Talk:Albert Cashier

Hidden references

A previous editor left some research clues hidden in brackets on the article page. Two of them led to arcane or missing newspaper archives. I've removed them from the article, but reproduce them below in case they are useful to anyone:

The novel The Last Skirt, by Lynda Durrant, is based on his life.

!-- http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/living/16350616.htm --

There are plans to restore the house that Cashier lived in for forty years.

!-- http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/local/15994191.htm --

-- Yamara 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional reference

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104452266 played today. Tells how he died.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Contextualize Blanton reference(s)?

I note that the Blanton piece treats as strictly women all the soldiers discussed, whereas the approach of this article is to recognize Cashier as transgender. It might be worthwhile to contextualize the footnote, seeing as the Blanton piece doesn't appear to consider in any way the possibility that any of the soldiers might not be "women pretending to be men" but rather, persons of male gender identity who were classified by others as women based on their external sexual organs.Lawikitejana (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Lawikitenjana makes a valid point. Jennie's gender identity doesn't seem clear based on the information in the article. Also the link supporting the sentence, "was born female bodied, but lived as a man" is dead. I'm going to remove it and that sentence. 66.205.171.204 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Transgender?:

None of the sources cited provide clear evidence that Jennie/Albert was a transgendered person, including the deposition. Several of the articles provided a whole host of reasons why women cross-dressed to fight in the civil war, including patriotism, greater independence, and a better wage as a soldier than was available as either a civilian man or woman. The deposition is unclear about Jennie's gender identity, which is exacerbated by the fact that it was taken 50 years after the war, memories are delicate, and the use of the male pronoun to refer to Albert when first questioned about her, likely reflects the fact that his innate memories of Jennie are all about Albert. It isn't clear to me that classifying Albert/Jennie as transgendered is anything other than speculation. I would propose changing the pronouns to the gender normative she/her, and adding a paragraph with the unclear hypothesis that Jennie was a trans-man. 66.205.171.204 (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Transgender (pronounced /trænzˈdʒɛndər/) is a general term applied to a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups involving tendencies to vary from culturally conventional gender roles."

Transgender covers a huge spectrum and Alberts action would still come under that umbrella in my opinion.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it highly dubious that Cashier was female-identified, as most wartime cross-dressers returned to their female identities after the war.Asarelah (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

RafikiSykes, it doesn't matter that "transgender" covers a broad spectrum in this case. We still wouldn't say that a woman who cross-dresses but identifies as a woman is a transman. That's the point the IP was making. Asarelah made a better argument than you, with fewer words. 23.20.10.162 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct name/pronouns?

Parts of this article refer to "Albert Cashier" and use the personal pronoun "he", while others use "she" and Jennie Hodges. Which one is proper? MechaChrist (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC) (logged in to properly sign my comment)

Manual of style use the gender the person themselves identified as throughout through their life.RafikiSykes (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference to Thomas Hannah saying Cashier was sent back to Belvidere

Thomas Hannah, Jr. does not mention Albert Cashier by name. He says a woman was found in the company and that woman was sent back to Belvidere, Illinois. There may have been more than one woman in Company G of the 95th Illinois. Mbfiske (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I have uploaded a copy of the Thomas Hannah letter to Wiki Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Hannah_letter,_1862-11-17,_Jackson,_TN.pdf

My quotation is from the left side of page 1 in the pdf file. I think this should be included as a reference, but do not know how to do that.

Others are welcome to try their own hand at accurately transcribing the sentence, complete with misspellings.

Mbfiske (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

More than one woman in Illinois 95th Infantry

Thomas Hannah's letter of 17 November 1862 raises the question of how many women enlisted in the Illinois 95th Infantry. Samuel Pepper's letters transcribed in "My Dear Wife" mention Albert. D. J. Cashiere, at least as transcribed. A thorough examination of the muster rolls of the 95th is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbfiske (talk • contribs) 00:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't sign Mbfiske (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Salt account suspended

Several of the references in this article from Salt go to an "account suspended" and need to be removed.

Mbfiske (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hicks-Bartlett, Alani, reference

I suggest this source be deleted. Nothing is footnoted. The reference list for this article includes:

From Gerhard P. Clausius, "The Little Soldier of the 95th: Albert D. J. Cashier," Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, 1958; Gordon A. Cotton, "Illinois Civil War roster includes woman soldier Saunemin's Jennie Hodgers," Vicksburg Evening Post, no date, copy from Saunemin Grade School; Rodney 0. Davis, "Private Albert Cashier As Regarded by His/Her Comrades," Illinois Historical Journal (1989); Richard Hall, Patriots in Disguise: Women Warriors of the Civil War; Mary Catherine Lannon, "Albert D. J. Cashier and the Ninety-Fifth Illinois Infantry (1844-1915)," Master's thesis (1969); student historian's interview with Ruth Morehart, Nov. 14, 1993; Edward Zuckerman, "When Jennie Comes Marchin' Home," undated paper in files at Saunemin Historical Society.

The original sources need to be cited.

Mbfiske (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Find A Grave Reference

The link to the Find A Grave web page for Albert Cashier no longer works. I attempted to find his grave under his name, but was forced to use Jennie Hodgers instead. It is listed there under Jennie Hodgers, as the webmasters at Find A Grave have chosen to refer to him as "she" throughout the article on him. I will leave it up to more knowledgeable wiki editors to do the proper editing and research if needed. NativeSonKY (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Hannah Jr reference to a woman in the Illinois 95th Company G

I restored text to the article on Albert Cashier for the second time. Thomas Hannah Jr refers to a woman in the Illinois 95th in a letter to his wife.

Both times this edit was removed, it was for misspelling and failure to provide sources. I provided a link to the original letter in talk.

Perhaps Thomas Hannah Jr. provides no insight into Albert. I think Thomas contributes to the discussion.

Michael B. Fiske — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbfiske (talk • contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Albert small and captured in battle

There is no reference for the following,

"Other soldiers thought that Cashier was small and preferred to be alone, which was not uncommon. He was once captured in battle, but escaped back to Union lines after overpowering a prison guard. Cashier fought with the regiment through the war until August 17, 1865, when all the soldiers were mustered in and out."

I will leave it to someone else to remove.

Mbfiske (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Gender

Should the subject be referred to as a woman who dressed as a man, or as a transgender man? There are sources which support both options, so this RFC is aimed at determining the community's view as to which theory is supported by sources that are more numerous, reliable, recent, etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment - why do you feel that an RfC is necessary? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: Lgbt.history.ig (talk · contribs) and I do not agree, and I thought it better to start an RFC rather than let them continue the edit war they've stated that they plan to wage if anyone reverts them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I see the problem now. Under the circumstances, the best thing for the moment might be simply to revert the article to the version prior to any edit war. I might need to research the subject more to take a firm view of the issue, but I suspect that the status quo whereby Cashier is described as a woman disguised as a man is more accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The notion that this issue is going to be decided by a straw poll of sources is ridiculous, as it is plainly obvious that the majority of sources would not have referred to Cashier by his proper gender until the mid-2000s or so. I have provided a number of reliable sources, including those from some of the most preeminent trans scholars, that support the increasingly accepted fact that Cashier was a man; to describe him as "a woman disguised as a man" is not only grossly inaccurate, it's silly and offensive. I said I intended to monitor the page to make sure that Cashier's history is respected; this person has decided to cry wolf with this edit war nonsense. I don't need to edit this again. I am the creator and co-administrator of @lgbt_history, an Instagram account with just under 60,000 followers; if Cashier is misgendered on Wikipedia again, I will make sure that our followers are made aware of your efforts at queer erasure and let them know how to remedy it. That Roscelese has made it a goal to keep Albert Cashier a "woman" is sad and I would hope that a third-party would see through the efforts. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, whether something is "offensive" or not is not relevant. Everything I've read in the article suggests that Cashier was a woman who presented herself as a man, so the status quo prior to your edits looks reasonable. Furthermore, it is entirely inappropriate to propose encouraging people who do not already have Wikipedia accounts to support you here: please see WP:MEATPUPPET. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully, you did nothing to address my previous comment save for harping on my use of the word "offensive" as an additional description after the primary description of "grossly inaccurate." I am having a hard time understanding how Susan Stryker, easily the most respected trans historian out there, writing in a study for the Department of the Interior, and supported by a number of other reliable sources, does nothing to suggest that our previous understanding of Cashier's identity--an understanding which, again, was based entirely on antiquated notions of gender that took little to no account of trans existence--is more properly placed in the trans spectrum. Moreover, the number of people following our account that already have Wikipedia accounts is quite substantial, based on previous conversations with followers, so please don't assume I meant anything about non-Wikipedia account holders. The bottom line is that I will continue to make sure that those who do not give proper credence to the clearly reliable sources I've provided are not the final arbiters of an extremely important issue; the only reason why you would ignore Stryker's work, Moser's work, Teich's work, Ernst's work, and the others is because you simply do not want to allow for trans history. It's a real problem. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Wikipedia operates by consensus, and you have no consensus for your proposed changes to the article. So far, it's two against one, as I pretty much agree with Roscelese. Meat puppetry is unacceptable here, and unfortunately your comments create a suspicion (whether justified or not) that you are prepared to encourage it. That won't help you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Woman - Cashier should be referred to as a woman who dressed as a man. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Present the spread of interpretations, and the weight they have in the sources, utilizing careful attribution. First off, let's back off the quasi-hostile language that has been directed at Roscelese for opening this discussion in good faith. WP:RfCs have no minimum theshhold and are, in fact, highly recommended tools, especially in the case of an ongoing or impending edit war or deadlock of any kind, considered a first-line approach to resolving an editorial issue and seeking community impute. Also, I don't know the full story here, but if I take what I'm hearing at face value, Lgbt.history.ig, you are going to want to check this community's policies out more thoroughly before you continue editing here, because edit warring and (especially) meatpuppetry are about the two activities most certain to get a person blocked on this project, and then there will be one less voice to advocate for your interpretation.

All that said, on to the substantive matter. I'll have to take a long look a the sources, but my initial impulse--again taking everyone at face value, with regard to their sources--is that this is a historical majority narrative/significant academic theory scenario. If that's the case, then we should say just that. It's not hard to make room for a single, well attributed sentence to recognize this perspective somewhere in the lead. It doesn't have to be prominent, but if there is significant sourcing (including not just the research itself, but ideally secondary sources covering that research in some context), then we should present the variety of views, give a rough sense of how well supported they have been, traditionally, and then let the reader draw their own conclusions. So long as there is no effort to blow reference to the theory beyond it's level of representation in sourcing, I see no profound issue with it. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, just took a quick look at the sourcing and exact statements, and if the current version of the page is what is in debate, I think it's fine. If it is that simple statement about the theory at the tag end of the article, I would say that's fine. Two sources which seem more than adequate to RS standards support this theory, in an article which has ten sources total. I understand this is a relatively new theory, but all the statement does is state that it exists, and leaves it up to the reader to decide whether to follow up on the sources presented. It honestly looks very non-controversial to me.

That said, the RfC suggests that the issue is whether the article should generally refer to Cashier being a woman and/or in disguise. Well, clearly both are a matter of context. While I can certainly get behind mention of the transgender theory, I don't think it has anything near the WP:WEIGHT necessary to supplant the conventional narrative that she was disguised in order to serve as a solider and at other times, to work. But perhaps there's a middle ground here. The lead could stand to be enhanced, so why not add a couple more sentences covering key points from the article and then tag at the very end, the exact same terse mention of the theory that is currently at the end of the article. Then maybe even expand that statement at the end of the article by a couple of sentences? I think the way forward is somewhere between that and the current version of the article, though I'd also accept the current version itself, if that were non-controversial to other respondents. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at the context and sources here, the less fringe the transman claim seems to be. Even excluding the most recent sources and content, there does seem to be some significant indication that Cashier lived as a man for more than just the pragmatic reasons of enlisting and later collecting a pension. I don't think this should go as far as changing the pronouns in the article--Wikipedia does have a policy of referencing contemporary trans individuals by their preferred gender pronoun (at least where he/she are concerned), but only where there is an affirmative/explicit declaration by that individual; here we have only a theoretical assumption. That said, I'm more convinced than ever that there should be some reference to the notion that Cashier was what we would today call a transman. Having looked more at the proposed/contested edits, I continue to feel that there is unexplored middle ground here. I don't think referring to Cashier as a transman in the first sentence of the lead is necessary, and I definitely don't think overriding the pronouns and all references to gender is appropriate in this case, but I also think the evaluation should appear at the end of the lead, appropriately attributed to the two sources which have made this explicit evaluation. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the most recent source I've added to the article, which is a 1989 article from the Illinois Historical Journal that (1) at least refers to Cashier as "he/her" and (2) makes clear that those who knew Cashier--even after discovering his birth sex--continued to refer to him with male pronouns. Veterans of the Civil War were more enlightened on this issue than admins on Wikipedia seem to be. I hope this settles the pronoun issue.Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Snow Rise:, my version of the article (pre-Lgbt.history.ig) contained a sourced reference to the suggestion that Cashier was a trans man - it definitely wasn't stripped from the article. But we do need to make a call as to what to say in the lede and what pronouns to use, because writing her/his at every occurrence is not feasible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Woman. Sure, it's possible that scholarly consensus in the future may change, but at this time - and yes, I'm referring to recent publications, not looking back a hundred years - the main body of sourcing in both military and queer history appears to regard Cashier as a woman. It's not a question of recency - below, I list a bunch of sources supporting my view which post-date the Cromwell Transmen and FTMs source (which I also added!). There just isn't that much reliable support for Lgbt.history.ig's claim, and certainly not enough to outweigh the sources which hold the contrary view. The additional sources Lgbt.history.ig is adding simply aren't up to our standards. More detail:
  • Journal of the IL State Historical Society, which I mention because Lgbt.history.ig thinks it's conclusive: [1] The author of this piece consistently refers to Cashier as a woman throughout, using female pronouns and referring to her "real name" and "true identity". Lgbt.history.ig claims that the primary source documents in which Cashier's messmates use "he" pronouns are proof that Cashier identified as a man, but even putting aside the fact that we don't analyze primary sources ourselves, this doesn't stand up (messmates: "they found out he was a woman", "Not knowing that she was a girl, I assigned her", other references to Cashier as a woman - male pronouns are probably just the messmates, shall we say, misgendering her because that's the pronoun they're used to using).
  • (Some) post-2000 academic books and reasonably prestigious-publisher nonfiction referring to Jennie Hodgers, using "she" either throughout or post-reveal, or referring to Cashier's "true gender" or some such: Women in the American Civil War, They Fought Like Demons, Women During the Civil War: an Encyclopedia, Women in the Civil War: Extraordinary Stories..., She Went to the Field, The Mysterious Private Thompson (good publisher but super dodgy on details of this case for some reason),
  • Even this queer history book refers to Cashier as a woman who dressed as a man, noting (unlike the sources listed above) the possibility that she may have been a trans man but repeatedly describing her as a woman soldier: [2]; this one is equivocal, using mostly "he" pronouns but referring to Cashier as a woman repeatedly, "the secret of his gender", included in a chapter on women, etc.
• –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What we know is (1) from childhood, Albert Cashier presented as male; (2) he enlisted and served as male; (3) as opposed to many of the brave people who biologically were women that served in the Civil War, he was not discovered during the war (or at least he was not discovered to the extent that he was removed from the service); (4) after the war, he did not shift back to living as female, but instead took great pains to live his life as male; (5) members of his community that were aware of his birth sex assisted in helping him live his life as his preferred gender; (6) only because of an insensitive and primitive medical system was he forced into female clothes and female pronouns; (7) despite this, his comrades from the Civil War fought on his behalf and (a) Cashier continued to get his pension, (b) he was buried in his uniform, and (c) his tombstone initially read just his chosen (male) name (only later would revisionists decide to add his birth name); (8) long after Cashier was dead, his friends still called him “he”; (9) historians and academics who would have no interest in telling the story of trans lives for decades referred to Cashier as Jennie Hodgers and used female pronouns, thus forming a canon of literature that continues to be referred to today as conclusive (including in this conversation); (10) even where some have denied the fact that Cashier was transgender, they nonetheless properly gendered him (see, for example, Roscelese’s citation to Michael Bronski’s “Queer History of the United States”; (11) in the previous version of this article, there were 10 citations, 3 of which were to modern texts that referred to Cashier as “he” and transgender (Benck, Cromwell, and Cronn-Mills), 1 of which was to a picture of him in male attire, and 1 was to a roster of names including Albert Cashier’s; in other words, 5 of the citations were evidence of Cashier’s living as a man (and, it should be noted, 2 of the remaining citations were to the same book, “Women Soldiers of the Civil War,” and 1 was simply to a note about the amount Cashier left in his estate); (12) I’ve added citations to sources by Susan Stryker, Ph.D., Director of University of Arizona’s Institute of LGBT Studies; Rhys Ernst, Emmy-nominated and GLAAD-award winning documentarian on trans lives; Sarah Prager, speaker and writer on LGBTQ history and the creator of the Quist App (dedicated to raising awareness of queer history for young adults), and others, all of which support the proper gendering of Cashier and identifying him as transgender; (13) no one has addressed my sources other than to say they “simply aren’t up to our standards” (which couldn’t be more microaggressive if it tried); (14) instead, we continue to hear from books about “Women in the Civil War” which, not surprisingly, seem to cite back to each other in a circular logic that will never be broken if the sources I’ve listed aren’t taken into account; and (15) no one is arguing that we call Cashier “Jennie Hodgers” throughout, if I understand, but seemingly that would be the same thing as calling him “her,” would it not? He identified as him, just as he identified as Albert Cashier; since you have taken it upon yourself to change his gender, why not cite to some of these same sources that only refer to him as Jennie Hodgers and simply use that name? This man’s name was Albert Cashier. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest, as I have suggested before, that you channel your passion for primary analysis of Cashier's life into a work of scholarly research. Once you publish and swing the academic world around to your point of view, future Wikipedia editors might revisit the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Woman A retrospective evaluation of transsexuality is, to say the least, problematic. If we want to say, "Some scholars believe..." or "It has been speculated...", with attribution and explication, that would be OK if the sources are appropriately sober. EEng 23:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• No declaration of Gender, but Female pronouns The sources seem divided. I'm inclined to agree with lgbt.history.ig that he was a man, but it seems uncertain if the sources are good enough to say. Thankfully, it doesn't matter if we end up misgendering them because they're DEAD! so it won't hurt anyone.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • So would your proposed lede start "Albert Cashier was a Union soldier during the Civil War" or something like that? I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, Cashier's main claim to fame and the thing that distinguished her (or him, if you like) from any other soldier was being a woman or a trans man, so that seems difficult to omit from the lede even to settle a dispute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I mean, mention the whole thing in the lede, but don't say for sure either way which one it is. Say he was a woman or a Transgender man who served in the Union army. I can't think of any really good way to word it, but I'm sure there's a way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow Diamond (talk • contribs) 02:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Don't you have, in the English language, neutral pronouns? That seems the best option so far as no one seems to come to an agreement. To "swing the academic world around (one's) point of view" is very much impossible. Even for historical characters whose story is a lot more known and certain than Cashier's, there are still, nowadays, historians 'fighting' over them. Let's use whatever agreement we come to, but I think that the term 'disguised as a man' is at least very incorrect given the sources quoted above. LeGarde-Chiourme (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So we'll say it? That's your solution??? EEng 18:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, it's the 'brand-new' account here! Oh wait... In fact, I'm not. I'm from the French Wikipedia. I guess my nationality was not obvious enough, but you can check my work on military matters, if you want to. Well, out of any trolling, that discussion gets absolutely out of hand. You have not opposed any source that proves that THEY (that's one example of gender-neutral pronoun) lived all their life as a woman. And that should be the proof that settles the discussion. Where is it? The ambiguous case of the 'Chevalier d'Éon' was settled much faster than this less ambiguous case. There is a problem. And your very incorrect term of 'disguised' is not the solution. You cannot blame an extreme while using an extreme yourself, if you get what I mean. I invite you to check the article precedently quoted where a solution has been brought efficiently. LeGarde-Chiourme (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

They is used for an unknown person of (therefore) unknown gender; that's not the case here. Cashier may have presented as a man, but there are many reasons someone might do that, identification as a man being just one. EEng 19:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Eh, not exactly. The pronoun is actually quite frequently used for specific, known individuals with an indeterminate gender. Indeed, you can see many examples of that in this very discussion, where we have referred to eachother using exactly that pronoun, rather than make a presumption either way. In fact, it has become something of non-required, but broadly-adopted default amongst our editorial community to use the singular they as a gender-neutral pronoun where there is any reasonable question as to what the gender of the individual is or what they would prefer. And contrary to popular opinion, gender-indeterminate usage has been in the English language for centuries and only in the nineteenth century did it become "problematic", for mostly prescriptivist reasons--even then, it has continued to enjoy steady usage in everyday speech. But those clarifications on common usage made, we do have very different standards and constraints on the grammar of our encyclopedic content than we do for our community discussions. I have to agree, on the balance of our content guidelines, the sources in this particular case, and the general need for clarity when writing for our general audience, that female personal pronouns are indicated in this instance.

But the confusion and disharmony here only underscore the need to properly reference the fact that there is some discussion as to the possibility that Cashier was a trans individual with a male gender. I don't believe this perspective should take over the article, since only a minority of sources express this view, but since they are a significant minority of good-quality RS, espousing a view consistent with evolving views on the nature of gender (and thus, not necessarily inconsistent with the older sources so much as re-contextualizing their language in more contemporary terms for a contemporary audience), I do believe reference to the issue should appear prominently, with a mention in the lead. The reader can then read everything else of substance we have to say about Cashier's life and come to their own conclusion about whether they lived as a man for pragmatic reasons or because that is who they were, by nature. Personally, I think this is one of those cases where most people are going to bring in their inherent confirmation bias and see this in stark black-and-white one way or the other, but WP:Neutrality demands that we stand out of their way while they do that, and not try to correct with excessive labeling that does not appear in the sources or else has insufficient WP:WEIGHT to justify their predominant use. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I would definitely be fine moving the sentence in this version of the article (or similar, I'm not being picky) to the lede. But I do think that we need to state the majority view in the lede, and follow up pronoun-wise etc. in the rest of the article, as "she was a woman." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

My recent edit to the article was reverted without explanation by Mlr78731, an account that has so far made no other edits to Wikipedia. The account is brand new, as can be seen from its public logs here. Since this happened very soon after Lgbt.history.ig made comments above about getting people who agree with their position on this article to support them, it appears that a serious violation of WP:MEATPUPPETRY has occurred here, or possibly a violation of the rules on sockpuppetry. Mlr78731 may be subject to an indefinite block if the account is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. Administrator intervention may be required. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, it seems to be a fairly common occurrence that new users edit it to properly gender Cashier. I'm sorry I ever said anything about letting others know about your insistence on misgendering, but I assure you I had nothing to do with this.Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So you say. And you could be telling the truth. Unfortunately, under the circumstances and given your past comments, there is no way that I or other editors can know that you are being truthful. It will be up to administrators to sort out this mess. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I will engage in yet another procedural distraction from the actual substantive point of this endeavor. This little cabal is quite bizarre and sad. I have made all my changes in the open and I'll continue to do so. I look forward to talking to any administrator about whatever bee is in your bonnet now. Lgbt.history.ig (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

There are simpler explanations for why several experienced users might disagree with a new single-purpose editor than the existence of a strange conspiracy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Mlr78731 has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of Lgbt.history.ig. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well that's disappointing. I was just about to say we should AGF on the issue. A shame too, as I thought there was room for a reasonable compromise draft here, but if they are just going to abuse process... Snow ^{let's rap} 03:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Tumblr attempting to manipulate and va.igndalize article

http://lgbt-history-archive.tumblr.com/post/155182034892/recently-we-did-a-post-on-albert-cashier-a-civil

It seems one Tumblr user is encouraging their followers to edit this page or otherwise come to the talk section to try and influence the direction of the page by pretending to be members of the Wikipedia community. We should probably lock the article until this is all settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisam77 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added this info to the existing ANI thread. EEng 00:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like semi-protection is in order as a preventative measure. Perhaps even a full protection lock down of the page for a time.

What a shame, this clueless user is going to completely stall any improvement of the article, including most especially any movement towards fuller acknowledgment of Cashier's probable transgender nature--and all out of their zeal to see things perfectly match their view. Putting aside for a moment that they clearly have not made even minimal efforts to understand (let alone internalize) this community's purpose and values, and are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but rather to advocate for a specific view, they are also the very picture of an ineffective activist--this kind of behaviour will only entrench views, not improve acknowledgment of transgender issues, and make it more difficult for those of us who would support greater acknowledgement of those issues from accomplishing that task within the rules.

LGBT history, if you are reading this, you must understand that you are setting back your stated goal immeasurably through this disruptive behaviour, and through your general dishonesty and attempts to game the system. Getting content to change on Wikipedia requires more than just a decision that an article should read to match your views. It requires time, commitment to understanding this community's way of doing things and (GASP!) a fair bit of prolonged hard work, especially where it requires one to shift a consensus view amongst editors. You have apparently decided that your perspective is so exceptional that you cannot be asked to accept any of that and have now decided to brute force your view by publicly labeling the good faith editors on this page (many of whom were very sympathetic to your view) as transphobic, and by encouraging others to bombard the article with support for your view. Good luck with that, and good luck with your efforts in general as an LGBT advocate, if this is typical of your response to roadblocks and to changing the general perception of trans nature. I fear you will do more harm than good to that movement, speaking as someone who has been broadly supportive of it for decades now. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)