Talk:Rachel Levine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

In the article, there is the text under the headline "Personal life"

She has two children, David and Dayna.[10][11] She made the decision to transition in 2011. Levine and her ex-wife, Martha Peaslee Levine,[12][11] divorced in 2013 but remain "good friends".[13]

The citation [13] that quotes 'but remain "good friends"'. I have followed the link to the actual text of the citation and I can confirm that the phrase that is within the quotation marks "good friends" does not appear on that cited page in any capacity. In checking this citation, I have broken down the phrase into its constituents: "good"; "friends"; or "friend". None of these words are return hits on the cited page. It would appear that the author who has cited this phrase has either misquoted, misinterpreted, embellished, or perhaps had some other agenda in mind when misleading the Wikipedia community. In any circumstance, the quote is wholly unsupported by the citation. Please correct the article to indicate that this quoted phrase is untruthful, by either correction of the sentence to omit this phrase or otherwise indicating that this quote is not factual or citing a correct source that would make this support this quote. Wacroft (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Rachel Levine's Previous Name

Per the Manual of Style guidelines on changed names, transgender individuals' previous names should be mentioned only in cases where they were notable under that previous name. Since I see no evidence that Rachel Levine was notable under her previous name, I am going to remove this mention of her birth name from the lead sentence of this article.

Cassie Evenstar (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that Levine's prior name has been moved the the Personal Life section. I think this is definitely an improvement, and I appreciate the attempt at a compromise; however, in accordance with the recommendations in the Gender Identity page of the Manual of Style, I would suggest that her prior name not be included within the article at all. Particularly, it is suggested that "If a transgender subject's former or legal name is not well known or widely reported, don't include it, even if it appears in a few reliable sources." Though there clearly exist reliable sources which contain her previous name, there is no evidence that this name is widely reported. For these reasons, and because it is generally considered rude to mention the previous name of a transgender person, and because there seems to be no reason to include the name, I suggest it be removed entirely.

Cassie Evenstar (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't see any evidence in the article presently that she was notable under her previous name. I've removed it again. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I've reinstated it because the cited source says it was the reason for her choice of her new name. -- 76.15.128.196 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That does not make her notable under that name. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

"She"

I understand that it's currently the "in-thing" to give people the labels they ask for. But this person is not female and removal of gendered language in the article is preferable to either pronoun. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia guideline on how to describe transgender individuals, which the article should, and I believe currently does, follow, is here. It says 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. It does not support removing pronouns from articles about transgender people. Wham2001 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong. Rachel Levine is a woman and Wikipedia will refer to her as such. GeorgeWashingtoe (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

DOB source

@Coemgenus: What's the source for adding October 28 to her DoB? The inline source only says 1957. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a source on Ancestry.com, but I was reluctant to list it because it uses her former name, which I've seen people get pushback for on here before. It's here. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Without a reliable, non-primary source, we shouldn't use Ancestry.com as a source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. See WP:ANCESTRY.COM. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, if you want to revert me, it's fine with me. I won't add it again. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Just checking, would this be an appropriate source for her date of birth? It's from Q-Notes. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I was briefly concerned when I saw the section of the Q-Notes article titled "Developments, controversies and notoriety", but from what I can tell that rather alarming section title is based only on the fact that "Chris Crain, former editor of The Washington Blade criticized Q-Notes coverage as it did not include information that the interviews had been conducted via email." How bizarre... Anyway, yeah, that seems reasonably reliable to me and isn't a primary source like Ancestry.com. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect words

In the personal history, Dr. Levine had a Bas Mitzvah, not a Bar Mitzvah. Bar Mitzvah is for boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C000:2290:F160:2426:8FE1:B8E6 (talk) 00:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll find that they had a Bar Mitzvah. Zacwill (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Levine didn't transition until 2011, so it would have been a bar mitzvah. Ideally there would be a gender neutral form of the word we could use (per the guidance at MOS:GENDERID), but I'm not sure there is—I've seen "b'nai mitzvah" but I'm not sure that is widely used in the singular. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about Judaism could weigh in on the term. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Therequiembellishere's solution to remove it entirely actually makes a lot of sense, per their rationale in the edit summary. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zacwill: Can you please join the discussion rather than warring over its inclusion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from my edit summaries: "The sentence itself isn't sourced and tbqh, it doesn't add anything to include it either way. She went to Hebrew school and is Jewish is more than enough without having to wade into this bar/bat mitzvah debate. It goes without saying a Hebrew school kid was mitvahed. What are we gaining as a reader by making a thorny decision like this based on a source that has no authority on queer issues when we could just not include it? It is not core to the article and we gain everything we need by saying she's Jewish. This is fighting for fighting sake to include a gendered term. If she was a rabbi, we'd likely need a decision. She's not, we don't." Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a completely manufactured issue, and to delete content from the article because of it is pathetic. Levine happily admits to having been "bar mitzvah-ed" in an interview (at p. 558), so it really can't be all that "thorny". Removing the passage from the article is preferable to rewriting it to falsely imply that Levine had a bat mitzvah, but both courses are deeply silly and deleterious (we don't "gain everything we need by saying she's Jewish", since it isn't a given that Jews have mitzvah ceremonies—many secular ones don't). Zacwill (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not completely manufactured; avoiding confusing constructions about a woman having a bar mitzvah is in keeping with the advice at MOS:GENDERID. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it fundamental to Rachel Levine how she was mitzvahed? The answer is no. It's really not worth any of this. Also reading that portion of the interview as her speaking "happily" seems... suspect. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

Levine is originally from Wakefield, Massachusetts.[6] She is Jewish, grew up attending Hebrew school, and had a bar mitzvah. She has recalled that while she was growing up, her rabbi did not talk about LGBTQ issues.[7] She earned her high school diploma from Belmont Hill School in Belmont, Massachusetts.[8]

link - https://jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com/jewish-woman-welcomed-as-transgender-states-new-physician-general/

from article - "As a Jewish youth growing up in a Jewish household in Wakefield, Mass., having a bar mitzvah, attending Hebrew school and attending a conservative shul, Levine said the rabbi did not talk about LGBTQ issues. It was the late 1960s, early 1970s, she said, and things are only now getting better."

my explanation - I believe that the correct term for Rachel Levine's coming of age ceremony is Bar Mitzva, despite the fact that she now identifies and lives as a woman. It looks like the provided link leads to the wikipedia bar mitzvah entry. Perhaps I'm wrong. This is a question that Rachel Levine should answer. Natashaloewy (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use "lives as a woman" it's transphobic. She is a woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.106.89 (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Levine had a bar and not a bat mitzvah, as indicated by the source for this section of the article. Zacwill (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See the section above this one as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Openly transgender

Is that a thing? Or rather, is the opposite a thing--is there a recognized phenomenon of closeted transgender people like there are closeted gay people? If "openly transgender" isn't a generally recognized concept, it's probably best to drop the word "openly" from the article. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that, yes, there is an exactly analogous situation where some trans people are closeted by living publicly as the gender they were assigned at birth and also a second situation where some trans people live as their actual gender without it being publicly known that this differs from the gender they were assigned at birth (i.e. "being stealth").

But... This does not mean that you are wrong to question the use of "openly". I don't like it and I similarly dislike "openly gay". I feel this can be appropriate in historical contexts where openness would be a rare exception but is best not used for contemporary people. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

My sense is that the context of use is important here. Since it is likely that some federal official, sometime has come out after ceasing to be a federal official, or has been de facto transgender without coming out before death (ahem), it would be inappropriately BOLD to state that Levine is the first senior federal official, ever, to be transgender. I'm not sure "openly" is the right word, but some such delimiter is necessary IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be clear that she's the first transgender person who is out at the time of her nomination. Reliable sources have sometimes said "first transgender" in headlines, but within every article they caveat "first openly transgender" (WaPo, NYT, BBC, AP). Would it help if we linked "openly" to Coming out#Transgender identity and coming out or Transgender#Coming out? POLITANVM ^talk 16:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I do think we should include some term so as to avoid suggesting closeted transgender people are not actually transgender. "Openly" or "out" would seem to do it; "out" might be a bit better. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Yes if the press is saying "openly" then I guess we should do the same, and linking the word to one of those "coming out" sections (I guess I better read them) sounds good. It hadn't occurred to me to think that a closeted transgender person isn't really transgender. I was thinking more of the mental revision required to take in the concept of closeted gender status existing at all. I'm introverted enough to not be bothered by this, but I can imagine a bunch of cable news heads exploding if someone comes out while or after holding a high enough office. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Politanvm: I cleaned up a bunch of tracking parameters from your BBC link, hope that's ok. The linked page no longer mentions Levine either with or without the parameters, but I'll take your word for what it said before. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Politanvm [1]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

To expand, I've linked the first "openly" to Coming out#Transgender identity and coming out, since it's slightly more built out, and the next word already links to transgender. GorillaWarfare, I'm open to your suggestion of "out" instead of "openly," but I'm hesitant because there seems to be a clear consensus in sources for "openly transgender" and I don't want to dive too for into original research/synthesis and NPOV issues. I'm also not sure if "out" will be any clearer than "openly" for readers who are otherwise unfamiliar with LGBT topics. POLITANVM ^talk 18:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the wikilink is fine, and "openly" appears to be the common wording in the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2021 (2)

ADDITIONS

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The proposed edits are bullet points instead of prose, and if they are all added to the article, they may be giving undue weight to her personal experience with being transgender, rather than her notable accomplishments. Please discuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Levine’s recent appointment is historic not due to her notable accomplishments but due to her being transgender. The public viewing this article will be intrigued by both information on her accomplishments and personal experiences. While all should be encouraged to source information on her career as soon as possible, it would do a disservice to readers to exclude information that adds color to what supporters feel is a very exciting moment. (If it’s permitted - I would encourage editors to consider young queer/questioning folks and how they might benefit from knowing as much as possible about Dr. Levine overcoming adversity.) Thank you. - Iforget2020 (talk) 09:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Additions to: Early Life and Education

She said she lived with a "secret" from an early age and spent much of her life trying to fit in.

She said, "All I knew is I wanted to be a girl, or I was a girl, or female."

Additions to: Personal Life

Describing a point she reached in her 40s, she said, "Boy, did I have a midlife crisis." She began seeing a therapist and attending meetings of TransCentralPA

She said she threw herself into school work, then her career, in order to "compartmentalize" troubling feelings about her gender.

"What is comes down to is I decided to live my life with no secrets ... with no fear," she said.

Leaders at Penn State Hershey (Medical Center) and her patients were supportive after she transitioned to living as a female.

The reaction of her mother, a lawyer who was in her mid-80s: "I'm not sure I understand, but I love you unconditionally." LiveFreeWillyOrDie (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• I'd support adding a cite to the Pennlive interview, mentioning that she discussed her transition process in it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Early life and education

I don't think adding "her rabbi didn't talk about LGBTQ issues" is relevant at all. It's random and doesn't fit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:19:C113:50C3:67D9:F77C:A544 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• I second this statement. 2001:1970:564B:4700:C434:D3E7:4D55:4838 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done I agree that it's a bizarre thing to include. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

In early life, their should be reference to Dr. Levine's given birth name for record traceability. 12.177.192.197 (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Not happening. That's why this page is protected. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is quite clear we should not do that:

In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name... If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. (MOS:DEADNAME)

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. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. (MOS:GENDERID)

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

In an effort to fully educate, fully inform and to be completely honest, the individual's name, birth, etc. should be available to the public. 96.10.142.82 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2021 (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) 15:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the section directly above this one for an explanation of why we will not be including Levine's birth name in the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Full protection request

Suggest full protection pending the added attention of her confirmation hearing. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Therequiembellishere: unless there's significant non-constructive editing, I don't see why that's necessary. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've already requested ECP at RfPP (after my same request was declined yesterday). I don't think a case can be made for full protection through her confirmation, but I do think ECP will help. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Add info from confirmation hearing?

During Levine's confirmation hearing with the Senate HELP Committee, Rand Paul compared transgender medicine to "genital mutilation" and accused her of supporting “surgical destruction of a minor’s genitalia." Paul was rebuked by committee chairman Patty Murray, as well as multiple House and Senate Democrats, who were to vote on the Equality Act that same day. Should this piece of information from her hearing be included? Seems notable given the significance of the occasion but I'd rather talk it out in case of WP:UNDUE. Phillip Samuel (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Samuel, very short comment before I go to work (a) I've removed the Daily Mail as a deprecated source (see WP:RSP) (b) is there some way we could rephrase to avoid repeating Paul's comments? Wham2001 (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wham2001 (a) thanks for removing the deprecated source (b) Multiple congressional Democrats and outside public figures condemned his line of questioning, which gave it some notability. I want to convey that info, but I also see your POV, Paul's comments are maybe too strongly worded to quote on the WP article. Multiple news sources made a point of quoting him. Do you think putting the quotes on the page violates WP:UNDUE or another wp rule? Phillip Samuel (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Phillip Samuel, I understand your line of reasoning. My concern is that the cycle of "person says outrageous thing in public venue" -> "media report on outrageous thing" -> "Wikipedia includes outrageous thing in article" -> "Outrageous thing is immortalized in Wikipedia article long after media circus has moved on" is suboptimal, particularly on a BLP and in a context like this. I suppose the closest PAG to my objection is WP:NOTNEWS – Levine's confirmation hearing will be of sufficient lasting importance to her history to be mentioned in the article, but Paul's remarks will likely be forgotten amongst all the other similarly outrageous things he's said. Wham2001 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, so do you think it should be rephrased to something similar to "Rand Paul's line of questioning on transgender medicine was rebuked by committee chairman Paul Murray"? Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Just noting I wholeheartedly agree with Wham2001 here. Personally I think the info probably ought to be removed entirely, since it is not relevant to Levine's biography. Perhaps it is relevant to Paul's. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I agree. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree also. Perhaps this is relevant to Paul's biography. Don't see it relevant to Levine's. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Transfered the info to Rand Paul's section per consensus. Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Request add "Dr. Levine instituted Department of Health policies which halted routine inspections and issued guidance for senior nursing facilities to admit and readmit patients who tested positive for COVID-19 as she removed her own mother from a nursing facility. This controversial and criticized policy has been blamed for a disproportionate majority of Covid-19 deaths throughout the early portion of the pandemic in Pennsylviania." to the "COVID-19 pandemic" section. PennLive was used as a reliable source in this section already, but all information is slanted toward showing only a positive light vs an accurate reflection of the reality of Dr. Levine's Pennsylvania state Covid-19 policy. 70.122.148.243 (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article is primarily about Russ Diamond's criticism of Levine, and this proposed addition is a summary of criticism and direct quotes from Diamond. We shouldn't write an individual's claims, opinions, and criticisms in WP:WikiVoice. POLITANVM ^talk 19:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Indefinite EC protection over vandalism/edit conflict over gender/birthname?

This page has already been under AC or EC protection since multiple users seem intent on IP jumping or ignoring Wikipedia rules and talk consensus to vandalize the page on gender/birth name issues. There has already been the excuse "It's not being abusive to state a fact" w/o regard to talk consensus or WP policies. This page has already been under 2 periods of EC protection, and every time when the page loses AC or EC protection, confirmed and unconfirmed users immediately vandalize and edit war on this issue. When EC protection on this page expires a month from now, there is no doubt confirmed users are going to edit war again.

I feel as if as long as she is a prominent member of the Biden administration, this page will keep having to deal with this issue. Simply put, does this page need to have indefinite EC protection? Phillip Samuel (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I would certainly support it, as I agree the pattern is clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

strong support absolutely. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I would also support indefinite AC or EC (though not "full") protection; in my experience, this kind of vandalism doesn't go away. (I could give examples demonstrating this, if requested, but otherwise I'll avoid it so as not to send WP:BEANS attention to those other pages!) -sche (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on the article history and Levine's increased political prominence I agree that indefinite ECP is warranted. Wham2001 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Very strong support as well. How do we go about getting indefinite protection in place? I'm not familiar with that process. --WhyBeNormal (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@WhyBeNormal: WP:RFPP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, simply add this page to that page to make a request? Ok, done. --WhyBeNormal (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I rather support it to make fully protected. It is rather obvious due to fact edit warring between any users. I don't believe indefinite EC protection would be issue for this but temporary full protection would be necessary. 36.77.93.108 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

We avoid fully protecting pages indefinitely, or even longterm (see WP:FULL). If extended confirmed editors continue to edit war over this, it would be better dealt with by user-level sanctions rather than page protection IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Birth name

Even if her birth name is not necessarily relevant to her notability, it still should be included. It should at least be under early life and the infobox birth name. I also think we should put it in the lead in the same was as Caitlyn Jenner.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

However, MOS:DEADNAME says that we should not do that. Newimpartial (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Iamreallygoodatcheckers: Caitlyn Jenner was extremely notable before she came out as transgender. Levine has primarily been notable since becoming Pennsylvania's Physician General, which postdates her coming out. MOS:DEADNAME is quite clear that In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name... If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess you all are right. Kind of an odd policy in my opinion, I feel it should at least be under birth name in the infobox, but I suppose not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, the proper venue to discuss the policy is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, not here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I understand that. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI, people use intentional deadnaming to harass trans people. For this reason, most trans people don't want their deadnames to be well-known and, beyond that, it just makes sense to err on the side of privacy for marginalized minorities. Additionally, MOS:DEADNAME logically follows from the two rules at the top of WP:NOTE. --WhyBeNormal (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

it is literally a dead name. It no longer exists. She did not choose to be born as a boy. --AliceBzh (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a dead name. Rachel Levine would have performed recorded work under the name (REDACTED) Levine as a medical professional. In order to keep that link to previous work, her birth name should be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎12.177.192.197 (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand what a deadname is. The Deadnaming article may help clarify what the term means, and the Manual of Style at WP:DEADNAME clarified that we do not use deadnames unless the subject was already notable under that name. Levine was not, so we do not include her former name. POLITANVM ^talk 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is, Rachel Levine performed medical work as (REDACTED) Levine. These are medical records that cant be destroyed. This article should still link Rachel Levine with work performed by (REDACTED) Levine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.177.192.197 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME is quite clear that we should not. If you disagree, feel free to take it up at WT:MOSBIO, but until such point as it is changed, we will leave the name out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I would also add that, now that this has been clearly explained, continuing to throw the deadname around on this talk page could be considered disruptive behaviour. I have redacted the deadname from the comments above as it is not necessary for anybody to mention what the deadname actually is, even when discussing whether it should be included. If the subject comes up again, and there is no reason why it should, please just say "her deadname" or "her birth name" and it will be perfectly clear what you are talking about. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Bill Clinton was not born as a Clinton. He had a different last name. His last name was changed while a teenager, way before he did professional work as a lawyer. Why do we know his birth last name Blythe? (Feel free to redact it.) It is a deadname. Scrub it from wikipedia! Another example is 38th President Gerald Ford. (Feel free to redact that too.) That was not all his birth name. Why is "Leslie Lynch King Jr." on his wikipedia page? Another one to scrub from wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwakkles (talk • contribs) 23:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sarcasm like this is unhelpful. Feel free to read the MOS page linked above, which is specific to transgender subjects, which Clinton and Ford are not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thinly veiled politicization of an encyclopedia is even more unhelpful. Dgcaste (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest the guidelines on how we write about trans subjects be changed, WT:MOSBIO is thataway. But we are not going to contradict established consensus on a single article just because you think it is "politicization" to follow our own guidelines, which are by the way in line with how most reputable publications write about trans subjects. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as being apolitical. Ever. To assume otherwise is to assume that the status quo is unbiased and objective, which is not only false but is itself a deeply political assumption. Additionally, as User:GorillaWarfare noted above me, the WP guidlines and MOS is entirely congruent with the MOS of basically all reputable sources. And I encourage you to read all the above-linked sources. Especially WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:DEADNAME. --WhyBeNormal (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm absolutely baffled why her birth name wouldn't be included. It's editorializing and *assuming* she is at least ashamed of her transition. This is an encyclopedia, where facts matter more than editors' presumptions/feelings. She's the United States Assistant Secretary for Health. The 'deadnaming' excuse assumes she is ashamed or that she seeks protection (which is inherently offensive). Editorializing, selecting which *facts* are appropriate, has no place on an encyclopedia. Not that it needs to be said, but she is *openly transgender*. Not including her birth name is the opposite the normalization of LGBTQ+ and at odds with the mission of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, policies that are at odds with the purpose of Wikipedia are inherently counterproductive. I can't think of worse policy for an encyclopedia than to have folks who think they know best censoring facts.
Opertinicy (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You may be baffled, but MOS:DEADNAME has been the subject of repeated, widely participated RfCs on WT:MOSBIO (and widely announced elsewhere). You might want to read up on our policies and site-wide consensus before you opine. To cut to the chase, none of the gratuitous assumptions of the post you just made are relevant to the policy (e.g., "being ashamed", "facts versus feelings" or "seeking protection"). Newimpartial (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Opertinicy, I've mentioned this on my user talk page replies to you, but no amount of griping about how you feel about Wikipedia's guidelines on the former names of trans subjects will actually change anything unless you begin a formal discussion at WT:MOS. If you truly believe that a discussion to try to change the guideline would be fruitful, feel free to do so, though I would echo Newimpartial's points that the previous discussions received wide participation and so seem unlikely to change as dramatically as you're hoping.

As for your guesses about how Levine feels about having her former name included, we could spend all day speculating, but in the end we don't know her preference on the inclusion of her name in this article, and so we go with the guideline. However your comment that the omission of birth names is "the opposite the normalization of LGBTQ+" is frankly not the general consensus of trans rights organizations; it might be your own opinion, but it is not a widespread one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's bad policy and at odds with the mission statement of Wikipedia. What would satisfy you for her birthname to be included? A signed letter from her? What standard is being set here? She's a transgender champion whom I've met, and I think she would be annoyed that this is even a controversy. Opertinicy (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If she would like to specifically request her birth name be included, sure, I imagine we'd respect that wish. Otherwise, you can begin a discussion to change the guideline, as I've already stated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The requirement would be for her to time travel back before her transition and make sure she meets Wikipedia Notability standards through her actions before announcing her gender and changing her name. That, or she could announce now that she prefers to use her pre-transition name when discussing events from before her transition, but almost nobody does that. And the cost of time travel is prohibitive, as I assume you know. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Silly me, forgetting to mention the obvious third option... GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap but time travel ... isn't. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Page refers to person as she/woman when biologically the person is a he/man. Please be accurate based on science. 213.113.94.46 (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please read the notice at the top of the talk page regarding identity guidelines. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

please edit

“Person Life” should be Personal Life. Yes...it’s minor, but I think we’re all grammar mavens here, lol. Davey1107 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

I just wanted to change some of the wording in some parts such as "She was confirmed by the Senate on March, 24, 2021. She is one of only a few openly transgender government officials in the United States, and is the first to hold an office that requires senate confirmation" like that sounds kind of robotic so I'd want to change it to "On March, 24, 2021 the Senate voted 52-48 on her nomination making Dr Levine the first openly Transgender federal official to serve in a senate confirmed position upon her swearing in as Assistant Secretary of Health ." Sunnyboi18 (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I've copy-editied the lede. I removed the explicit mention of the senate confirmation – it's implicit in the final sentence and also in her holding the position – but if anybody feels that it's important enough to have its own sentence in the lede please put it back in. Wham2001 (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Notability prior to transition

That Dr. Levine was not notable prior to her transition has been stated or implied several times on this talk page, but there has been very little discussion of the question. The only argument I could find to either position (although I may have missed another) was GorillaWarfare correctly pointing out that “Levine has primarily been notable since becoming Pennsylvania's Physician General, which postdates her coming out.” Unfortunately, that Dr. Levine has become more notable since getting a political appointment does not tell us whether she was notable prior to that appointment. In fact, WP:EMSC explicitly states that scientists require less significant coverage than politicians to establish notability because journalists discuss politicians more.

The criteria for notability as outlined in WP:GNG consist of significant (defined as “more than a trivial mention” and “does not need to be the main topic of the source material”), reliable, independent, sources. It seems clear to me that Dr. Levine, before her transition and as a medical scientist, already met the notability criteria; she was a published expert on eating disorders and was interviewed as such. Before transitioning, Dr. Levine was also chief of the Penn State Hershey Medical Center. In the words of Katie Zezima of the Washington Post, before her transition, “Levine had a full life: a wife, two children, a career at the top of [her] field.” Most people who reach the top of their field are notable. In support of that notability, here are a few of the sources mentioning or interviewing Dr. Levine before her transition:

• Working, Russell (15 September 2008). "Teen's 34-day fast nourishes her faith". Chicago Tribune. Chicago, IL, USA. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
• She was one of two experts discussing medical complications as part of the ‘Meet the Experts Session’ at the 2010 International Conference on Eating Disorders: Katzman, D.; Levine, R. (10–12 June 2010). Meet the Experts Session - Medical Complications (PDF). International Conference on Eating Disorders 2010. Salzburg, Austria: Academy for Eating Disorders. Retrieved 22 May 2021.
• Hutchison, Courtney (24 November 2010). "Eating Disorders Strike Younger and Younger". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
• Carollo, Kim (10 December 2010). "French Model Isabelle Caro's Death Highlights Tough Personal Battles Against Anorexia". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
• The 2016 Washington Post article quoted above: Zezima, Katie (1 June 2016). "Meet Rachel Levine, one of the very few transgender public officials in America". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C., USA. Retrieved 2021-05-22.

In addition, prior to her transition, Dr. Levine was already a published expert on eating disorders. Here is a partial list of her publications dating from before her transition:

• McFillin, R. K.; Cahn, S. C.; Burks, V. S.; Levine, M. P.; Loney, S. L.; Levine, R. L. (2012). "Social Information-Processing and Coping in Adolescent Females Diagnosed With an Eating Disorder: Toward a Greater Understanding of Control". 20 (1): 42–59. doi:10.1080/10640266.2012.635565. Retrieved 2021-05-22. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• Levine, M. M. P.; Levine, R. L. (2010). "Chapter 7 - Psychiatric Medication: Management, Myths, and Mistakes". In Maine, M.; McGilley, B. H.; Bunnell, D. W. (eds.). Treatment of Eating Disorders; Bridging the Research - Practice Gap. Academic Press. pp. 111–126. ISBN 978-0-12-375668-8.
• Levine, M. P.; Gershenson, B.; Falkinburg, K.; Levine, R. (April 30 – May 2, 2009). Eating disorders in anabaptist patients: Offering insights into the etiology of eating disorders (PDF). International Conference on Eating Disorders 2009. Cancun, Mexico: Academy for Eating Disorders. Retrieved 22 May 2021.
• Levine, M. P.; Levine, R. L. (4 March 2008). "The Medical Minute: Eating disorder awareness". Penn State News. Hershey, PA, USA. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
• Peters, T. E.; Parvin, M.; Petersen, C.; Faircloth, V. C.; Levine, R. L. (2007). "A case report of Wernicke's encephalopathy in a pediatric patient with anorexia nervosa - restricting type". Journal of Adolescent Health. 40 (4): 376–383. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.11.140. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
• Levine, R. L. (2002). "Endocrine aspects of eating disorders in adolescents". Adolescent medicine. 13 (1): 129–144. Retrieved 2021-05-22.
• Ostrov, B. E.; Levine, R. L. (1998). "16. Interactions of puberty with rheumatic diseases, contraception and gynaecological issues". In Isenberg, D. K.; Miller, J. J. III (eds.). Adolescent Rheumatology. Taylor & Francis. pp. 301–324. ISBN 978-1-853-17553-4.
• Henderson, C. J.; Ostrov, B. E.; Levine, R. L.; Lovell, D. J. (1998). "17. Nutrition and the adolescent with rheumatic disease". In Isenberg, D. K.; Miller, J. J. III (eds.). Adolescent Rheumatology. Taylor & Francis. pp. 325–340. ISBN 978-1-853-17553-4.

In light of the multiple page protections, the recurring problem of edit-wars—which are, in my understanding, mainly over the inclusion of her birthname—and of Dr. Levine’s notability under her prior name, the solution appears to be the correct application of MOS:DEADNAME by including her deadname in the lead sentence. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC).

She was certainly repeatedly published under her former name prior to her transition, and she unquestionably was an expert by then, but I am not at all convinced that she would've met the GNG like you claim. One of the four articles you provide from before 2011 briefly references Levine's medical opinion in an article focused on a teen fasting (Chicago Tribune). The two ABC articles don't mention Levine in the text, but embed videos of her speaking about anorexia—I'm having a tough time getting the videos to play, but it appears it may be the same video in both articles? The last (the conference pamphlet) just lists Levine's name to say that she was appearing on a panel. This is by no means significant coverage. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

They were different interviews, and the second interview was indeed re-used in the following article:

• Hutchison, Courtney (9 June 2011). "Binge Eater to Bulimic: How Weight-Loss Surgery Can Trigger Eating Disorders". ABC News. Retrieved 2021-07-05.

I completely agree that the three interviews, when taken on their own, wouldn’t really be enough to establish significant coverage. That being said, given that she was a scientist at the time, rather than a politician, the bar for significant coverage is lower. Significant coverage could be established based on her publications and the Washington Post article alone. Those, combined with the three interviews and conference panel, leave little question. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Those sources would not establish notability, regardless of whether you treated her as a scientist or a politician. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Pro bug catcher, I'm afraid I don't understand your argument here for pre-transition Notability. Nothing a person authors can contribute to their Notability unless they are discussed by critics in reviews. Interviews never grant Notability. Nothing published after a person transitions to a new name can lend Notability to them under their former name, even if the former name is mentioned. So I'm afraid I'm just not seeing any support for pre-transition Notability in this instance. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:EMSC clearly states that politicians require a lot more coverage than scientists to be deemed significant. Pre-transition, Dr. Levine met the criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, which is enough to establish notability more generally.

Could either of you point me towards the notability guidelines that specify notability cannot be lent to people after major life events of any kind? Such a policy doesn’t make sense to me because many notable people only became notable posthumously (e.g., Emily Dickinson, Vincent van Gogh, John Kennedy Toole), that transition would be different seems illogical. I would also love to read the guidelines that state interviews never grant notability, could you link those as well? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no principle that notability cannot be lent to people after major life events of any kind. What we have instead is a much more specific principle, namely, that DEADNAMEs are treated differently from other former names; for living people, they are not to be included unless the person concerned was clearly notable while using their former name. A handwave to WP:NACADEMIC does not show such notability (and to be clear, the list of co-authored publications above has not shown that NACADEMIC was met); even an NACADEMIC pass for a person who did not otherwise pass WP:NBIO would probably not allow the former name to appear unless required as bibliographic info. "Outing" of otherwise non-notable trans academics and writers is not allowed by policy, as discussed in a widely-participated RfC on deadnames. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankfully, adding Dr. Levine’s deadname would not be outing her, as she has given her deadname to journalists in several interviews (I would be happy to compile a list if such interviews if you would like me to). In light of the sources listed above, it seems clear to me that she was notable prior to her transition, but leaving that matter aside for a moment, my understanding of MOS:DEADNAME is that we can list Dr. Levine’s publications from before her transition without editing her (dead)name, specifically: “In source citations, do not remove names of authors (…)”. Is that correct? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but adding bibliographic citations to this article with full names rather than initials, just to force the deadname into the article and with no other rationale, would undoubtedly be considered disruptive. Also, how open a BLP subject is with their deadname, in interviews, has no bearing on MOS:DEADNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, initials would be enough in a list of references, especially since Dr. Levine’s initials have not changed. From earlier, would you be able to point to relevant guidelines about interviews not being relevant to notability? Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion; you and GorillaWarfare have provided your opinions, while I've provided reliable secondary sources. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:N and WP:PSTS specify that primary sources do not contribute to Notability. In turn, WP:PRIMARYNEWS stipulates that interviews are taken to be primary sources, by WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! As is obvious from my previous comments, I didn't know interviews counted as primary sources. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If Levine's actions weren't notable prior to Levine identifying as a woman, then we wouldn't note them. Why do we note them? Because they're notable. The notion of attempting to erase the male history of a transgender person is an insult to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia (despite what its "Manual of Style" has been edited to say). We don't omit the life events, and identities, of famous people in other contexts simply because the person wasn't "notable" at the time. Why do it here? It's the very nature of a biography. Who was the person before they became the person we know? We shouldn't make an exception here, solely for the dubious purpose of cancelling the person's male identity. John2510 (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The rule, established and refined over a decade by hundreds and hundreds of editors, is that the inclusion of a trans person's former name is only permitted if the person was notable while using that name. (If you would like to see documentation of some of that history, links may be found here). WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to throw out - or make an arbitrary exception to - a principle that has achieved a high WP:CONLEVEL with the participation of hundreds and hundreds of editors in relevant RfCs.

