New York Times article (rather than a revert). You removed the part about Barry Winchell's murder, but the context of the sentence remains the same. This edit keeps focus on Calpernia and is an edit I can live with. I only removed a few words to correct grammer. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin 72.187.75.32 (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have already written out a list of reasons why the material you claim is irrelevant should be included. I will do so again. Andrea James is a notable person under Wikipedia guidelines and has her own article. It is entirely appropriate to identify her in the caption. Readers should not be left to wonder "who is that with Calpernia?" It is important to identify that Garity played Winchell because the actor who played Calpernia, Lee Pace, is identified earlier in the article. It may cause confusion to readers to read that Garity "starred" in the film when the "star" has already been identified as Pace. Honestly, I cannot understand your objection to the mere inclusion of Winchell's name at that point in the article. It does not draw focus away from the surrounding text about Addams' career.
• As for my assuming good faith, it's rather hard to do so in the face of a flat out accusation of bad faith from you, for which I note you have not apologized. Surely you can understand how, as an editor active in trying to expand and neutralize this article, that it was reasonable of me to believe that you were including me as a part of Wikipedia that you claim is trying to "take vengeance" on Addams for trying to have her article deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have been evading this debate for some time to see where this was heading. Guess its time to step in now. First of, Stephen Eakin, i find your remark on my revert on the borderline of being outright rude by accusing me of wanting to take "Revenge" for the AFD or that i deliberately include "information that only serves to offend". The only reason why i am currently involved with this particular article is that controversial AFD debates tend to attract a myrad of WP:SPA accounts and anonymous IP's that try to alter the article to either emphasize on, or remove the controversial subject. This is also the reason why i reverted your edit, as it took out every single reference to the murder of Barry Winchell.

As Otto already pointed out, the murder is highly relevant to this article. I fully agree it should not be an article that focuses on the murder, but it simply has to be included. In this case, i think WP:Censor is several orders of magnitude more relevant then the WP:BLP guideline you stated, for the simple matter that the information added is not unnecessary or irrelevant. In its current form, it seems that there is an acceptable balance between the issues. The murder is mentioned, but it does not seem to have the prominent position it has when the article was up for AFD. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 15:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Otto4711, you claim that Andrea James is noteworthy, but you fail to explain how she is noteworthy to Calpernia. There is no need to name drop at every opportunity and identify people for simply the sake of doing so. The image referenced by this article is awful. Calpernia is shown in profile and, as you have pointed out, there is another person in the image (Andrea James) that leads readers to ask "Who's she?" To keep the article as focused on Calpernia as possible, we have two options: 1) We may only identify Calpernia in the photograph, or 2) We may upload a new, better photograph. I'm not sure you are aware, but this image was taken from a set on Flickr. There is another image (http://flickr.com/photos/tyreseus/244362372/in/set-72157594280534281) that shows Calpernia from the front. Since the Creative Commons license of this photograph allows us to "adapt the work," we may crop Calpernia from the photo and upload that. I cropped the image, but you have to be a registered user of over 4 days to upload images. So, rather than start a revert war, let's make the article better! Since you are a autoconfirmed user, will you please upload a new, better image. My second point Otto4711, is that there are many movies today that have multiple stars. To argue that readers will be confused by saying Gariety starred in the film is illogical. However, on your last edit, you did not revert back to Barry Winchell, but only to Winchell. While this may still be unneccassary, it is magnitudes better than Barry Winchell. This article used to be Barry Winchell, Barry Winchell, Barry Winchell, ahhh. Also, I'm happy to see "consensus" that Barry Winchell's murder references in the New York Times article paragraph and in Calpernia's entertainer awards paragraph are best left removed. Finally, while I may not approve of your editing style, I must give credit where credit is due. You have recently added a great deal more information to this article detailing Calpernia's acting and activism. These edits significantly paint Calpernia as having an identity outside Barry Winchell and, thus, significantly diffuse tensions over the neutality of this article. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin 72.187.75.32 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Um, you might try reading the caption in its entirety. Andrea James is Addams' best friend and her business partner in Deep Stealth Productions. And I'm sorry but mere identification of her does not divert focus from Addams. That's just silly. It's about as silly as the notion that the mere mention of Winchell's name in the career section pulls focus. Otto4711 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excirial, the murder of Barry Winchell is appropriate to this article as Calpernia acted as a catlyst to the murder. It is likely that if Calpernia were not trans, the murder would not have occured. However, we should keep the concept that Calpernia was only a catlyst of the murder in mind when editing this article. The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy fallout was due to Barry Winchell's enlistment in the military, not Calpernia's. And, the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy has no relevance to Calpernia's life, past or present (well, maybe while SHE was in the Navy it did, but that's not what we're talking about). Thus, this information deserves to be in Winchell's article, not Calpernia's. In fact, since Barry Winchell is ONLY notable for his murder, editors should feel free to document as much as possible on this topic. Once, it may have been justified to remove ALL references to Winchell's murder from Calpernia's article. However, the murder (as well as Calpernia's relationship to Barry) became the subjuct of a movie. Moreover, it is through this movie that Calpernia met Jane Fonda, which led her to the Vagina Monologues. So, I am not, nor could I, argue that the murder is irrelevant to Calpernia. I only argue that we document Barry Winchell and his murder to the extent required to connect the murder to her current work. When we start to summarize more of Winchell's murder, we have gone too far (nearly all irrelevant refernces to Winchell have alrady been removed). These guidelines are not a form of censorship, a full description of the murder and fallout may be found, and linked to, in Barry Winchell's article. I understand you "think" that Wikipedia: Censor overrides Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons, but you are incorrect. The censorship policy explictly exempts content that violates the living persons policy: "Wikipedia is not censored" - second paragraph, second sentence. Also, before you make edits, please check here to see if it fiersely debated. If it is, please provide detailed and logical justifications such changes are needed. How can the community form consensus when editors simply write "it seems that there is an acceptable balance." P.S. How dare you revert my edits and imply I am a single purpose account! Your opinion DOES NOT hold more weight simply because you are registered and I am an anonymous IP! Unlike a SPA, I have contributed to this discussion by posting my reasons. You, however, did not respond to any of my reasons, but close to revert first, ask questions later. And, I did NOT remove every reference to Mr. Winchell's murder as you claim, only what was irrelevant. It was another editor, Preda1ien, that removed references to Winchell's murder. That is the rudest behavior I have seen on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin 72.187.75.32 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• You have my sincere apologies for the claim that you removed all references to the murder of mr. Winchell. It indeed appears that the intermediate revision took out the most important part referencing to the murder, and the subsequent edit made by you seems to have removed the last reference to the murder (Though i cannot help but applaud the removal of "she met PFC Barry Winchell, who was killed the night", which is positioned at a place that has no benefit whatsoever from the association).

