Talk:Rachel Levine

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

trolling, probably trying to discredit Levine with a non-issue, plus some off-topic discussion of non-military “military” ranks Dronebogus (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In "Career" an addendum stating her accolade of making 4-star admiral without any formal military training, a notable achievement! Well done Rachel. Yetanotherwikiphile (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Not sure what to put here... Yetanotherwikiphile (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)  Not done: The USPHS is not normally a military organization so there is nothing notable about Admiral Levine achieving her rank "without any formal military training". Likewise, a Rear Admiral in the NOAA Corps is not required to have any military training, beyond protocol, etc., because the NOAA Corps is not normally a military organization. Similarly, a Lieutenant or Captain in the American fire service is not expected to have any military training. Yetanotherwikiphile, do you also expect accolades for Postmasters General or Attorneys General appointed without military training? Finally, President Trump's nominee for the same position also didn't have any military training is he due accolades for "a notable achievement"?--Mox La Push (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC) Okay, it seems the same question I had emerged again, and so I'd like to provide what answer I got (myself! through reading the Internets! see on this talk page, actually!) for it - basically, in many agencies around the world members of those agencies get "ranks" which may be similar or even the same as "military" ranks of the state the agency is in. And (some), (all), or (some of the "top") officials may get their "rank" according to their position without regard to previously held rank or time of service in the agency. It just so happens that in the USA (in case of R.Levine's agency) those "agency" ranks are the same as "military" ranks (while, for example, in Russia, "military" ranks and various "special" and "agency" ranks are separate, and also in the USA "Army Captain" and "Police Captain" are completely diferent.) So, R.Levine got the illustrious rank in a "pack" with the position without having any previous rank, and that is quite normal for that position (however, there were few holders who chose(?) not to get the rank.) Personally, I'd think that "agency" ranks being the same as "military" ranks is somewhat illogical, and systems in which those are separate are better. Anyway, have a nice day everyone. 45.94.118.118 (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC) Dronebogus, I am grossly offenden by your calling my comment on non-military-military ranks "off-topic"! It is outrageous and unfair! =D Okay, okay, not offended, I am chill, but I do not think it was off-topic. Quite the contrary, I think it was on topic of the "TALK" page. AND I also think the issue should be somehow incorporated into the article, but I do not see a proper way to do it. Why I think it should be incorporated? Basically, people are attracted to R.Levine's page mostly due to the controversy (I suppose, may be wrong), because they see "American transgender admiral speaking weird things", then they go to the article, see that the admiral rank was granted out of the blue, then they think it is because of the "current year hot topic" (being transgenders), then they become slightly (or not so slightly) outraged. And for such people it is important to read in the article right away (or at least in the talk page), that a) this particular admiral rank goes along with the position, and it is very-very common for the holder of the position to get the rank; b) this particular admiral rank is (in its function) comparable to other countries' "special" ranks, not to military ranks, and is only "military rank" due to USA rank system (relative) quirkiness. Cheers! (Oh, also my IP changed, but it was me, on the 15:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC) comment) 45.94.119.155 (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

See top; arguments going round and round Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Add original name (Redacted) just as you do with artists. 2600:1015:B06F:361B:0:47:77F9:F901 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Per the FAQ: Q: Why doesn’t this article include her former name? A: Per WP:DEADNAME: “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.” Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Levine, as a man, was Director of Pediatric Ambulatory Services and the Director of Adolescent Medicine at the main campus of Penn State University. Those are certainly notable positions and helped lead to the appointment as Physician General of Pennsylvania then Pennsylvania Secretary of Health. Had Levine NOT held those positions it is not likely they would have been appointed. The suppression of information is never a good thing. Scottca075 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC) It's obviously true the simple fact of holding those positions, but it's not clear that Levine was notable and widely reported at that time. As a datapoint, this article didn't exist until 2020, and even the Wikidata didn't exist until 2018, whereas being identified as a woman was already extablished by WP:RS at least as early as 2015 (per ref used to identify the sex/gender in the 2018 wikidata creation. The fact that she had those earlier positions might be important for her getting a later (more-)notable position, but that doesn't mean those earlier positions are themselves more important for us to discuss or notable in their own right. DMacks (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC) "widely reported" is not a criteria in Wikipedia's notability test, it is reliable and independent sources. There were certainly news articles about Dr. Levine's appointment and elevation to the positions in 1996, well before becoming known as a transgender person. The continual suppression of information being done for reasons not related to the actual information itself is unseemly and censorship. Scottca075 (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Scottca075, you'll have to forgive me but I think I'm missing your point - isn't this content already in the article? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC) The state of anyone's resume is not what is meant on Wikipedia by notability. And the requirements for notability of living people are stricter than for some other topics. So you don't seem to be making a plausible argument within Wikipedia's framework of policies and guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC) The standard is was the information in reliable and independent sources and it certainly was. Scottca075 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Can you point us to any non-routine coverage? Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia applies a consistent standard: was the person notable while using their former name? For many artists, the answer is "yes" but for people whose lives were written about only after their transition, the answer is "no". Newimpartial (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Adding the pre-transition name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) Per WP:SNOW. There is a consensus that Levine was not notable prior to her transition, and that the MOS:DEADNAME guideline on not including her deadname applies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the individual's original name be mentioned in the article?

