Talk:Jazz Jennings/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The article states the subject "...gained international media attention after a series of videos about her was posted on You Tube.", and what is used as a reference is just a link to the so mentioned "series of videos". While this link proves the existence of the series of videos, it completely fails to support the claim that the article's subject "gained international media attention" after the posting of those videos.

The sentence is tagged as problematic. As being a BLP, I'm going to remove the whole sentence in a short time, if sources are not provided.

Thanks, --damiens.rf 16:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Its nice of you to post here and wait. I would just go ahead and correct it, or copy edit it, or whatever you want to call it. People can chime in here as needed if they want to add a citation or offer an alternate version, or complain, ect. Cheers.--Malerooster (talk) 19:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The sentence is valid as it reads and the only proof needed is the link to her Youtube page. The justification for my statement is that Youtube is nothing if not international media. In fact it is probably the most international of all medias. You can access Youtube from nearly any nation. People from all over the world post, comment and view. Her combined video views of nearly two million back this up. You can further see by reading comments on any of her videos that the people commenting are from all over the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what we call

synthesize or make judgments. You want to assert something, provide a source that says it. Skyerise (talk

) 08:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The "personal life" section is largely a copy of a paragraph in the previous section. Needs cleaning up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.31.52.185 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! —

talk · contribs

) 06:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Could someone add the entry to the LGBT YouTube celebrities category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.59.86.71 (talk)

 Done —

talk · contribs

) 10:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is Jazz Jennings Different? I mean, lots of Celebrities use pseudonyms, and their actual names are usually listed on their Wikipedia page. If you are going to insist on removing Jazz Jennings' real surname, then we need to remove birth names from all Celebrity pages.JessicaFaith84 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

She's a minor and she's trans. Both of these statuses require extra sensitivity. I'm going to start a discussion on

re

}} 15:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion can be found at

re

}} 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

"extra sensitivity" is hardly a rule that can easily be followed--the fact that she's a minor might itself be sufficient.Avocats (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This image was posted on May 24, 2015 on Flickr under a free license from an organization from Budapest that seems to post many other celebrity photos. Due to the fact that the Jennings live in Florida and it doesn't seem to mention Lwp Kommunikáció anywhere in the article, it probably isn't LWP's own work.

A duplicate image is seen here.

talk

) 17:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Jazz Jennings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please update the first sentence. She is a young trans woman, not an old trans girl.

Thank you!

Dayaware Dayaware (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: She's 14. The lead says Jazz Jennings (born October 6, 2000) is an American teenage trans girl, YouTube celebrity, spokesmodel and LGBTQ rights activist and that is accurate.

re

}} 22:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Girl - The word girl is sometimes used to refer to an adult female, usually a younger one. This usage may be considered derogatory or disrespectful in professional or other formal contexts, just as the term boy can be considered disparaging when applied to an adult man. Hence, this usage is often deprecative.

She is a young trans woman, please show respect. Dayaware (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: As you say, the term "girl" can be used to refer to adult females in a way that may be considered deprecating. As far as I know, 14 year olds are not considered adults by any legal system in the world, and so that should not be a concern. if you can provide

WP:RS that state that 14 year old females are to be referred to as "young women" and not "girls", then I would be happy to make the change. Cannolis (talk

) 12:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence that using the term "girl" for an individual under the age of 18 is a show of disrespect; one could argue that referring to her as a woman prematurely adultifies and sexualizes her, and I think she is a pioneer for being the first transgender girl, as opposed to woman, to rise to prominence. I don't think anyone would have objected if the tables were turned and this article were about a transgender boy instead. Alanrobts (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Jazz Jennings is 15 years old. I believe the correct definition of a person under 18 is a "girl" or a "boy", whether cis- or transgender. I think it is worthy to make this distinction because Jazz is a pioneer for being the first transgender girl, as opposed to woman, to arise to prominence. Assigning the title "woman" to a 15 year-old (or "man" to a cis or transgender boy also prematurely adultifies and sexualizes these individuals, in my opinion. I'm interested in hearing feedback before I consider correcting this. Alanrobts (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A lot of recent reliable sources seem to say "transgender teen". What do you think if we follow suit and say "transgender teenager"? That is equally accurate and avoids any possibility of disrespect. —

