Talk:Rachel Pollack

message: The "P" in her last name should be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.22.195 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 May 2005
:Moved.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Some editors seem to have strong opinions and/or personal knowledge of the subject. There are some unencyclopedic details her (the dog, her cooking preferences, etc.). Maybe someone could try to find some reliable sources? Surely the people who seem to be personal friends of the subject could simply ask her for online references. Avt tor (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research much?

message: The personal biography is now full of unsourced contentious material and material that is not written in a neutral style, regarding this transexuality issue.  —Preceding unsiged comment added by 24.85.86.239 (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  But her transsexuality should definitely be mentioned. It is important both a personal info (although i can understand people not wanting to mention it for only that reason) and her work. She has written on  the subject, and it influences her fiction a lot (trans character pop up all the time).Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: There have been more insertions of unsourced, inappropriate personal material in this biography. The subject is, reasonably, discussing legal options to stop this nonsense. People have been more than harassed and briefly detained. People have been killed. What will it take to protect this page? 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The page can always be actually protected. If they are going as far as investigating legal action then it would seem like a good idea. Do you have any sources for that? (Emperor (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Can I assume she has followed the advice at WP:LIBEL? Ultimately there is no way to stop a determined vandal (usually the best that can be done is reverting it as soon as possible) but it may be possible to ramp up the level of protection on the page to keep it down to a minimum, while trying to avoid hampering the edits of legitimate users - it would help if she has already contacted Wikipedia about this. I'll also ask for a few more eyes on the page (and other ideas on solutions). (Emperor (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume this is all related to this edit?  I don't understand that edit.  Is she transsexual or not?  —Wknight94 (talk) 11:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, if there are no reliable sources to support such a claim then such a statement can't be added to the page as it violates WP:BLP. (Emperor (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It took me five minutes to find page 147 of this book.  I also found numerous independent-looking web sites.  And here's a book with an essay by Ms. Pollack (which I'll admit I haven't read).  So what's going on now?  Of course the ridiculous edits with details, etc. are way off-base, and quoting surgery years may even be questionable (I haven't corroborated any of those) but it doesn't sound like those are what folks are taking issue with here.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But what does page 147 say? She has written extensively on transgender issues so will turn up in Google searches but that may not be a sign of anything and they would need to be reliable sources. I did find her bio from the second book you mentioned  which seems to give the dates of her surgery and the background (although even if we could prove that I am unsure we'd need to include it) although it might be difficult to pin that down as a source as the bios on such volumes are often submitted by the contributor themselves and such biographies are often frowned on as not being independent. I do think it is worth mentioning if we can get a good source as it is a topic which clearly comes up in her work time and again and such information puts that into context (as might the bit about her being both male-to-female and a declared lesbian). As you say it would be helpful to know what her specific concerns about this are, which makes it difficult to address them properly but as it stands the insertion of the claim without reliable and independent sources is breaking WP:BLP, which is my concern. (Emperor (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait, what?  You found the book that she contributed to but you don't consider it a reliable source?  So you're actually removing reference to a trait about her that she admits to?  What is the point of this whole thing?  I think we're missing the point of WP:BLP which is in place to prevent the subjects of articles from rightfully getting angry about content regarding them, but you're removing something about the person that she is apparently quite proud of.  And why shouldn't she be?  Surely I'm missing something here.