Talk:E. J. Levy

Author using sockpuppet account to censor page

The user Hedgielamar is also the author this page is about, and is using this account to remove negative items. This person is referencing in this talk page referencing conversations on twitter and claiming defamation. In actuality the single line that was added to this page is both relevant and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.213.51 (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm told that this is not the case and that the person about whom this entry was written has not made any edits. It is not clear who Hedgielamar is, but that person is not E.J. Levy.Sloane French (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute and resolution

@Sloane French: I have read your request and reviewed this article's edit history. Your desire to help a friend (Levy) is admirable, but represents a Conflict of Interest. However, you disclosed that at your talk page with the Template:Help Me notice that brought me here, and that is to your credit. Reviewing the edit made by Abelmoschus Esculentus – a seasoned editor – revealed that the content axed was unsourced. The exception to this being the prose text To learn more, visit www.ejlevy.com.. This is not a citation. While on the topic of the removed edits, you haven't actually lost them! Wikipedia saves every edit, unless scrubbed by an Admin. Here is the edit documentation that removed your work. There is text that was redacted or abbreviated that is held down by a citation but, assuming good faith in Abelmoschus Esculentus, I assume that that text was not supported by those sources, hence its removal. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Vami IV. I've thanked you elsewhere for checking into this for me. I'll look over my edits with an eye to adding a citation for every addition. I suspect Abelmoschus has removed or redacted (?) many edits that are accurate but incorrectly sourced. Thanks again to both of you for your patience and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloane French (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit war ongoing

Hi, C.Fred C.Fred I've repeatedly corrected inaccurate and biased information on EJLevy page, but these changes are being reverted verbatim to inaccurate text that mischaraxterizes a novel that critics have not read, as it's not been released; these attacks contradict what book's editor and author state are true--and what has been quoted in the press, viz Bustle and now The Times of Ireland. In addition, scholars quoted in The Guardian are quoted inaccurately; I have attempted to add quoted material to reflect more accurate and balanced scholarly opinion. These additions have been repeatedly cut. That appears to be an editing war.

I have repeatedly raised these concerns on the Talk page for EJ Levy, so as to reach consensus and balance with other editors, but have only been met with threats for not engaging on a Talk page. I'm not sure what Talk page that might be.

I'm not sure where else to discuss this matter than on the Talk page associated with Levy page. If you review my recent edits on Levy --and their repeated reversion by Wallyfromdilbert and others, who are not engaging in collaborative revision, as I've sought to do -- I trust you will see that I (and others) are simply seeking balance and accuracy that Wallyfromdilbert et al are reflexively editing out in an effort to misrepresent the author and the debate. Perhaps it would be best to simply delete the page until reasonable and balanced discussion can be had in regard to this. Is that something you can do? This edit war is a disservice to Wikipedia and its mission. Hedgielamar (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)— Hedgielamar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Hedgielamar: One comment to this talk page does not count as "repeatedly" raising the concerns. —C.Fred (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

C. Fred I have repeatedly posted comments on the Levy page--under various headings, trying to get help with this. I'm obviously not an experienced editor, so may not know where to raise these issues, but I certainly have tried to, repeatedly, as I have tried to balance the Levy page, without removing prior text, as Wallyfromdilbert et al have repeatedly done. Their repeated rollbacks appear to be an edit war, whereas I am sincerely trying (as my edits show) to simply balance quotes by adding more AND to remove blatantly inaccurate info (e.g. mischaracterizing a book that these editors have not read). Hedgielamar (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)— Hedgielamar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Hedgielamar: I would suggest you start a new section on this talk page where you quote what you think is wrong in the article and then suggest what you think should be changed. That way your changes and whether they improve the article can be discussed here on the talk page. I would also strongly suggest that you stop attacking others and instead assume good faith and show civility. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert: I'm glad to show good faith, if it's returned. You, not I, have been reverting text to erase reasonable additions and deletions. My concerns and edits are of three kinds: 1) Quotes from articles should accurately reflect diverse views of JM Barry and Levy's book. It is inaccurate and misleading to delete (as you have done) quotes from The Guardian that reflect contrary scholarly views of this issue, and to leave out biographer Dronfield's opinions entirely. Adding the following quotes from Heilman and Dronfield from The Guardian is important to accurately characterize scholarly opinion, if any is to be quoted on Levy's page:

Ann Heilman says, “While I understand that emotions run very high (understandably so, given the difficulties trans people face…), I don’t think that Barry can be that easily mapped on to contemporary trans thought."

Further, "Jeremy Dronfield, co-author of Dr James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time, said: '…When Margaret became James, it wasn’t primarily because she wanted to be a man. She wanted to live the kind of life which in 1809 was impossible for a woman. Once the persona had served its purpose, Margaret intended to discard it. Circumstances prevented that. There’s evidence that Barry missed being a woman…. The claim made online that Barry left a will asking to be remembered as a man is false. He left no statement of identity….If Margaret had been born in 1989 instead of 1789, free to be a surgeon and soldier, would she have chosen to become a man? On balance, I don’t think so…'

2) Wiki editors should characterize the novel *only* if they can quote from its pages; they don't and cannot, as the book has not been published; they are responding to a publisher's announcement and tweets, not to the novel. So the novel should not be characterized or rather mis-characterized here. To claim the novel uses words (eg heroine) that the author explicitly says it does *not* use (author *states* it uses he,she, hero), or to claim the novel is transphobic, without having read it, is more than unfactual; it is close to defamatory. Unfactual assertions and speculations should not be included in a Wiki page. I have cut them therefore, repeatedly. These are allegations merely, not facts. They contradict what the author has publicly stated to Bustle and now the Times (in an earlier edit, I quoted Bustle article in which Levy states that book uses "he," "she" and "I," as well as "hero"; that's the only evidence of the novel's character that is in any of these articles).

3) Given that this novel is only one work of four by this author, which has not even been published, the disproportionate emphasis on this forthcoming book seems inapt; I have not attempted to correct this, but I would strongly advise that the lengthy quotes and speculation be cut. A single brief paragraph summarizing the debate over publisher's acquisition in February and citing relevant articles (Guardian, Times, Bustle, Dot) for furtehr reading would seem to suffice. It seems a misapplication of a Wiki page to use it as a site to carry on a Twitter debate, as this edit war appears to do; the page should reflect balanced and factual information, not continue an argument that is better carried on elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedgielamar (talk • contribs) 03:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC) — Hedgielamar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Looking over the versions contrasted in this diff, some comments:

• dressed as a man to enter medical school" is an understatement of comprehensively living and presenting as a man (and shooting people who questioned that masculinity) for decades; of the two revisions, lived as a man while an adult is the better wording.
• The novel, which refers to Barry as "he" and a "hero", according to the author, has been criticized by transgender people who say male pronouns are more in line with Barry's life history... is a distortion of what the sources say happened, to the point of making it unintelligible. The novel refers to Barry as "she" and a "heroine", which was criticized by transgender people and other authors who say male pronouns are more in line with Barry's life history [...] Levy said the novel also refers to Barry as "he" and "I". is a more accurate (and coherent) representation of what happened: The novel was reported as doing X, this provoked criticism from people who thought it should not do X and should do Y, and Levy defended it by saying it -also- does Y in addition to X. To misrepresent that as "the novel did Y and people criticized it because they thought it should do Y" is ... inaccurate, among other things.
• The "I don't think that Barry can be that easily mapped on to contemporary trans thought." quote could be added if desired, but I think it would be better to leave broadly this structure of the surrounding text and add the quote near the end of the ...portrayed Barry as female sentence, perhaps like: ...portrayed Barry as female, and said "I don't think that Barry can be that easily mapped on to contemporary trans thought". (The full quote goes on to explain: "though of course there have always been trans people, the lived and felt gender identity of an 18th and early 19th-century person would have been very different from our contemporary identity politics." But probably we don't want to quote one commentator at such length...)

Regarding the amount of space given to one book: if the Barry book has gotten more coverage than the other books, then giving it more space in the article is appropriate, whereas if other things the author has done have gotten more press, then some trimming might be in order but even better would be to simply expand the rest of the (currently short) article with other references about Levy, assuming Levy is notable. -sche (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been having a conversation with Hedgie on their talkpage that may be of interest to this as well. I agree with -sche that the article as a whole should be expanded, but I personally haven't been able to find sources on Levy as of yet; right now the majority of her notability is from this whole mess. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 14:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability

Given Levy's comments at the BLPN discussion, we need to be sure that she's notable. Otherwise the article should be deleted or stubbed. As currently referenced, notability seems questionable. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Do we have confirmation that was Levy, btw, given that it walked and talked like a sock of another user, as mentioned? Anyway, most of her notability (such as it is) does seem to come from discussion of the book about Barry (which, incidentally, is why it was mentioned in the lead...), which raises the question of whether this is something akin to BLP1E. (Even if she gets more coverage when the book comes out, this would seem likely to remain an issue.) -sche (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I've not looked at the awards, but as presented they seem to indicate notability. --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)--Ronz (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Content concerning The Cape Doctor

I've gone ahead and trimmed back the paragraph given BLP's requirements and the BLPN discussion. Some expansion may be due, but please remember we're writing an encyclopedia article. This article shouldn't be used to drum up interest in Levy and The Cape Doctor, nor to attack either. High-quality sources are required, and those that provide larger context, should be preferred. --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Article lead

The sentence regarding the controversy around Levy's novel The Cape Doctor has been removed from a lead in a move I disagree with, as I feel that said controversy is Levy's primary notability at the moment. The previous version of the lead (which is my preferred version) is:

Ellen J. Levy is an American writer. Her collection of short stories, Love, In Theory, was published in 2012. Her forthcoming novel, The Cape Doctor, has been criticized for using female pronouns to refer to its central figure, surgeon James Barry.

I restored it, but was reverted and asked to seek consensus here, so... here I am! I feel that since the criticism is her primary reason for notability, it deserves to be mentioned in the lead. Thoughts? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It goes against the guidance in WP:LEAD, also worth considering is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reading WP:LEAD, I'm seeing notation that "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," and in the BLP section, that "Reliably sourced material about encyclopedically relevant controversies is neither suppressed in the lead nor allowed to overwhelm". Is there guidance that I'm missing, or am I misinterpreting in some way? I see what you mean about Not News and Recent, though; I wouldn't be opposed to stubbing or deleting the whole article, since I highly doubt anyone had heard more of her than any other published creative writing instructor until this whole Barry thing. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello! About LEAD, what I'm thinking of is "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" and the MOS:LEADREL bit. Basically, this is not an exact science and especially not in a short article, stuff should have about as much text in the lead as in the article, so I was attempting "to resolve the discrepancy", since 2/3 of the body was not about The Cape Doctor. I have currently no opinion on if the topic is notable or not, but anyone can start an afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a separate discussion on notability. I agree with the NOTNEWS and RECENT concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm fine with leaving it out. Hopefully the publisher will work with her and they'll create a version of the book that isn't decried as transphobic. Thank you both very much! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

And now there is a good chance the book/she will get some RS press when the book is released, that will be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Queer/Lesbian, what should the article say?

Different sources say different things. As I understand it, WP says "go with what the subject says" (on this particular issue). So per I am a lesbian, I suggest the article says "Levy is a lesbian." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

The source identifying her as a lesbian is an article written by her, and I had initially moved that into the "personal life" section after it was added by a user. Another editor changed that to the Guardian source identifying her as queer because it was a more recent source. Also, she recently called herself "a queer woman" on Twitter [1]. I would be fine with either term. "Lesbian" seems more specific while "queer" seems to have been used more recently. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:EJLevywriter stated on the BLP noticeboard that "I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term," but I know there's uncertainty that this user actually is who they say they are. Regardless, given a choice, I lean towards "lesbian" as well. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@EJLevy on Twitter is not a verified account, and so cannot be used as a reliable source for any claims, especially something under WP:EGRS!! 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I hope that essential information was not overlooked purposely. Given the disputes here so far, I think it needed pointing out though:

A statement by an unconfirmed editor claiming (ec: and an unconfirmed Twitter account) to be her means should not be used to sway consensus. A request to confirm identity has been ignored so far.

What are the dates of the sources? --Ronz (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• I am a lesbian 2014
• Levy, who identifies as queer 2019 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Queer is more recent, and using that would be fine with me. I tend to prefer lesbian because 'queer' can be interpreted as a slur, and lord knows this article doesn't need any more struggle. But that being said, an individual's self-labels certainly change over time, so a five-year-old identification could very easily be very wrong. Suggest in light of the timing that we go with 'queer' unless and until a better source comes along? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that would work. Just to put out an alternative suggestion, maybe put her marriage first and then a second sentence explaining that at the time she got married, she identified as a lesbian (or provide additional context from that article). Since the Guardian source is not definitive about whether she prefers "queer" over "lesbian", we could cite the clear 2014 piece and not take a stance on how she identifies now as opposed to then. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the dates and the cautious approach. Given the extent of this dispute, it's best to be extra careful. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current version "Levy identifies as queer.[14] In 2013, she married her husband.[6]" (didn't consider dates of the sources). IMO we can leave it at that, it's simple and reasonably sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If this were an article about a deceased person, I would agree that the later source should be the one to be relied on.

However, this E J Levy is still alive (at least she was yesterday when I received a helpful email from her) and consequently an alleged twitter comment taken out of context is insufficient citation for contentious material that is poorly sourced.

Our BLP policies state that sort of material "...—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion...", especially if potentially libellous or harmful. This is in the context that Levy has recently publicly stated "I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term. (To call me "queer" when I identify as "lesbian"--and have written about same--is equivalent of calling a straight man "bi-" despite his published statements to the contrary. The broader category may contain but does not accurately represent the individual.)"

When I recently posted a reminder of our BLP policies and then removed the harmful "queer" characterisation (along with its single source) I was almost immediately reverted by an editor that, after carefully examining the edit history and this page, seems to have an agenda unconnected with producing a more informative and accurate encyclopedia article.

Ellen J Levy was given good advice by User:Zaereth at 23:54GMT on 26 March 2019:

"EJ, I agree with you that someone is trying to engender controversy where there is none. These are the people on twitter...
If you truly are who you say, then you have more power than any of us to affect this story, both positively and negatively. You can give interviews to reliable sources instead of engaging on twitter. You can write editorials and get those published. There are a myriad of things you can do as the subject to affect this story. When the book comes out, if the word is not there, you'll be vindicated and all the naysayers will look like idiots...

Personally, I would be very pleased if Ellen J Levy set the record straight and gave an interview to reliable, published sources. --BushelCandle (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term

Please identify the source, including the date.