Futhermore, i don't think that WP:Censor overrides WP:BLP. As we are both fully aware of, WP:BLP is considered more important then most policies, and often overrides other policies. My claim was based on a belief that in this article the BLP policy is not violated by keeping a reference or sidenote (And i say a reference, not a text) to the murder that occurred. Thus my argument was that if no BLP guideline was violated, and this reference was important enough, leaving it out is a form of censorship. I will not get involved in an argument over it however, as i am less familiar with the subject than you and Otto. And at the same time, i don't deem it important enough to spend hours of my time on.

Apart from this all, i want to point you to WP:AGF and WP:Civil another time. By now you have explicitly accused me of wanting to take "Revenge" for the AFD, editing articles to hurt people, and violating of WP:AGF and Wikipedia:BITE. I have by no means called you a single purpose account, either explicitly or implicitly. My reference to WP:SPA was merely made to explain my sudden appearance in an article i never worked in, to counter the argument that i was here to take "Revenge". And my apologies for saying this but... I find it ironic that you deem it unacceptable that i would have implicitly accused you of being a SPA account, while at the same time it was acceptable to explicitly accused me of breaking four other rules. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excirial, at this point the debate ceases to provide any useful feedback on the article. I am happy to continue this conversation with you at your talk page.
• For all other editors, I welcome any feedback about uploading a new image of Calpernia. Details of my proposal may be found a few paragraphs up. Sincerely, Stephen Eakin 72.187.75.32 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that I had absolutely no intention of vandalism. After having re-examined my edit, I admit I misunderstood the context in which it was located. Something that I have apologized for. I will be sure to be more careful from here on. May I refer to Wikipedia:BITE and WP:AGF. Thank you. Preda1ien (talk) 07:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Calpernia Addams

I'm not sure how to approach this since the article has been up for deletion twice. I was not aware of the debate or the active attempt to delete or I would have liked to participate. Editors voted to keep it on the basis that Calpernia is a public figure , that she keeps a public website and that she represents as a spokeswoman PFLAG , a public organizations. I agree that what has been made public of her image, by her or her agents is fair use information, however, attempts to source her original male name and or photo's fall under malicious intent and violate wiki's "Do No Harm" rule. The editors do it ( I believe ) knowing that they are challenging Ms Addams current identity and inflicting emotional and possibly personal financial or physical harm. Whether they are aware or unaware of this possible damage is no excuse as I doubt that wiki was intended to be used as a gossip column . It's a sticky wicket for moderators I'm sure but unless there is some relevance beyond curiosity that part of a transsexuals previously non-public life should be and must be off limit's. As a public TS myself every argument I make is prefaced by the other person throwing out my old male name, purposely misgendering me and punctuating every other sentence with "freak" so as you can guess I have a rather high tolerance for verbal abuse and I'm more than aware of this issue . I would like the moderators to please discuss a "transgender policy" in regards to these privacy concerns . I also believe that people or verified agents of those people have the right to delete the entire body of an article if even one part crosses the line of privacy invasion. The responsibility should be on wiki to produce and collect accurate and informative sourced material and not the individual to have to police articles written about them by religious or prejudice individual through wiki ( yes I have had people throw religious terms like "sin" at me among the editors )DarlieB (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding developing a "transgender policy," this page is not the correct forum for it. I would suggest either Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Village pump. If you do start such a discussion please leave a note here as I would very much like to participate but I don't monitor those pages regularly. Regarding Ms. Addams in particular, I agree with you that it is the responsibility of editors to create articles that consist only of sourced information. That is already stated flat out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which states in relevant part: Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). I have done quite a bit of work on this article and I have taken great pains to ensure that the material I've included meets this policy standard. I could not disagree with you more strongly that anything in this article is "challenging" Ms. Addams' current identity. Note that even in material that discusses her life prior to transitioning, appropriate personal pronouns are used. No one to the best of my knowledge is attempting to source her original male name, and if such information were ever added to the article then it would be removed and the edits that added it would be permanently hidden. Otto4711 (talk) 21:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you might check in at the LGBT WikiProject. We've already worked on some transgender issues, including how and/or when to respectfully and accurately report a person's birth name and/or gender. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Bar name

I remember calling the bar "Connections", but the actual name of the place seems to have been "The Connection". Take a look at a story about the bar's closing. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't strongly care as long as it's consistent. I'd suggest on first reference to the bar adding a parenthetical "(also known as "Connections"[ref]) to address the potential confusion of all the sources that give that name for the bar. Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2