This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
I honestly don't know. Even her website says she lives in Brooklyn, but is a Berkeley professor. Not sure if there's a multiple home situation going on with that or not, since she technically would only have to be at Berkeley whenever she's teaching a class, otherwise, her academic work can be done remotely. Perhaps the classes she teaches are online as well? I have no references to say one way or the other. SilverserenC01:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren:, mentioning the Twitter ban is clearly due. The Vice profile of Lavery says that she is a "regular Twitter provocateur", and that she "lost access to her biggest public platform" after the Twitter suspension [1]. In addition to the Vice article, the Twitter ban was the subject of an LBC article [2] and mentioned in a Pink News article [3].
It would help if you would explain your specific objections to including this content, instead of handwaving it as a "BLP violation". Which part of BLP do you think it violates? 50.231.144.148 (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is reported in the news doesn't make it WP:DUE. If Lavery was actually specifically known for Twitter and this was frequently covered in reliable sources prior to these ones, then it might be DUE to include. As it is, there's no evidence of Twitter or any social media being meaningful to her career and the many sources that have covered her academic works and her personal life. Furthermore, Vice is already in a middle ground for reliability from past RSN discussions, particularly when it comes to BLPs. And the LBC article specifically quotes both the Daily Mail and her Instagram as sources, directly showing that it's tabloid gossip journalism. And both the Vice and Pink News articles seem to be much more about the transphobic abuse she and then her mother received, rather than focusing on the Twitter suspension part. SilverserenC00:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Lavery was actually specifically known for Twitter and this was frequently covered in reliable sources prior to these ones, then it might be DUE to include.
As it is, there's no evidence of Twitter or any social media being meaningful to her career and the many sources that have covered her academic works and her personal life.
There was already evidence at the time you said this - the Vice article.
Furthermore, Vice is already in a middle ground for reliability from past RSN discussions, particularly when it comes to BLPs.
This is not true. There is no special handling for BLPs at the WP:VICE entry, which simply reads: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." And since this Vice article is an interview of the article subject, where she acknowledges that the ban happened, it definitely falls on the reliable end of the spectrum. WP:MREL does not mean "this source can be discarded when I don't like it", it means "the source should be debated in context".
And the LBC article specifically quotes both the Daily Mail and her Instagram as sources, directly showing that it's tabloid gossip journalism.
This is a bizarre objection. Any source that uses the Daily Mail or Instagram in any context must be "tabloid gossip journalism"? The actual news of the suspension is not sourced to the Daily Mail or Instagram - they are only used to provide Lavery's response to the ban.
And both the Vice and Pink News articles seem to be much more about the transphobic abuse she and then her mother received, rather than focusing on the Twitter suspension part.
Pink News yes, Vice no. The story seems to be that Lavery was planning to be part of a debate, then pulled out of the debate, then was suspended while getting into a Twitter spat, then Lavery's mother received abuse on Twitter. This can all be sourced to multiple reliable sources, and the full story is clearly due for inclusion. 50.231.144.148 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