Ignoring other high-quality sources is generally not a way forward. --Ronz (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: A a more informative and accurate encyclopedia article is not always the same as a neutrally worded and reliably sourced encyclopedic article. Exceptional claims require especially strong sources, and things the subject of an article may say about his or herself can only be used in accordance with WP:BLPSELFPUB. An unverified Twitter account is should be considered to be just as unreliable as an unverified Wikipedia user account; so, such things are never going to be seen as "reliable" as statements made in reliable secondary sources. Perhaps, you can explain this to her in your next email exchange. (BTW, you also need to be careful about any further email exchanges you may have with her to avoid being mistaken for having an WP:APPARENTCOI and reduce the chance of you being seen by both her and other editors as being more of an WP:ADVOCATE trying to set the record straight than a neutral editor trying make sure article content is in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.) You sort of touched upon the a possible solution to this in your last post, but I don't think she necessarily needs to be interviewed by someone or something; the first thing she should do would be to get her Twitter account verified, then she could tweet a statement that she identifies herself in a certain way. At least then, she could be attributed directly and the tweet cited in support. The consensus may still be to mention the difference between how she identifies and how reliable sources identify her, but both sides could be presented. Moreover, officially identifying herself in a certain way via verifiable Twitter account may lead to reliable sources also identifying her in the same way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:I think your recent addition to the personal life section makes it look like there has been a controversy about how she identifies her sexual orientation, when there has been none. Let's all use the talk page here to decide on "lesbian" or "queer" and then just use one. If you have access to the Times article and she describes herself as a lesbian in it, then let's go with that. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:Anybody can read the Times piece by signing up for their free short subscription, tho they will bill your credit card later unless you cancel the subscription. In addition, there is an essay by Levy, already cited, whose title is something like "I am a lesbian married to a man" and in the article Levy states several times that she is a lesbian who gets annoyed if people say she is not. All the words I know about sex have fluid meaning and want to mean what the speaker wants them to mean. But "lesbian" is clearer than "queer" and we have evidence it's Levy's preferred description. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Times article is just as recent as the Guardian one, and if she identifies as a lesbian in that piece (I don't have a card to check, myself), then I say we go with lesbian. Another thought would be to phrase it as "Levy has identified as both queer(ref) and lesbian(ref)", which would cover both sourced identities without necessarily showing a preference on our part.

I agree that if Levy got her account verified (though my understanding is that it's surprisingly difficult to do that, especially for LGBT+ content creators, and that verification is briefly disabled as they work through their backlog) and released a solid statement, I would be overwhelmingly in favor of using that identification. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 17:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Getting a Twitter account authenticated might be hard, but enough people seem to do just that so it's obviously not impossible; moreover, Levy getting her identity confirmed via OTRS (Template:Verified account) is also a possibility as well that she still doesn't seem to have pursued. At some point, she needs to do one or the other; otherwise, it's going to be hard for the community to know for sure who's actually behind the account and stop anyone from suspecting it as being a sock puppet. It will also stop her account from being WP:SOFTBLOCKed per WP:REALNAME as a precaution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

A verified twitter may have some WP:BLPSELFPUB use for this article, WP:SOFTBLOCK is a relevant point, but apart from that, it wouldn't really change anything, would it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If her Wikipedia account is confirmed, then posting that the Twitter account is really her as well might be a roundabout way of establishing its authenticity as a potential source. She also has an official website which could be verified to be really her as well. There is also no link (at least I couldn’t find any) to her Twitter account on her official website, which also be helpful in establishing a connection between the two.

As for the soft block, that’s just something which typically happens when an account starts being promotional or disruptive in some way. Accounts usually don’t seem to get precautionary blocked (except for usernames of really well-known persons) if there’s no pattern of WP:NOTHERE behavior. The account should be fine as long as it doesn’t start directly editing any content about Levy in any articles, except where allowed per WP:COIADVICE. Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Status quo

Solomonaic! --BushelCandle (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm adding this as a separate subsection just to keep it sort of apart from my post above and because it's not directed to any one person in particular. How essential is this content to the reader's understanding of the article? Isn't it a bit WP:UNDUE? She seems primarily Wikipedia notable for her accomplishments as a writer, not really how she personally identifies or any controversy she's might have been associated with about a book she has written which has yet to be released. So, perhaps it would be best to leave this bit out in sort of a WP:STATUSQUO way until it can be resolved here on the talk page. It can always be re-added once things have been sorted out, or simply continued to be left out if that's what the consensus turns out to be. The February 15 version of the article seems to be the last stable one before the IPs, Hedgielamar, socks and others started edit warring over the content. The article doesn't have to be reverted back to exactly that version, but it could to be used as a base to continue to improve the article, while this is still being discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian says she identifies as queer, the Times quotes her as calling herself a "long-time LGBTQ activist and lesbian writer." Maybe we should just quote both rather than trying to reduce her identity to a single adjective. Also, I don't think the controversy over her unpublished book should be left out. It will just be re-added, often by people in pursuit of one POV or another. So it is more stable to collaborate on a consensus NPOV statement about it, with links to RS, also trying to consider UNDUE and BALASP. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Or

neither

until and unless it is authoritatively established how she currently self refers.

See WP:UNDUE and WP:TWITTER.

The latter guidelines include:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In my personal opinion the "green quote" [of "I am lesbian, so any characterization of me should use that term. (To call me "queer" when I identify as "lesbian"--and have written about same--is equivalent of calling a straight man "bi-" despite his published statements to the contrary. The broader category may contain but does not accurately represent the individual.)" I used above] is not negated by any of these 5 conditions, but I appreciate that until that quote is authenticated it may be best to just be silent on the topic of how Ellen J Levy self-identifies...--BushelCandle (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: IMO, leaving it out entirely isn't a stable solution. Readers will see this widely-available information as "missing" and edit their own version into the article. So I prefer we find a consensus solution which can potentially be stable. The Guardian does not use direct quotes around "queer" so we don't really know what the article writer meant, particularly as we have multiple sources where Levy says she is lesbian and zero sources where she says "I am queer." I am going to remove the Guardian as others suggested and just leave the quote from the times. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: The claim that Levy is a "long-time LGBTQ activist" should come from a reliable source, and not a quote from the subject. We could discuss this further in a new section if you think necessary. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not wrong about the potential maintenance problem, HouseOfChange. However, my stance was only to leave gender self-identification "missing" until it can be authoritatively resolved. I don't disagree that "queer" should be removed, if only because it has been repudiated by the subject of this BLP.--BushelCandle (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:: I agree that any claim that Levy is a "long-time LGBTQ activist" should come from a reliable source, and not as a quote from the subject of this BLP.--BushelCandle (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Identifies as"

Would anyone be opposed to removing "identifies as" and just having "Levy is a lesbian." as the first sentence? The extra words seem unnecessary and as if Wikipedia may not entirely believe her. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at how other articles handle this--lots of different ways. For people like Nathan Lane or Jane Lynch there are many data points, so for Wikipedia's voice to say they are "openly gay" seems fine. For Levy we have few data points aside from her own request to be identified as "lesbian." So in this case I prefer "identifies as" although I am fine with whatever consensus version emerges. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: no opposition from me to that formulation. --BushelCandle (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: if I was writing my own work (which, of course, I'm not), I might tweak it to write

"Since (date), Levy has self-identified as a lesbian."

but anything that prevents a recurrence of the wrong "queer" categorisation would be acceptable. --BushelCandle (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

In so far as I can be certain of anything in this illusory life, I'm confident that Ellen J Levy herself would prefer that:

1) If any mention is made of her personal life, it should identify her as "lesbian," and cite her 2014 article in Salon on "being a lesbian." (Anything else is a mischaracterization and contradicts published facts, readily available in her work and biographical summaries.)

2) If the page characterizes her forthcoming novel at all, it should accurately reflect its content and avoid repeating inaccurate speculation about pronouns. She is quoted in The Times of London and Bustle describing pronouns in her novel as being mostly first-person and masculine. (Both are reliable sources.) She never calls Barry a heroine in her book. All other "reports" about her novel are based on tweets and are simply wrong.

3) The subject of her novel should be accurately described in our article(s), not distorted to fit an agenda: Margaret Bulkley dressed as a man and took the name James Miranda Barry in order to enter medical school in 1809 and later the army, institutions from which she was barred by her sex. James Barry lived as a man until death, when Barry was publicly revealed to have been a woman. (She'd cite Dronfield & Dupreez's bestselling biography, Dr. James Barry: A Woman Ahead of Her Time (2016), the most recent and best researched, or she'd cite Dronfield's quotes from The Guardian's February 2019 article on debates over Barry's gender.)

Smaller inaccuracies are less important:

Her degree from Yale is in History, which seems relevant, as her book is historical fiction. (Editors had removed "history," even as that is readily verified.)

If there is to be a biographical summary, it might mention her having founded an LGBTQ newspaper in New Mexico, having been an LGBTQ and environmental activist for years, and having taught at Colorado College and American University before joining the faculty at Colorado State University in 2012; She earned tenure in 2014 and is an Associate Professor.

That said, our long-standing policies means that Ellen J Levy can not be the final arbiter of our biography - with the exception of how she self identities. Nevertheless, I thought it might be useful to summarise her own views (which largely conform to my own). --BushelCandle (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: Please put your comments in the relevant sections on the talk page or start a new section for new content. Also, please include reliable sources when adding content to the article. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, boss.

--BushelCandle (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC) (edit conflicts)

@BushelCandle: In addition, if you have a personal or professional relationship with the article subject or are having off-wiki discussions, then you need to disclose your conflict of interest and discuss your proposed changes to the article here on the talk page. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I have no personal or professional relationship with the article subject.

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen me state quite clearly above that we have had a days'-old email correspondence.

As far as I'm concerned, this is me discussing proposed changes. What exactly (other than you continuing to remove apposite quotes and sources and my occasionally seeking to restore them) do you find controversial or objectionable about my edits? --BushelCandle (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: Proposing means waiting for discussion before adding material into the article. Also, where is your source for a history major or "tenured" status (and why is mentioning "tenured" relevant when that is not usually mentioned on articles about university professors)? You immediately adding material to the article with no discussion and no sourcing because of a private correspondence between you and the article subject is not an appropriate way to edit a BLP. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not everyone is as quick on the button as you, Wally. These old bones have now added citations for both "History major" and "tenured".

Instead of reverting others efforts and removing quotations that don't neatly fit with your agenda, don't you think you could help find citations for anything you think dubious? If you don't find them, or can't be bothered to search, you could always tag anything you think as dubious and give other editors some minutes to come up with the citation before you reach for the revert button or the templating accusations again. --BushelCandle (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Your citation for history major (librarything) is unreliable. Anyone can edit that source. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair point.

@Wallyfromdilbert: Incidentally, you do realise that you are now in breach of WP:3RR with this 4th5th removal of a pertinent, sourced quote?

(Here are the 2 previous removals you perpetrated: (2) and (3). Please be more collegial.)--BushelCandle (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert:How many warnings do you need? Revert number 5 in 24 hours.--BushelCandle (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You are reposting the same links. That's only 3 reverts. This seems to be retaliation for me asking you to stop following and harassing me [2]. Please stop this behavior, assume good faith, and work constructively on the article like the rest of the editors. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No, each diff. ("link") I post is a separate reversion by you (please examine them carefully below).

Another way of illustrating your continued and egregious edit warring would be to look at a snapshot of just some of your recent reverts, Wallyfromdilbert:

Revert number 1): 02:59, 26 March 2019‎

Revert number 2): 03:18, 26 March 2019‎

Revert number 3): 03:29, 26 March 2019‎

Revert number 4): 04:24, 26 March 2019‎

Revert number 5): 06:23, 26 March 2019‎

Revert number 6): 01:54, 27 March 2019‎

Revert number 7): 02:00, 27 March 2019‎

Revert number 8): 19:15, 27 March 2019‎

Revert number 9): 19:26, 27 March 2019‎

Revert no.      10): 22:59, 27 March 2019‎

Revert no.      11): 02:16, 28 March 2019‎

Revert no.      12): 03:30, 28 March 2019‎

Revert no.      13): 17:10, 29 March 2019‎

The period that elapsed between "Revert number 1)" at 02:59, 26 March 2019‎ and "Revert number 7" at 02:00, 27 March 2019‎ (7 reverts) was just 23 hours and 1 minute.

The period that elapsed between "Revert number 6)" at 01:54, 27 March 2019‎ and "Revert no. 10)" at 22:59, 27 March 2019‎ (5 reverts) was just 21 hours and 5 minutes;

The three-revert rule states:

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring" (behaviour)...

The rule page goes on to clarify that "A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material..."

The rule page also notes: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behaviour constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

Since this edit by you indicates that you were well aware of this rule, Wallyfromdilbert, why do you continue to both flout it and dispute your flouting of it? --BushelCandle (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle and Wallyfromdilbert: The way you two are going back and forth at each other is not really helping to improve this or any article. If either of you feel the other is edit warring or otherwise being disruptive, then post your diffs at WP:AN3 or WP:ANI because posting them here is not going to resolve anything.

@BushelCandle: This edit to another article is not going be considered one of your finer moments if you do end up at ANI/AN3; so don't do another one of those again.

@Wallyfromdilbert: Unless you're going to clearly claim WP:3RRNO, you're still going to be subject to 3RR no matter how right you believe you are. Even if you claim an exemption, others might not see it as such.

It would really be better not only for this article, but for Wikipedia as a whole if the two of you could figure out some way to work together. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Categories: Lesbian vs Queer

After the discussion above and the quotes from Levy where she identifies herself as "lesbian," I think the article should categorize her with "Lesbian writers" rather than with "Queer writers." @Greyjoy: has twice replaced Lesbian writers with Queer writers. @BushelCandle: has reverted this once, and I have reverted it once. Shall we discuss specifically the category for Levy? That will be better than edit warring, surely. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to including both, but if only one is appropriate, then we should go with lesbian based on the previous discussion. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

FYI @HouseOfChange: Greyjoy only really replaced "lesbian writers" with "queer writers" once. It was originally changed to "queer writers" on March 15 by 70.162.235.236 after the page content had been updated to "queer" by Ronz at the time [3]. Greyjoy then changed it to "lesbian writers" on March 29 [4] and then immediately reverted their own change back to "queer writers" [5]. Their only actual revert was after BushelCandle had undid their change back. I think we need to be more careful with accusing others of "edit warring", and instead focus on the content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe general sanctions apply. I've asked for confirmation here.

It seems very questionable to outright reject the BBC Guardian ref. It may be the best ref we have on the dispute about the upcoming book.

I'd leave out the category and unqualified labels completely. Wikipedia's voice probably should not be used when there are reliable sources that are contradictory as they are. --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a BBC reference in our article. The "lesbian" quote came from The Times (Feb. 18, 2019). My only concern is to have the "right" category or categories. I liked @Wallyfromdilbert:'s suggestion we could use both categories. I apologize that I seemed to be pointing a finger at @Greyjoy:. What I meant to say was that we should all seek consensus here on the talk page rather than using edit summaries to make a case for changing what's there, as for example, I did myself. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Guardian ref. Sorry for the confusion. --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Presenting controversy in NPOV way

The article needs to give an accurate description of the controversy about Levy's unpublished novel, including of course NPOV presentation of the viewpoints.

According to Levy, who was interviewed by The Times of London, the novel refers to Barry most often as "I", and also on occasion as "he" or as "she." Levy's use of the word "she" and of the word "heroine" on social media have led to misunderstanding that the (unpublished) novel describes Barry as "she." Our article should correct mistakes, not broadcast them. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

References

It's not really Wikipedia's role to correct mistakes. Article content may mention mistakes if the mistakes received coverage in reliable sources, and it can also mention any misunderstandings/controversy if they too have been covered in reliable sources, but; however, editors shouldn't try and resolve any mistakes found in reliable sourcessuch things themselves through content editing. Article content should only reflect what reliable sources are saying about this. If that's what you're proposing, then that seems fine. However, if you're suggesting that we should use Wikipedia's voice to go beyond what reliable sources are saying just to get things right, then I'm not sure that's appropriate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC); [Note: Post edited by Marchjuly to change "to" to "too", and to clarify sentence. -- 07:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)]

I agree we should report what RS say. Here is what the Guardian article says: "When Levy, winner of the Flannery O’Connor award, announced the news of her novel by describing Barry as “a heroine for our time, for all time”, other authors began to question Levy’s reference to Barry as “she”, including novelist Celeste Ng, who told Levy: “I’m now seeing you use she/her pronouns for Barry even as many are telling you Barry himself used and wanted he/him pronouns." Here is what the Times article says: "Trans writers have accused Levy of disrespecting Barry by referring to the surgeon as “she” on social media." Neither of these RS states that Barry is described as female throughout the book. Both state that people are angry that Levy called Barry "she" in social media. We should remove from our article the SYNTH and OR that imply, in Wikipedia's voice, that Barry is described as a woman in the novel itself "The novel reportedly refers to Barry as "she" and a "heroine." I hope you agree. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange: FYI, the paragraph you expanded used to look similar [6] until it was trimmed due to the concerns expressed by the alleged author at BLPN. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favour of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.--BushelCandle (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem here is that clearly editors are bringing their own biases and external battles to this article, and trying to exclude viewpoints from reliable sources. Claimed associations with Levy are being used as justification for battleground approaches. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

"LGBTQ activist"

I think this term should remain in the personal life section when we talk about how Levy self-identifies. It is relevant because the recent controversy includes people claiming she is transphobic, trans-hating, and a terf. (Twitter thread about her book announcement.)

For those who can't access the Times article, here is a fuller context of what she says there (the ellipses are theirs not mine):

Levy told The Times that she referred to Barry in the novel as “he”, “she”, and most often as “I”. “As a long-time LGBTQ activist and lesbian writer, I understand the anxiety . . . expressed by the trans community,” she said. “I respect those who claim Barry as a trans hero but I find confounding the idea that anyone would attempt to limit how we might imagine Barry’s life when the historical evidence is open to interpretation.”

HouseOfChange (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Replying to what @Wallyfromdilbert: says above, by having it in quotes and attributed to her we make it clear that she is identifying herself in that way. I agree that it should not be said in Wikipedia's voice, but having it in quotation marks makes it clear who is saying it. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "long-time LGBTQ activist" implies an external factual statement about Levy, not just how she personally identifies (e.g., like sexual orientation). That kind of statement should be from an external, third-party source. Her personal opinion on it seems sort of irrelevant, especially in personal life. If you feel strongly about including it to respond to accusations about her being transphobic (or other terms not used in the article), then it would seem more appropriate in the paragraph about the controversy relating to that. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

We disagree. I think the text you removed from the article was clear, accurate information about how EJ Levy thinks of herself. Rather than edit war any further (you removed it a second time before discussing your changes on this talk page) I welcome comment from others. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Although I agree that this is what Levy thinks of herself, and I won't argue that we've got a reliable source that corroborates this, by including it we open it up to interpretation - considered from a reader's perspective, this information is on the page either to 1) reject claims of transphobia and terf-dom, or 2) to place a spotlight on said claims by calling attention to the fact that she included the T despite misgendering Barry. Wikipedia is not the place for such a debate, nor are we in a position as Wikipedians to choose sides (or appear to choose sides, no matter what our personal opinions are). A reader is likely to interpret Levy's claim to be a "long-time LGBTQ activist" as Wikipedia's opinion, despite it being in quotes and properly attributed, because 'Wikipedia' decided that including it was necessary.