Per WP:DEADNAME: “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

As pointed out in an earlier discussion and in the link below, the person under the former name was Director of Pediatric Ambulatory Services and the Director of Adolescent Medicine at Penn State University, which seems significant enough to be considered notable.

https://www.salus.edu/News/News-Stories/Pa-%E2%80%99s-Acting-Secretary-of-Health-and-Physician-Gen.aspx

"In 1996, she joined the staff at the Penn State Hershey Medical Center as the director of Pediatric Ambulatory Services and Adolescent Medicine."

ADifferentMan (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• No. We have been through this too many times already. Would we have had an article about her had she never risen beyond Director of Pediatric Ambulatory Services and Adolescent Medicine? No. Do we have articles about other people purely for being in that role? No. About the role itself? No. Hence, not notable under her deadname for this reason and not notable under her deadname for any other reason that anybody has shown so far. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• No. For the reasons explained by DanielRigal and so many others, abundantly. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot)No Until ten minutes ago when i read the article, i had no idea who this person was nor what the notability is (i only say this to show i don't have a preconceived POV coming here). It is clear that according to all our practices and guidelines the old name should not be mentioned (apart from anything else, why should it? The OP doesn't seem to say it would add anything of value to the article.) In addition, with a very clear explanation in the FAQ, i suggest this be SNOW closed and not reopened until/unless some new argument is put forth. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• No "seems significant enough" is not and has never been how notability works, in this or any other Wikipedia context. You need sources that date from before her transition, that cover her in-depth to demonstrate notability. I haven't seen any such sources provided so far, and until they are, the answer to this question will always be no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• No. Levine was quite clearly not notable at that point in time. Plenty of trans people have been published, held various high-level positions, or even received media coverage pre-transition or while they were going by a different name, but that is very different from being notable under that name. It's pretty clear-cut here that her name should not be included in the article per WP:DEADNAME. There's nothing new being presented here that hasn't come up in the many previous discussions around this topic, so I'm not sure why we need to rehash it for the umpteenth time, but then again perhaps a formal RfC consensus will help us having to retread the same ground every few months. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• Technically no. But the policy is kind of ridiculous. Plenty of other people have legally changed their names and have only been known by those names, yet their birth names are often included in their articles (actors and musicians and such). Privacy is apparently not a concern in those cases, so the policy itself is biased, but that's Wikipedia. The article already mentions that (misgendering redacted)'s transgender, and the pictures make it more obvious, so it's not like (misgendering redacted) can hide (misgendering redacted)'s actual biology. Scapulus^takk 18:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC) EDIT: Gotta love the dystopian censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scapulus (talk • contribs) 19:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  It is different for people who have no reason to keep their former names private. If it doesn't harm them then the barrier to inclusion is set far lower. That said, I am absolutely sure that there are some cis people who we would afford the same level of protection as trans people in this respect. For example, we would never include the former name of a person in a witness protection programme. I hope we would not include the former name of somebody who had changed their name in order to disassociate themselves from, say, a family of war criminals assuming that they were innocent of any involvement themselves. You need to understand that a deadname is a weapon that can be used to target and harass trans people. We know why people bigoted against trans people want to know the deadnames. It is not the pursuit of pure knowledge. It is to obtain a weapon to use against those people. We are not here to facilitate that. DanielRigal (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure Levine is trying to escape a family of war criminals. Very likely. Scapulus^takk 19:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Please don't whine about "dystopian censorship". I could have removed your comment but I didn't. Don't make me regret being nice to you. DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, I agreed with the stupid policy. And I don't generally find censoring facts and spreading misinformation to be "nice," but to each his/her/their/cher/zer/its own. Scapulus^takk 19:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone thought it would be funny to refer to another human being as "it" here –– rather graphically illustrating GorillaWarfare's point that an RfC may be a good thing if it prevents us from having to engage in a conversation of this nature again anytime soon. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  It's not funny. I'm sorry that you can't understand that. Scapulus^takk 20:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• No per the arguments already sated above. Levine was clearly not notable before her transition and so her deadname should not be included per WP:DEADNAME. I haven't seen any mitigating circumstances presented, nor convincing evidence that she was notable at an earlier date. Generalrelative (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
• No per DEADNAME. Levine wasn't notable prior to her transition. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to add that this discussion seems to be approaching WP:SNOW Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 20:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotion of sex change of teenagers

Rachel Levine has been encouraging sex reassignment surgery on infants and toddlers , and also has been unabashedly promoting hormone blockers to teens who are experiencing gender dysphoria.Why these facts are not mentioned in the article? https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-world/rachel-levine-jon-stewart-rutledge-arkansas-insist-gender-affirming-care-minors-safe-medically-necessary-children-kids-trans-trangender-surgery-horomone-blockers

24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not at all what the provided source says, and I have half a mind to remove this thread entirely for being ridiculous and inappropriate. Primefac (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Egg Producer

Rachel Levine recently commended a clinic for replacing the world "Mother" with egg Producer and drew criticism. Please add this line under a new section. I am not sure why this page doesn't have a criticism section. Here is the link.

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-official-praising-clinic-calling-moms-egg-producers-sparks-outrage-1820629%3famp=1

Also, since it is coming from the horse's mouth, should we replace the wikipedia page title on "Mother" with "Egg producer"?

24thHusbandofDraupathi (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)