Talk:Jessica Yaniv/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Proposal (RfC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The crux of the debate really appears to centre on whether to include a gendered word in this sentence.

I'm going to break this analysis down into two separate issues, from concerns that arose in the discussion:

1. Whether using the terminology "male genitalia" violates MOS:GENDERID and MOS:ID (and additionally whether the wikilink target could also be a violation of these guidelines)
2. Which option more faithfully represents the sources, and is most informative for the reader

On the first point, I find there to be no consensus in this discussion on whether either phrasing is a violation of MOS:GENDERID or MOS:ID.

On the second point, opposers generally argued that "male genitalia" appears more frequently in the cited sources. I do not find the supporters disagreeing on this point. Similarly, supporters mentioned that "scrotum" was verifiable, and I don't see the opposers disagreeing on this point. Some editors were concerned that "scrotum" may not encompass the entirety of the request (noting that scrotum is only one example of genitalia) and thus may not be accurate; I see no consensus on this point, due to lack of discussion on relevant sources.

It is worth noting, that the long-standing status quo is not the 'current' phrasing in the RfC's opening sentence, but rather "after being refused waxing services". In a no consensus finding, that is what the text should revert to. I am not sure that phrasing, which attracted no support in this discussion, would be tenable either.

Overall, since there is no consensus on whether the relevant MOS provisions are violated I'd be inclined to assign more weight to the points made about sourcing and weight issues. Among those points, there does seem to be an agreement (or at least minimal disagreement) that the "male genitalia" phrasing is more dominant in the sources, and no consensus on whether scrotum encompasses the entire dispute. Hence I find the consensus, after considering the separate policy issues the participants raised, lies with the "male genitalia" phrasing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the end of the opening sentence, currently "... after they refused to wax her male genitalia.", be changed to "... after they refused to wax her scrotum."? Mortee _talk 23:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support (as proposer)—this seems to balance the concerns about referring to "male genitalia" in the context of a transwoman against the need to be clear upfront that in the most part the service requested involved body parts that the beauticians did not typically wax. Keeping "her" makes more clear that Yaniv was suing beauticians for refusing services to her, not to others. › Mortee _talk 23:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noting in case anyone has reason to refer back to this: the RfC was originally closed as 'support', but because the only rationale given for the close was a tally of !votes, that was vacated following a notice at AN and subsequently reclosed as 'oppose, keep original wording' › Mortee _talk 23:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ~ HAL333 00:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, since it is neutral, accurate, falls within WP:RS and makes it clear that Yaniv is referring to herself, acknowledging that she is trans without attempting to deny it. Casspedia (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support Mortee's proposed wording, but keep the w-link as is and linking to Scrotum waxing as that's the topic discussed. So it would read: "... after they refused to wax her scrotum." CatCafe (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support. Much better than the current state of the article, but the current wording is ridiculously inappropriate so that's not saying much. As far as I can tell none of the sources specifically list scrotum waxing as the service withheld. Genital waxing encompasses the genitals as well as the surrounding skin and upper thigh area, so "wax her scrotum" is overly specific/restrictive and thus inaccurate. As for the wikilink, it is completely inappropriate (see , ) to link to Male waxing, either directly or via the recently created (by an account heavily involved in this dispute, during the dispute) and orphaned redirect scrotum waxing. As noted above, waxing or bikini waxing is perfectly accurate and sufficient as a wikilink here. I think that something like ... after she was refused bikini waxing services, or ... after she was refused genital waxing services would be best here. It would be equally accurate to enumerate all the areas and body parts that they refused to wax, but that's overly specific for the first sentence of the article. We have an article body for a reason. Srey Sros^talk 03:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Don't know what sources you're referring to but every source at end of that sentence refers to 'scrotum wax' in one way or another. I added a couple more there for you. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Some sources do contain the word "scrotum", but the sources do not focus on scrotum waxing as the only or principal service denied. Most say "bikini waxing" or "Brazilian waxing". The only source that focuses on scrotum waxing is the National Post source you just added, a right-wing publication with an exceptionally poor reputation for fact-checking (see National Post § 2006 Iran hoax). Srey Sros^talk 03:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't be silly. Every source there mentions her requests for scrotum waxing, you're nitpicking. CatCafe (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps I should spell out more clearly what I mean by specifically list... as the service withheld and focus on... as the only or principal service denied. Mentioning these requests is no grounds for singling them out in the lead sentence. I would recommend reading the policy. It's fairly straightforward: for this proposal to fit that policy, we would have to see the majority of the reliable sources focusing on scrotum waxing, which we do not. Srey Sros^talk 04:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Weak support with much the same reasoning as SreySros. I prefer genital waxing in the lead with specific body parts mentioned in the body as necessary. As stated elsewhere, a link to male waxing is opposed by our policies AND that page provides little useful context to our readers, they key goal of wikilinks. Compared to what can be gleaned from waxing, the male waxing article mainly just adds slang terms. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Firefangledfeathers there's no link to male waxing in the proposal › Mortee _talk 03:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Your proposal involves removing such a link. I support that part. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: MOS:GENDERID does not forbid the use of the term "male waxing", let alone linking to scrotum waxing as a redirect. "Male genitalia" is simply a biomedical classification of genitalia and does not comment on the gender of the person as a whole. WP:OR and WP:V are also operative here. Highly reliable sources do indeed refer to 'male' genitalia in the context of trans women without SRS: Transgender women may feel that they have been born in a body with the wrong sexual characteristics. This may result in significant psychological distress (gender dysphoria) and the desire to adapt their male physical and sexual characteristics to be more consistent with their experienced female gender. [1] Purposefully linking to the wrong article is frankly absurd.
  MOS:GENDERID also states, Avoid confusing constructions (Jane Doe fathered a child) by rewriting (e.g., Jane Doe became a parent). This is why I officially propose ...after they refused to provide waxing of the scrotum. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Crossroads well articulated, you try telling that to Casspedia and Srey Sros who are currently mis-interperating the policy on misgendering to give them a pretext to editwar. They have a binary view of gender and seem to think that Yaniv's type of genitalia is incompatible with her chosen pronoun of she/her. IMHO their view is incompatible with gender-spectrum. CatCafe (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  I do not appreciate how you directly assumed my view of gender to be binary. I am actually very, very strongly against this aforementioned social construct. Having a scrotum, a penis, and its associated reproductive system can be compatible with being a woman (and using she/her pronouns); however, using a male descriptor (as in "male genitalia") to refer to a woman is not. Casspedia (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  As has been explained to you it refers to her parts, not her pronouns as a person. There is a distinct difference that your POV can't grasp. If you were "strongly against this aforementioned social construct" then you would respect Yaniv's used terminology when it comes to her genitalia. CatCafe (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Crossroads, just to be clear: it seems like in addition to your proposed wording, you are also suggesting a continued link to scrotum waxing. Is that right? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Crossroads, since other users below are supporting your proposal, it's increasingly important to understand just what you are proposing. Your wording is clear, but I would appreciate some clarity on what, if any, links you are proposing to include. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  My proposal is link-agnostic. I also explained that scrotum waxing as a link for "waxing of the scrotum" is perfectly workable and that it's better to link to the proper article, but the article text is more important. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel that “male genitalia” is fairly central to the Human Rights ruling and it seems central to the writing in the sources as well. From CBC's quote of the ruling:

  But according to Tuesday's decision, "... human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax."

  Yaniv herself makes a statement that also reflects this usage, as reported in the next CBC source:

  "None of these providers had any issue with anything until I mentioned I was transgender. Why was it not brought up saying, 'Hey we don't do services on male genitalia'?"

  Yaniv, who identifies as female but has male genitalia, contacted the businesses through Facebook messages requesting to book an appointment for waxing services including a Brazilian wax which removes most or all pubic hair.

  The Global News article reports that the Tribunal Member stated the following in the ruling:

  Cousineau said she was satisfied that Yaniv has male genitals, though noted she was repeatedly evasive about the matter during testimony.

  -SmolBrane (talk) 04:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Per arguments already mentioned above. Perhaps not perfect, but the proposed change is much better than the status quo. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per my comments above and as per User:CatCafe. Yaniv is not being misgendered here as far as I can tell. It appears editors are concerned about the word "male" but I believe it would be SYNTH to remove it. SmolBrane (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support. This is actually not that hard. One formulation frames Yaniv as male, and thus ignites the usual faux-Christian culture war wedge issue thing, the other is technical and bland and accurate and supported byu sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, though as noted it was not only her scrotum that the providers declined to wax. McPhail (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support, although there is a lot of merit in what Crossroads had to say. I am surprised we are getting into genitalia issues for those who have not had gender reassignment surgery. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Whiteguru, are you familiar with the background of this incident? The entire thing centres on genitalia issues for someone who has not had sex reassignment surgery....not getting into it in this case would be quite impossible. Firejuggler86 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Its more accurate and acknowledges her as a trans woman. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per what Crossroads had to say. I find that argument very persuasive - The wording proposed minimizes ASTONISHment whilst providing succinctly the key locus of the dispute between Yaniv and the salons. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  BrxBrx what do you mean by "the wording proposed"? You're opposing what I suggested, based on Crossroads's critique – do you prefer the current wording? Sorry if I'm being thick, I just didn't quite understand. › Mortee _talk 03:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Mortee, sorry, I may have been unclear. I think that Crossroad's proposal is very nice - simply cut out the gender debacle by using "the scrotum" as opposed to attempting to decipher whether either "male genitalia" or "her scrotum" is more appropriate. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 04:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  BrxBrx cool, I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying › Mortee _talk 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  Actually reading back I was being thick - no surprise there. I just hadn't seen the proposal at the end of Crossroads' reply above. My fault entirely. › Mortee _talk 21:27, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I don't think there's actually a problem in and of itself with the term "male genitalia", but scrotum is in this case more specific and clearer to read. Edit: I support keeping the wikilink to scrotum waxing, though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Yaniv wasnt misgendered, male genitalia is more appropriate. Sea Ane (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support but with a link to Scrotum waxing. It is always much better to link more precisely. There is no policy reason not to link there (or even a guideline one). If the article isn't good enough improve it, that doesn't happen by bypassing it. Aircorn (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose All the sources, and I believe the ruling which is being reported refer to "male genitalia", as does Yaniv herself. Apart from any other consideration, changing the text implies that the 'waxers' did not object to handling other parts of the genital area, when presumably they refused to handle anything which would ordinarily be inside pants/panties. Present text is clearer than the proposed alternative. Pincrete (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the wording is fine as is. But if the terminology in the lede is changed to 'Scrotum' as proposed, then the w-link should also remain linking to Scrotum waxing as that's the topic. So if it were changed it would read: "... after they refused to wax her scrotum." CatCafe (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
• Borderline, but Support "refused to wax her scrotum", with wikilink to Scrotum waxing. Both sides make a reasonable case. "Wax her scrotum" seems to most clearly and helpfully inform the readers what the sources are saying, given the complexities and relevant policy&guideline considerations.
  While I understand some editor's desire not to have the non-identity gender term anywhere in the same sentence with a transgender individual, it is against policy Assume Good Faith and potentially a WP:Personal attack to recklessly jump to the conclusion that other editors are malicious. It is neither malicious nor unreasonable to consider "male genitalia" the common-and-medical descriptor of a body structure without considering it a descriptor or misgendering of the person. In regards to the wikilink: I believe transgender individuals and their gender identity should be respected, however I also believe they need to live in the same reality as the rest of us. We have a relevant and appropriate article on the subject of scrotum waxing. No one, including a transgender person, should be surprised when that article reflects the fact that the most commonly used term for that procedure is "male waxing". Alsee (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The sources all say "male genitalia" or "male genitals" or derivations thereof. Largest news agency in Canada (CBC) headline: "Estheticians don't have to wax male genitalia". 2nd largest news agency in Canada: "Transgender woman denied waxing of male genitals". Go with what the sources say. Anything else is a disservice and intentionally misleading to the reader.Wisefroggy (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: A lot of good-faith appeals to usage in reliable sources are inapplicable here. For matters of style, as opposed to content, we should generally follow our own manual of style. Exceptions abound, but BLP articles about transgender individuals are the direct opposite of exceptions. More so than in any other category of article I can think of, editors of articles about transgender people have to reject names, titles, and adjectives used in reliable sources. This is exactly such a case. We should follow the spirit and letter of our manual of style and reject the use of male as a descriptor of Yaniv or any of her body parts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  MOS:GENDERID says nothing about body parts, only persons. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  It's really about words. With emphasis added, GENDERID begins with "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." The words male genitalia are gendered. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Waiter/Waitress are gendered terms for the same job, male/female genitalia are vastly different and so can't be said to be gendered terms for the same thing. We should change the phrase to 'pre-transition male genitalia' as someone could came a penectomy and still have scrotal skin so the article as is isn't clear, but the BC Human Rights Tribunal case it references very much depends on the ... minutia. InverseZebra (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the comments I made above: It goes against WP:ASTONISH to describe a woman as having "male genitalia", so we shouldn't be saying anything of the sort here, regardless of how the subject describes herself. Slightly surprised not to hear anyone else saying that "male genitalia" is a euphemistic term, which is not what we do here and linking it to scrotum waxing is an EGG issue. "Scrotum" avoids these two issues and then the way the sentence is phrased at present would require a pronoun, and MOS:GENDERID says that the pronoun is "she". Rephrasing to avoid a pronoun there so it says "denied scrotum waxing services to her" or whatever would be fine by me though. — Bilorv (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  How on earth is "her male genitalia" astonishing, but "her scrotum" is not? Is it being argued that "male genitalia" is a euphemism for a scrotum? Surely the reverse is true, "scrotum" is being proposed in order to imply "scrotum, penis, + any other related or adjacent body parts". We could happily avoid the issue by simply referring to 'genitalia' without 'sexing' them, but their anatomical sex is core to the issue between her and the 'waxers'. We don't even know which specific body parts she wanted waxed, other than that they were 'private' - but are implying that we do. Pincrete (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  "Her male" is, on the face of it, a flat out contradiction in terms. "Her scrotum" is something that someone with no idea what "transgender" means could at least mull over. Have you actually read the sources here? When I read them all a while ago, it seemed to me like "scrotum waxing" was a sufficiently-sourced description of the incident. — Bilorv (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  If avoiding astonishment is really the objective, surely phrasing could be found that avoided "her male". The court judgement, most sources and Yaniv all refer to "male genitalia" AFAIK. There isn't an issue of ambiguity or offence for any of them. "Scrotum waxing" on WP is anyway a redirect of "male waxing", so it is difficult to see any objection to terminology which is clearer and less euphemistic. Presumably scrotal waxing is the term used for those who specifically want their scrotal hair removed. Using that term invites its own questions as to why anyone would object to waxing that specific area, but not other parts with pubic hair. Pincrete (talk) 10:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  You've got it the wrong way around. The redirect is more specific. This is the case with the majority of redirects that are not synonyms/alternative names—they refer to a subpart of a topic which is covered at another article. I don't see how "scrotum" could possibly be a euphemism. What word do you think it's a euphemism for? As for the suggestion to avoid "her male", go ahead and propose something concrete. — Bilorv (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  MOS:EGG is not about redirects. The relevant guideline is MOS:REDIR Aircorn (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