talk · contribs

) 14:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that I overlooked this issue being discussed in another section above. I personally don't agree with the conclusion that referring to Jazz as a "girl" is a form of professional disrespect, for the reasons I already outlined. "Transgender teen" seems diplomatic enough, but I'm going to pose this question to a transgender activist I know and get her input. I welcome further opinions on the matter. Alanrobts (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I discussed this with a prominent transgender activist, and we agree that "transgender teenage girl" is more appropriate than "trans woman" here. If the article was about a cisgender 15 year old girl celebrity, I don't think an issue would be raised. The article was originally written as such, but someone protested in an act of what I see as a bit of an overreach. I think she is remarkable for being the first transgender girl to rise to prominence anyway. Alanrobts (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

"Transgender teenage girl" is accurate and seems fine to me.

re

}} 01:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me too. —

talk · contribs

) 07:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2016

This edit request to Jazz Jennings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add this page to the "Category:Transgender Jews" Ovrim (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC) .

Ovrim (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide

talk

) 16:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Here "Counted as one of 9 Jewish LGBTQ activists" on

Yahoo. And in an interview here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/gay-south-florida/palette-magazine/article25505500.html. Ovrim (talk

) 21:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, our rules on religious categories on articles about living persons requires the we cite a statement of self-identification as an adherent of the religion before we can add religious categories. A statement that the family is Jewish is not sufficient. We have a separate category Category: American people of Jewish descent for people who are Jewish by descent but who have not made a citable statement of religious identification. Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Source: Bay Area Reporter article from March 16, 2006 http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=654

12.180.133.18 (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. But we won't include it per

re

}} 21:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The last name is her real last name (not relevant to trans status, I'm not talking about the first name as you can tell by my original section title). Stage name vs. real last name. Like Lady Gaga and Stefani Germanotta. 12.180.133.18 (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

According to

WP:BIRTHNAME, not only should Jennings' real name be included in the article but it should be the first reference of the name .... So "Jazz (Redacted), also known as Jazz jennings." There is no evidence that either Jazz or any other members of the (Redacted) family have legally changed their last name to Jennings. --Crunch (talk

) 14:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bay Area Reporter article is not an adequate source for this information—while it mentions a transgender girl named "(Redacted)", it doesn't say that this is the same person as Jazz Jennings. —

talk · contribs

) 14:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've added additional references. If you want more, please discuss here. Don't just delete my edits. --Crunch (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Those sources do not say anything about Jazz Jennings. Per

WP:BLPPRIVACY

, please stop adding this information unless it is supported by high-quality reliable sources.

Separately, I see that you removed the information I added about Jennings' new memoir. You didn't explain that removal in your edit summary or this talk page, so I re-added it. Is there some reason you think the memoir information is inappropriate for the article? —

talk · contribs

) 06:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If there were a reliable source about her birth name it could be included, but that information is little more than just trivia. In fact, when it comes to celebrities like John Wayne, Cary Grant, or Mary Pickford the question of their birth name actually is used as a trivia question. If the article does not include Jazz Jennings' birth name it is not missing anything important, so people pushing for inclusion should relax. If we get a reliable source, then fine. Until then, it's no great omission. I don't see anyone worrying about whether she has a middle name and wanting to make sure the article includes that information. I don't see why including her birth name is any more important than that. 99.192.65.123 (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean? Who "assigned" her as male, and why? I think you mean "was born with male sexual characteristics or genitalia" or genetically XY. (If she were intersex, that would be relevant as well.) To use "assigned male" is really a confusing effort to avoid saying plainly what the facts are. There is a difference between biological presentation and gender identification. (If she chooses not to disclose the information, then something else needs to said. (Given her identification as transgender girl, though, you would reasonably conclude that she was born a biological male. Avocats (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is standard language used in the field of gender identity and is clearly linked to the article which explains it. Did you click through and read it? Skyerise (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It isn't standard language used in the real world. 80.229.10.206 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If the real world includes news reports and popular scientific articles concerning the subject, then yes it is. Everyone is

Birth Certificate, but this remains un-notable unless a question about it later arises. Some babies are born with initially ambiguous or deceptive-appearing genetalia, and mistakes are sometimes both made and perpetuated. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.202.211.191 (talk

) 15:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In the article about transgender teen Jazz_Jennings it says her last name that she uses is a Pseudonym. In this article here it says it is used in order to maintain the privacy of her family and that used hormone therapy: http://heavy.com/entertainment/2015/07/jazz-jennings-parents-greg-jeanette-transgender-family-daughter-son-twin-i-am-jazz-tlc-tv-twitter/ Is this article reabile enough to use? Swancat (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It is not a secret about "Jazz Jennings'" real name. It is [redacted]. This is a well-known fact that has been widely reported in the LGBT media. The article is extremely deceptive on a number of fronts, beginning with the notion the [redacted] family is at all anonymous.--SN 30 September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.42.200 (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Redacted per

WP:BLPTALK. Rebbing

01:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What's even the point when one can just view the history of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.216.49 (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with IP. It is a widely reported fact, and Wikipedia is supposed to report facts and not adhere to bias (such as redacting a name).

talk

) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

A user named Mx. Granger apparently needs things to literally be spelled out to him/her, and thinks that genuine reliable sources constitutes "jumping to conclusions" and "original research", the latter implying not using sources, period. Mx. Granger is convinced that in order to be convinced that Jazz Jennings' birthname is (Redacted) (which, if you type that name into Google by the way, guess who pops up), is an article from 2000 saying: "In the future, (Redacted), will realize he is transgender and start to call herself Jazz, instead". I've had a similar dispute on the Antz article, where I was told calling the film a critical and financial success, which it was and can be proven using facts and numbers and figures, that I was using "original research" and "jumping to conclusions". What the HELL is going on on Wikipedia lately? Sources you don't like is "jumping to conclusions"? Uaing sources is "original research"?

(Redacted)'s birth notice in a Palm Beach newspaper, announcing his birth, and his parents, (Redacted): https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/133861413/

An interview with a woman named (Redacted), and her son, (Redacted), who identifies as a transgender girl: http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=654

And The Daily Mail saying this: "She was 'assigned male at birth', meaning she was born a boy. Her parents, Jeanette and Greg, named their baby son (Redacted).": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424571/Teen-transgender-activist-Jazz-Jennings-speaks-sadness-not-having-high-school-boyfriend-fear-called-gay.html

But nah, this is "original research" and "jumping to conclusions" Dpm12 (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that we need a source that predicted the future or any such bizarre claim. What I am saying is that if we want to include the name in the article, we need high-quality reliable sources explicitly saying that it is Jazz Jennings' birth name. We need this in order to follow the policies

WP:BLPPRIVACY (which says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object."). —Granger (talk · contribs

) 15:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It appears that this is still an issue. This user keeps reverting and will seemingly do anything to keep the subject's real legal name from appearing in the article. I get that the subject uses the pseudonym "Jazz" to conceal his/her real name, but Wikipedia must be impartial and contain all of the facts. I am raising this issue at ANI.BigDwiki (talk) 20:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Already raised at ANI. You are clearly violating BLP. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

No one has violated BLP except those that revert sourced contributions that are compliant with policy.BigDwiki (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that you are violating the BLP policy. Please stop. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@BigDwiki: I suggest you quickly decide to discuss the issue here on the talk page. I'm sure User:EvergreenFir is happy to do so. But blindly reverting multiple editors and leaving boilerplate warnings is going to do nothing but attract unwanted attention. GMG^talk 20:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have not reverted. I have added properly sourced contributions and been reverted and templated as an accused "vandal".BigDwiki (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading

WP:BLPPRIMARY carefully. Given those policies, I think it's clear that we need better sources in order to include any claims about Jennings' legal surname. As for the legal first name, it doesn't belong in the lead, and I don't see how we can include it in the body unless we find a reliable source for the spelling. —Granger (talk · contribs

) 20:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The transcript of the TLC show gives it's spelling. BigDwiki (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I see, the spelling is visible in the subtitles at the TLC source. In that case I agree that we have a reliable source for her legal first name. (We still don't have adequate sourcing for her legal surname or her father's name.) As a matter of editorial discretion, though, I'm still not convinced the legal first name is worth including in the article, per EvergreenFir's reasoning at ANI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally agree with Granger. While we may have a reliable source for the name, I'm scarcely convinced of the utility of including it. I would recommend that we follow the example set by Laverne Cox's page, as Ms. Jazz was not notable before taking on her current name. Icarosaurvus (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BigDwiki Youtube is not considered a reliable source, nor is voterecord, and the book you linked to doesn't even show up online. Yes, I realize it doesn't have to be online to be used, it just needs to be reliable,however, if you put a link it, the expectation is that the book will be visible when clicked on. SO, with the exception of the book, which can't be checked, the two checkable source you've used aren't acceptable as reliable sources for Jazz's birth name. While I agree with you, that Wikipedia needs to be impartial, it also doesn't need to have every single fact about an individual in the article. I personally belive mentioning Jazz Jenning's birth name doesn't serve the article in any way. It doesn't improve the article, nor does it enhance understanding of her story. Even if there were immaculate sources on her birth name, I'd still vote to keep it out of the article.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  R.I.P Tripp Halstead 12:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on how a subject's own Youtube video is not a reliable source?BigDwiki (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but it's already been stated, by way of suggested links for you to read. Essentially, for BLP's, as well as anything else on Wikipedia, we insist on reliable sources

a synthesis of sources so they don't qualify either.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄ 

20:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

From my reading, it would seem that the video does indeed meet all 5 prongs of the Wikipedia:SELFPUB test. Which prong does it not meet? BigDwiki (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Archibald Leach, Bernard Schwartz or Lucille LeSueur need those names in the lead sentence, and am doubly unsure why Jazz Jennings does. That said, if she's attested to it herself on national TV, I see no reason it would be a BLP violation to include it. 174.30.113.88 (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BigDwiki right off, if fails:
1.the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

exceptional claim is hot linked to

WP:Exceptional

, the second bullet point states:
challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;[8]

Youtube fails tghat test in that it is self-published and is published by someone with an apparent conflict of interest.

Point #2 It does not involve claims about third parties;

is fine, the video makes claims only about the article's subject

Point 3 It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

fails as it does make claims directly related to the source

(I.e, her real name )

Point 4 There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and

Since youtube fails as a

reliable source

, yes it's authenticity can be called into question, as both video and audio can be faked. Therefore it fails this point

Point 5 The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Your assertion of her real name is based soley on this and two other unreliable sources, so this too fails.

More importantly, does this serve the article ? Does it enhance our understanding of her ? I seriously doubt it. Therefore all the more reason to leave it out, we're not the news, you know.  ►К Ф Ƽ Ħ◄  13:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the five criteria of

WP:SELFPUB

. No one is challenging it or saying that it's not her name. And if they were, she would be an authority on that, which isn't a conflict of interest.

You've misinterpreted Point 3. It fits it perfectly for the very reason you say it fails.

Regarding Point 4, while it could be faked, is there any resaonable doubt? I don't see it. Especially since this was published by TLC.

Point 5 refers to the entire article, not one claim, so that's also moot.

Finally, just because it's on YouTube doesn't mean it's a self-published source. In this case, the source is the show “I am Jazz”, and we're just accessing it through YouTube.

All of that said, I agree that the question that needs to be asked is “does this serve the article?” And I’m not sure that it does. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. -- irn (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• A subjects own TV show on the youtube channel for the network that airs the show is a reliable primary source for information about the subject, absent any contradictory information. WP:BLPNAME does not apply when the subject of a biography on their own TV show decides to disseminate their name. Aside from that, BLPNAME is for people notable for one event (in which case they are unlikely to have a stand-alone article), or associated with subjects of articles, as the wording makes clear. BLPPRIVACY is slightly more relevant, but again its being used here incorrectly - quoted with emphasis mine:

"With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it."

As the subject has willingly given (from what I can see only their First) name in a source linked to the subject (a youtube video in which they themselves state their birth name) and nor (as far as I am aware) have they complained about it, BLPPRIVACY allows us to use that.

In short, first name yes, surname no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that BLPPRIVACY requires us to exclude the surname but allows us to include the first name. But the question at hand now is whether, as a matter of editorial discretion, we should include the first name or leave it out the way it has been left out of articles like Laverne Cox. On that question, I'm inclined to agree with Irn, Icarosaurvus, and EvergreenFir—I'm not convinced it should be included. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The article states "("Jennings" is a pseudonym).[8][9] The family is Jewish,[10] and their last name is "a very Jewish, long last name."". Why have all of that information which serves no purpose, and yet not include the first name which has sources?BigDwiki (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It does serve no purpose and shouldnt be in there. While it may be factually correct, that line is absolutely ridiculous as read and looks like it was written by a machine that has been programmed to avoid using a specific word. Should there be consensus to include the first name (and dont take my edit above to indicate agreement it should be in, its merely to point out it would not be a BLP violation to do so) it would be better re-written something like "Jennings was born in South Florida to Jewish parents Greg and Jeanette as Jaren ("Jennings" is a pseudonym)." and that should be the end of it. A one-word mention in the appropriate area that passes the minimal usage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there's no good reason to include the birthname in this article, and even if we did, it would need to abide by

MOS:BIRTHNAME (i.e. it would not be appropriate in the lead sentence). Kaldari (talk

) 18:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. If properly sourced - a prior first name (as well as surname on which there seems to be perhaps sourcing issues at the moment (this is a very weak SYNTH call at the moment - BLP probably rules the day absent better sources)) - allows one to find additional sources and information on the BLP subject - e.g. for this subject there is some local reporting dating back to 2006. Including this information can be useful for readers who are looking for more information on the subject.

MOS:BIRTHNAME has us keeping this out of the lede - not redacting this all together.Icewhiz (talk

) 13:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, I just noticed that reference #12 is indeed a youtube video and it is used in the article and has remained there without objection. "In a Q&A video posted to her YouTube channel in July 2014, Jennings stated that she is pansexual, and that she loves people "for their personality", regardless of their sexual orientation or gender status." BigDwiki (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I just made a bold change on this page, I replaced the words "Assigned at birth" with a briefer more apt wording. Yes, it's a bold change, no , I will not change it again. Here's the thing, Assigned at birth links to the page Sex_assignment, first Wikipedia itself can't be used to source a fact on the page. The second and more compelling reason is that page right away uses a reference that is marked (verbatim quote):
Sex assignment in the neonate with intersex or inadequate genitalia". Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 151: 1044–5. doi:10.1001/archpedi.1997.02170470078014. PMID 9343017.
There is no evidence that this occurred with Jazz Jennings. This does not change the fact that she identifies as female, let me be clear on that, rather that "assigned at birth" is an inaccurate description, per all of our reliable sources and as such, cannot be on this page per BLP.
I would say, that in order for that phrase to be accurate, it would have to be reliable sourced that she needed to be assigned a gender due to intersex or inadequate genitalia.
Let the discussion begin.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  16:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Linking to an article isn't the same as using that article as a source.

You've pointed to one source that mentions the sex assignment happens with intersex people or people with "inadequate genitalia" (whatever that may mean). But the next source, the one at the end of the sentence In the majority of births, a relative, midwife, nurse or physician inspects the genitalia when the baby is delivered, and sex and gender are assigned, without the expectation of ambiguity., discusses gender identity more generally.

That's beside the point though: "assigned at birth" is more accurate. It means that someone looked at her genitals and decided that she was male. "Born male" is ambiguous. What does it refer to? Genitals? Or genes? Something else? -- irn (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion. Actually, it's using the Wikipedia article as a source, rather than the original article, and yes I agree, that's a bit iffy. However, my issue is the first sentence of that article " Sex assignment (sometimes known as gender assignment) is the determination of an infant's sex at birth." is being used with a reference that points to something done with intersex or ambiguous genitalia, making it an inaccurate or incomplete definition. Especially troubling since there's no indication this was the case with Jazz Jennings, thus "assigned at birth" is inaccurate and needs to be made more accurate or removed per BLP.
Second, the whole "assigned at birth" terminology is , imho, wrong. When you're assigned something, it's something given to you that you don't own, but you temporarily use (a parking space at work, a desk at work, a desk at school) Your gender is an inherent part of who you are, and therefore can't be assigned. It is who you are at the moment of birth. So, the phrase "assigned at birth" is an inaccurate description.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  18:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence is not using Wikipedia as a source; a wikilink is not the same as a citation. As far as I know, "assigned male at birth" is (for better or for worse) the standard terminology, so I don't see what the problem is here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a reliable source on the first name issue, it’s an article from a reputable magazine with an interview of the subject stating what the first name is. https://www.glamour.com/story/jazz-jennings-transgender BigDwiki (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it is a reliable source for the legal first name. But I still am not convinced that the legal first name should be included in the article, for reasons already mentioned above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Granger. It doesn't need to be here.  К Ф Ƽ Ħ  14:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree - the former name of a person is valuable for readers attempting to find sources on earlier phases of the person's life. If it is no longer a BLPPRIVACY issue (since it is in a secondary RS) - then this is of material interest to many readers.Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For some reason, you continue to try to add this to the lead sentence. Have you still not read the MOS? EvergreenFir (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You're OK with this in the "early life" section?Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest,

otherwise lose my shit. EvergreenFir (talk)

19:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There is, frankly, no reason for the subject's former name to be here. It is not best practice to include names a person used before they were famous, as I believe both I and others have stated above, and including such a name goes against our guidelines. While I do not believe it to be a policy violation, it's certainly not in keeping with other articles of this nature. Icarosaurvus (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not the subject's "former" name. It's her current legal name (or, st least, her most recent self-reported legal name, without any statement that she has changed it. "Jazz Jennings" is a stage name/pseudonym, as stated by both the subject and her family. Since she has willingly and repeatedly stated it on nationally televised programs, and posted pertinent clips from such programs on her heavily trafficked personal Youtube channel, editors trying to suppress the name are actually overriding the subject's own judgment with their own preferences. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, a contributor made a reversion with the edit summary:

Their edit removed both the reference that concerned them, and the editorial tex it supported.

I checked the reliable sources noticeboard. No one had ever raised a concern over that source there. So, I think that makes their concern a personal opinion, and thus their excision looks like a conflation of their personal opinion with policy.

I briefly looked at the reference's website. It looked kind of like it covered the same kind of material as

• Alexia Fernandez (April 11, 2018). "Jazz Jennings on track for gender confirmation surgery".
  People magazine
  .

Please don't claim a source is not a reliable source, if a check of RSN shows it has not been discussed there. Geo Swan (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Complete and utter bilge. The internet is filled with sources that are unreliable on their face, and nothing in actual Wikipedia policy says that such apparently unreliable sourcing can't be removed without prior discussion. That's just ordinary editing. Moreover, BLP policy is crystal clear: dubiously sourced material "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If you don't accept this fundamental principle, you have no business editing BLPs are criticizing those who follow its guidance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Let's be clear here. Your only justification for your excision was in your edit summary. You chose to ignore the point I made, that your inflammatory description could have, just as easily have been applied to
  People magazine. So, your explanation fell short.

  You are also ignoring that People magazine also published an article documenting the point you excised as not substantiated by a reliable source. Geo Swan (talk

  ) 19:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• You're just talking nonsense, Geo. There's no requirement that, when unreliably sourced content is identified, editors must scour the Internet to determine if reliable sourcing can be found. That's not what removed "immediately" means. And unless you can cite an article that People wrote and published an article about celebrities "Who Claim To Have Had Sex With [Ghosts]" and lists of male celebrities with particularly large genitalia, you're flirting with bad faith amd harassment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There's no requirement that a source be declared not-reliable at RSN before a user can remove it for its lack of reliability, especially regarding personal information in a BLP. If users can't agree regarding a source's reliability, then it can be taken it to RSN. But RSN is not some starting point without which no one can make an argument that a source is not reliable. In any case, you seem to have found a better source, so I'm not even sure why the rest of the comment was necessary. -- irn (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suffice to say, long experience at RSN and BLPN indicates that particular source would not be useable on a BLP for the information cited for almost exactly the reason in the edit summary. (If the material was medical, someone could really decide to be a hardass and demand a MEDRS source.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Jazz Jennings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

You have this young woman still listed as a transgender girl. She is no longer a girl, she is now 18 and an adult. It should read as "transgender woman". Rjwalsh81 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The consensus in previous discussions of this wording seem to have hinged on the fact that she was under 18 at the time, so this change makes sense to me.  Done, thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Why is she tagged with the category "Pseudonymous women writers"? This seems very transphobic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louize5 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

As the article states, "Jennings" is a pseudonym. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Jazz Jennings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page states incorrect information regarding the basis of gender. The pronouns used to describe Jennings are incorrect, and many information has been corrupted. Please allow me to make these changes for the good of all society. Jbarnes32 (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Currently, a passage in the Jazz Jennings article reads like this: “Jennings, a transgender woman, is notable for being one of the youngest publicly documented people to be identified as transgender.”

I ask that this passage be instead changed to: “Jennings is notable for being one of the youngest publicly documented people to be identified as transgender.”

The reason I request this change is because the passage mentions her transgenderism twice in the same sentence. It already says in the beginning that she is a transgender woman, then goes on to say that she’s publicly documented as transgender. It is redundant, and need not be phrased the way it is now. That is why I request that that passage be changed to the aforementioned passage I have devised, for the sake of clarity. It will read smoother this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7580:3160:DDA:C29B:40D8:6587 (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done

talk | contribs

) 01:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Our article on the topic is

MOS:NEO rationale. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

02:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, he reverted me, saying "gender confirmation surgery" was the wording used in source. I reverted his revert per
  MOS:NEO. SCP-053 (talk
  ) 02:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I misread that. Unless we're using a direct quote, we're not automatically beholden to retain the exact phraseology of a source. However, I did a quick search for some other reasonable sources; Women's Health, Today.com, NYTimes, EOnline, Allure and USA Today all use "Gender confirmation surgery" so I'm not sure if

third opinion. I'll note that the Chelsea Manning ariticle uses three different phrases to describe the surgery ("transition" "reassignment" and "confirmation"). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

02:54, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD by self-reverting to status quo ante? Thanks. Mathglot (talk

) 05:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reverted. SCP-053 (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

This is moot; SCP-053 (

) 00:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021

This edit request to Jazz Jennings has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I Am Jazz received A Reality TV Award for best docu-series 2020

https://www.tvshowsace.com/2020/06/26/i-am-jazz-wins-reality-tv-award-for-best-docu-series/ Gnetluvsgreg (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Gnetluvsgreg Gnetluvsgreg (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

if this is something she and her parents set up, then she is not an honorary co founder, she would be a co founder (without the honorary modifier). this should be made clearer. if the parents are the founders, and the subject is their muse or whatever, then say that. this part of the article is confusing and unclear, but i am unsure of how to clarify this (plus the article is locked, so i couldn't do so even if i knew how to clarify this). 173.87.173.6 (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, IP 173.87.173.6 : honorary means they did not co-found it; I've dropped the word. More problematic, however, is that the "co-founder" assertion is 1) unsourced, and 2)

unique information in the lead which is not a summary of material in the body. I've tagged it {{citation needed}} for now, but it needs to get move to the body and sourced, or removed from the lead otherwise. Mathglot (talk

) 23:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a really small edit but I can't make it: in "Career," near the end of the third-to-last paragraph, Jazz appears to be gendered as "they." ("Jennings [said] they were proud to be part of the show...") I do not recall any sources stating she/they as her preferred pronouns, and indeed this is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.79.81 (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing this out. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)