Talk:Nadezhda Durova

Unreferenced?

I have provided a few more references, no I don't think the article is unreferenced. Please let me know if there any problems with the provided references abakharev 22:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

An affair?

Your additions are wonderful. I worked a little on the punctuation and syntax, just minor adjustments.

One thing I'd really like to confirm is the 1805 affair. Almost everything in English is based on the Mary Fleming Zirin translation. Zirin notes that a few men tried to claim they were in love with Durova, but considers the claims baseless. Where does mainstream Russian scholarship stand on the issue? Durova 08:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Frankly, I do not know where the mainstream Russian scholarship stand on the issue of the affair. My knowledge of Durova's biography was limited to the Hussar Ballada plot until yesterday. I just retold the story as on the http://www.rulex.ru/01050167.htm (the last reference of the article). The style suggests some later 19th century (or beginning of the 20-th century), but obviously not Brokhaus-Efron Enciclopedia. BTW I noticed that the stories of rulex and BE are quite complimentary - Rulex says that she has an affair with a cossack officer in 1906 and BE says that after an argument in her house she went with a cossack regiment as a Land Owner's son Alexander Durov, then in 1907 she officially enlisted to Ulan regiments as Alexander Sokolov. It can be assumes that she went to cossacks to be with the officer she had the affair with and enlisted with ulans after the break, but nowhere I see this connection made. I am not sure if it is possible to put it in the article abakharev 10:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Let's go with NPOV and mention both possibilities. I'll make that adjustment now. Durova 17:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominating for Deletion

Article about a minor historical figure of little interest to general readership that probably doesn't really belong in an encylopedia. --172.165.0.225 16:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to nominate it for deletion then read this page, but it's rather unlikely the article will be deleted as it does satisfy the notability criteria. Hut 8.5 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Some additional sources that could be used in this article

1. Staff (May 25, 2005). "Nadezhda Durova Museum Opens in Yelabuga". RIA Novosti. Russian News & Information Agency. pp. Section: Culture. Retrieved 2007-12-12. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Stanley, Alessandra (March 27, 1998). "St. Petersburg Journal; Russian Woman Sails Solo in a Sea of Cadets". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   Women fought in World War I, the revolution and the civil war. Some even took up arms against Napoleon -- Nadezhda Durova, disguised as a man, became a hussar officer in 1812.

3. Good, Jane E. (Jun 26, 1988). "An Officer But Not a Gentleman". The Washington Post. The Washington Post Company. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   In 1806, a young Russian woman named Nadezhda Durova cropped her hair, donned Cossack clothes, rode off in the dead of night and enlisted in a cavalry regiment under the name of Alexander Sokolov. Although 23, she claimed to be 16...

I'll do some cursory searching in some other archival databases and see if I can find anything else readily available. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Cirt. I was just mentioning to Irpen that this biography could probably make GA with some help from the Russian editors. She wrote four novels that I don't think have ever been translated into English. Durova^Charge! 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I no longer have access to the Mary Fleming Zirin translation, but I do have the John Mersereau & David Lapeza translation. If I'm not alone here, which line citation format do we want to use? Durova^Charge! 01:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth it to try contacting the Nadezhda Durova Museum staff in Yelabuga, see if they have some more knowledge in this arena. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

Miss Durova what can we do to help a new WikiMedia project out?

Is there anything we can do for them, besides an article on WkiPedia? WikiAsianTravel WikiAsianTravel Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you want User talk:Durova. This is the page for discussing our Nadezhda Durova article. Hut 8.5 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I get easily lost..:) Do you know the meaning of Nadezhda, in Russian? Igor Berger (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nadiezhda means "hope" ;). Zezen (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Expand article

I want this article expanded. Any Russian speakers would take a stab at elaborating on her memoirs etc?

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nadezhda Durova. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050215224749/http://www.vor.ru/culture/cultarch38_eng.html to http://www.vor.ru/culture/cultarch38_eng.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/038/38102.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Why Is a Trans Man Being Deadnamed?

Everything I've read about Alexander's life says he hated feminine pronouns and that his publishers forced him to play up the Mulan angle against his wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40e:8280:4fd0:d9ad:eb88:49bd:3f3b (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no reliably-sourced prose in the article claiming that Durova was transgender. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This comment mentions that Russian Wikipedia elaborates on this. I don’t know enough Russian to verify this, though. שונרא (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Much of the secondary source writings of Durova describe her with feminine pronouns, which the Wikipedia follows, but I think if there is any prose that shows that she preferred male pronouns, that can be included in the Wikipedia Jaguarnik (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia editing so I'm not really sure how to do this, but this article I found here: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/unmaking-of-a-man-aleksandr-aleksandrovnadezhda-durova/CDC8F891B0CE97B22F3764BD14425730 has quite a few sources. This as well: https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/427/article/876985 Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, MOS:GENDERID says "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." According to the source you cite, this person exclusive used masculine grammatical forms for himself in his personal correspondence, and wrote that being called N.A. Durova "makes me shudder" and causes him "grief". It's pretty clear that the name and gendered words he preferred, according to this recent reliable source, are not the ones used in this article. AJD (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we'd be able to update the name or at least redirect Alexander Durov to go to this page as well? I've seen an article where the given name and chosen name were both included with a "/" in the middle for the title. Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

According to both the sources you reference, the name he went by was Alexander Alexandria, not Alexander Durov (though we probably should redirect Alexander Durov anyway). I don't think using both names for the title is a good idea. Based on MOS:GENDERID and the sources you link, I think this article should probably just be moved to Alexander Alexandrov (author) or something like that. I would live to give other people a chance to weigh in, though, especially people who know more about the subject of this article than I do (which wouldn't be hard). AJD (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm sick as hell and missed the name. I'll wait for other people to add to the conversation. Thanks! Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that moving this article to Alexander Alexandrov (author) would be correct following MOS:GENDERID. Catgirl-su (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with the pronoun change. I wrote an entire dissent piece a while back on Reddit's r/BadHistory subreddit, as an AFAB nonbinary equestrian who grew up in a near-identical environment to what Nadezhda Durova grew up in. The "Nadezhda Durova was a transgender man" argument is only supported by one historian in gender studies, Dr. Margarita Vaysman, and is opposed by other, more traditional historians. Dr. Vaysman has repeatedly insisted that "Durova is a transgender man" for years, and my concern is that the people suggesting this change are either Dr. Vaysman herself, or only refer to Dr. Vaysman's work, even though her work is controversial in the academic sphere.

The only pronouns I would support as a compromise is "they/them", because previous scholarship outside of Dr. Vaysman's work uses both "she/her" and "he/him" pronouns, in accordance to what Durov/Durova wrote themselves in The Cavalry Maiden.

My rebuttal: [1]https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/129toht/modern_scholarship_and_the_misunderstanding_of/ Obversa (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Dr. Margarita Vaysman is a biased source. She has been repeatedly pushing the narrative that "Nadezhda Durova is a transgender man for years" to promote her own papers on the topic, of which there are several. However, Dr. Vaysman is usually the only source who has written on this topic, and promoted this view, and Ruth Averbach's paper also directly cites Dr. Vaysman in the footnotes, which calls into question the reliability of both sources. See: Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: Reliable sources and Wikipedia: No original research. Also see: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

If only Dr. Margarita Vaysman and Ruth Averbach hold the view that "Durova is a transgender man", then that constitutes a tiny minority, as opposed to a "significant minority" or the majority, and may not belong on Wikipedia. Obversa (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Mellk (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that this person was a trans man. It just uses masculine pronouns for him as he did in his own writing and speaking. The quote from his letter saying that the given name makes him shudder is his own words. Doesn't gender identity go from the individual's view, rather than what a majority of people say in regards to that person? Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly useful-gender identity

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/slavic-review/article/unmaking-of-a-man-aleksandr-aleksandrovnadezhda-durova/CDC8F891B0CE97B22F3764BD14425730

I need to take time to read through it further but this seems helpful. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I wrote a rebuttal to Dr. Margarita Vaysman's work a while back on Reddit's r/BadHistory subreddit: [2]https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/129toht/modern+scholarship+and+the+misunderstanding+of/

This article is also written by Ruth Averbach, who directly cites Dr. Vaysman's work in the footnotes. Neither Dr. Vaysman nor Averbach, based on what I can tell, have any experience in equestrianism, equestrian culture, or how equestrian culture sees gender, nor is it ever addressed in their papers or work. This is a massive oversight, because as someone who is an equestrian, people who are not equestrians fundamentally cannot understand how "equestrian culture" treats gender. Obversa (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you site something other than a reddit comment? And I'm not sure I understand the connection between modern equestrian culture's view on gender and the way that a person in Napolean-era Russia spoke about themself. I think translations of the person's individual writing is the best thing we have in terms of their personal view of their gender. Sock-the-guy (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I am challenging the recent change in pronouns that was based only on two sources, as opposed to widespread conensus: Dr. Margarita Vaysman and Ruth Averbach. I believe Dr. Vaysman, who Averbach also cites, to be a biased source.

Dr. Vaysman has been repeatedly pushing the narrative that "Nadezhda Durova is a transgender man for years" to promote her own papers on the topic, of which there are several. However, Dr. Vaysman is usually the only source who has written on this topic, and promoted this view, and Ruth Averbach's paper also directly cites Dr. Vaysman in the footnotes, which calls into question the reliability of both sources. See: Wikipedia: Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: Reliable sources and Wikipedia: No original research. Also see: Wikipedia: Verifiability.

"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. If reliable sources disagree with each other, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

The inclusion of a view that is held by only a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then—whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it, or not—it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

If only Dr. Margarita Vaysman and Ruth Averbach hold the view that "Durova is a transgender man", then that constitutes a tiny minority, as opposed to a "significant minority" or the majority, and may not belong on Wikipedia.

Additionally, per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "NPOV stands for Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts.

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our "facts" are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties."

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

• The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Wikipedia:POV)
• While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
• Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
• The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
• The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
• A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
• The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
• Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

In this case, "the subject was a transgender man", in my view, is expressing a viewpoint as fact; the article is not presented fairly when it comes to alternate viewpoints and theories by other historians outside of Dr. Vaysman's scholarship; Dr. Vaysman's suggestions are given undue attention and space compared to others; the text and manner of writing insinuate that Dr. Vaysman's viewpoint is "more correct" than other historians' viewpoints; the subject and title of the article were changed to specifically reflect Dr. Vaysman's scholarship; and the editors' viewpoints are mentioned or obvious. It is for these reasons that I added the NPOV tag to this article. Obversa (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no expertise on or related to the person who is the subject of this article, but I want to point out you're conflating two different questions: (1) Was the subject of this article a trans man? (2) What pronouns and name should we use to refer to him? As for (1), your point is that it is not NPOV to say that he was a transgender man. But in fact, the article doesn't say that. What the article says is that "there has been a debate" over this question. So it seems like you have nothing to object to on that point. The answer to (2) depends on the MOS:GENDERID standard that we should use the name and pronouns that he preferred people to use late in life. You don't say anything about that question. Is there dispute about what pronouns and grammatical gender this person preferred people to use? AJD (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

AJD I agree that two issues are being conflated here: 1) the use of he/him pronouns, and 2) whether the evidence in the section on "gender identity" provides a holistic view of the scholarship.

Before addressing those questions though, I need to point out:

-Obversa, you say it's a problem for the article to claim "the subject was a transgender man" and include that in quotes; however, that quote does not appear anywhere in the article, nor does a definitive answer to the question of their gender identity in terms of contemporary language.

-You say that "Ruth Averbach's paper also directly cites Dr. Vaysman in the footnotes, which calls into question the reliability of both sources." Dr. Averbach's paper mostly cites primary sources in Russian, and only references Dr. Vaysman's book as another contemporary scholar who uses the name Aleksadrov to refer to the subject. The footnote reads: "Several contemporary bibliographies use the name “Aleksandrov” as well. See: Margarita Vaysman, “The Trouble with Queer Celebrity: Aleksandr Aleksandrov (Nadezhda Durova)’s A Year of Life in St Petersburg (1838),” Modern Language Review, no. 118, part 1 (January 2023): 97–113." None of the pieces of evidence or claims of fact were sourced from Dr. Vaysman though, but are directly from the relevant sources. And I'm unclear how another scholar citing their work would call into question the reliability of Dr. Vaysman's work itself.

To the main questions:

1) Wikipedia policy (MOS:GENDERID) is to use the pronouns that the subject most recently used. The article currently cites multiple scholarly articles based in the Russian primary sources (and not just the two by Dr. Vaysman and Dr. Averbach that you are concerned about) indicating that the subject used masculine grammar later in life to refer to himself, and was referred to as such by others. It seems the change to he/him pronouns is in line with Wikipedia policy.

2) The "gender identity" section cites 9 different sources by a variety of authors. If you believe a relevant scholarly article hasn't been included, you can certainly add a reference to it. However, nine sources in a paragraph of this size is fairly robust. 100.11.60.172 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"And I'm unclear how another scholar citing their work would call into question the reliability of Dr. Vaysman's work itself."

The reason why I list Dr. Vaysman as an unreliable source is because she has self-published and self-written much of her scholarly work claiming that "Durov/Durova is a transgender man, and must be referred to by he/him pronouns". Some of the page edits, and the original Talk dispute, was also started by someone accusing Wikipedia of, quote, "deadnaming and misgendering a transgender man" (Durov/Durova), even though you yourself point out that the article states that "there has been debate over this question".

I would also point out that none of the people editing the page have actually seemed to read The Cavalry Maiden - the original work the scholarship was based on - even though it is freely available to read in English online, and provides an alternate view of Durov/Durova not just identifying as male, but female as well. (Hence, The Cavalry Maiden, with "maiden" referring to their female biological sex, as well as their original female gender presentation.) Instead, I see people who are in the same camp as Dr. Vaysman, or seeking to promote Dr. Vaysman's view that "Durov(a) was a transgender man", appear to be specifically only using sources that support their point of view, or Dr. Vaysman's argument, as the argument was originated by Dr. Vaysman and her academic papers.

I also disagree with your cited two points:

1) Since the article is in English, on English Wikipedia, and not Russian on Russian Wikipedia, there needs to be sourcing provided in English, and not just taken at face value. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, there needs to be a way for people who don't know Russian to be able to fact-check and verify the sources in Russian. You also cite MOS:GENDERID, but this policy specifically refers to "living persons", not historical figures and "dead persons". [If it did, Deborah Sampson and other women with secondary male identities may also qualify under MOS:GENDERID for "he/him pronouns", which would cause a lot of issues, as most people are unfamiliar with Sampson's male name(s) and identities.] Instead, I would refer to Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity, which specifically states: "Editors are advised to use caution before categorizing an individual without significant reliable sourcing indicating the presence of ambiguity or dispute regarding the individual's gender." As far as I can tell, there is no set Wikipedia policy that historical figures must follow MOS:GENDERID policy, especially for people who have been long-dead, and cannot clarify as to what pronouns they would prefer to be called by. On a personal level, as a nonbinary person myself, I also do not consider a select few scholars deciding their pronouns for them to be appropriate, because then it becomes the opinion of the scholar, rather than treating the historical figure themselves as a primary source in determining their own gender identity.

2) The burden of proof is usually on the claimant or editor proposing the edits or changes, not the one challenging them. While it was a failed proposal that was later merged into other proposals, I do agree with it: Wikipedia:Expert retention/Burden of proof. You say that there are 9 sources and that the claim is "well-sourced". Are these sources available and accessible in English? What other sources or citations do they have? Are they verifiable as academically sound and valid, as opposed to being self-published? (See: Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works)

Furthermore, the MOS:GENDERID policy that you cited also states thusly: "Some editors favor the use of the singular they in cases where gender identity is in question and no pronoun preference has been declared by the biographical subject."

Ergo, my argument is that "they/them" pronouns should be used, not "he/him", as it follows MOS:GENDERID policy, and covers indications that Durov/Durova may have used both male and female identities in the original source of The Cavalry Maiden. This may indicate a gender identity more in-line with nonbinary, genderqueer, or genderfluid, rather than "transgender man", as Durov/Durova referred to themselves as a "maiden". Use of "they/them" is also less controversial, as it includes both schools of thought; acknowledges that, while Durov/Durova had a male identity, they still had no qualms about acknowledging to the Russian public in The Cavalry Maiden that they were biologically female; and does not solely acknowledge, or rely on, a single school of thought. Obversa (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Also see:

Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language (for Russian contributors to English Wikipedia)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight: "Recognition by other reliable sources— A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it. This can be helpful when you are dealing with a source you are unfamiliar with. Even a refutation by an established reliable source may give the opinion of a low-reliability source enough significance for an article of its own. Also see Wikipedia:Fringe theories." However, the source needs to be able to be available to be read in English to be deemed "reliable", and Google Translate is notoriously unreliable when it comes to proper translation.

The latter article also states: "Persistence—Should a reader go to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, then the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore web citations should be treated with caution. However, the assumed persistence of print references is less applicable to books or publications of limited circulation; such publications are likely to become unavailable and unlikely to be reprinted. While some organizations, such as The British Library, contain extensive records of out of print books, these should not be assumed to be accessible to the majority of Wikipedians, particularly considering geographical concerns."

Furthermore: "Reliability should be judged relative to the statement being sourced. Any source can be a reliable source for its own opinion. However, not all sources have relevant opinions. Please do not give the opinions of sources undue weight. Making a statement about a fact other than someone's opinion requires a higher degree of reliability. The more extraordinary the fact, the higher the degree of reliability needed." Obversa (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you've misunderstood MOS:GENDERID. The policy does not apply only to living persons. The mention of living persons in the second and third paragraphs of MOS:GENDERID is specifically about when and whether it is appropriate to mention someone's former name. The basic policy, "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words... that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources," is not limited to living persons; it also applies to dead and historical persons. I don't understand your reference to Deborah Sampson; is there any reason to believe that, late in life, she preferred to be referred to with he/him pronouns?

I'm also not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says that sources cited should be in the same language as Wikipedia. This would make reliable sourcing for most articles very difficult to find for Wikipedias in less commonly used languages! If such a Wikipedia policy exists, can you provide some reference to a policy page supporting it?

The line you quote, "Editors are advised to use caution before categorizing an individual without significant reliable sourcing indicating the presence of ambiguity or dispute regarding the individual's gender", appears to be specifically the guidelines for inclusion in Category:Historical figures with ambiguous or disputed gender identity. Whether to not to include this article in that category is not the subject of this discussion, and I don't see how the specific guidelines for that category are relevant to it. (I also suspect there's no dispute here about whether there is such ambiguity or dispute in the current case!) AJD (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the article on Durova should be using feminine pronouns, as the scholarship on Durova (as far as I've seen) in Russian and English predominantly uses feminine pronouns for Durova. However I also think it is wise to leave the section that says there is debate about Durova's gender identity and that Durova in her life did use masculine pronouns. I think this is most neutral and correct. I am also open to removing all pronouns from the article entirely as was done with Doctor James Barry who, unlike Durova, was not known to be biologically female until after his death. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I admit I made an error as a less experienced editor when adding the "modern scholarship has adopted the view that durova may have been transgender"; if I was writing the section now I wouldn't have added it at all. However I do think it's relevant to include that view in the article, but I wouldn't have written it the way I did then. There are multiple journal articles in that section in English accessible through JSTOR /Wikipedia Library that do cover the topic of Durova's gender identity, not just Vaysman and Averbach. I do not want to heavily modify the article right now with the ongoing NPOV discussion until an agreement is reached, but I would rather state it like this: "Some modern scholars hold the view that Durova may have been an example of a transgender individual, but this is not a universally held view about Durova." Jaguarnik (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"As the scholarship... predominantly uses feminine pronouns" isn't a good reason to use feminine pronouns in the article. The Wikipedia policy is to use the gender pronouns that correspond to the person's latest-expressed reliably reported self-identification, not necessarily the ones that are used most often by other sources. AJD (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not see anywhere in the article that says Durova used masculine pronouns. As Obversa points out, Durova throughout life spoke using a mix of masculine and feminine language when referring to the self. What the article says is " Durova continued to wear male clothing for the rest of [Durova's] life, continued to use [Durova]'s male name, and spoke using masculine grammar... Durova in [Durova]'s personal life rejected femininity (even expressing an aversion to the female sex), and behaved as a man." Durova broke gender roles by behaving as a man and using a masculine name but never outright said "I am a man" (and could not have identified as a transgender man in the modern sense). The journal article that I pulled from that says that Durova used masculine grammatical endings also notes several scholars that disagree with the idea that Durova was transgender (from Renner-Fahey: "Zirin and Marsh-Flores have referred to Durova in the context of the Amazons; Savkina has discussed gender issues in this and other Durova prose works; Marsh-Flores has applied feminist and queer theory to Durova's writing; and Schönle has approached the text from a perspective of genre and gender studies (although he polemicizes with feminist scholarship that suggests Durova actually desired to become a male). Durova has, in addition, been referred to in the context of transvestism (see, for example, Gutsche 66). Heldt has argued against such a portrayal." Ultimately Durova's gender identity is ambiguous. I think we should leave the scholarship that discusses Durova's gender identity and self-presentation and, if there is no agreement, the article can be rewritten to not use gendered pronouns entirely. Jaguarnik (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

People who actually have knowledge of the subject and the reliable sources should be making this decision, certainly not me. I'm just trying to point out on what criteria the decision should be made. Whether or not "several scholars disagree with the idea that Durova was transgender" is not what's important here; whether the subject of the article "could have identified as a transgender man" or "broke gender roles by behaving as a man" is also a red herring. What matters is what grammatical gender he preferred to use for words referring to himself late in life. Several people on this talk page, citing some sources, have said that that was masculine. I'm not in a position to evaluate whether that claim is true; but if it is true, that's sufficient to establish that masculine forms such as he are what this article should use. AJD (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how discussions about the term transgender are anything other than a red herring here. Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Cisnormative approach is WP:FRINGE in the contemprorary gender studies, so we absolutely can ignore what sources which rely on it write. Reprarina (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your response is confusing to me. Can you please explain a bit more than you mean? Thank you. Obversa (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We have a good article about cisnormativity which explains that the assumption that everyone is, or ought to be, cisgender is not correct assumption. In contemporary gender studies, this bias is widely rejected, which ultimately fringeize sources that rely on cisnormative biases. Sources that claim that Alexandrov is a woman named Nadezhda Durova rely on a cisnormative approach. Reprarina (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

As pointed out in other replies, the theory that this historical figure is transgender is, in itself, considered a "fringe theory", primarily promoted by only one scholar in gender studies (Dr. Margarita Vaysman), who appears to have a vested self-interest in promoting her own work and theory. Wikipedia policy also dictates that one scholar alone may not dictate the content of an entire historical figure, much less their Wikipedia page. Obversa (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, for the 4th time, please name where the article says this is a trans individual. 2600:8800:7180:8D:3F93:7D2:13F:DB18 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Reparina seems to imply in their reply that the article should list this individual as transgender, claiming that any other approach is, quote, "cisnormative": "Sources that claim that Alexandrov is a woman named Nadezhda Durova rely on a cisnormative approach." However, looking at Durov(a)'s identity only through the lens of gender studies is also an issue in of itself. For one, who decides what is "cisnormative", and what is not? Are some sources excluded on purpose, because they are deemed by one person to be "cisnormative"? Are older or more traditional historical sources given the same standing as Dr. Vaysman's work, or other work in gender studies, or are they also discarded and dismissed as "cisnormative"? These are all questions that should be asked and properly investigated in cases like this one, especially when it comes to maintaining Wikipedia's reputation and integrity. Wikipedia policy also states that pages may not favor one school of thought over another, especially in cases of academic conflict(s). (Also see: Ideological bias on Wikipedia, which addresses academic bias when it comes to Wikipedia contributors and editors.) Obversa (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

For the fifth time. 2600:8800:7180:8D:3F93:7D2:13F:DB18 (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)