But ultimately that's beside the point. Is she known for being an activist? What notable activism has she taken part in? Is her activism mentioned at any other point in the article? These are all null questions, and therefore I feel that her self-description as an activist has no place in the article at all. She is a writer whose upcoming book has caused controversy, and that's what the focus should be on. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 20:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I too think that the text Wally removed from the article was clear, accurate information about how EJ Levy thinks of herself. I've already warned about over-use of the revert button and edit warring to the point of breaching 3RR (some editors' work has been undone more than 4 times before discussing changes on this talk page) and it's now getting to the point that I am going to recuse myself from editing rather than become bad-tempered. --BushelCandle (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree we have no indication from RS that Levy's activism has taken any form other than self-identifying as a lesbian and writing fiction from a non-cis-het viewpoint. I will take your opinion as agreeing with Wallyfromdilbert that we should leave out the phrase, so I will be guided by your shared opinion. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I will try and discover RSs about her having founded an LGBTQ newspaper in New Mexico, having been an LGBTQ and environmental activist for years, having taught at Colorado College and American University before joining the faculty at Colorado State University in 2012, earning tenure in 2014 as an Associate Professor and having majored in History at Yale. Hopefully this shouldn't take too long. --BushelCandle (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile, here's interesting quotes

--BushelCandle (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are interesting quotes, and I'd love to see them corroborated by a reliable third-party source. I know you and Wally are butting heads on this article, and I wanted to take a sec to let you both know how much I appreciate the work you're both putting in. Your sourcing especially is a boon! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 15:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Banner

On the whole, I think we can remove the "needs additional citations" banner. Objections? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance templates aren’t intended to be scarlet letter types of things. Once they’ve finished doing their “job” (i.e. let others know about issues which need attention), they should be removed. I see no issue with removing the template. There are multiple editors currently working on improving the article, so IMO it would better simply to remove any contentious unsourced content at this point than trying to use a template to justify leaving it in. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would support removing. I just went through all the information and tagged one potentially unreliable source. One other sentence has a citation needed tag already on it. Everything else looks appropriately supported. --Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I think a removal of the banner would be very slightly premature.

Although multiple editors are currently working on this article, we still haven't found reliable sources for all the assertions which some editors persist in seeing as controversial or contentious.

Our policy, as expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"

The banner is useful, not just for drawing the attention of potential helpful editors to needed improvements, but also for providing hyperlinks to appropriate search engines and a pertinent nutshell of some of our BLP policies:

Very recently, User:NekoKatsun, User:Ronz and User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång have all reminded us that more citations are still needed...--BushelCandle (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with restoring the banner; I agree that the sources on the article have improved by leaps and bounds, but there's definitely further room for improvement. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

There are other ways of providing hyperlinks to possible sources; for example, {{Find sources}} or a similar template could be added to the article's talk page. Moreover, as I posted above, if there's still content that is so contentious that a banner need be used (as opposed to an inline {{citation needed}} template), then maybe that content should be removed of WP:HIDDEN altogether until better sources are found. If you're going to try an argue WP:BLP in favor of adding the template, then it seems to me it would be better to argue WP:BLPSOURCES in favor of removing the contentious content (at least for the time being) instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@BushelCandle: The three diffs you cited are all for content that you added to the article. Is there any other specific content that is a problem in the article? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Personally, at the time that I write this, I don't believe that there is anything contentious remaining in the article that is unsourced. However, because Wally invariably almost reverts anything I write, I suspect that this personal opinion of mine is not universally shared and unfortunately the documentation for {{Find sources}} says it should not be used on any article pages; that restriction means that, on balance, I'd prefer for the banner to stay in the hope that a drive-by editor may find sources for both E. J. Levy's place and year of birth and for the notion that she earned a BA in History from Yale University. --BushelCandle (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

{{Find sources notice}} is what should be used, not a maintenance template on the article. If you have added unsourced information, you can just remove it. Also, please stop your continuing personal attacks. I've asked you directly several times since you started harassing me. Let's stick to the article content. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I did post for example, {{Find sources}} or a similar template could be added to the article's talk page; so, I wasn't suggesting that such templates be added to the article's page. The primary purpose of a maintenance template is to let others (including readers) know that there are possible issues with the article. Once these issues have been addressed or at least enough people are made aware of them and are working on addressing them, then it seems OK per WP:WTRMT for the article template to be removed. Whether enough has been done is for sure a bit subjective, which is why it sometimes helps to discuss things on the talk page to see what the consensus is.

If you're adding content to the article that keeps being challenged by another editor and removed, then perhaps said content shouldn't be there until there's a consensus established to add it. Moreover, even if you truly believe the removal is unjustified, at some point you have to seek assistance for others per WP:DR or be willing to claim a WP:3RRNO exemption and bring it up for discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. If someone challenges a source you're citing, you can discuss the source either here on this talk page or at WP:RSN. The bit about Yale is marked by a {{cn}} template and the content about her place of birth is tagged with {{unreliable source}}; so, if those are the only sourcing issues in the article, then they don't really require an article banner. I'm assuming you and others have been looking for sources, perhaps by clicking on the hyperlinks in the template to see what you can find; if neither you nor nobody else has found them by now using those hyperlinks, then most likely a drive-by editor will not have any better luck. A maintenance template like {{BLP sources}} is not saying it's really OK to have unsourced or questionably sourced content in the article or its OK to add more such content to the article; it's letting us know that either we need to find better sources or start removing the problematic content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)