Talk:Jack Halberstam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Productive'[edit]

The article states: The Queer Art of Failure argues that failure can be productive... This is sort of the opposite of the truth. The book argues that failure is inherently unproductive but that there is value in that unproductivity. It might be a good idea to replace productive with valuable. --128.54.78.193 (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

"Some queer scholars have mistaken her work to be reinforcing heterosexuality and the notion of "femaleness." However, her work is groundbreaking in queer theory in its power to displace the embeddedness of masculinity in the male domain. "

This doesn't seem to represent both sides of the debate fairly. It seems biased to claim that those who criticise the work have simply "mistaken" it. It would be good if the critiques and their rebuttals could be presented more evenly and clearly here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.69.22 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 May 2006

Kindly sign your entries next time with --~~~~, even if you don't have a username. -- AlexR 13:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I didn't mean to cause any offence. (218.101.69.2 03:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Correct name / pronoun?[edit]

What are the correct name and pronoun to use for Halberstam? We should aim to use the appropriate one, consistently, rather than the mix-and-match approach this article has currently. Sentences like "He received 2 Lambda Book Award nominations for her most widely-known non-fiction book, Female Masculinity." are not good... --David Edgar (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J Jack Halberstam has been going by "Jack" since The Drag King Book, though Halberstam has not decisively said what pronouns to use. "When I was doing all that research on drag kings, I was like, well I’m not going to be Judith in this world of genderqueerness, I’m going by a male name. And at that point, I kind of wish I’d gone with the name Jude, because it would’ve been an easier transition for everybody, and for me too, and instead I just picked a very masculine name, I picked Jack, and now it’s stuck. So I’m Jack. But now I’m going more and more by Jack—I’m not transitioning, necessarily, but I’m in a lot of genderqueer contexts where people do gender by gender preference, not by your body, and I totally appreciate that. But then I suddenly had to face up to the question of whether Jack was my preferred name or not. So some people call me Jack, my sister calls me Jude, people who I’ve known forever call me Judith—I try not to police any of it. A lot of people call me he, some people call me she, and I let it be a weird mix of things and I’m not trying to control it. My next book that’s coming out in the fall, Gaga Feminism, is going to be under the name Jack." http://www.lambdaliterary.org/interviews/02/01/jack-halberstam-queers-create-better-models-of-success/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.208.77 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As shown by these edits I made, I moved the article back to Judith Halberstam and made some tweaks with regard to the name matter; I did so per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 48#Jack Halberstam (more commonly known as Judith Halberstam) -- what to title the article discussion, where it's made clear that Jack still uses "Judith Halberstam" professionally, now as "Judith 'Jack' Halberstam," that "Judith Halberstam" is his WP:Common name, and because Jack, as also noted above, seemingly does not mind being called Judith. But the pronouns should be consistent in the article; since Jack seemingly prefers and clearly goes by male pronouns, that's what we should use at this time, like the article currently does. Doing so is also advised by MOS:IDENTITY. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You know, people are kind of calling me he nowadays."
There doesn't seem to be a compelling argument not to change the name anymore. The Lambda Literary source is a reliable source and interview using the new name and pronouns. Moving the article to 'Jack' and redirecting 'Judith' seems like the most sensible thing to do here. I'll leave it 24 hours, but unless someone can give me a very good reason why we shouldn't change it, I'm going to move the article. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Morris, I just noticed your comment above. The arguments I pointed to in my "00:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)" post above are very good reasons not to move the article. I don't see why we should move the article to his lesser known name when he is not strict about people calling him by that name or by male pronouns. As noted above, he has stated that he now goes by the name Jack, and it seems that he prefers to be referred to by male pronouns, but that he "let[s] it be a weird mix of things and [he's] not trying to control it." As also noted above, I moved the article back to Judith Halberstam only after I discussed the matter at WP:LGBT. If you still want the article moved to Jack Halberstam, I suggest that we start a WP:Requested move discussion on this matter to get more/outside opinions. Flyer22 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I came here because I believe that talk is, at least as of 2015, incorrect, and am hearing everyone currently referring to him as Jack professionally. His website, Twitter account and faculty page are both under "Jack", and his lectures are announced as "Jack", which shows to me that he isn't using "Judith" any more. If he himself is "loosey goosey about pronouns" that's his prerogative, but simply means the choice in a work of reference is maybe a little harder than for a trans* person who makes a clear-cut transition. Amazon has the author page under "J Jack H...", which is a solution that looks good to me. But just keeping the female first name in the article title makes Wikipedia look retrograde according to current (admittedly shifting, but IMHO for the better) norms. Chriswaigl (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed the article name to "Jack Halberstam" per the subject's own public identification on his website, Twitter account, and faculty page, as per User:Chriswaigl and User:Tom Morris's comments above. Hexatekin (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hexatekin, and I went ahead and reverted you, per other comments above. I hadn't noticed Chriswaigl's comment until now, but this matter should now be put through an official WP:Requested move discussion. WP:Pinging BD2412 for his take on this matter, since he commonly deals with move discussions. Flyer22 (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BRD. A bold move is fine, but if it gets reverted (as this one has been) then a WP:RM discussion is required. I frankly would not anticipate any difficulty with that. bd2412 T 15:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, you mean you don't see any difficulty in following the WP:RM process in this case? I started the move discussion below. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:Pinging David Edgar, who hasn't weighed in on this since 2010. David Edgar, care to comment on this matter again, perhaps in the official move discussion below? Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to Jack Halberstam?[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Everyone who voiced an opinion seemed supportive of the move, even if in some cases they didn't have a particularly strong conviction about it. Jenks24 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Judith Halberstam → Jack Halberstam – See the discussion immediately above this one. One argument is that per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 48#Jack Halberstam (more commonly known as Judith Halberstam) -- what to title the article discussion, it's made clear that Jack still uses "Judith Halberstam" professionally, now as "Judith 'Jack' Halberstam," that "Judith Halberstam" is his WP:Common name, and because Jack, as also noted above, seemingly does not mind being called Judith, the article should be titled Judith Halberstam. The other argument is that "everyone" is currently referring to him as Jack professionally. "His website, Twitter account and faculty page are both under 'Jack', and his lectures are announced as 'Jack', which shows [...] that he isn't using 'Judith' any more. If he himself is 'loosey goosey about pronouns' that's his prerogative, but simply means the choice in a work of reference is maybe a little harder than for a trans* person who makes a clear-cut transition. Amazon has the author page under 'J Jack H...', which is a solution that looks good [...]. But just keeping the female first name in the article title makes Wikipedia look retrograde according to current [...] norms." Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm more so iffy on the move now, given what Chriswaigl stated above; based on what Chriswaigl stated above, I could support a move to Jack Halberstam. Flyer22 (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A transition is a transition, even if the person transitioning takes a relaxed approach to policing it. bd2412 T 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that going by the general practice discussed at Wikipedia:Gender identity#Common name, we shouldn't (in cases like this) feel bound to adhere to the letter of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. It seems awkward that a suitable policy doesn't satisfactorily address the issues in this case, but following the guideline at MOS:IDENTITY, I think that using the identity which he appears to have most commonly used for himself recently is the best solution.
In addition, the argument made here by User:NatGertler regarding the common name being that used on the books seems to me to be at least partially invalidated by the "J. Jack Halberstam" used most recently.
I had no view on this either way when I posted the above question five years ago, but having looked at things today, I would now support this page move. --David Edgar (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in, David Edgar. If this were a clear-cut "I'm transgender, and you should use my new name" matter, I would have never hesitated in this case. MOS:IDENTITY, as you know, is about gender pronouns, not the title of the article (well, it used to not be about the title of the article until recently), even though we usually go with the person's new name when it comes to transgender topics. But as seen in the section immediately above this one, Jack is quoted as saying that he is not necessarily transitioning and is not hard-pressed on having people call him Jack or by male pronouns. "Judith" was still being used on his books, and NatGertler (who respects gender identity issues) made a good argument for going with the name Judith Halberstam for the title of this article in the aforementioned linked discussion. Then again, as pointed out, there is now a stronger case for going with the name Jack Halberstam for the title of this article. Flyer22 (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with your points. It's certainly not clear-cut. I think that MOS:IDENTITY suggests a direction we should take, even it if it's not strictly relevant to the question of article titles. And while he's not explicitly transitioning, most recent choices of name he has made do appear to be very much in favour of Jack rather than Judith. My impression is that if we don't move the article now, it's likely that in a few years time (perhaps after some more books) we'd likely have to move it then. --David Edgar (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note for anyone: For more insight into how Jack feels about what pronouns/what name people can use in reference to him, see this post at jackhalberstam.com. Now I see where Chriswaigl got the "loosey goosey about pronouns" phrase from (or at least I think that's where Chriswaigl got it from). Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although Jack stated in this 2012 lambdaliterary.org interview that "You know, people are kind of calling me he nowadays. I’m going with that.", his University of Southern California (USC) page uses feminine pronouns, as seen with this link. This further speaks to what Jack stated at jackhalberstam.com about not wanting to fully transition to a male gender identity and that he wants to blur the gender lines. Like he stated, "I have not transitioned in any formal sense and there certainly many differences between my gender and those of transgender men on hormones. Second, the back and forth between he and she sort of captures the form that my gender takes nowadays. Not that I am often an unambiguous 'she' but nor am I often an unambiguous he. Third, I think my floating gender pronouns capture well the refusal to resolve my gender ambiguity that has become a kind of identity for me." Those who've read the post know that he goes on to state much more (including in the comments section). So I hope that, if editors read that, they remember it and don't feel that they have to refer to him as Jack or as "he" in every Wikipedia article and everywhere on Wikipedia once this article is moved to Jack Halberstam, especially in cases where it might be confusing to readers, such as in articles quoting him on lesbian topics. I can imagine our readers seeing the name "Jack" and masculine pronouns and immediately thinking, "What does he know about lesbian sexuality or lesbian life as a whole?" Hopefully, the readers will click on his Wikipedia article in those cases. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no particular view on this rename, however I am a bit perplexed by the focus of discussion. We call Muhammad Ali, by that name primarily because it is his commonname, immediately on his page, his birth name is given so that there is a fuller picture, in Ali's case it is also his preferred name, which is nice, but not the focus of our reasoning. The same logic would be true of any 'name change' person, regardless of their reason. I'm not arguing for total insensitivity to Jack/Judith within the article, merely recording that their wishes are not the primary consideration when it comes to article title, and the reader would expect some clarification within the opening para. Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pincrete, the focus of this discussion is based on what the person prefers because of what is outlined at MOS:IDENTITY. And even if we state that MOS:IDENTITY doesn't have significant weight in the case of article titles (see my "03:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)" post above), it's still a fact that Wikipedia has taken the stance that gender identity issues are treated differently with regard to article titles. As noted above, though, Jack is clear that he doesn't take offense as to whether we call him Jack or Judith, or he or she, and is clear that he seeks to blur the gender lines. So this is not a typical "rename the article to the subject's preferred name" transgender case. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, Wikipedia can't be as unambiguous as the subject in this case prefers to be. They can use different names and pronouns in different circumstances, but we need to pick one and be consistent. bd2412 T 17:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, take your point, I was unaware of that 'override'. However the same guideline says "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." I had to read half this article to discover why the name was an issue at all, rather than 'George Eliot' or another reason for name use. That isn't relevant to the 'move' discussion, but I record anyway. ... nb edit conflict, but sympathise with bd2412's comment.Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412, no one is stating that we should be inconsistent in the article. We can list the WP:Alternative name in the lead, after all, and we currently do that. And, of course, there will be inconsistency as far as the author credit on Jack's books go, considering that most of Jack's books thus far use the name "Judith Halberstam." I was simply pointing out that this is not a typical "move the article title" transgender case, where we have to move the article title to respect the person's gender identity, and I was pointing out how changing the article title can tempt people to use this new name in every Wikipedia article and at every Wikipedia talk page, including in lesbian topics, where Jack is most known for being cited and the masculine name/pronouns are likely to cause confusion. We don't have to be consistent with the name and gender pronouns in every Wikipedia article and at every Wikipedia talk page in this case. If using the feminine name/pronouns makes more sense at any Wikipedia article where Jack is mentioned, we should use those; and we clearly have Jack's permission to do so.
Pincrete, "first occurrence in an article" doesn't mean "in the lead." The current state of the article, as you know, includes both names in the lead. And readers can easily see the "Early life, education and gender identity" section from the table of contents. Given how small the "Early life, education and gender identity" section is, I don't see that we need to reiterate much of that gender material in the lead, but we could validly briefly note in the lead that Jack is okay with being called "Judith" and with people referring to him by feminine pronouns. In fact, I'll add that to the lead soon. Flyer22 (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, beg to differ, first occurence means first time the issue is raised, whether it is raised by (apparently) conflicting names or by he/she pronouns, or by ??? … … otherwise confusion/surprise cuts in. We wouldn't use 'Cassius' and 'Muhammed' alternately without first making it clear why the two names exist, nor Mother Teresa and her given name. Using both names prior to that clarification is worse than only using the 'favoured' one to anyone reading the article, who is simply perplexed. However, none of this has much to do with the article name. Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC) … … ps what I am suggesting is only "born Judith H etc." or some other form in the lead, otherwise I have no idea what these names are about, sure the fuller explanation can come later.Pincrete (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "first occurrence means first time the issue is raised," and the first time the gender identity issue is raised is currently in the "Early life, education and gender identity" section. As for the name issue, a preference for that is also not first raised in the lead, unless we go by the fact that the name "Jack Halberstam" is mentioned first and "Judith Halberstam" is mentioned second. There is no MOS:IDENTITY obligation to address the name preference/indifference issue there. That's a WP:Lead obligation, if any. With WP:Alternative names, it's common to simply list the alternative name in the lead and elaborate on that alternative name lower in the article if it's not a common sense case. I've already stated that I will mention something in the lead about the name and gender identity issues in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the present form of the article, it does what I said it should, previous forms, using female name but 'he' pronoun, are just baffling, one doesn't know whethet one is just dealing with a typo, but present form is fine. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It seems like the COMMONNAME is probably Jack (judging by the discussions above) and the subject has indicated that they are still using the name Jack (which lends it weight per MOS:IDENTITY). I don't really see what the argument is for using Judith. Kaldari (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari, I noted above that I can now be fine with moving this article to "Jack Halberstam" since Jack is strictly going by that name now, especially since it's the main name used at his University of Southern California (USC) page, seen with this link (that link also currently shows that he still identifies with "Judith" to some degree). But how have you concluded that his WP:Commonname is probably "Jack," given that "Judith" has been the name used throughout the vast majority of his career, even in recent cases that state "Judith 'Jack' Halberstam," and that it's only for his latest book ("Gaga Feminism") that the name "Jack" has been primarily used with regard to the author's name for his book works (thus far anyway)? Even for that latest book, the author name is "J. Jack. Halberstam," which shows that he still acknowledges "Judith." The argument for using "Judith" for the title of this article is because it's his common name and he has stated that people can call him "Judith" despite the fact that he now goes by "Jack." Those aspects, and his take on gender pronouns (noted above with URL links), are why this is not a typical MOS:IDENTITY case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22: Got it. I should have read the discussion more closely. I was under the impression that Jack had been more widely used, but perhaps that's just from more recent sources. It sounds like Jack is their current preferred name (regardless of whether they are enforcing such usage), so it seems that MOS:IDENTITY would still apply in this situation. Kaldari (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari, understood. I noted above that MOS:IDENTITY didn't used to refer to article titles; after much discussion, it was recently amended to include article titles as the following bullet point: "Disputes over how to refer to a person or group are addressed by Wikipedia content policies, such as those on verifiability, and neutral point of view (and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article)." I still don't see a strong argument for applying MOS:IDENTITY to the article title in this case, but I understand your and others' reasoning for citing MOS:IDENTITY and feeling that this article should be titled "Jack Halberstam." Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's confusing to use one name in the article body and another for the title. Whichever name we pick, it should be consistent if possible. Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Update[edit]

This change (followup edit here) at the MOS:IDENTITY guideline by Francis Schonken (the References to the person in other articles part) takes care of my "name and pronoun mention in other articles" concern. By that, I mean where I stated the following in my "21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)" post: "I was pointing out how changing the article title can tempt people to use this new name in every Wikipedia article and at every Wikipedia talk page, including in lesbian topics, where Jack is most known for being cited and the masculine name/pronouns are likely to cause confusion. We don't have to be consistent with the name and gender pronouns in every Wikipedia article and at every Wikipedia talk page in this case. If using the feminine name/pronouns makes more sense at any Wikipedia article where Jack is mentioned, we should use those; and we clearly have Jack's permission to do so." Flyer22 (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2269
    Triggered by \bbeacon\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack Halberstam. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jack Halberstam. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:GENDERID[edit]

See the RfC close here.

Cunard (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As seen here, I reverted this. Followup edits here, here and here. If we are going to apply MOS:GENDERID across Wikipedia, that application needs to be consistent. MOS:GENDERID tells us that we should "give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." In this case, Halberstam has been clear (multiple times) that he is not a trans man and is not really about policing people calling him by feminine pronouns or by "Judith" (which seems to be his birth name). There is also the fact that he is well known as "Judith Halberstam" (which can still be argued as his WP:Common name), as is clear by the body of his work (which is mostly authored under "Judith Halberstam"), and the fact that he went under "Halberstam, J. Jack." for his book "Gaga Feminism." As discussed before, the "J" in that stands for "Judith." And from a legal standpoint, it's not like we know that "Judith Halberstam" is not his legal name; "formerly Judith Halberstam" can imply that he legally changed his name from one to the other. And on top of that, Halberstam hasn't identified as non-binary. So, regardless of a few sources (yes, even The New York Times, which WanderingWanda likes to refer to as "America's newspaper of record") stating "formerly", I fail see why the lead of this article should state "formerly Judith Halberstam". And given how prominent the name "Judith Halberstam" is with regard to women's/feminist studies and lesbian literature, it will come as a surprise to readers to see Halberstam referred to by masculine pronouns in the lead, which is why it's important to let readers know right there in the lead (which is the only part of the article that many readers read) the gender identity aspect.

Even this 2016 thecut.com source is titled "Think Gender Is Performance? You Have Judith Butler to Thank for That." It documents a Halberstam interview, and the author refers to Halberstam by feminine pronouns in addition to stating "says Jack Halberstam" at one point. It is four years after his "Gaga Feminism" book and this interview where he speaks of going by masculine pronouns and "Jack" but also allowing people to call him by feminine pronouns and by the name Judith, and three years after this The New York Times source that states "formerly Judith." Thecut.com source being four years after the "Gaga Feminism" book and 2012 interview and three years after the The New York Times source further shows that he is not strict about whether people should use masculine pronouns for him or call him Jack. Clearly, using the 2013 The New York Times source and this 2017 Popular Inquiry blog source to state "formerly Judith", as though Halberstam no longer allows use of "Judith" or it is solely a past matter in reference to him, is questionable. From what I see, these two sources were simply letting readers know of the name Halberstam went by before using "Jack." Again, MOS:GENDERID states, "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." Given the history Halberstam has with women's/gender/lesbian topics, and that Halberstam has spoken multiple times on how he views his gender and on how others may refer to him, the current text in the lead is not undue emphasis. Having the lead state "formerly Judith Halberstam", use the masculine pronouns, and exclude any mention of the gender identity aspect will lead readers to believe that Halberstam is a trans man; this would obviously be fine if he actually identified as one.

