Talk:Richard Hoskins/Archive 1

My edits regarding name change

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Regadring these edits, the burden of proof is on Rhibbert21 to provide evidence of Hoskins preferring her previous name. I have undone these edits because Wikipedia's MoS on gender identity states: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Most up-to-date sources refer to Hoskins as "[...]", including her own website – she even quotes from a Wikipedia article which refers to her as [...] throughout. HelgaStick (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi HelgaStick. Ms Hoskins has asked me personally to update her page, returning the gender listed to the original 'his' and 'him' - mainly for personal reasons that she did not want to go in to. She has however edited her personal site at https://www.richardhoskins.co.uk/bio to the male form, and has also her Pan MacMillan bio page at https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/richard-hoskins returned to the male form. On this basis - I will revert the changes again. I must admit I'm not completely familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia's editing process - you probably deal with newbies like me all the time! I can categorically state that these edits aren't, however, malicious in any way. I hope the above is sufficient evidence of Hoskins preferring her previous name. Rhibbert21 (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

See below. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Change of article name?

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} More on Richard/[...] here: [1]. Does the name of the article need to change? The exchange in the thread above might suggest not. Whatever, the "Personal life" section seems to be somewhat lacking. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rab V:, what do you make of the above? This is an odd case, in any event. This twitter is (still, tweeting as recently as 23 hours ago) for "Richard Hoskins", as is the website linked in its bio, but it's not "verified" so it's hard to be sure it's the person's official twitter/website. -sche (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That is odd. My main reason for the title change was seeing the rest of the article refer to the subject as [...]. The goodnessandharmony link appears to not be RS or a direct interview so I wouldn't lean on it. The twitter you point to is better and could be reason to use the name Richard but is iffy for the reason you mentioned. There are recent-ish sources that use the name [...] like National Post and Telegraph but I'm not especially familiar with the subject and I may have been wrong to change the name to [...]. Rab V (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, it does seem like Hoskins no longer wishes to be public about being trans. Note that the blog post "Going public as [...]", which was linked as a reference in the article, seems to have been removed: [...]. The LGBT Project essay on style says: it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a venue for outing people. One option might be to move the article to "R R Hoskins", which is how their blog renders the name. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Using archive.org, I can see that Hoskins' agency did switch from "Richard Hoskins" to "[...] Hoskins" and then back to Richard. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 10:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I have enough knowledge on the subject right now to know what is best for sure but if someone wants to change the name back it'd be fine by me also. Rab V (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Gender-specific pronouns

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Wouldn't it be better to use "he" for the events in the life of R. Hoskins prior to 2014? For example, when the subject traveled to, and lived in, Africa, the subject was male, and fathered children (who were lost in tragic circumstances, as related here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2146789/How-criminologist-probing-ritual-boy-Thames-murder-confront-personal-tragedy-daughters-mysterious-death-Africa.html).

Consider whether this sentence would be appropriate in the article: "Dr Hoskins was educated at Uppingham School, at Bedford School, and at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst." If this sentence would be OK, then the use of "she" throughout is OK, but if it would be objected that R. Hoskins did not have a PhD during this period, and was therefore then not "Dr Hoskins", then also "she" is not appropriate when Captain Hoskins (or whatever military rank was held) went to Africa, and when Dr Richard Hoskins was involved in the "Torso in the Thames" case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.64.198 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2019

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Richard Hoskins. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

[[:[...] Hoskins]] → ? – Recommend this page be moved to Richard Hoskins or R R Hoskins WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an unusual case. Hoskins came out as a transgender woman and then apparently decided to go back into the closet.

Timeline:

• In November 2016 Hoskins came out as a trans woman.
• In January 2017 this article was moved from "Richard Hoskins" to "[...] Hoskins".
• In March 2017 Rhibbert21 moved "[...] Hoskins" back to "Richard Hoskins" and edited the article so that it went back to referring to Hoskins as male. On the talk page they explained: Ms Hoskins has asked me personally to update her page, returning the gender listed to the original 'his' and 'him' - mainly for personal reasons that she did not want to go in to. These changes stuck until...
• In January 2019, PigeonPidgin edited the article so it went back to referring to Hoskins as female. And in March 2019, Rab V moved the article from "Richard Hoskins" back to "[...] Hoskins". These good faith edits do not seem to correspond to any change in how Hoskins has decided to self-present.
• The idea that Hoskins no longer wishes to be publicly known as [...] is corroborated by several things: [...]
• MOS:GENDERID emphasizes self-identification should be based on the most up-to-date sources and on the latest expressed gender self-identification. The LGBT Project style guide says it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a venue for outing people. WP:BLP says Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written...with regard for the subject's privacy. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Isn't delving into web archives of deleted personal social media posts on this very talk page a violation of "it is not acceptable to use Wikipedia as a venue for outing people"? Frankly it seems the history of this article is demonstrating that editors don't really seem to be caring about his private life at all. All the most recent reliable secondary sources refer to him as Richard Hoskins and that matches his current official websites, and so we have no choice in the matter but to move to Richard Hoskins. WP:SNOWCLOSE. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know what I should have done differently? There was an open question about how to refer to the subject which had to be researched and discussed, and Wikipedia doesn't allow for private conversations. After the page is moved I would be happy to request an admin deletion of any reference to Hoskins' gender identity in the article and talk page. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Based on the information above, it seems that this person's latest expressed gender self-identification and the predominance of reliable sources written after the name change is announced (including primary sources by the subject), the important variables to consider per MOS:GENDERID and WP:AT, would lead us to use "Richard Hoskins" at this time. -sche (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: I’ve updated the article so that it refers to Hoskins as male and does not mention gender transition. I’ve added a hidden note to the first instances of the name Richard Hoskins that says This name is current as of March 2019. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 22:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support In ictu oculi (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe we ought to ask for inputs from editors who are particularly vocal on the topic of transgender equality? Although no-one springs to mind, just at the moment, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support move. I have no prior knowledge of this particular person at all, having never heard of them as either Richard or [...] until this discussion was posted to the LGBT WikiProject, but there have been instances of people starting the process of coming out as transgender, but then deciding at a later date that they had made a mistake and reverting back to their birth gender, or that they were really non-binary — so "going back into the closet about being trans" isn't even the only possible explanation here. It would be improper speculation to decide that we know the root causes of this situation, obviously — but what we do know is that, whatever the reason is, their latest expressed preference is for the name and gender that this article originally used. So that's what we should be following. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I am emailing an admin now regarding this page. To everyone here who understands the situation: I recommend adding this page on your watchlist and keeping an eye on it. Thanks. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pings: Bearcat, Martinevans123, In ictu oculi, -sche, Netoholic, Rab V WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, the decision has come down that nothing is going to be admin deleted. Once the move is complete, though, I will recommend at least archiving this talk page. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 00:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, I too was thinking that once the move was finished all the threads currently on this talk page could be archived (to a subpage, as usual?). -sche (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. His own website uses Richard, for crying out loud! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Redaction

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Out of respect for the subject's privacy, I've redacted a few things above with [...]. To see an unredacted version of this talk page, use View History. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 02:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)