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To address your points: People write on transgender issues who aren't transgender so contributing to such a book isn't proof. Equally self-penned autobiographies (if that is what it is - problem is I don't know) are not independent enough on their own to use but it could certainly be handy as a backup to a better source. I haven't removed reference to anything concerned with this issue - I'm here to try and make sure we can steer a course through various conflicting opinions to reach a solution that is best for an article in an encyclopaedia and that means properly sourcing claims about things like sexuality (or other personal issues) and that means making sure everything is properly sourced and so far I haven't seen anything that is clearly a solid independent source (although The Testosterone Files might be, but I don't know what it actually says on page 147 - if anyone can drop in a quote that'd be handy). (Emperor (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Okay but edits like this almost make it sound as though it's bad to be transsexual.  That's the vibe I'm getting here.  Am I way off-base?  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong with that edit. As it is unproven in the article you can't add the category in. Claims about people's personal lives (including sexuality and medical issues) need to be relevant and well sourced. I'd argue it is the former, but not yet the latter. (Emperor (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, Emp, I'm not getting this one.  I feel like adequate sources for the statement that Ms. Pollack is a trans woman have been demonstrated already.  The cite from The Testosterone Files alone should be sufficient, I think.  It's not some tabloid, it's published by Seal Press, for pete's sake, with which I am familiar through my day gig as a purveyor of college textbooks, as they are maybe THE foremost source of information on transgender topics.  If Ms. Pollack has libel issues, she needs to take it up with some print publishers first.  Ford MF (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally in this this podcast she participated in, she is described as a "prolific trans writer".  Ford MF (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added the category with a note in the lede, mainly as something to hang the refs on.  If there was a "personal life" section, it could plausibly go there instead, but there isn't.  Ford MF (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying that she isn't transgender or that it shouldn't be included here, just that it needs to be sourced (which the recent round of removed edits haven't been). The Testosterone Files may be good for a source - I simply asked what it says, as there is no preview on Google Books. I have no idea what her legal issues are and that isn't really my concern at the moment. As Phil Sandifer there are good sources and this can be written up in way that put things in context. As he is working on it I'd recommend see how that turns out. If is is properly sourced then the category can be added back in. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about - if someone had done this in the first place then there wouldn't have been any major issues (although as I say I don't know what Rachel Pollack's specific concerns are but she has clearly mentioned it in relation to her work and it is relevant to what she works on so it is legitimate to mention it in the article and I can't see if it is worded and sourced properly that it can be considered libel, but perhaps someone would like to clarify what her concerns are about). (Emperor (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The line in The Testosterone Files says, "Transsexual science fiction writer Rachel Pollack has described transsexual identity as an experience of revelation."  But actually, the Transgender Care book seems even more useful for bio information.  Regardless, I haven't seen where anyone questions this issue.  I think the concern here was over some of the more graphic vandalism edits to this article - and those I completely agree with removing.  I simply think "we" went overboard in removing all references to Ms. Pollack being transsexual which she clearly is - and openly so.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite a good quote as it links it with more esoteric matters as well as her writing on the topic and using the theme in fiction. The Transgender Care bio should be handy for details and must have at least been 'approved' by her. I also don't think there is a problem with discussing it - the problem seems to be no one has used any sources. Whether that is the short bits of text that have been removed recently or the more extensive bios that have also been removed (compare that version with the next edit). The latter also has interesting information in that would be notable if it can be proved. That is the key we might know something is true but it has to be demonstratable especially on difficult and contentious areas like sexuality. If she openly discusses it then it shouldn't be hard to source it and it would certainly make it difficult to remove something neutrally written and well sourced (and I'm afraid that poor sourcing of contentious material can and does end up with a lot of material being removed, hopefully we should be able to get the relevant information in and sourced and work on further improving this article). (Emperor (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal info 

