Talk:Dianna Boileau

Non-notable deadname

Per MOS:GIDINFO, this appears to be the most recent relevant RfC: RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people (August 2021). Per the closure summary, i.e. we recommend considering a subsequent RfC that frames the subject very narrowly: Extending for some period the BLP protections for deadnames of people who were never notable under the deadname, and determining what period it should be. Until this has been done, the default is that the situation needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The argument for extending it particularly in the case of recent deaths by murders or suicide, we found compelling, and it is likely that if a future RfC is focused on this point, it may find consensus, it appears that this issue is currently case-by-case.

• I removed the deadname with reference to the MOS that applies to living people, but this subject has been deceased since 2014. However, her deadname does not appear to improve this article, and per WP:ONUS, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Based on a review of the sources, this information appears to be a WP:MINORASPECT, and per WP:DUE, How much detail is required depends on the subject.
• For the subject of this article, there is a focus on sensationalized and tabloid coverage of her gender identity, as well as coverage of her suicide attempt, and her deadname appears to only receive passing mentions in The Toronto Star in 2016 and a passing mention in a local news source in 2020. Based on the sources, this deadname seems distinct from a typical name before marriage or other biographical details that are not associated with sensationalized and tabloid coverage, or otherwise not considered a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name for living people. Now that the subject has died, is this article improved by including a deadname that is not widely reported by reliable sources? Beccaynr (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey Beccaynr, thanks for taking an interest in this article. It's worth pointing out that the Toronto Star and Fort Frances Times articles you mentioned are by far the two sources with the most in-depth coverage of the subject, and, as far as I can tell, the only modern sources with significant coverage (unless you count the podcast, though that's probably not an ideal source for citations). The fact that her birth name is mentioned in both of those sources makes me think it's probably WP:DUE. Though I agree it's a relatively minor detail, which is why I did not include it in the intro. Colin M (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    I agree the sources are the key for helping figure this out, and one of the sources I think helps address this issue and supports the restoration of the deadname to the article is her memoir, which I have now reviewed and added as a citation for her previous name. I had felt we needed something more than what the two news sources offered to support the inclusion of this detail as WP:DUE, and I think her memoir provides strong support for inclusion. Thank you for your feedback on this. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

(perhaps inaccurately)

@Beccaynr: could you elaborate on why you removed the parenthetical from the intro in Special:Diff/1080797556? My concern is that, without it, the reader may get a misleading impression that there is a consensus among RS that the claim is true. Do you think there's a better way this could be worded? Perhaps something like... She returned to the public eye in 1970 when she underwent sex reassignment surgery, being described by contemporary media as Canada's first transsexual woman (though some historians have since cast doubt on this claim). ? Colin M (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for following up - it looked like the kind of editorializing we should try to avoid per WP:WIKIVOICE, and I've been thinking it may be more clear to simply write She anonymously returned to the public eye in 1970 when she underwent sex reassignment surgery. I also could not tell if the phrase was a reference to her being the first or the terminology "transsexual", based on the content of the article. Regardless, the source supporting inclusion of the additional text in the lead does not appear to be particularly strong (it looks like it is based on the local news source that says "Boileau anonymously made headlines again as the first transexual woman in Canada") and the Toronto Star states, "Although the media called this a "first," a 1967 story in the Star mentions a surgery in Toronto, and trans historians note there were other people who had surgery around the same time." So perhaps inclusion in the lead is not supported by the sources and this can be more clearly developed in the body of the article instead. I can work on some edits to better demonstrate how this could work. Beccaynr (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good point about the ambiguity of which part of the sentence the qualification is meant to apply to - I hadn't thought of that. I do think her primary claim to notability is the fact that she was (one of) the first SRS patients in Canada, and this is reflected in RS coverage, both modern and contemporary. Basically every source on Boileau mentions the claim of her being the first to undergo SRS (either by stating it as a fact, or mentioning it as a claim attributed to Boileau and/or the media). I'm going to try to reincorporate this in a form which is hopefully clearer than the previous wording. Colin M (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's my attempt. Though only after writing the comment above did I remember that the very first sentence of the article describes her as "among the first Canadians to undergo sex reassignment surgery", so maybe that's already sufficient information about this aspect of her notability. So I'm not necessarily against removing the new sentence if you think it's undue. Colin M (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed the first sentence after our initial discussion, and as to your recent addition, I'm not sure about the need to add more specific information to the lead per MOS:LEAD, because it does not appear to be e.g. a prominent controvers[y] or significant information based on the weight of the sources. The addition both seems too detailed for the lead in what is otherwise a fairly brief article, and is otherwise more completely addressed with greater detail in the main article. I think the first line in the lead, without the additional detail, is a good way to introduce the issue with due weight for this particular article. Beccaynr (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Okeydoke, I slightly disagree, but it's a close judgement call, so if you feel strongly about it, I definitely wouldn't object to your removing the final sentence. Colin M (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)