Talk:Christine Hallquist

Existing draft

I've found Draft:Christine Hallquist. Might be worthwhile to incorporate, don't have time to evaluate it now.--Pharos (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2018‎

Oh thank you! Maddening that didn't come up in my search, it's so good. Jessamyn (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

for people who keep adding her birth name...

Wikipedia biography policy states "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly":" Hallquist's notability has been primarily post-transition and, in my opinion, her birth name is not relevant to this article. Jessamyn (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf and Dtktrucker: please note and adhere to these policies.--Theredproject (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Theredproject: I did--it's no longer in the lead sentence. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:18, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Of course, per MOS:MULTINAMES the name shouldn't appear in the lead sentence. But to say it is not relevant to a biography about her is a step further than I would go. I'm in favour of the current version – mention her birth name once in the body. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment the test per MOS:GENDERID is whether she was notable under her previous name. As a CEO the answer to that is... maybe? My awareness of her started with discussion of her transition, which points to no. But as the head of a company, she may have independent notability under her deadname, in which case, yes, Bilorv would be correct. If, however, her notability begins with her new name then no, we don't include it. At all. So that's the question. Would she be notable under her deadname, regardless of her during-and-post-transition biography? Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Sorry if I'm misreading something, but I can't see the 'test' you point to in MOS:GENDERID. Are you perhaps referring to "birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name", from MOS:MULTINAMES? This is very specifically about the lead sentence. I don't believe she was notable pre-transition, but the lead sentence is not under discussion here. I'd be grateful if you could point me to precedent of: "If, however, her notability begins with her new name then no, we don't include it. At all." — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  That's weird. I'm sure I read it there two weeks ago. Hmmn... Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• This is a perennial issue. Every case is different. In this case this person seems to have a present practice of stating their former name as part of a personal testimony of their process of transition. Some people after a life transition talk about their former selves. Some people do not. What is right for some people is not right for others.

The subject of the article made a documentary with her son. The documentary is about her gender transition. The documentation on the official website at denialdocumentary.com/story/uses this person's former name, saying "Before Christine Hallquist was running for Governor of Vermont, she was David Hallquist, the CEO of...".

Because this person seems to have a thoughtful goal of telling a transition story which uses her former name I think this Wikipedia article should also report this former name. If there were any third party sources critiquing that documentary then I think it would be appropriate to discuss the documentary in this article in the usual wiki way of summarizing the works of a person in their Wikipedia biography.

Another perennial discussion in Wikipedia is pronouns, and again, every case is different. That same documentation for this biography uses male pronouns for their activities before transition and female ones for after. In this case I favor Wikipedia matching that style. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

On the issue of pronoun style, Wikipedia is clear that we use the pronouns the individual currently prefers. I'll concede mention of the name on the basis of the documentary though. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. If someone (e.g.) converts to Islam and takes an Arabic and Islamic name, are you suggesting that their biography shouldn't mention his birth name if he himself no longer uses it or acknowledges it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If that individual was only notable under his name in religion, then yes, I would say that. And in practice, even now, Wikipedia doesn't put birth names for people in that circumstance in the lede. See Thích Nhất Hạnh for an example. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I would note, however, that it's a false equivalency as people who assume a name in religion aren't likely to suffer a bout of trauma related to body dysmorphia from having their pre-religious name tossed about. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

No one is discussing the lead. I said in the article--the name is mentioned in the "early life" section; this is what we are discussing. Also, no one said anything about trauma. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I said something about trauma - as my justification for calling deadnaming and changes to name for religious purposes a false equivalency. Because the use of a deadname may cause trauma to the subject. The use of a name from before a religiously motivated name change is unlikely to do that as the name will not be associated to body dysmorphia for a person who has assumed a name in religion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a case of one clause in one section of a biography about a person who lived several decades of her life under the name "Dave". We often ignore what the subject would want their article to contain (e.g. by including anything from criticism to criminal records), but furthermore the subject hasn't even expressed an opinion, probably doesn't know this page exists and with all respect to people who do have body dysmorphia—not the same thing as being trans—I highly doubt Hallquist would be hurt by reading one brief mention of her birth name. If we were misgendering or referring to her by her deadname, that would be different, but we're just mentioning a previous name in a pertinent context. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I am borderline on this. The fact that she put out a video about her transition might make her deadname relevant enough for a single non-lede inclusion, but in general I think it's better to be strict about this than to allow an inch of slack that trans-phobes might use notwithstanding the irrelevance of WP:OSE. If the definition of trans woman wasn't a matter of hot dispute on Wikipedia right now I might be more inclined to leniency on this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't write biographies for the subject's benefit but for readers. As User:Bilorv pointed out above, all kinds of (factual, sourced, relevant) information may be very damaging to a person... does that mean we delete it? Heck, my bio includes a citation to someone I knew for years being murdered. I don't really like being reminded of it but that's not grounds for removal. I'm just confused as to what you think the function of an encyclopedia is. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:23, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The question of deadnaming a transgender person isn't an invariable issue with only one correct solution in all cases — rather, it depends on the circumstances. Basically, the rules are:

1. if a transgender person was already notable and/or famous under their prior name anyway, then we have to acknowledge that name in the article, and the only thing we don't do is dwell on the old name any more than necessary (e.g. by inappropriately applying some bogus "WP:LASTNAME doesn't apply here" rule so that the old name could get hammered into the text at every possible opportunity) — examples where this rule applies include Chaz Bono, Caitlyn Jenner and Laura Jane Grace;
2. if a transgender person was not already notable prior to transition, and their former name is not reliably sourceable, then we do not add the prior name on the basis of unreliable sources or unsourced claims of personal knowledge — c.f. Laverne Cox;
3. if a transgender person was not already notable prior to transition, but their former name is reliably sourceable, this is where we actually run into genuine debate about whether it's necessary or useful to mention it.

In this instance, given that Ms. Hallquist openly acknowledges her former name herself in her transgender activist work, I feel that it's appropriate to apply option #1: acknowledge it, but don't dwell on it unnecessarily. In some other cases I would argue differently, but if she publicly acknowledges her former name herself, then there's no compelling reason for us to bury it. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2018

Under the "Gubernatorial campaign" section, add sentence saying: "As of September 2018, Politico rates the race as 'Lean Republican,' one step away from a tossup. Source: https://www.politico.com/election-results/2018/house-senate-race-ratings-and-predictions/ Asherls1 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done It's also made me realise Wikipedia has nothing on this "lean", "tossup" nomenclature, even at political forecasting. Fish+Karate 09:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Delete page

Because she had never been elected to public office, per Wikipedia policy the account should not exist. Receiving party endorsement does not qualify Jc6828a (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm, no. WP:NPOL states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." Jmertel23 (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. This was covered at length when this article was recommended for deletion and her notability was gone over. Jessamyn (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

This. In addition to being nominated by a major party for a major public office and being a former CEO, she was the first transgender major-party nominee for a US governor. "Christine Hallquist" is gonna be the answer to a trivia question in 100 years. QoopyQoopy (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

I would like to modify the following to create greater clarity "She started as an engineer at IBM and then enrolled in a training program at the University of Massachusetts to become an electrical engineer.[10]"

"She started as an engineer at IBM and then moved to Digital Equipment Corporation where she became an engineer.[10]"

Digital Equipment Corporation had a program with University of Massachusetts to develop specific engineering talents, however I do not think that is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine Hallquist (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 08-SEP-2019

The sequence of events according to the source are as follows:

1. 1978 - Ms. Hallquist was sharing a flat with a friend who worked for Digital Equipment Corporation.
2. The friend suggested that Ms. Hallquist "Come work for Digital"
3. Ms. Hallquist worked as a technician at Digital for a few months. Her talent in that position spurred interest in making her an engineer.
4. The article then states that "Digital was running an in-house program in conjunction with the University of Massachusetts."
5. A quote of Ms. Hallquist then states "I got selected and trained to become an electrical engineer. I worked just a few months as a technician and I became a supervisor." (the part covered in point #3).

The haphazard way in which the VermontBiz article presents this series of events (i.e., mentioning the in-house program after describing Ms. Hallquist's move to Digital) means that it's not entirely clear if that move to Digital was before entering the in-house program, or as the result of it. The combination of Ms. Hallquist's quotes regarding the move along with Joyce Marcel's third-person narrative describing what might be the very same move in a different paragraph needlessly complicates piecing together the timeline of these changes. I believe that because of this, it would not be beneficial to leave out information — even if that information is felt to be irrelevant. Regards,  Spintendo  00:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes