Talk:Juno Dawson

Notability

Just wanted to establish Dawson's notability since a notability template was added to this page. Dawson has received significant coverage both for her writing (she is a well-known young adult author) and for her work on LGBT advocacy and her writing about her transition. As such, there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources covering her life and works - many of which are cited at the bottom of the article. She has attended several of the most prestigious literary festivals including Hay Festival and the London Literature Festival, published bestselling works of fiction, and has won or been shortlisted for various awards. ---Supervegan (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

deadnaming and book titles

There have been accusations in edit summaries about "deadnaming". The issue is nothing to do with transgendering as such, but only about name changes. People change their names for a wide variety of reasons, the commonest being the change of surname by women on getting married or divorced. In fact probably nearly half the population changes their name at some stage. Use of an outdated form of name is not offensive as such, though it might be in particular cases.

When talking of time past, it is reasonable to use the form of a name that was current at that time. When quoting book titles it is most helpful to make reference to the form of the author's name with which the book was published. A good example is given by Pope Francis#Writings. Are we to see that as "deadnaming"? Do we need a separate RS when quoting the title of a book? This all seems a bit ridiculous. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! your change has been undone by a number of editors, both because it is unsourced (the "source" you provide is not a reliable source usable on here) and for other reasons provided in the edit summaries. You need both reliable sourcing and consensus for your edit, and AFAICT you have neither. -sche (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

As for sourcing, the whole of the Works section was unsourced except for the reference to Spot the Difference, so why should a higher standard of sourcing be required for my modest clarification? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A list of books (or other published works) should show the author's name as it actually appears on the work concerned. We should not change history: if you have the book concerned and it said "James Dawson" on the cover when you bought it, it won't have magically changed to "Juno Dawson" whilst sitting on your shelf. Consider it a nom de plume - some authors wrote books under more than one different name - Robert A. Heinlein, for example, published under at least six different names.

For books that were published under the name "James Dawson", a source should be simple to find - a book review dating from around the time of publication is certain to show the author's name as it appears on the cover. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You're so right. Thanks very much. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

All the books mentioned have since been republished under her proper name, so if you want the name 'as it actually appears on the work concerned', Juno Dawson is the right name. In the 'Life and career' section there is already mention of her deadname, which would suffice to make the link, and I believe adding her deadname under the books section as well, would be putting WP:UNDUE weight on her deadname. Just because one person agrees with you here, while multiple people have disagreed and reverted your edits, doesn't mean you can just add it in again. Achaea (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, on a procedural note, using citation templates in article text is not supposed to be done AFAIK (they're for formatting references, in ref tags or at least in Works cited / Further reading / References sections. For a bibliography, AFAIK the norm is just to list title and date. Wikipedia is not a card catalogue (there are, indeed, a lot of things Wikipedia is WP:NOT), and given that we're merely listening the books this person wrote (not that on this one the name was originally given in serif font while on that one it was originally sans, and on this one the middle initial is included, and so on, at least in other articles), and especially that they've been republished under this name, I don't see a basis for giving the other name so much weight. -sche (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

There has been discussion of this subject at User talk:Ivanvector/Archive 14#Juno Dawson edit war. It might be good to continue it here. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@SamuelTheGhost: No it wouldn't - WP:TALKFORK, WP:MULTI, WP:FORUMSHOP etc. etc. all apply. Please remember that discussions about an article's content belong on the talk page of that article, i.e. right here. In short: keep it in one place. Also notifying Ivanvector so that they are made aware of this existing thread. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Perhaps I should explain that you have completely misunderstood my remark above. When I wrote "continue it here" I meant here, that is Talk:Juno Dawson. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Some responses to the remarks above:

• I was the first to take this disagreement to the talk page. The arguments I gave there were completely ignored by -sche and then Achaea. For instance the example I gave of Pope Francis#Writings was intended as a real question,, but no answer has been given for cases like that. No real dialogue was on offer.
• The initial source I provided for my editing was entirely adequate in the context, but subsequently I provided much fuller sourcing and my latest version, here is far better sourced than the current version on display here
• Those two editors have both appealed to WP:WEIGHT. That section includes the words: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." So, looking at the current form of the article, we have in the sources Juno: about 7; James: about 6; and in the article's own text, Juno about 4; James 0 (that's zero), so the "weight" argument actually goes the other way.
• I've noticed in wikipedia over the years that the word "consensus" is almost only ever used when consensus is absent. Consensus means that everyone agrees, so when that is the case it is not necessary to say so. Appeal to consensus never takes a discussion forward; it is a way of avoiding argument, not of assisting it. I am willing to engage in rational discussion about this article, if others are too. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Deadnaming is considered highly offensive in the trans community and Juno is a trans person. She has clearly made efforts to change old publications and does not want to be referred to by her deadname. Please do not keep on referring to her by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.23.22 (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and therefore should represent the world as-is, not as one would want it to be. Dawson's work up to and including Mind Your Head was first published under her deadname, which means that Dawson was notable by that name. Had Dawson never been published previously, the removal of the deadname would be non-controversial. But as she was, it is a fact which should at least be acknowledged - without giving undue weight to it. H. Carver (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Dawson was notable under her former name, so per MOS:GENDERID this name should be mentioned in the article. The guidelines also say "In source citations, do not remove names of authors, or references to former names in titles of works. If the author is notable, the current name may be given, for example as "X (writing as Y)"." If a book or article she published is still only available under her former name, we should use that name. Fences&Windows 18:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Name

Dawson's books were first published under the 'James Dawson' name, up to and including Mind Your Head. As a result, Dawson has prior notability under the deadname. The information has been carefully added per the guidelines given in MOS:DEADNAME. H. Carver (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Former name

I have restored the former name James Dawson to the lead and article, with sources. There is no doubt Dawson became initially notable under her birth name. She writes in depth about her transition from James to Juno in her 2017 book The Gender Games: The Problem with Men and Women... From Someone who has Been Both. Her earlier books, including This Book Is Gay were published under the name James Dawson, and Dawson's subsequent transition was well covered with respect in reliable sources, some of which continue to mention the fact that she was formerly called James:

• Lynch, Dónal (28 May 2023). "Juno Dawson: 'Transwomen like me experience the same kind of misogyny that any woman does'". Irish Independent.
• Taylor, Marianne (28 May 2017). "'Transition is exhausting. No-one does it to be trendy': Author Juno Dawson on her new book The Gender Games". The Herald. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
• Strudwick, Patrick (24 October 2015). "Internationally Bestselling Author Comes Out As Transgender". BuzzFeed.
• Flood, Alison (26 November 2015). "James Dawson criticises parents who attacked his LGBT guide for children". The Guardian. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
• Williams, Joe (24 October 2015). "International best selling author comes out as transgender". PinkNews. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
• Dawson, James (2014-09-04). "Why my book is gay: and I'm proud of it". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-10-05. Retrieved 2017-07-31.
• Harrington, Suzanne (22 June 2017). "Author describes what it's like when a man becomes a woman". Irish Examiner.
• Dawson, James (6 October 2015). "James Dawson: how I stopped hating poetry and became a poet". The Guardian.

Per: MOS:GENDERID, In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name. Introduce the prior name with either "born" or "formerly". The same guidelines also state: Outside the main biographical article, generally do not discuss in detail the changes of a person's name or gender presentation unless pertinent. Where a person's gender may come as a surprise, explain it on first occurrence, without overemphasis. Thus it is appropriate to note that This Book Is Gay was initially written under the name James Dawson, as well covered, and it is undoubtable that Dawson became first well known under the name James, in the same way Elliot Page first became notable under the name Ellen. This should not be obscured. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@JustAnotherCompanion: Please see this message and the previous discussions on this page. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I did see the previous discussion on this page. I also looked at the edit history of the article. This showed that there was a previous, stable version of the article that mentioned the information in line with MOS:GENDERID. All I'm doing is restoring that previous, stable version. Your additional edits are WP:UNDUE, I believe, as they put an increased emphasis on the deadname. That's why I believe it is better to revert to the previous, stable version.

Given that, I believe WP:BRD applies. There was a previous, stable version. You have BOLDLY edited this stable version to add extra information, which I have REVERTED, and therefore it should be DISCUSSED if you wish to restore the changes. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think two references to Dawson's previous name is excessive. Her birth name is mentioned in the lead and doesn't need to be referenced continually throughout the article. Wormbug (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

An older version of this used "also credited as" instead of "formerly", e.g. Special:Permalink/1097163511, which seems like a good way to present the information without needing to expand on intimate details of her private life in the article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this as a solution, @Animalparty @JustAnotherCompanion thoughts? Wormbug (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wormbug That could work. I think I prefer "formerly" because newer editions of the old books are now credited to Juno Dawson, so "also credited" doesn't feel quite right in that respect. However, I'd rather have a consensus solution that the community is all happy with than try and keep a version of the article that others don't feel is good enough. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

"Formerly" is more intellectually honest than "also credited as", as if Dawson continues to alternate between the two names like pen-names (which she doesn't). And the reason I added "James" to the body as well as the first sentence was in line with MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY as well as MOS:GENDERID, in which generally the lead should summarize salient points of the body and there should be no unique elements in the lead not covered elsewhere. Dawson first became famous under her birth name. Dawson wrote books and articles as a proud gay man, and under that name was well-known in youth literature before transitioning (see Dawson on This Morning in 2013). In her 2017 memoir she herself mentions her former name dozens of times, and refers to things she did under that name and gender. I think it's rather silly and medical (and "private") to keep the phase "She began hormonal transition in early 2016", while totally glossing over the fact she initially became widely known as the bearded gay author who wrote This Book is Gay for gay youth under a masculine name. Dawson's former name isn't on the same level of Bruce Jenner, but her pre-transition persona and her transition itself received significant coverage from many responsible, sympathetic outlets, as I've demonstrated above (see also [1][2]), lending WP:DUE weight. Misrepresenting history by obfuscating significant coverage is not WP:NPOV, and erasing well-documented past just because the subject is transgender comes across as special pleading. We of course need not dwell on her birth name, nor misgender her today, nor write crudely and demeaningly anywhere. But we also should also not rewrite the past.--Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Restarting this discussion, as my edit to remove the recent addition of prominent, repeated mention of Dawson's deadname was reverted overnight.

While Dawson was notable under her deadname, she is no longer even occasionally known as such and works published under her deadname have often been republished under her chosen name (including This Book is Gay, mentioned above). I think the prominence of her deadname being in boldface in the lead and in the infobox is WP:UNDUE, but I'd like to seek consensus on how best to include her deadname.

I would suggest, perhaps, that her deadname appear in the first sentence of "Life and career" ("Dawson was born at Bradford Royal Infirmary, West Yorkshire." could be changed to something liked "She was born at Bradford Royal Infirmary, West Yorkshire, and named James by her parents.") and a line added at the start of the section "Works" reading something like "Works before Dawson's transition were published under her deadname James Dawson."

Thoughts? — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I like this idea. The current lead, which uses the word "born" twice in the same parenthetical is awkward and amateurish. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a standard case of MOS:DEADNAME and I don't see a reason to depart from the advice to place it in the lead. The purpose of requiring a deadname for people formerly notable under that name is to provide clarity to people arriving at the article from old sources. The former name needs to be in the lead sentence to be effective for that purpose; a reader isn't going to read the whole article if they don't think they have arrived at the right place. There will always be old articles and early editions of her books out there, and any reference librarian will tell you people will find their way to a topic through a myriad of ways.--Trystan (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

In MOS:DEADNAME it says: "their birth name ... should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name." – This reads as though a deadname should be included in the lede if the person was notable under that name. Given this, I think using a more formal consensus-building process like an rfc would be best if we want to sidestep the mos, but that may prove tantamount to trying to change the mos itself. Are there any other policies, guidelines, or consensus-reached decisions which could support making this change? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

A new account has just removed the name entirely, so I think an RFC to establish a clear consensus will be needed.--Trystan (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have created one below.--Trystan (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on former name

Should the article include the subject's former name, and if so, where?--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Pinging participants of above discussion: @Animalparty, JustAnotherCompanion, Wormbug, Ivanvector, OwenBlacker, MjolnirPants, and Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four:--Trystan (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, include. As for where, I'm okay with either putting it as a note in the Life & Career section, or adding it as the attributed author's name under any mentioned books published prior to her transition (which is currently only a single work). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include, in lead and possibly one other time in the body, but no more than that. This is a straightforward application of MOS:DEADNAME, which says to include the deadname in the lead if the person was notable under it. There will always be old articles and early editions of her books out there, and readers arriving here from those sources should be given clarity they have reached the right article. The former name needs to be in the lead sentence to be effective for that purpose; a reader isn't going to read the whole article if they don't think they have arrived at the right place.--Trystan (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  Just to add, in response other comments, she was clearly notable under her prior name, having published seven award-winning books and receiving extensive media coverage for them prior to adopting her new name.[3][4][5][6]--Trystan (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude - per MOS:DEADNAME - unless the person was notable under other name(s) or the person has shown they are fine with mentioning other name(s), treat it as a privacy/courtesy of what seems the persons wishes and just not of common knowledge/WEIGHT to mention. I'm not seeing the name offered at the prominence of being mentioned in a Daily Mail piece, much less that they explicitly say fine about people using it so WP should not use it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude per MOS:DEADNAME and Markbassett's argument. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 17:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede - based on our article's content, Dawson was first notable for having publishsed This Book Is Gay, published in the midst of her transition. The fact that it was actually first published under her former name is essentially a factlet, and warrants the coverage we would give any other trivial factlets (which is to say not much or none at all). Several of her earlier works were also published under her former name, but as none of these appear to be independently notable, they are not useful in our test for inclusion. DEADNAME sets a high bar for inclusion of a former name, for good reason, and the bar is simply not met here. But we are also an encyclopedia, and we do not have firm, black-and-white rules. No mention of her former name is due in the article lede nor body at all, but for those works which were published under her former name, a simple and brief footnote is all that is needed here. Readers coming here from querying her former name will still find the subject they're looking for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude from lede. Yes, she published a book under her original name, but she was already mid-transition at the time and only really became notable afterwards; her original name is trivia, which can easily be seen from the limited use of her original name in sources. Most of the sources above are just passing mentions; and that isn't sufficient to render a name notable under WP:DEADNAME, since it doesn't really support the idea that a meaningful number of people are going to come here searching for it. The sources support the idea that it's trivia that was noted only after she became famous under her current name, not that she was independently notable under her old name. Putting it in the lead of the article isn't meant for cases like this, it's meant for cases where one of their main points of fame was entirely (or at least primarily) under their name. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a footnote on the relevant books, like Ivanvector suggested. --Aquillion (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include in lead as per guidance in MOS:DEADNAME. I didn't know who this person was when I came here in response to the RfC. So I did a quick search on Google for "This Book is Gay", and found that Juno Dawson was indeed well known and notable under their previous name. It is clear from the articles that are available in reliable sources, that Juno Dawson was notable enough to have several in depth articles on them which are still accessible with their former name - Review of This Book is Gay, I'm Becoming A Transgender Woman, Dawson Criticises Parents Who Attacked His LGBT Guide For Children, Interview, and these are enough to meet the criteria for inclusion (WP:AUTHOR), and that their transition attracted attention because they were already notable: Internationally Bestselling Author Comes Out As Transgender (BuzzFeed), International best selling author comes out as transgender (Pink News). The evidence is that Dawson was already notable under their previous name, as such this situation meets the requirements of MOS:DEADNAME ("a living transgender or non-binary person was notable (by Wikipedia's standards) under a former name"), and so it is appropriate that their former name should be included in the lead as per the guidance in MOS:DEADNAME. SilkTork (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include in the Life and career section; something like: Dawson was born James Dawson at Bradford Royal Infirmary, West Yorkshire. No opinion on the name's inclusion in the lead. Some1 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Include. Dawson was well known before her name change, writing several books and receiving the 2014 "Queen of Teen" recognition while writing as James.[7][8][9]. I've already listed numerous reliable sources above at Talk:Juno_Dawson#Former_name spanning 2014 to 2023 which responsibly mention her former name and/or transition. Additionally, Dawson writes comfortably and casually about her life as James and Juno in her 2017 book The Gender Games, using her original name multiple times, including in chapter headings. These are some of her own words from the book:
  • ... the oestrogen that would medically turn me from James into Juno. (p. 8)
  • It’s pretty clear to adult Juno that infant James had exactly the right idea. He knew he was meant to be a girl (p. 47)
  • Initially, I decided to stick with ‘James’ and ‘he’ until I was 100 per cent on a name. Also, at the time ... I still very much felt I looked and dressed ‘like a man’ and didn’t want people calling me ‘she’ when I hadn’t yet made a single change to any area of my life. That was my personal preference. (p. 192)
  • I was still ‘James’ but was looking pretty androgynous. (p. 229)
  • I learned quite quickly that being Juno is much more freeing than trying to be James, even if it has practical hardships. (p. 235)
  • I admit, I was dubious of bi men until I dated one (while I was still James). (p. 257)
  • It’s funny. As James, I had little interest in getting married. (p. 267)

Given that Dawson wrote a book heavily discussing her former name, and was undeniably notable before she changed her name, the arguments that we should hide her birth name for "privacy" are baseless. MOS:DEADNAME does not in fact say a deadname can never be used. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

"MOS:DEADNAME does not in fact say a deadname can never be used." – I may be missing something but none of the editors advocating for full or partial exclusion have claimed this and implying otherwise seems unkind. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Animalparty But 2017 (8 years ago) seems too long ago to be “recent” per MOS:DEADNAME saying to “reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification”. Additional indications over time and more recent statements would help show prominence of the name and comfort of the person with it. If there isn’t any, that would seem to indicate the other way. I still lean towards generally extend privacy/courtesy unless there is fairly strong evidence allowing use. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Exclude from lede include a mention in a footnote to (or in the text of) the relevant book, per Ivanvector's excellent suggestion. Pincrete (talk) 04:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

• Include in lede MOS:DEADNAME is clear; "In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, their birth name or former name (professional name, stage name, or pseudonym) should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under that name" (Emphasis mine). Dawson wrote a number of teen horror novels prior to her transition. This Book is Gay was originally published prior to her transition and only later reissued. It is therefore undeniable that Dawson was notable under that name. The article previously followed the example given in MOS:DEADNAME of the format used for the Eliiot Page example. This was the one and only place that the deadname was acknowledged, and it was done so in a manner acknowledged as being acceptable. There should be no other mention in the article. Ultimately, MOS:DEADNAME is clear on this.

2A02:C7C:CC80:8200:ECD1:297A:65B1:5FAA (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Include MOS:DEADNAME, One of the major works for which the author was published under the prior name, and I also find Animalparty's argument that the name does not present an extenuating privacy issue since it is publicly published and discussed as part of her body of work to be convincing. This article respects the author's most recent current identification by using it as the primary name and pronoun set for the article proper. The former name seems to be notable for the purposes of inclusion.Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
• Exclude per MOS:DEADNAME - I did not know this person prior to getting pinged into this RfC but, while I understand that she was notable under her deadname, subsequent re-printings of the same notable (!) works for which she was notable have used "Juno Dawson." I think a footnote as appropriate would be acceptable, but otherwise best to exclude from lead. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

2017 Attitude article

Since I've reverted addition of this paragraph a couple of times now, I figure I should explain myself in full. First of all I think this paragraph gives undue weight to a very minor event, as compared to the length of the article overall, so at best I think we would need to trim this down a lot. But more importantly, the sources used just aren't good enough:

• Original Attitude article (archive) - This article is where the quote comes from originally, and has been taken down. That could be for a number of reasons, so I won't make any specific claims, but it's not particularly helpful as-is because it's just an interview.
• Independent - This is a 'voices' article, i.e. an opinion piece. Potentially useful to show what people said about a controversy, but not helpful in establishing that it's worth writing about in the first place.
• Follow-up Attitude article - Possibly useful, I could imagine us adding a single sentence based on this source.
• Lipstick Alley - This is a forum post, so simply not useable.
• Author response (Attitude) - Potentially useful to address response to criticism, but only if we can actually write a substantial amount about it first, as with the Independent article it doesn't actually help us assess whether to include information about this to begin with.
• Substack post - A blog, not useful.
• Daily Wire - The Daily Wire has been determined to be a "biased source" which "blatantly panders to a US conservative agenda", so you can imagine why they might be interested in making this seem a bigger deal than it is. I'd argue we should not use The Daily Wire for stories about LGBT topics.

So all in all, I could see us adding a single sentence based on the follow-up Attitude article, but anything more than that would be undue weight or based on unreliable sources. Sam Walton (talk) 10:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

	This discussion containing LLM-generated text from an AI chatbot or other tool has been collapsed. All editors are expected to express their views in their own words. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1 - Significance of the Event: The statements made in the interview sparked significant public and media attention, as demonstrated by coverage in multiple reputable outlets and public responses from both Dawson and the magazine. This indicates that the event had broader cultural relevance and is not a minor or isolated occurrence. Wikipedia includes coverage of public controversies that received significant attention, especially when they involve public figures and their work. The coverage of this interview and the reactions to it meet the threshold of notability as defined by WP:NOTE. The mention of this event is proportional to its significance as part of Dawson's public narrative. It does not overshadow the broader content of the article but provides necessary context for understanding the public reception of her work. The fact that Attitude Magazine issued statements addressing the controversy and then removed both the article and the statements demonstrates that the event was significant enough to merit inclusion in a neutral and factual manner. 2- Role of Opinion Sources: Opinion sources are used to document public reactions to Dawson’s statements, per WP:RSOPINION. These sources reflect notable public discourse and provide necessary context for understanding the controversy without asserting factual claims. Opinions are attributed clearly to their respective sources, ensuring neutrality and adherence to WP:NPOV 3- Use of Archived Sources I understand the concern about source quality, particularly since the original article and responses were deleted from the Attitude website. However, the Wayback Machine archives of these materials are critical primary sources that document the original interview and Dawson's response. They provide direct evidence of the statements and the subsequent discourse, which are central to understanding the controversy. Per Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources, archived versions of reputable publications like Attitude are valid and necessary when the original content is no longer accessible. These archives serve as a faithful record of what was published and later removed, preserving the historical context of the event. The archived Attitude articles are essential primary sources for this topic, as they provide the original context of Dawson's statements and her response. Additionally, opinion pieces, such as those from The Independent, are being used appropriately to reflect public reaction, which is part of the controversy's notability. These sources do not claim to establish new facts but rather document the discourse surrounding the statements. The removal of the original material from the Attitude website does not negate the event's notability. Instead, it highlights the sensitivity and impact of the controversy. By using archived sources alongside secondary coverage, we can provide a balanced and well-sourced account of what occurred. 4- Vandalism Regarding concerns about vandalism, it’s essential to differentiate between legitimate editing based on verifiable sources and efforts to suppress factual information. The inclusion of Dawson's statements is not intended as an attack but rather as an attempt to accurately reflect a moment of controversy that has been publicly discussed. Attempting to remove or erase these statements from the historical record risks downplaying the harmful impact of the remarks, which many have viewed as homophobic. Such efforts may inadvertently align with a broader trend of disregarding or minimizing valid critiques of actions that harm the gay community, especially when those actions are from figures within the trans community. It is crucial to present these discussions in full, as suppressing them could silence necessary conversations about the intersection of trans and gay rights, ultimately perpetuating harm to the community. Suppression of the record should be seen as an attempt to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. 2601:602:8D82:F670:FC9C:4E36:51F3:121D (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC) I have to agree with @Samwalton9 — anything more than a single sentence is UNDUE. There is no consensus for inclusion in this level of detail and you have been reverted by several editors. If you think it merits more than a sentence, then make that case on Talk: and gain consensus. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 09:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC) The mention of this event is proportional to its significance as part of Dawson's public narrative. The significance and inclusion of this event is already discussed above. Efforts to completely remove the paragraph is aligning with a broader trend of disregarding or minimizing valid critiques of these actions that harmed the gay community, and its removal should be seen a suppression of the record. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:4CAA:1FEC:2545:7435 (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC) The inclusion of Juno Dawson's 2017 interview and the resulting controversy is both relevant and necessary to provide a complete and accurate account of her public career. While I understand concerns about "undue weight," the edits reflect well-sourced, significant discourse surrounding the statements made and the subsequent responses, all of which are important to the historical record. Efforts to completely remove this paragraph align with a broader trend of disregarding or minimizing valid critiques of actions or statements that have caused harm to the gay community. The controversy and its coverage illustrate a meaningful dialogue within the larger LGBTQ community, one that deserves to be preserved and presented neutrally, as per NPOV policy. Additionally, the removal of the original interview and responses from Attitude's website makes it even more critical to include this in Dawson's biography. Excluding this information could be viewed as a suppression of the historical record, which conflicts with Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality and verifiability. By documenting both the statements and Dawson's clarification, the edits ensure a balanced presentation that neither amplifies nor diminishes the significance of the event. If the length is a concern, I welcome suggestions for concise refinement, but I firmly believe that reducing this to a single sentence would fail to meet Wikipedia's mission to inform readers thoroughly and accurately. Suppression of this context only serves to erase a key moment of critique and reflection that holds broader relevance to the gay community. Rather than constituting undue weight, this level of detail aligns with Wikipedia's standards for well-rounded and informative biographical coverage. If the length is still a concern, I welcome suggestions for further refinement, but I maintain that a one-sentence summary would omit important nuances. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:4CAA:1FEC:2545:7435 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC) The paragraph addressing Juno Dawson's controversial 2017 remarks in Attitude has been repeatedly removed, despite efforts to edit and refine the language to address concerns about neutrality and tone. These edits have aimed to balance factual reporting with adherence to Wikipedia's standards, incorporating reliable sources and clarifications directly from Dawson to ensure fairness and accuracy. However, it seems that some editors are pushing for its complete removal, not due to issues of neutrality, but rather because the topic has been edited multiple times. This reasoning undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and disregards the community’s ability to improve content through revisions. Removing the paragraph entirely silences important context and erases documented discourse within the LGBTQ+ community about Dawson's remarks and their impact. While I respect differing opinions on how content should be phrased, outright deletion of well-sourced information due to its history of edits or potential sensitivity runs counter to Wikipedia's principles of presenting a comprehensive and neutral record. I urge editors to focus on refining the language further, if needed, rather than removing the paragraph entirely. This is an important issue, and erasing it altogether dismisses valid concerns from a significant segment of the gay community. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:8CF7:CE04:ADDB:D27F (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC) There is no consensus for so much detail to be given here about a comment that was retracted from the interview it was published in. If you can suggest a shorter version of this content, then you might find consensus for its inclusion but, at the moment, there is no consensus to include this information, with is both UNDUE and potentially misleading of a BLP subject. I have restored the consensus version of this article, under WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:3RRBLP. Please do not misleadingly describe good-faith editing as vandalism, as you did in your recent reversion. I would also suggest that, given this is a contentious subject (per WP:GENSEX), it might be a good idea to make these edits from a logged-in account, so that there is no doubt over whether any commenters here are the same user under a different IP address. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC) The paragraph in the linked diff is definitely undue. It's a minor event in which the usual subjects loudly and maliciously misinterpret an unfortunate choice of phrasing. The only useable sources here are the primary and Douglas Robertson's opinion. If it warrants mentioning at all, rewrite as a two-liner of the form Dawson attracted controversy after a 2017 interview with Attitude where she discussed ... and said "...". Attitude delisted the article article following backlash from ... We absolutely cannot cite forum and blog posts (WP:SPS) or The Daily Wire WP:RSP; they are not reliable and have no bearing on WP:due weight. All three contain bigoted personal attacks against a BLP subject. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC) I provided context by including articles and blog posts for the statements made by Dawson and mention the subsequent reactions, which is important for helping readers understand the situation without making unfounded claims. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:7D74:9F7C:264D:317A (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Dismissing criticism as coming from 'the usual subjects' suggests an attempt to delegitimize concerns rather than engage in good faith. The controversy surrounding Dawson’s remarks was widely reported and sparked significant discussion within the gay community. Whether one considers it a 'minor event' or not, the fact remains that multiple sources documented the backlash, including accusations of homophobia. Wikipedia's role is not to downplay controversies but to summarize them accurately based on reliable sources." 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:7D74:9F7C:264D:317A (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC) The sources in question were included not to establish factual claims about Dawson, but to demonstrate the breadth of criticism her statements received. While WP:SPS and WP:RSP guidelines are important for assessing reliability, they do not mean we should erase all evidence of controversy simply because some critical sources are deemed unreliable. The controversy was widely discussed, and dismissing it outright risks suppressing legitimate historical context. Furthermore, labeling all criticism as 'bigoted personal attacks' appears to reflect an attempt to frame any negative response as inherently illegitimate, rather than engaging with the documented backlash. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:7D74:9F7C:264D:317A (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate your engagement and agree that BLP concerns are essential. However, I’d like to clarify a few points and express some concerns about the tone and consistency of the reasoning. You referred to this incident as a “minor event” misinterpreted by the “usual subjects.” That kind of phrasing is dismissive and appears to prejudge the validity of criticism based on the identity or perceived ideology of those voicing it. It comes across as ideologically biased, particularly in a BLP context where neutrality and due weight matter more than personal beliefs. For example, criticism from gay writers like Douglas Robertson was published in The Independent, a reliable source. That’s not a fringe or forum post. Regarding the use of forums, blogs, or less reliable outlets: I agree they cannot be used to establish fact or interpretation, but they can be cited in limited ways to illustrate the scope or existence of public backlash, per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and WP:BLP1E. We are not asking Wikipedia to endorse the views of those outlets — only to document that they existed as part of the broader reception. That said, I’m open to a rephrased, concise version of the entry along the lines of: “In a 2017 interview with Attitude, Dawson made remarks that attracted controversy, including the statement 'Lots of gay men are actually trans women.' The piece was later removed from Attitude's website following public backlash. Dawson subsequently clarified that her statements had been misunderstood, but did not retract them.” This would preserve neutrality while acknowledging both the controversy and the follow-up. If the real issue is concern over “who” the criticism came from (i.e., gay community members vs. certain political platforms), I would caution against allowing such concerns to bias content decisions. That’s a potential violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. I’m happy to collaborate on a wording that adheres to policy while ensuring the article is not whitewashed or selectively sanitized. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:B56E:DCC1:F8B6:E25 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC) I have rewritten a smaller condensed version of the content. And strongly oppose any labeling of this as vandalism. It is a good-faith, sourced and neutral contribution addressing a notable controversy. Labeling this as "vandalism" is incorrect and misrepresents policy. The statement is backed by multiple reliable sources and reflects verifiable criticism of Juno Dawson's remarks. The edit has been revised multiple times in response to neutrality concerns, demonstrating a commitment to balance. Removal of well-sourced, neutral content without discussion violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV, including after the fact criticism. If there are concerns about the wording, I encourage constructive discussion here instead of outright removal. Repeated removals without proper justification could be seen as edit warring (WP:EW) or pushing an agenda contrary to Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. Let's work towards consensus rather than edit removals. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:7D74:9F7C:264D:317A (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC) As opposed to the actual definition of WP:edit warring, repeatedly restoring contentious changes to an article without editor consensus for their inclusion. I am not dismissing all criticism. Specifically, Lipstick Alley (a web forum), The Daily Wire (an WP:RSP source considered unreliable), and blogs posted to Substack are not reliable sources. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC) Some editors appear consistently opposed to including sourced material about the controversy surrounding Juno Dawson’s remarks, despite those remarks receiving widespread criticism, particularly from the gay community. The objections to inclusion often rely on dismissing valid sources as unreliable or interpreting any criticism as inherently bigoted or transphobic. This repeated removal seems less about improving neutrality and more about shielding a public figure from legitimate criticism of homophobia. The controversy is notable, sourced, and relevant under Wikipedia’s guidelines on due weight and biographies of living persons. Continuing to exclude this information is in of itself introducing bias. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:B56E:DCC1:F8B6:E25 (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Concern about edit removals and editorial neutrality regarding Juno Dawson article I'd like to raise a concern about the repeated removal of sourced content from the article on Juno Dawson. The content in question addresses a 2017 interview in Attitude magazine, in which Dawson made statements — such as “Lots of gay men are actually trans women” — that drew widespread criticism, particularly from members of the gay community, for being homophobic. This content has been reverted multiple times, sometimes under the justification of “vandalism,” “not reliable sources,” or "undue weight." I want to clarify: The sources used (including The Independent, archived Attitude articles, and commentary from notable gay figures) are cited to demonstrate the volume and scope of criticism, not to validate every individual opinion expressed. This aligns with WP:DUE, which permits inclusion of notable reactions when they reflect a real-world response, even if critical. Some editors have made Talk page comments describing critics as the “usual suspects” and accusing them of bigotry. In my view, this undermines neutrality and assumes bad faith toward those offering legitimate criticism based on sexual orientation concerns. While I respect the importance of avoiding biased or defamatory content per WP:BLP, the current removals appear not to be rooted in policy, but in editorial discomfort with legitimate, sourced criticism of a public figure’s statements. This has made it difficult to have a fair, policy-based discussion. I’m happy to discuss compromise wording that keeps the language neutral, avoids editorializing, and respects BLP policy, while still acknowledging the significant criticism this event generated. I request that future reversions be explained in terms of specific Wikipedia content policies, and not based on perceived ideological concerns or assumptions about editors' motivations. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:B56E:DCC1:F8B6:E25 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) As has repeatedly been stated here, there is no consensus to include mention of a statement that she has described as misrepresented in an article that was subsequently retracted. If you have other evidence of Dawson's homophobia being legitimately criticis[ed], then the topic might gain consensus as being WP:DUE. Thusfar, however, that does not appear to be the case. At the moment, there are 3 editors making the same point and (what I assume to be) 1 editor (under a handful of similar IPv6 addresses) who is making essentially the same point over and over for nearly 6 months now. To be clear, it is not some editors [being] consistently opposed to inclusion, it is the consensus position that WP:DUE has not (yet) been met. (Incidentally, I can find no mention of usual suspects elsewhere on this page.) Unless you have a single terse sentence to propose for consensus-building, as was suggested in the first post in this discussion, perhaps you might want to consider WP:COAL and WP:STICK — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 07:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Thanks for the thoughtful response. I understand your concerns around WP:DUE and WP:CONSENSUS, and I’d like to engage constructively on that front. However, I want to clarify and respond to a few points. You mentioned that Dawson has described her quote as being “misrepresented,” and that the article was subsequently retracted. While that’s true, it’s also important to note that Dawson did not retract or deny the specific comment, “Lots of gay men are actually trans women.” She later said she had been misunderstood, but not that she had been misquoted — and the original backlash focused directly on that remark. The criticism was not invented or based on fabrication; it was a reaction to a verbatim statement that many in the gay community viewed as offensive or reductive. That’s why the proposed summary I’ve offered includes the quote itself, but does so in a restrained and factual way that aligns with WP:BLP and WP:DUE: “In 2017, Dawson attracted criticism for remarks in an Attitude interview, including the statement, ‘Lots of gay men are actually trans women.’ The article was later removed following backlash, and Dawson said her comments had been misunderstood.” This version acknowledges the controversy, includes the statement that sparked the criticism, and includes Dawson’s own clarification — addressing concerns about fairness and neutrality. I also want to point out that earlier in this discussion, another editor dismissed the backlash as coming from “usual suspects,” which frames criticism in a dismissive and biased way. If we are aiming for a neutral presentation of the facts, it's important not to silence or delegitimize dissent simply because it's politically inconvenient — especially when that dissent is verifiable and published in reliable sources. This is not an attempt to WP:STICK or push an agenda, but a good-faith effort to achieve a balanced sentence that accurately reflects a notable moment of public reaction. I’d be happy to collaborate on refining the wording further to meet WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:5035:4385:B67A:49AD (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC) I also want to highlight what appears to be a moving of the goalposts. In @OwenBlacker's earlier comment on 27 January noted: “Anything more than a single sentence is UNDUE… If you think it merits more than a sentence, then make that case on Talk and gain consensus.” That guidance implied that a neutral, single-sentence mention could be appropriate, pending consensus. Since then, I’ve taken that advice and proposed a single, concise sentence on this talk page, incorporating BLP-appropriate language and balancing both the controversy and Dawson’s clarification. However, Owen's latest comments seem to suggest that even this minimal inclusion would not be considered — which contradicts the earlier framework for discussion. If the threshold has now become “no mention whatsoever,” it’s important to acknowledge that shift explicitly, as it changes the standard editors were initially engaging with. If consensus has changed, that’s fair — but clarity around the criteria matters. My concern is that this becomes less about WP:UNDUE or WP:BLP and more about editors’ subjective discomfort with criticism that comes from within LGBT communities themselves, which we must be careful not to exclude just because it doesn’t align with certain ideologies. I remain open to good-faith collaboration and welcome thoughts on how the originally suggested sentence might be improved to meet the consensus you outlined earlier. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:5035:4385:B67A:49AD (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC) I understand the original guidance was that “anything more than a single sentence is UNDUE,” which I’ve taken seriously. While the drafts I proposed were split into two and three short sentences for clarity, the content remains equivalent to a single factual statement - the controversy, the quote, the criticism, and the clarification. If there's a way to tighten it to a LITERAL one-sentence format that meets WP:BLP and WP:DUE, I’d be happy to rework it accordingly. But the shift from "a sentence might be acceptable" to "this doesn’t belong at all" is worth acknowledging as a change in how we're interpreting DUE. 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:5035:4385:B67A:49AD (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC) @OwenBlacker. Just a quick clarification — the phrase “usual subjects loudly and maliciously misinterpret an unfortunate choice of phrasing” was in fact used earlier in the thread by @RoxySaunders on 29 January 2025. That’s where the phrase “usual subjects” was first used to object to this inclusion. I’ve previously raised the concern that dismissing criticism as coming from “the usual subjects” suggests an attempt to delegitimize concerns rather than engage with them in good faith. It's important to recognize how such framing can undermine the neutrality and collaborative spirit expected in content discussions, especially on sensitive BLP topics. I’m pointing this out not to relitigate the tone of Roxy's comment, but because it was cited in earlier discussion and has been relevant context for evaluating the neutrality and framing of the criticism we're discussing. I just want to ensure we’re all operating with the same factual footing when referencing what’s on the page 2601:602:8D01:CFE0:5035:4385:B67A:49AD (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Hi @2601:602:8D01:CFE0:5035:4385:B67A:49AD, are you using any form of LLM to assist in your writing here? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)