message: Any legal issues are for the Foundation to deal with, not editors.  As long as we adhere to BLP & have our sources straight (Seal Press, for instance) then we're doing our jobs.  Factual, encyclopedic information is not libel.  I would vigorously oppose any POV claims, statements, or contexts on the subject of any trans status, but if the statement can be sourced, then it certainly is notable.  --mordicai. (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal issues

message: An editor edited the heading Tarot to Occult Tarot.
I checked with Rachel, she tells me that while some tarot is indeed occult,
not all is, and that simply 'Tarot' is probably a better description of her
work.
The editor has made similar changes to a number of pages, so possibly they're
pushing a NPOV agenda.
Anyway, I've reverted it. Hopefully the original editor will leave a note here explaining the change.
Anniepoo (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, simply reverting to "tarot" is still not adequate. What type of tarot did she write about? It should be specified that she focused on the divination, if not "occult" uses of the cards. Tarot, like Runes, has a cultural life other than its use in divination. I've made similar edits to articles treating Runes. On her website, Pollack did use the term "divination" so it's seems appropriate to say she's an expert on "tarot divination" http://www.rachelpollack.com/tarot/tarot.html Smiloid (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occult Tarot 

message: Is that really a free image?  Doesn User:Anniepoo have permission from RP somehow? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked about this and even if someone gives you permission it is probably not good enough (as it is difficult to prove someone has given you permission to basically give away their copyright) and it is best to get either the subject or the person who took the picture, to upload it. (Emperor (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or contact WP:OTRS.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Bio rachel.jpg]] 

message: I've just reverted this
According to the book 'Gender Outlaw' by trans activist Kate Bornstein, Rachel paints the transsexual story into her tarot cards.
			
because
a) it was unsourced (yes, it gives the book, but I don't have a copy of the book in front of me and I'm not going to go digging for that quote)
b) it doesn't belong in that section, but probably in the influences section
c) I'd rather have asked the contributor to give a proper city, but it was an IP
:I have no problems with sourcing to a book instead of a specific page number. I'd return the claim to a more appropriate place. That said, I may have Gender Outlaw somewhere - I'll have a look tomorrow. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commentary by Bornstein 

message: GentlemanGhost deleted some obvious puffery (see above) about fans clamoring for a meeting of wonder woman and coagula. An IP undid this edit.
I'm redoing it - it was a good edit, the IP didn't explain the revert.Anniepoo (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This also comes up on Coagula. (Emperor (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel worded fans clamoring 

message: I reverted an unsourced edit by 156.110.130.194  and they put it right back, so I've just reverted again.
Since this has many of the signs of our old sockpuppeteer.
Anniepoo (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I note that she's currently placed in the category of 'American wiccans'. The word 'wicca' does not occur at all in the article. Does either Tarot or Kabbalah (or both) justify her inclusion in this category? Valetude (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiccan? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Rachel Pollack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509155406/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/rp_tempagy.htm to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/l.j.hurst/rp_tempagy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201074405/http://worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html to http://www.worldfantasy.org/awards/awardslist.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rachel Pollack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529061952/http://www.techgnosis.com/gaiman.html to http://www.techgnosis.com/gaiman.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rachel Pollack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/archetypal.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140727081855/http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/the-story-behind-the-child-eater-by-rachel-pollack to http://upcoming4.me/news/book-news/the-story-behind-the-child-eater-by-rachel-pollack
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Someone has just added the image request. The article once had an image, it's been removed for copyright, and I couldn't figure out how to get around the demand that Rachel personally upload the image. She's not very computer oriented, and it just didn't happen.
I'd be happy to add her publicity headshot, but it's already been removed once.
Advice?
Anniepoo (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Wikipedia really does need a separate "WP:DEADNAME" policy, rather than it being a sub-section of "Changing Names" in the general Manual of Style. But anyway, as per the manual, Pollack was non-notable prior to her name change, which means that there is no reason to deadname her in this article. I have already removed the birth name. Much of the conversation on her "transsexuality" back in 2006 reflects outdated assumptions, understandings, and knowledge about trans identity — specifically that sex is assigned rather than immutable. Even Twitter has a policy on it. Twitter. KermitO (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems her entry has been re-edited to re-deadname her. I for one would love to see the deadname removed. 2603:8000:F301:C8FD:E19A:C5DA:14E1:EB21 (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Funny. I just read a book with a story by "Richard A. Pollack" in it. Based just on that, I probably have a more comprehensive understanding of the author's work than you or any of the other people whinging on here. 101.98.134.21 (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadnaming