Talk:Genie (feral child)

Clarity under "Family background" and "Early life" regarding family names

Under these two sections, family members are referred to using only terms in relation to Genie herself: "her father," "her mother," etc., as Curtiss (1977) does, rather than using their (publicly known) names as news media such as ABC, the Guardian, and the Arcadia Tribune do. I found that this makes the article hard to parse, especially when her father's parents are discussed, as second-order collateral terms such as "her father's mother" are used. With WP:BLPNAME in mind, I don't see a convincing reason to avoid using the names of the brother, father, and mother for clarity's sake. Their names have been widely-circulated, are well-sourced, and their inclusion would aid in the reader's understanding of the article. LCSamTaylor (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

At the top of this page are links to three talk archives where previous discussions of this issue can be found. In brief, no. Johnuniq (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree, large parts of this article are terribly unclear, with the sentence "Although Genie's parents initially seemed happy to those who knew them, soon after they married he prevented her from leaving home and beat her with increasing frequency and severity" being a particularly bad example. Reading through the archives the point of contention seemed to be the use of Genie's real name, not the names of her family members, no? Silenuss (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

It's less than ideal, but broadcasting the names of her parents and brother isn't going to add any understanding. Knowing their names adds exactly nothing, since none of this has anything to do with the specific names her parents had. What it will do is get more people digging for Genie's real name, and the less public that is the better. She chose absolutely none of the attention, her circumstances have had knock-on effects that ruined the lives of several other people in her family who also didn't seek any outside attention (some of whom are still living), and use of them is far from universal. Curtiss (in her voluminous writings), Nova, and Peter Jones all take the same approach, so this is well in line with a large proportion of the sources. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. For the reasons LCSamTaylor listed, using names would aid understanding, and the inclusion of the names of deceased family members doesn't draw attention to living family members whose names are omitted from the article. It could potentially make such information easier to find, but given the number of sources that do include these names that's sort of a moot point. As an aside, "broadcasting" seems like a loaded way to be discussing this change. I think "mentioning" is a bit more neutral and accurate.

Regarding two of the sources you listed (Curtiss and Jones)—the use of anonymized pseudonyms and initials is standard practice in medical literature involving case studies. Pseudonyms are commonly used in these studies precisely because avoiding the use of complicated possessive pronouns aids in the reader's understanding of their contents. Looking over the transcript of the Nova doc, it really doesn't include very many biographical details. Silenuss (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page (when you decided to revert this discussion back into this talk page, for the 2nd time), there is a clear consensus that is backed by policy: Do not include real names of Genie or family, or doing so will result in the information being deleted, revision deleted, and possibly sanctions (ie: blocked). There are several people in the history of this article that have already been warned or blocked over it. This is why the discussion on this talk page is meaningless, the larger consensus is clearly against including personal information on a living person like this, for a variety of reasons. Having a dozen people on this talk page decide to do something (a local consensus) doesn't override the WP:BLP policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus wasn't on the topic of her family members, WP:BLP doesn't say what you're insisting it does, and the issue of clarity is still there even if we do decide not to go the route that I'm suggesting. Silenuss (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was [1][2] [3]. There is a clear consensus here too. If you can find a way to clarify the text without the names, please go ahead. Slp1 (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME states that "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects" and that inclusion is "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". My suggestion, in the interest of aiding clarity and reducing harm, is to only include the names of deceased family members. This seems like a great middle ground that follows both the letter and spirit of WP:BLP while improving the article. Given the fact that this article is extended-protected (largely due to this exact issue) the most I can hope do to contribute is consensus-building (which would be necessary regardless in this case), but I hope it makes a difference.

I'll extensively quote the discussions you provided, in reverse chronological order, on why exactly I think the issue being discussed here differs from the one discussed previously. I'll be ignoring the many comments arguing that the BLP doesn't apply, since there seems to be a broad consensus that it does. It's tedious, but I hope it eliminates any possibility for misinterpretation. I appreciate your inclusion of the Biographies of living persons noticeboard as it's valuable context I haven't previously seen. (btw could anyone let me know if there's a standard/accepted way of formatting inline quotations on talk pages? The way I'm doing it feels a little unwieldy.)

From the third: This entire section is blanked, and without oversight I can't possibly see what was said therein. It states "Nothing new has been produced to question the previous consensus, nor the consensus before that." Given the fact that I'm explicitly and self-consciously not questioning the current consensus, I don't think that this is relevant.

From the second: "On his website Wjhonson reveals Genie's real name based on research that he has done." This is in line with what I took the consensus to be about. "I haven't seen any case made, much less a compelling one, that including the person's real name materially improves the article. Worse, the subject of the article is in no position to advocate for herself, a remedy envisioned in the BLP policy as an important check on what we do here." This comment is in line with what I took consensus to be about, and the question of advocacy would suggest removing the "family background" and "early life" sections entirely. "In the last thirty seven years, only 1 book has mentioned her full name, and 2 related newspaper articles have given her last name in the context of relatives of the 100s written." This comment is in line with what I took consensus to be about. "I have to say, I too am in favor of not revealing her full name in this article." This comment is in line with what I took consensus to be about. "Make that another convinced by the arguments not include the name, not only for her protection but that of her brother, mentioned in the article (and edit summaries) who is also not a public individual." Same. "I am persuaded that including Genie's name, and also that of her brother, has a serious risk of participating in the victimization of these people, by making it much easier to identify them as individuals and encourage public scrutiny." Same. "Let's follow the trend set by scholarly articles and continue to respect her privacy. She's famous only as a case study, and her real name adds nothing to that." Same. "Here the editors, informed by the policy, formed a consensus to exercise restraint and not mention real names." This statement seems like an overstatement of what the actual consensus was, but it is a point against my view. "We just think that adding Genie's real name to her article, is not only unnecessary, but also potentially dangerous to her." This is in line with what I took the consensus to be about. "Until then, the only issue properly before this notice board is the attempts to insert the real name of Genie and her brother on Wikipedia, in contravention of the talk page consensus." Here agr explicitly states what they take the the consensus on this issue to be about, which is in line with my view of what it was.

From the first, which I admit covers this the question of family names more than I remembered, though still not directly: "Note that even the ABC story seems to go out of its way to avoid giving her first name, just referring to her as Genie, though it does give the names of her relatives. It seems a fine point, but clearly deliberate." The fine point alluded to here is precisely the point that I'm making; it seems that ABC made an editorial decision to include the names in the interest of clarity. Further along in the thread is you, "Given the previous very strong consensus for the name's non-inclusion, I suggest we remove the last name until there is a clear consensus here that it is appropriate to include it given the new information." This gets to the heart of the matter, and it's the sort of consensus-building I'm attempting to do here. "In other words, the thing for which she is famous has nothing to do with her family details" if we decide this is the case then I suggest we remove the "family background" and "early life" sections entirely. Further along is you again "in this case there are many, many more reliable, and especially scholarly sources about her, a tiny, tiny percentage of which mention either her first or last name" if we decide that only scholarly articles are important, and if we find no mention of biographical details, that would point in favor of removing the sections. "the thing for which she is famous has nothing to do with her family details." Again, this is a point in favor of eliminating the sections. "You can write about her family all you want, but how necessary is it to use their full names? For documenation purposes? I happen to think her privacy and safety are more important." If we decide that talking about her family background is important then the inclusion of her parents names doesn't seem like a large step beyond that. "Including her real name is unethical." this comment is more in line with what I took the consensus to be, only focusing on the name of the article's subject. Silenuss (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Upon rereading this I felt differently, so I'll give another reply. I don't appreciate you casting aspersions on my revert of your revert. Firstly I read Wikipedia policy on continuing archived discussions before doing anything to ensure that it was okay. Secondly, removing a discussion because you feel that, as you stated on my talk page, "continuing the discussion only encourages people to think they can add the material" seems like an overreach. Thirdly, and most significantly, you reverted without adding the discussion back to the archive, which feels a lot like deleting the discussion entirely. Silenuss (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Your concern has already been addressed by a few people above, and it has been explained that policy is clearly against including the real names, but you keep hammering away. It should be crystal clear that it is not ok to add the names by now. Best to WP:Drop the stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of the R slur

This article uses the term "mentally retarded/retarded" throughout it, which is considered offensive and outdated. Would it be possible to change it to something more along the lines of "intellectual disability?" Orangecalvin23 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• Typically, this is done because that is the phrase the sources use. We can't put words in their mouth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but if you had an article set about Black people from the 1800s, you wouldn't consistently refer to them with the n-word. 167.206.19.130 (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  The difference is that even in the 1800s, the n-word was a slur and was not used in serious, formal writing. "Mental retardation" was widely used in the scientific literature and in non-pejorative contexts until the late 20th century, and the leading advocacy group Arc of the United States used "retarded citizens" in its name until 1992. I am the father of a son with developmental delays born in 1989, and have seen the change in terminology. The comparison is not valid. Cullen328 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with calvin, but if it's directly quoted, why not put it in quotations? It'll give direct attribution for who describes her as such. Ecco2kstan (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, we have an article at Nigger because it is a word with a lot of history. We don't censor or try to whitewash history, we just document what the sources say, typically in their voice when possible. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  this article is not about slurs, its about a person. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Even then, notice how throughout almost the entire article you linked, the word is italicized or placed in quotations when someone else uses it. It's probably a good idea to reflect that, especially since the classification doesn't have that acceptance anymore. Ecco2kstan (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  Using quote is fine if you are actually quoting the source. Using them as a way to soften the words is not, as the Manual of Style clearly states that quotes should only be used for quotes. This is why I said you put the information in the sources voice, meaning you attribute the phrase without using quote marks. This is the standard here, and for most any published source of facts. We don't make up special rules for one article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that I find it problematic that Wikipedia is using these older terms in its own voice. Apart from anything else, it impairs the ease of understanding for readers. While we can't change quoted material, we should follow current trends about how Genie's strengths and weaknesses are described in modern scholarship and other recent texts. One of these days I will find the time to make this survey, but if anyone else wants to do sooner that would be very helpful. Slp1 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"Genie (feral child" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Genie (feral child has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Genie (feral child until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)