Life events, etc., are not subject to this Notability-based special rule, but rather usual BLP policy, with the added twist that, except for special circumstances (like names of awards or sporting competitions), Wikipedia does not misgender biographical subjects in its articles. Newimpartial (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying I personally WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. I'm saying it runs contrary to the very principles of Wikipedia - to provide relevant facts and history. But if there's a strong consensus among active editors is to make an arbitrary exception in the isolated case of transgendered people, well... that's Wikipedia. John2510 (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

If you haven't read the large RfC discussions from 2019 to present on this topic (list linked above), I don't think you are qualified to assess whether the exception is arbitrary or whether it flows from fundamental pillars of the community, such as WP:BLP norms. Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"She is the first female PHSCC four-star admiral."

Rachel Levine is transgender, Rachel Levine is not female. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C05:2422:E900:84DC:6B9D:3FED:71B5 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but of my current understanding, being transgender means identifying as a different gender identity than what was assigned at birth. Dr. Levine identifies as female, differing from her initially assigned male gender at birth. Yes, Levine is female, but being assigned male at birth is what defines her as transgender. Moreover, cited sources mention Levine as both the first openly transgender four-star officer and first female four-star admiral in the Public Health Service. Both are, as far as the sources say, true. Correction us thus unnecessary. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done MOS:GENDERID is the relevant guideline, and supports how this article is describing her. It is also how she is being described in RS. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Collapse as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC

This is an interesting question. Is it really appropriate to give such a description to someone who has benefited from white male privilege the majority of their life? To clarify, Levine identified as a white male for about 54 years of her life, benefitting from the significant advantages associated white privilege and the patriarchy. We don't know if someone who identified with a woman that entire time would have had the same career advantages, particularly in fields such as medicine which have been traditionally dominated by men. It seems unfair to prevent such an accomplishment from being attained by a woman who has had to fight these deeply rooted systematic disadvantages her entire life and career. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC) That is a question that is ultimately beyond the scope of an article talk page to discuss. Reliable sources describe her as the organization's first female four-star admiral, so we do too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Lavine as a transgender does not fit the textbook definition of “female”. While Lavine may identify as the female version of the human species, she lacks the biological equipment, such as eggs, that would define her as female. This creates confusion with our language and we need to come up with new terminology for the transgenders and reserve the traditional terms of male, female, and associated pronouns with the traditional definitions. Please change any “female” and/or “woman” like terms to “transgender” or “transgender woman” to align with correct terminology and correct context to prevent future confusion. Finally, it’s inaccurate to applaud “first female” accomplishments for Lavine when 75% of Lavine’s career was done as a man and with all the advantages of being a man. Grimmyb (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Whatever the case may be, such edits on the wiki are decided by WP:CONSENSUS. If the majority in this talk page are in agreement, then yes, the changes will be made. However, if the opposite happens, the edits are made based on whatever consensus is reached. As it stands right now, reliable sources (see WP:PERENNIAL) state that Levine is both the first openly transgender and female four-star officer in U.S. history, so I see no reason to change that in the article. Others may disagree, but that's for them to voice here. Some of the points you made have already been addressed above.WP:GENDERID is a useful read. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC) Fact check: "women make up the majority of students in U.S. medical schools. In 2019, 46,878 medical school students (50.5 percent) are women and 45,855 (49.4 percent) are men, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)." The Big Number: Women now outnumber men in medical schools In our lifetimes, one could get into a school of medicine in the United States with a bad MCAT score or GPA regardless of their gender. https://www.aamc.org/news-insights/press-releases/majority-us-medical-students-are-women-new-data-show The Big Number: Women now outnumber men in medical schools (Graduates of medical schools in India or Nigeria who can pass USMLE got the most privilege since they didn't have to pay $400,000 for their physician's degree. --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

"Info box"

I don't what else it is called, but the box that summarizes a person's information. The last section is incorrectly labeled. The box is labeled "Military service" and then lists her as an "Admiral". The US Public Health Service is not a branch of the US Military. Dr. Levine might be an "Admiral", but has never served in the US Military and does not now. The box should be relabeled.Scottca075 (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A physician working in the Medical Corps (United States Army) does the same job.

US Public Health Service = Medical Corps (United States Army), etc. --14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

No, the USPHS does not equal the US Army. The USPHS is under the Department of Health and Human Services. It is not under the Department of Defense. It is not a branch of the US Military. It is inaccurate to say it is. Wikipedia should be about facts. The fact is Dr. Levine has never been in the US Military and is not now. The Info Box should be corrected because it is giving incorrect information.Scottca075 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

See Uniformed services of the United States. A physician in the Army doesn't load cannon with artillery crew members.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you say, the USPHS isn't a branch of the military and it is inaccurate to call it so. Physicians in the US military do undergo arms training commiserate with their rank and do have to go through qualification. Serving officers in the USPHS do not because they are not the US military.Scottca075 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that U.S. Army physicians are directly commissioned to bypass the regular physical and firearms training.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The article makes it clear that she serves in the USPHS. The "military" title in that infobox is simply a byproduct of how the Infobox_officeholder template works. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Then the template needs to be corrected or fixed to reflect accurate information, or removed altogether, since is providing incorrect information.Scottca075 (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit requested. This is a valid concern. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: If this edit request goes through, we should also apply this to political/government officeholders who have or had ranks in non-militarized uniformed services such as the aforementioned USPHSCC and NOAA Commissioned Corps. Propose that the standard custom template rename there should be "Uniformed service" as opposed to "Military service". The U.S. Coast Guard should still count under military service though, since they are a service of the United States Armed Forces, but not under Defense except under presidential authorization in a national emergency or state of war. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

All, please read United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The lead sentence of that article says "The United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC),[9] also referred to as the Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service,[10] is the federal uniformed service of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), and is one of the eight uniformed services of the United States." If she is a commissioned officer in the PHS, she is in the uniformed service of the U.S., has a military rank, and deserves to have it in her infobox. The corps is headed by the Surgeon General of the United States, who holds the rank of vice admiral. The fact that her superior is a vice admiral makes me doubt if her correct rank is "admiral", but that can be looked up. By law, her rank as Assistant Secretary for Health is four star admiral. "If the appointee is also a serving uniformed officer of the commissioned corps, by statute, he or she is appointed as a four-star admiral and is the highest ranking officer in the commissioned corps,[1][2]" -- MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The ASH, whether a PHS officer or not, does not lead the commissioned corps directly, but leads the entire United States Public Health Service, of which the commissioned corps is part of, but as a four-star admiral is indeed the most senior officer of the commissioned corps. Another example, Mark A. Milley is technically the most senior U.S. Army officer in the armed forces as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but he doesn't lead the Army itself. The infobox refers to the parameter "military service" and the PHS Commissioned Corps is not a military service despite the use of military ranks, but a uniformed service. I will bring up foreign countries for a second: a police service that uses a military rank system does not always have to be a branch of the armed forces. The Indonesian National Police has some military ranks, but they are no longer a part of the armed forces. Regardless, this is something that should be addressed in my opinion. The new parameter above can help quite a bit in fixing confusion. SuperWIKI (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

RE: Another example, Mark A. Milley is technically the most senior U.S. Army officer in the armed forces as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but he doesn't lead the Army itself. Maybe he doesn't, but his infobox lists his military service as "United States Army" and his rank as "General". -- MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that wasn't addressing the infobox issue (my bad), it was discussing the recently rectified issue about the ASH leading the PHS Commissioned Corps while reporting to a vice admiral. That seems to have been striked. SuperWIKI (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It may help to look at this template documentation section and the one following it. It may be that {{infobox person}} with {{Infobox officeholder}} embedded into it, or vice versa, is a better fit for this article than just one infobox template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example of how that would work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the infobox by implementing the suggestion of Jonesey95 above. I alone am responsible for the edit.--Mox La Push (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

In the final paragraph of the "Pennsylvania Department of Health" section, add the following sentence: "During the pandemic, she oversaw the implementation of a policy requiring nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients, although she chose to move her own mother out of a nursing home." GeebaKhap (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please provide additional sourcing for this to show that it is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support. I support the proposed edit, in principle, per WP:CRIT and WP:BLPBALANCE. Here are four more reliable sources on the subject: The Patriot-News, WHTM, Associated Press, and Newsweek.--Mox La Push (talk) 06:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The Patriot-News, WHTM, and Newsweek are not reliable for this content. See Wikipedia:RSP. The AP source does not mention Levine's mother at all. The words "mom" and "mother" do not appear in the article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Shibbolethink why are the BBC, The Patriot-News and WHTM not reliable sources? GeebaKhap (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

★ User:Shibbolethink, unless I am mistaken, The Patriot-News and WHTM are not listed at WP:RSP. The news operations of The Patriot-News and WHTM―both entities based in Harrisburg, PA―have earned numerous nominations and awards for journalistic excellence. So, what is the basis for your claim that they are not reliable sources for content regarding Dr. Levine's tenure as Pennsylvania's health secretary?
★ Also, according to WP:RSP, regarding Newsweek (2013–present), the "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". So, once more, what is the basis for your claim that the cited Newsweek article is not a reliable source for content regarding Levine's tenure as Pennsylvania's health secretary?
★ Although the AP article does not mention Levine's mother it does support the first part of GeebaKhap's proposed edit i.e. "During the pandemic, she oversaw the implementation of a policy requiring nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients ..." As with the Newsweek article, the AP piece also includes direct quotes from Levine defending her decisions. --Mox La Push (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confusing The Patriot News and WHTM with other outlets. Newsweek doesn't have consensus on this particular content yet. I didn't see the BBC article because it wasn't mentioned in that comment. I would say it is only NPOV if we also include Levine's comments on the matter. Particularly the quote: “My mother requested, and my sister and I as her children complied to move her to another location during the Covid-19 outbreak,” Levine said. “My mother is 95 years old. She is very intelligent and more than competent to make her own decisions.” as many of these sources also include. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Looks like there is no consensus for inclusion at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Proposed addition to main text

A new subsection to the "Pennsylvania Department of Health" heading in the current main text is proposed to include the text below. The first two sentences below (and their references) are currently in the main text.

COVID-19 response
During 2020 and until January 23, 2021, Levine led the public health response on COVID-19 in Pennsylvania as the state secretary of health. She worked closely on a daily basis with the FEMA director and led a daily press briefing. Levine also came in for criticism over her handling of the pandemic, particularly in regard to nursing home patients.

A 2016 statewide audit of Pennsylvania nursing homes found "outdated regulations, dangerously low staffing requirements for nurses, and overarching issues with weak and inconsistent inspections." Three years later the Pennsylvania auditor general found little had changed. Responding to the audit and allegations that her department had failed to remedy the shortcomings, Levine said "new regulations were imminent and would fix the problems." However, more than a year later, reporters with the investigative partnership Spotlight PA found: "Not only do problems remain, but the coronavirus has likely exploited the shortcomings, fueling deadly outbreaks across the state."

On March 18, 2020, Levine directed nursing homes to admit new patients, including "stable patients who have had the COVID-19 virus” despite the warnings of nursing home trade groups that such policies "could unnecessarily cost more lives." Although the stated purpose of this decision was to alleviate overcrowding in "acute care settings”, according to a team of reporters from the USA Today Network and Bucks County Courier Times, hospitals in most Pennsylvania counties were not experiencing overcrowding at the time. Spotlight PA, also noted that, under Levine, Pennsylvania had a "robust and aggressive" plan to protect nursing home residents but it "was never fully implemented". Spotlight PA also repeatedly reported on erroneous reporting of COVID deaths and other data by state officials.

On May 12, 2020, WHTM reported that following the change in nursing home admissions policies, Levine had moved her own mother out of a nursing home. Levine defended the move: " 'My mother requested, and my sister and I as her children complied to move her to another location during the Covid-19 outbreak,' Levine said. 'My mother is 95 years old. She is very intelligent and more than competent to make her own decisions.' " By the summer of 2020, around 70% of COVID deaths in Pennsylvania were in nursing homes, leading to renewed criticism that state officials were "letting infected patients back into nursing homes" and also that the state had stopped health inspections nursing homes. 

The issue of Levine's mother and the high COVID death toll in Pennsylvania nursing homes would momentarily be highlighted nationally after President Biden nominated Levine for the post of US Assistant Secretary for Health. As Newsweek reported, "The criticism ... has come from a few Republican leaders ..." Newsweek also fact-checked the claim that Levine put COVID-19 patients into nursing homes, concluding the claim was false and "There is no evidence to support [Representative Marjorie Taylor] Greene's claim that Levine placed coronavirus-positive patients in nursing home facilities, thus likely contributing 'to the thousands of elderly deaths in Pennsylvania.' " Questions about missing nursing home COVID death and case data would also come up again during Levine's confirmation hearings.

In 2021, Pennsylvania nursing home trade groups indicated they were unaware of any nursing home in the state that was forced to involuntarily accept a COVID-positive patient or that Levine's March 18, 2020, order had led to any deaths or disease outbreaks. In July 2021 the US Department of Justice (DoJ) announced it would not be investigating "whether Pennsylvania violated federal law by ordering nursing homes to accept residents who had been treated for COVID-19 in a hospital." Eleven months earlier, the DoJ had informed the governors of Pennsylvania and three other states it was seeking information to determine whether such orders "may have resulted in the deaths of thousands of elderly nursing home residents."

References

Before Levine's federal nomination there was significant and varied criticism of her and her department's handling of the pandemic. That track record is relevant to her appointment and performance in her new federal role. The proposed addition relies exclusively on reliable sources and brings the article into conformance with WP:CRIT and WP:BLPBALANCE. --Mox La Push (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph has nothing to do with Levine and therefore would be WP:UNDUE for this article. Likewise for the last paragraph, it is only very peripherally related to Levine and would likely. be WP:UNDUE. These two paragraphs belong in an article about pennsylvania's nursing homes, not an article about levine. The rest of the content, imo, is appropriate. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire second paragraph has much to do with Levine and quotes her directly. It concerns whether she addressed nursing home safety shortcomings found by the PA Auditor General the year after she became PA's Physician General and the year before she assumed her post as PA Secretary of Health. It also discusses how those shortcomings impacted the COVID death toll in PA nursing homes. The source for the second paragraph cites and quotes her repeatedly and her photo is featured prominently in the article.
The last paragraph supports her claim that her nursing home order did not lead to excess deaths in PA nursing homes and references the closure of a federal inquiry into nursing home deaths that began on her watch in PA. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

★ Above, User:Shibbolethink says: "The rest of the content, imo, is appropriate." Since there seems to be consensus in support of most of the proposed addition, I will boldly add the sections not currently disputed. I will not add the second and final paragraphs that User:Shibbolethink expressed concerns about. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Remaining text in dispute

On March 18, 2020, Levine directed nursing homes to admit new patients, including "stable patients who have had the COVID-19 virus” despite the warnings of nursing home trade groups that such policies "could unnecessarily cost more lives." Although the stated purpose of this decision was to alleviate overcrowding in "acute care settings”, according to a team of reporters from the USA Today Network and Bucks County Courier Times, hospitals in most Pennsylvania counties were not experiencing overcrowding at the time. Spotlight PA, also noted that, under Levine, Pennsylvania had a "robust and aggressive" plan to protect nursing home residents but it "was never fully implemented". Spotlight PA also repeatedly reported on erroneous reporting of COVID deaths and other data by state officials.

In 2021, Pennsylvania nursing home trade groups indicated they were unaware of any nursing home in the state that was forced to involuntarily accept a COVID-positive patient or that Levine's March 18, 2020, order had led to any deaths or disease outbreaks. In July 2021 the US Department of Justice (DoJ) announced it would not be investigating "whether Pennsylvania violated federal law by ordering nursing homes to accept residents who had been treated for COVID-19 in a hospital." Eleven months earlier, the DoJ had informed the governors of Pennsylvania and three other states it was seeking information to determine whether such orders "may have resulted in the deaths of thousands of elderly nursing home residents."

References

I've created this new subsection to simplify discussion. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

I would like to add a sentence to the career section of this page. I would like to point out that Levine did not serve one day in the Navy. 2601:19B:A00:4CF0:78C8:522C:F3C1:2007 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2021

Can you please add the categories "American women physicians" and "American women academics" to this article? Thank you. 2600:1700:FB20:2EB0:24D6:E0A3:7362:6475 (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done --DanielRigal (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

She married a woman in 1988?

Marriage between people of the same gender was not legal in the United States until 2015. Someone needs to clarify this because the way it reads now is ridiculous... Wikipedia is not censored? Why are we shying away from facts and wording things in a way that makes no sense? 96.30.164.112 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

See the previous sentence: She transitioned in 2011. Politanvm ^talk 20:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Please change "Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born October 28, 1957)[1]" to "Rachel Leland Levine (/ləˈviːn/; born (Redacted) Levine; October 28, 1957)[1]"

The reference article [1] for the current name also includes the birth name, (Redacted). I've read the Talk page about this and that you don't include the birth name of certain people if they weren't relevant figures prior to their current name. However, many prominent figures weren't relevant under their birth names. For example, "Naomi Judd (born Diana Ellen Judd; January 11, 1946 – April 30, 2022)". Naomi Judd was never a public figure under her birth name, yet it is included in her wiki. Please apply these rules fairly and either remove the birth names of all celebrities who never performed under their birth name or include the known birth names of everyone. 2600:1700:22C0:1300:AD95:3181:AA57:A260 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: MOS:DEADNAME. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2022

Birth name is missing: Born (redacted) Levine 120.150.222.126 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Per MOS:DEADNAME, Levine's deadname should not be mentioned in the article, as she was not notable under that name. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Name redacted above. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Why does the policy of keeping Rachel Levine's birth name a secret apply to this article but not to the Caitlyn Jenner article? 2601:600:8180:7560:75F0:9522:920B:A695 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can read at MOS:DEADNAME, A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it. Jenner was notable under another name, while Levine was not. Politanvm ^talk 03:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How would we know, if we didn't know that Rachel used to be (redacted)? Do we take your word for it, or their publicist's? Seems exploitable... InverseZebra (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on those who wish to include content to demonstrate that it is notable, with reliable references, and that it complies with our policies. If it is not evident that a trans person was notable under their deadname (and that does not seem to be the case here) then we can just assume that they are not. We are not required to prove a negative to satisfy other people's idle curiosity. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

How could anyone find notable content if we don't know their name? It's obvious you don't want to know the details, and don't want us to know them either, in case they're bad.

When my comment was redacted, how did the editor know if I'd used a real name or not without having the facts available? Sam, Frank, Richard, or Mark. Why do they get the facts but you're trying to make sure nobody else can? InverseZebra (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

InverseZebra It's not "in case they're bad", it is because they have no encyclopedic value to our readers. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but rather an internet encyclopedia. There is an important difference between information and knowledge, and it is that nuanced difference that justifies not including the deadname even if it is correct. It is just information, but not really knowledge. You can find it elsewhere on the internet, I'd imagine, so it's not like we're gatekeeping information. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, you are gatekeeping information. Clearly. And the point is that doing so serves to make it harder to investigate the subject of the article. We don't know what other information the article is missing.

You linked to NOTINDISCRIMINATE which is odd because nothing in that section covers providing relevant information like someone's name, but if you read that entry yourself you'd notice the next heading is REDACTION: "Wikipedia is not Censored". You'd do well to consider that. InverseZebra (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

see diff and other diff. if you want to change policy then this is not the place to change policy, see those diffs. if you're claiming that the status quo of the article doesn't follow policy then explain how. --Jeremyb (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding When my comment was redacted, how did the editor know if I'd used a real name or not - it doesn't matter. Whether it's doxxing an editor or posting a deadname, it gets removed whether correct or incorrect. This way we remove all ambiguity, as well as prevent "guessing" the correct name by what gets hidden and what doesn't. Primefac (talk) 11:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Add an FAQ?

Should we add an FAQ about the deadname? It encompasses like 90% of edit requests — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, because people don't read them. They immediately go for a new section or edit request link and never even read the top of the page. This is also evidenced by the fact that we get so many edit requests - if anyone had bothered reading the talk page before trying to post, they would see the answers already. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

True, but if even a very small number of people who are genuinely confused do read it then it might help a little bit. More to the point, it makes it easier to just reply to silly requests with "Please read the FAQ". We could probably copy one from another article and adapt it as required. There is also a way to make a FAQ or notice appear on the edit page itself. I don't know how to do that but that might be worth a try. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The edit notice may be a better solution actually, thanks for bringing that up DanielRigal. I wonder though if it will be visible since IP edits also have their own edit notices. It certainly will cause less banner blindness than the many, many talk page banners, but is worth noting. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 20:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in having an FAQ, but yes, as Primefac says, the people making the repetitive requests about this won't notice/heed it because they clearly don't notice/heed where the request has already been answered. An edit notice might help a little, or at least couldn't hurt, but consider that the article/talkpage on Fascism has every banner and edit notice it can and people still ask to plz can u add that it's leftwing. -sche (talk) 00:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Added faq Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

former name

The following discussion 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.

---

I was going to edit this page to include her birth name, I'm glad I checked the archives first. This policy is news to me. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

What a bizarre and manipulative policy, and one which has nothing to do with literary style. It has no basis in reality, so it's simply a Wikifact, created through consensus. The early life actions of celebrities who have changed their names are rarely notable, yet we include their birth names. Why? Because it's an inescapable part of who they are, and an immutable part of who they were. That should be done here, rather than attempting to make some misguided social statement through the omission of facts.

A good deal of the article addresses Levine's career path while identifying as a man. If his actions as a man weren't notable, they should be removed from the article, along with other encyclopedic material from that time in his life. John2510 (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi John, this is somewhat mixing up the WP:NOTABILITY guideline with whether information is WP:DUE to include. Notability determines whether there should be an article about a person, not what exactly should be in that article. The current consensus on this page is that Levine wouldn't have met WP:NBIO before she became Secretary of Health for Pennsylvania, at which point she already went by Rachel. Obviously, we still include events from before a person becomes notable, otherwise nobody would have an Early life section. But the nature of name changes for transgender people is different from name changes for marriage/stage names, so there is separate guidance (MOS:GENDERID vs. MOS:CHANGEDNAME).

Either way, the MOS is clear here. If you feel it should be changed, this Talk page isn't the right place to do it. I'll also note that the AP Stylebook advises against using former names for transgender people, so this is hardly an unusual style guideline. Politanvm ^talk 19:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"...the nature of name changes for transgender people is different from name changes for marriage/stage names" Different how? A person who marries may change her name because she is beginning a new life as a new person. That's what's happening with a transgendered person. Both are quite different from a stage name change. We shouldn't uniquely forget the prior identity of a transgendered person in the interest of erasing factual history. John2510 (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• If you're interested in learning more about the difference between deadnames and maiden names, we have articles about them.
• If you're interested in changing Wikipedia's Manual of Style for writing about transgender people, then WT:MOSBIO would be the place to discuss.
• If you believe this article misapplies MOS:DEADNAME, then let us know. There was a discussion in the previous section, but of course consensus can change.

Otherwise, this talk page isn't a forum for discussing gender ideologies. Politanvm ^talk 19:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I'm absolutely stunned that this is in MOS now. I don't understand how there can be a guideline on intentionally omitting plain, public, uncontroversial facts in BLP due to the possibility of offense-taking. Is there any similar guideline for omitting something as straightforward as a birth name in BLP? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The Manual of Style references the general privacy considerations of article subjects (WP:BLPPRIVACY), though the policy doesn't specifically mention dead names for transgender people. I'm not sure when the MOS:GENDERID was expanded to recommend not including dead names at all, but the guideline to avoid mentioning dead names in the lead sentence was added in 2015 as a result of this discussion, so it's hardly a recent change. Politanvm ^talk 16:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The decision to exclude non-notable deadnames entirely was made in 2020, though implementation and related discussions dragged into 2021. Some of the history of the decisions on this topic may be found here. Newimpartial (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, John, please don't misgender BLP subjects on Talk pages. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

His birthname should indeed be listed here. 156.57.0.55 (talk) 00:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this goes contrary to our policies and guidelines. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Misgendering redacted while leaving the comment, such as it is, otherwise unchanged. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Seriously? We do not need to be "redacting" every misgendering made on Wikipedia, otherwise we'd never do anything else. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, Primefac, you are showing an inexplicably lax attitude towards WP:BLP violations - this is a policy which is supposed to be enforced on Talk, not only in article space. It is hard for me to imagine a more profound BLP violation than deliberately misgendering someone, and many editors have been perma-blocked or site-banned by the community or on AE for exactly that. I am at a loss, therefore, to understand your edit summary here, where you said as long as it doesn't violate any of our policies - BLP is in fact, a core policy. "Call it out, but leave it here" is not what we do about serious BLP vios on article talk pages. Newimpartial (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If I am in the wrong, then by all means call me out on it and correct these issues, but I watch at least a dozen pages where people are consistently misgendered (whether through ignorance or intent) and other than requests for those individuals to stop misgendering the subject, they are neither redacted nor removed unless it also contains additional BLP violations. We either need to be consistent or stop pretending we are, and since I have yet to see even inconsistent application of "misgendering is a BLP violation and must be removed" I am going to go with the status quo, which currently is (as you say) "call it out, but leave it there". Primefac (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2022 (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 from zero to admiral?

Am I reading this right - this person got to admiral by virtue of their office without previously serving in any military-related capacity, without having any previous military rank? If so, this is quite peculiar, should not this be emphasized in article somehow? 45.94.118.118 (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Replying to myself. Checked article of Sergei_Shoigu whose promotion to Major General (from lieutenant) was also quite peculiar... And English article does not mention this peculiarity either (while Russia one does provide the info, without specifically pointing it out). Oh, well, I guess this is not such a big deal for the English Wikipedia =D 45.94.118.118 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI, it's actually relatively common in the Public Health Commission Corps, just by virtue of what they do. it's not like the regular military. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the case but, even if it was, it would not be for us to decide what is "peculiar". The Assistant Secretary for Health article says "If the appointee is also a serving uniformed officer of the commissioned corps, by statute, he or she is appointed as a four-star admiral" so maybe that is what happened here? That article also says that a civilian can hold the office as a civilian. This article doesn't say what Levine's situation is either way. If there is relevant coverage in reliable sources about this then maybe that can be used to clarify the article. We don't need to be digging into any pre-transition military career in detail but if she was a serving officer then we can say that. DanielRigal (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is not for us, the nameless people of the Internets to decide what is and what is not "peculiar". Because it is! It is what we do, we decide, we edit Wikipedia, we get overwritten! BUT. I would agree that IF there is some military service record, it should be mentioned. However, official page of R.Levine here https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/rachel-levine.html#:~:text=%40HHS_ASH-,Admiral%20Rachel%20L.,the%20U.S.%20Senate%20in%202021. does not mention any military career. It does mention other positions (although seemingly only "major" ones, not those like intern or a doctor, which, one would assume, were at once filled by this person...) 45.94.118.118 (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Four star admiral in this case refers to the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps being one of the Uniformed services of the United States. Four star refers to her seniority within the Corps, not a uniquely military duty and experience. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but it still *seemed* rather strange. Although I checked previous four holders of this position - and of them one was NOT granted any rank ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Koh ), and other three were granted flag-officer-grade rank despite (seemingly) not having any military rank before ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Giroir , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_K._Galson , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joxel_Garc%C3%ADa ), so indeed, promotion from zero to admiral is NOT unusual in this case, and maybe even NOT getting such a promotion is unusual. Case closed, I guess, cheers to all =D 45.94.118.118 (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH are the polices that forbid us from trying to edit reality in line with our own opinions of how it should be perceived. I should advise you to drop the stick but I do find your contorted efforts to avoid using her correct gender pronouns entertaining. DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No! Not dropping the stick! Because I resolved the issue (see above - answer to Ixtal) =D Also, I guess, when using "incorrect" pronouns is offensive for the one being called, and using "correct" pronouns is weird for the caller, then it is OK to not use any, so that both sides are not weirded out. (However, while this is not the best place for such revelations, I would agree that we should not try to offend transgender people by "deadnaming" or "misgendering" them.) Cheers and good day to all! 45.94.118.118 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Birth name

You should add Rachel’s birth name there’s no reason to leave that out 35.143.216.126 (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Primefac (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the birth name should be included. Levine has qualifications and publications under the so-called "dead"name, which of course lives on in print. Darmot and gilad (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Our policies and guidelines are quite clear on this. Consensus is her deadname should not be included. The second link I have provided includes the various community discussions and decisions that have led to this guideline, in case you're interested in learning. It's not "far-left"-ism, it is an encyclopedic pursuit that guides our rules. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The guidelines are as follows: "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... A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with 'born' or 'formerly'" Ducktapeonmydesk (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2022 (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.

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)

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)

transitioned?

The following discussion 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.

---

what does it mean she "transitioned" in 2011? all the paragraphs about mt sinai, penn state, etc., indicate she was female long before that. 2601:19C:527F:7890:150B:9833:C577:7330 (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Gender identity#Retroactivity. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

well, THAT's a whole lot of hooey. to follow THOSE rules, one would also need to ban the word "transition".

she "confirmed" as female or "asserted as female" in 2011; certainly didn't "transition" anywhere if one accepts that she was always a she deep down!

how to fix this? she certainly cannot "transition" from female to female. even the most tortured logic cannot support that. 2601:19C:527F:7890:150B:9833:C577:7330 (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If it bothers you, just mentally assume that "transitioned from male to female" is shorthand for "transitioned from (living|presenting) as a man to (living|presenting) as a woman". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"retroactivity" does not afford us that luxury; we are clearly not allowed to assert that she lived|presented as a man in the first place! forget "transition", the word "transgendered" itself becomes meaningless under such a policy.

if we are to accept that she always was female, then let's just accept that. outing her as "formerly male" is essentially the same thing as using male pronouns on those early cites.

can't we just call her female and be done with it? 2601:19C:527F:7890:150B:9833:C577:7330 (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't like Wikipedia's current guidelines for writing about transgender people, and are trying to prove a WP:POINT by insincerely arguing for an absurd/overzealous interpretation of the guideline (which applies specifically to the name and gendered words used for a subject, not to biographical details such as transgender status). If that's the case, please consider a more productive mode of good-faith argumentation, preferably at WP:MOSTALK. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 06:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

absurd/overzealous?

we are to call someone "transgendered" while implying they were the SAME gender on both sides?! how does that make sense?

i don't have a dog in this fight. i would lean toward using the pronouns/name which were actually in use for any given period, but since the world has decided that is somehow offensive, i'm fine with sealing off the entire pre-transition life and treating it like a WITSEC case.

but u can't then mention any "transition" or "change of gender" etc.!! that's logic 101. 2601:19C:527F:7890:150B:9833:C577:7330 (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages are not a forum for your personal views. If you want to try to change Wikipedia policy, RoxySaunders has pointed you to the place to do that. Your comments here are becoming disruptive. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:09, 25 October 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.