  Of course it applies. At least, to redirects with possibilities (which I see this as). — Bilorv (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  Scrotum is not, in and of itself, a euphemism, but it is being proposed that it should be used euphemistically to 'stand in for' penis, scrotum and all adjacent areas with pubic hair. Which presupposes that we would all immediately understand that 'scrotum' doesn't actually mean scrotum, it means the entire genital area/ everything ordinarily inside underwear, for which the obvious non-euphemistic name, as used by sources, and in the judgement and Yaniv is 'male genitalia'. Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The sources tend to go use language used by the former option rather than the latter. Moreover, arguments brought up by Crossroads and other are tend be more convincing in regards to the application of relevant policy and guidelines.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. A scrotum is male genitalia regardless of gender identity. Gender identity =/= sex. Stevenbfg (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Current tally: assuming "Weak support" means half a support, I think about 12 are in support and 8 are in opposition. Consensus is weakly (margin of 3:2) in favor of "Support". Casspedia (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, it seems "male genitalia" is more closely in line with what the sources say, and that there is doubt over whether "scrotum" is an accurate or complete paraphrase of that term. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. MOS:GENDERID does apply, since referring to someone's genitals as male can clearly be read as applying gendered words to them; it may be clear to many readers that that is not what is meant, but and GENDERID encourages accuracy and precision in that regard. "Scrotum" is, by way of comparison, accurate, precise, and has no such room for confusion. My reading is that other sources used euphemistic language for it due to their own content policies (ie. they wanted to avoid using precise terms for genitalia), but per WP:NOTCENSORED that is not a concern for us. --Aquillion (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. It seems there are a few different questions being discussed here tangential to the RfC question, muddying the waters here beyond a simple Support/Oppose dichotomy. Specifically, the discussion of what is a euphemism for what. Some argue that using a term broader than "scrotum" is euphemistic, and oppose "male genitalia" on those grounds. Some argue that "scrotum" is overly specific and therefore euphemistic itself, and support "male genitalia" on those grounds. However, "male genitalia" is completely inappropriate, even aside from any consensus on the proper descriptive scope here. It clearly and cleanly falls under : Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification... even if it does not match what is most common in sources. Editors' own opinions on what and who is male or appeals to RS usage of "male genitalia" are wholly irrelevant here. Srey Sros^talk 16:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It is not in contravention of GENDERID due to the sex and gender distinction. The term refers to a type of anatomical sex characteristics; nothing about gender identity is implied. Medical sources use the term in reference to trans women, even though they respect their gender identities. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

    That seems a rather strange interpretation of WP guidelines which creates a loophole not otherwise present. Thankfully, GENDERID is not so vague as to merely say respect people's gender identities, else every application of the guideline would be away and the guideline would be rendered entirely ineffective.

    prevents us from using inappropriate gendered words... even if [they do] not match what is most common in sources. Medical sources receive no special exemption from this. "Male genitalia" is clearly gendered and will be interpreted as such by a reasonable reader.

    This feels quite similar to arguments one encounters relatively often on WP that referring to trans women as "male" is acceptable because it refers to some sort of biological essence rather than their gender. However, current consensus is roundly against such interpretations of our guidelines. Srey Sros^talk 15:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

    • "Male" is not a gendered term - it is a sexed term. Gender is not the same thing as sex. Nobody is suggesting the person be referred to as "male". The subject herself referred to her genetalia as "male." There still needs to be a way to unanimously indicate biological sex when it is relevent. Pushing the idea that this must be disallowed endangers trans people themselves: if that were to happen, it would only be a matter of time before some medical error gets made because the nurse or doctor looking over a chart that isnt clearly marked "male" or "female" doesn't order a screening for such-and-such condition (e.g., any of the sex specific cancers, and other medical conditions that predominantly affect one sex or the other). Pretending that those things are imaginary doesnt help anyone, least of all trans people. Firejuggler86 (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

      We're writing an encyclopedia entry of a living person, not a medical record, and our guidelines are designed around that. Srey Sros^talk 18:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Both scrotum and penis is classified as male genitial in the 2 articles about scrotum and penis. The reason someone refused to was the genitials is that they see them as male genitials. Besides as far as I know when someone want to change their gender from a man to a woman they would often/sometimes want to remove the penis etc. to complete the transformation. I see that as a confirmation that even transgender people agree that a penis etc. is a male genitial. If scrotum is preferred then perhaps write it as "... they refused to wax her scrotum and penis because they consider that male genitials.". (I'm not native English so there may be typos) --MGA73 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @MGA73: there is at least one grammatical mistake here, but it doesn't affect your overall argument: "transgender" is an adjective and when used intentionally as a noun, it's a slur. You mean "... even transgender people agree ..." or similar. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I added "people" to clarify. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2021

BC court records state that the legal name is Jessica Jonathan Yaniv and Jessica Simpson is an alias https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/criminal File Number 240588 24.108.128.132 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) VR _talk 19:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Jessica Yaniv → Jessica Simpson (activist) – Yaniv appears to prefer the name Jessica Simpson over Jessica Yaniv. Her Twitter and Instagram accounts both located at @trustednerd identify herself as Jessica Simpson. Since Jessica Simpson is her legal and preferred name, shouldn't this article be located at Jessica Simpson? SnappyDragonPennyroyal (talk) 07:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Where did the Yaniv name come from in the first place, if her legal and preferred name is Simpson? I didn't find an explanation in the article. I found "She ran the business for several years under her birth name, before legally changing her first name to 'Jessica', while keeping her last name," but that doesn't say what her birth name was – neither the given name nor the surname. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose AFAICT, the current title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. (Of note: there is currently an RfC going on about changing our naming policy to defer to individual's preferred names even if that name is not the one most commonly used by RS - and it's approaching snow oppose territory). Colin M (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Colin M. This is pretty clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

207.244.142.81 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove “activist”, she is not. I don’t feel confortable that she identified as a part of the LGBT community, because as a member of this community, she is just someone taking advantage.

 Not done: That is how sources identify her. Personal feelings aren't a factor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, totally not true. Whether or not someone is an activist has nothing to do with if they agree with you. InverseZebra (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

In May 2022, Yaniv was found guilty of assault in a BC court. This should be included under Legal Issues.

https://www.westernstandard.news/bc/watch-transgender-activist-yaniv-found-guilty-of-assaulting-journalist/article_f6c746be-dd34-11ec-932e-4bf58217e946.html 2600:1012:B1B7:964F:C5BB:9E4F:44D5:6ED4 (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Already done User:X-Editor has already added this info. Aaron Liu (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

“Transgender activist”

Should be “self proclaimed”. I don’t think anyone takes this persons claims of being a genuine activist seriously.2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:E18D:6532:3617:8E87 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there's zero here to support that. Perhaps Firefangledfeathers would like to explain why they're re-adding such unsourced stuff to such a contentious topic? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It's supported by the first cited source at the end of the sentence, and more in the article body. I'll move some of the better ones up. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A quote from Yaniv herself!

Yes, Yaniv is transgender. Yes, Yaniv might be described as an 'activist' (for some unbelievably dubious causes, which you and your tag-teamer are prolific at deleting-with-menaces). They have certainly acted as an activist in self promotion and in the supposed (yet legally stomped-flat) claims for their own personal benefit. But when has Yaniv ever behaved as an 'activist' for a 'transgender' cause, in any broader sense? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding both your words and your motives here, so I'm planning to disengage as much as possible. If anyone else has sourcing concerns, feel free to ping me. AD, if no one else weighs in, you might consider a post at WP:BLPN. Happy editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)