Talk:Holly Woodlawn

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). LGBT studies: Person This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force. Puerto Rico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not that it matters much, but is Holly Woodlawn a transvestite, transsexual or other transgender? And any citations for that? Cheers! Lauren^♫/∆ 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(an answer to the above) Labels mean different things to different people. Holly is not, by definition, a transsexual--NO. Holly has male genitalia. She didn't have the OP, or the filet, as some of the girls call it. Holly doesn't dress in womens clothing when she's not doing a show or playing Holly Woodlawn somewhere. At home, it's usually pants and a shirt--nothing fancy. No wigs or make-up.

Holly was in fact transgender. How she dressed is irrelevant. Gender identity and gender expression are 2 completely unrelated things. All cisgender women don't dress up all fancy with makeup and such all the time either, so are they not women? And regardless of what genitalia she had, which is no one's god damn business, gender is in your brain, not your pants. As a transgender woman myself I find this to be totally ignorant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.152.20.39 (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From her Home Page at http://www.hollywoodlawnsuperstar.com ..... In the late 1970’s Geraldo Rivera interviewed Holly on television, asking her: “What are you? Are you a woman trapped in a man’s body? A transvestite? A transsexual?” Holly replied, “But darling, what difference does it make, as long as you look FABULOUS?” Taylorhults (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly is, in the nouveau politically correct sense, properly described as transgendered. --MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying she is transgender has nothing to do with being "politically correct", it has to do with being factually correct!

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Holly's birth name. Not sure why it was omitted (or perhaps removed?), as Wikipedia is not censored, and one's birth name is certainly relevant information for any biography! -2003:CA:871E:36C7:8143:BFF0:ECFB:33D3 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Wikipedia policy

MOS:DEADNAME on this topic. In particular, when trans people were never known under their old names wikipedia respects their privacy. Rab V (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

This is incredibly Orwellian, and plainly violates

WP:NOTCENSORED. The birth name is inherently relevant and notable to a biography. Politeness in not using the old name in day to day discourse is one thing, but this is unhinged ideological extremism - trying to deny basic history because some people might be offended by it. Crazy times we're living in! -2003:CA:872B:6755:C88B:6199:3ABD:D00 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Rab V. No, it does not go against any WP policy. Take for instance Holly Woodlawn's friend Penny Arcade. She is only known by this name: Penny Arcade. That is her notability for inclusion at WP. But her birth name (Susana Carmen Ventura) is presented in her WP BLP article both in the lead and infobox. To say her birth name should be left out for any reason is without merit or argument. There is no policy to back your claim for reversion. And yes, the above does form a consensus as you are the only one who thinks it does not belong. Do not revert until you can find precise WP policy and / or gain consensus here to remove. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: Chaz Bono, Alexis Arquette, Caitlyn Jenner, April Ashley, Divine. I could keep going. All support this inclusion. You are incorrect. There is no WP policy and it is not UNDUE. Maineartists (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD please leave the version that existed before your edits unless you can show there is consensus to go against well-established wikipedia policy. Rab V (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop calling

MOS:DEADNAME is not policy but guidelines for discussion. Maineartists (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You misunderstand both what the MOS is and what DEADNAME has to say. The manual of style is not meant to be reargued on every page but a guideline for all of Wikipedia that can only be ignored if there is strong editor consensus to do so and only then on certain pages. GDINFO is a separate explanatory essay meant to describe DEADNAME so holds less weight. DEADNAME only applies to transgender people and Divine is not trans. It only allows for deadnames to be included if the subject was notable under that name, so Caitlyn Jenner and your other examples still follow DEADNAME. You can look at the page Laverne Cox for an example of someone like Holly Woodlawn who was not notable under her deadname and so it is not included. Rab V (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article include the subject's birth name? Maineartists (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the the manual of style policy
  MOS:DEADNAME is clear on this. No special reason has been given to ignore Wikipedia-wide guidelines for this one specific page. Rab V (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Regarding "policy", the DEADNAME page states at the top that it's a guideline, not a policy (see

WP:POLICIES for definition). Also, the guideline states that it considers "a living transgender or non-binary person", which Holly is not. In addition, it should be taken into consideration that being transgender is one of the things Holly is notable for. -- HLachman (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yes In addition to the above, even Woodlawn herself stated she was born Haraldo Santiago Franceschi Rodriguez Danhakl in her autobiography Woodlawn, Holly; Copeland, Jeff (1991). The Holly Woodlawn Story: A Low Life in High Heels. St. Martin's Press.
  ISBN 978-0-312-06429-7.; changing her name from Haraldo to Holly Woodlawn at age 16. This has nothing to do with DEADNAME guideline, but merely stating a publicly known fact backed by numerous reliable sources supported by Woodlawn herself. Similar to her friends: Candy Darling "James Lawrence Slattery" and Jackie Curtis "John Curtis Holder Jr." whose WP articles state their birth name. Maineartists (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Nicole Maines had a book with her deadname in it too but a RFC at that talk page found DEADNAME still applied. Unclear what about this case would make DEADNAME not apply. Rab V (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Because you are not adhering to the guidelines set forth in what you consistently call a "policy." The issue at Talk Nicole Maines was led by discussion and consensus. Something you have been fighting here; and have not adhered to when even recently editing the above pages of Candy Darling and Jackie Curtis. It is not an across the board policy. As found here: Manual of Style: Gender "These best practices should not be taken as thoroughly vetted by the community nor representing consensus." This is not the place for the discussion, but Jackie Curtis performed as both a man and a woman. Curtis was not trans. Curtis: "I am not a boy, not a girl, I am not gay, not straight, I am not a drag queen, not a transsexual – I am just me, Jackie." Curtis is referred to as "he/him" under acting work online. You are making edits without properly adhering to the guidelines of MOS:DEADNAME yourself. Maineartists (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but not much seems
  WP:STAGENAME here, particularly since it predates even the concept of ‘dead name’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Markbassett: when you say "perhaps returned to in later life", is that speculation, or are their sources supporting a return? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firefangledfeathers It is more a questioning the possibility that a shift back home perhaps also meant a shift back to prior name. Sources say in 1979 Holly cut her hair, moved back in with the parents, worked as a busboy at Benihanas 1 2 and for the father's tax business 3. Mostly the birth name seems not a deadname situation of Holly having any issue with referring to the other name. I don't have the autobiography text, but I note online bits saying it talked openly and I see online bits indicating Holly was open about whatever was done and had unique personal choices rather than some stereotype or any concern about the earlier name. Her late life moved out to West Hollywood and relative poverty as of the 2007 interview with the Guardian was not in drag, so at least sometimes Holly was open to dressing as a male. 4. That interview also asked about her alter-ego and Holly said couldn't even remember who she'd been back then, so again it seems the birth name is not blocked but it also was something not much used or important so OK to mention but not deserving much mention. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No. I have to fully agree with Rab V and am unsure why Maineartists has stated (not in this discussion, but in an earlier one entitled "Added birth name" on this page) that DEADNAME, is not a policy, or guideline. The further claim by Maineartists that DEADNAME is "not an across the board policy" is incorrect. A guideline is a policy. Yes, it can change through consensus, but it IS the policy is currently, and it should be followed. I would have to say that the argument by Maineartists is, unfortunately, wrongheaded. Markbassett seems to splitting hairs on this topic as well, so I have to disagree with the points made by Markbassett, as much as I disagree wholeheartedly with Maineartists. It is clear to me that the birth name IS a dead name, plain and simple. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "guideline is a policy", the DEADNAME page states at the top that it's a guideline, and

WP:POLICIES specifies the difference between guidelines and policies. I don't think this is "splitting hairs", just suggesting not to make unilateral declarations about Wikipedia policy that are not supported by the actual policies (by saying "a guideline is a policy", etc.). Also, as stated elsewhere on this page, DEADNAME discusses only the treatment of living persons, which Holly is not. -- HLachman (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• No. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page (including lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, category names, templates, etc.), even in quotations, even if reliable sourcing exists. Treat the pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. The subject may have included her deadname in the autobiography simply for completeness' sake, as probably was the norm at the time, but Wikipedia today is not beholden to such. She may also have included the name for a myriad of other reasons, which we may never know about. In any case, our guideline is clear: unless she was notable under her deadname, it is not to be included. ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  17:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Amending this as I literally just realized clicking on "reply", that the guideline specifically talks about living persons. I still think the right thing to do is not to include it for the same reasons, but it's clearly less strongly founded on policy than I assumed above. Regards, ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  17:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No: I'd argue that
  WP:BLP policy applies to both living and recently deceased individuals. Holly's death was seven years ago, so that is still within the realm of recently deceased. As far as I can tell, for the duration of her career she was credited at Holly Woodlawn, and that outside of her 1991 autobiography and a couple of her obituaries, her deadname was otherwise non-notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Note, I made aware of this RfC by the notice at WP:LGBT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:BDP sets out what "recently deceased" means: "six months, one year, two years at the outside", so I don't find this rationale convincing. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I never once said DEADNAME wasn't a guideline. It is. Found within a manual on writing style here at WP. This guideline only refers to living transgender or non-binary persons. In cases such as Woodlawn and Curtis, it should be discussed and a consensus reached (as it is now) on the Talk Page; considering each case is individual to the subject and nothing is "across the boards" in dealing with this particular style of content inclusion. (see
  MOS:DEADNAME in this particular instance is merely stating personal preference; since it only pertains to living subjects. No one is splitting hairs here. That is what it currently states. Maineartists (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There was a related RfC on this issue back in August 2021. While that RfC closed with no consensus, due to a split along a complex survey format that made finding a consensus outcome more difficult, the closing did note that the default is that the situation needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. This would allow for valid arguments that the spirit of DEADNAME applies to recently deceased individuals, based on its usage on other BLP articles, even if the letter of it does not state it.

  The relevant question therefore is, if a notable trans or non-binary person were to die tomorrow, who was never notable under their deadname, does DEADNAME cease to apply simply because they are now deceased? In lieu of the wording of DEADNAME including "or recently deceased", I and many would rightfully argue that the spirit of it still applies, because the

  WP:BLP policy also continues to apply to recently deceased individuals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree with your first point: allowance for valid arguments. However, it is not a simple across-the-board blanket guideline that applies to all trans / non-binary persons alive or deceased mentioned in WP; as not one of these WP subjects are the same: Alan L. Hart, Charley Parkhurst, Chevalier d'Éon, The Wachowskis, Wendy Carlos, Laura Jane Grace, Billy Tipton, Andreja Pejić, Mike Penner, Renée Richards and cannot be blindly edited as though all fall under the same guideline as above editors would apply. I'm not really sure why Woodlawn being dead 7 years of 70 years would affect merit for inclusion as some of these named have been dead for decades / centuries. WP is an encyclopedia. So if Renée Richards can openly talk about being "born Richard Raskind on August 19, 1934, in New York City and raised, as she put it, as "a nice Jewish boy" in Forest Hills, Queens" and that be an allowance for inclusion; the same can be said for Woodlawn. Maineartists (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There's three broad categories within the named examples, people who were notable pre-transition (Alan L. Hart, The Wachowskis, Wendy Carlos, Laura Jane Grace, Mike Penner, Renée Richards), people who were not notable pre-transition (Billy Tipton, Andreja Pejić), and historical figures who may have been trans or non-binary and/or concealed their assigned sex at birth (Charley Parkhurst, Chevalier d'Éon).

  DEADNAME covers the first two groups pretty well. For any who were notable pre-transition, a single reference to their deadname is or should be made with the remainder of the article using their most recent name and pronouns. For those who were not notable pre-transition, no reference to their deadname should ever be included in the article. This article on Holly Woodlawn falls firmly into the second group, as she appears not to have been notable pre-transition, with all of her acting credits being attributed to some variant of Holly Woodlawn. Also, at first glance Mike Penner looks like an outlier to this guideline, however upon closer reading it seems as though Mike transitioned some time around or before 2007, and then detransitioned in late 2008. Therefore the article is correct in noting both names, but using Penner as the primary and he/him pronouns throughout.

  What DEADNAME doesn't cover is the third group; historical figures who may have been trans or non-binary and/or concealed their assigned sex at birth. In part this is a language issue, the terminology we have and use today simply didn't exist a century or more ago. The rest is that in most cases, we simply do not know what that person's gender identity (as we know and call it now) was, nor why they presented as they did. These individuals might have been trans or non-binary, they might have been knowingly or unknowingly intersex, or they might have concealed their sex for other related reasons like oppression. There are some historical exceptions to this, for example the Public Universal Friend was almost certainly what we would now call non-binary or agender, which is based on many contemporary statements made by the Friend and those associated with them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No:
  MOS:DEADNAME does not apply per this "no consensus" RfC. This means that we should decide on a case-by-case basis. However, in that RfC I set out my general principle and I see no exceptional case here. The subject's inclusion of the name in an autobiography is neither here nor there: it is not a name that Woodlawn used (not mentioned) while a high-profile individual, according to what's been presented in this RfC, and it's generally considered offensive by modern style guides to use a transgender person's deadname where unnecessary. — Bilorv (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This raises several questions. If the reason to exclude the birth name is that the subject never used it while high-profile, doesn't that mean other birth names (e.g., those of Little Richard, Betty Ford, W.C. Fields, etc.) should also be suppressed? Regarding "modern style guides" and "unnecessary", aren't there different guidelines for different media, e.g., journalism vs. encyclopedic? Encyclopedias regularly provide birth names while they don't normally appear in news articles. -- HLachman (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. In the previous section (Added birth name), I pointed out why inclusion is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- HLachman (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes: Holly's birth name is
  WP:DUE considering the autobiography mention. If Holly included the name as a notable part of her history, so should we. Tepkunset (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes, I think Holly herself saw it as noteable, which is why she included in her autobiography.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Normal practice for a biography would be to include the birth name, with
  MOS:DEADNAME does not apply, and so the presumption should swing back to inclusion. However, we do have a tradition of respecting the spirit of policies and guidelines, and I would argue that if the subject would have found use of a birth name grossly offensive, then the presumption should once again tilt towards exclusion, unless the subject was notable under the birth name, which is not the case here. So to resolve this, is there any editor with access to the autobiography who can make a judgement on the subject's sentiment towards their birth name and why they included it? If there is any hint that it was included only grudgingly, or with discomfort, then we should not include it. If it is presented matter-of-factly with no suggestion of indignity, then we should include it. Clearly if there is any other source that allows us this insight then that would be relevant too. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Barnards.tar.gz: The first "yes" vote in this section (from Maineartists) states "even Woodlawn herself stated she was born Haraldo Santiago Franceschi Rodriguez Danhakl in her autobiography" (and then specifies the source). Does that resolve your question to your satisfaction? If so, please indicate your vote. -- HLachman (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that mentioned, but I didn't notice that the full text was available on archive.org. I've now had a look and I'm satisfied that the subject expressed no qualms about including her birth name, but I couldn't confirm (via the archive.org "search inside" feature) the long name mentioned here - a different surname is mentioned. I'll vote Yes, but we need a specific reference (e.g. a page number in the autobiography) to verify that we've got it right. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]