Also keep in mind that noting this gender aspect early on in the lead was discussed as part of the #Move article to Jack Halberstam? discussion above. Pincrete noted the benefit of mentioning things as early as possible. Also pinging Kaldari since Kaldari works on a lot of gender topics and also commented in the previous move discussion. I'm open to rewording, but I question wording Halberstam's alternative name as a "formerly" matter unless Halberstam has designated it as such.

On a side note: Because of the issues WanderingWanda and I have with each other, I think it is best that this discussion doesn't just involve the two of us. So that's another reason I've pinged others. And regardless of WanderingWanda focusing on people loose with their gender, I question WanderingWanda deciding to show up at articles like Ezra Miller (a day after I've edited the article) and this one, where I'm clearly heavily involved with the topics. I've made it clear times before that I avoid (and try to avoid at other times) articles that WanderingWanda is at unless I'm already at the article. WanderingWanda clearly doesn't do the same with regard to me. And this is despite the ANI warning. So to admins JBW, Doug Weller, Girth Summit, SlimVirgin and Johnuniq, what should I do in cases like this? I mean, regarding this and this, I clearly wrote the material and we have WanderingWanda removing it with commentary such as "a poor summary." Because it's WanderingWanda, I can't help but feel hounded in a case like this. I understand the sentiment that I should try to ignore my history with WanderingWanda and focus on debating the content, but there is so much sour history between us. I just don't think it's ever a good idea for us to discuss matters without others being involved. I can try harder, but others need to understand that it is distressing for me to be involved in any discussion that WanderingWanda is involved in. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

As a general observation, while it's clear Flyer22 that you have been involved in this article for many years, it also falls within WW's area of interest so I don't think there's any reason to be concerned about their arriving here. I think you've done the right thing by setting out your reasons for the revert above, and by pinging other editors who have a history of interest in the article to get their views. I'm not going to offer a view on the content, since I'm not familiar with the subject or the sources, but will be happy to watch the discussion and encourage everyone to maintain a collaborative atmosphere. GirthSummit (blether) 09:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, thanks for commenting and offering to mediate. Out of the admins pinged, I figured you'd be the one to comment. I'm not stating that you are stating this, but, given my history with WanderingWanda, I don't think the article being within WanderingWanda's areas of interest gives them a free pass to pop up at whatever article I'm at and focus on text specifically added by me. In fact, given various hounding cases, I know it does not. Various editors (for different cases involving different editors) have used a "this is my area of interest" explanation and admins have still judged the matter as hounding or at least as unnecessary overlap on the editor's part. I also think that the aforementioned ANI thread is clear on this point. I'm stating that because of my history with WanderingWanda, I would never think it's a good idea to knowingly show up to an article they have significantly edited and/or are clearly heavily invested in and focus on text they edited. If one wants to state that WanderingWanda perhaps didn't know that I added the text, my response to that is that WanderingWanda checks edit histories and talk pages. This article is not heavily edited, I'm easily seen in the edit history, and old posts involving me are clearly above. At some point, I do think that a one-way interaction ban will be necessary, but I'm not looking for that at this point in time. I'm trying to find the best way to deal with this type of thing, especially given that there are a number of cases involving me where an editor has used a "this is my area of interest" explanation to cause me distress. Per the aforementioned ANI thread, believing that WanderingWanda is acting purely in good faith in cases such as this one is not something I can put my trust in. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Flyer22 Frozen: First, let me politely ask if it would be possible for you to not post walls of text when you are making your arguments. It is not a cordial way to have a discussion on Wikipedia, and it drives away other editors from participating. Concise arguments are appreciated :) Second, MOS:GENDERID doesn't say anything about names and pronouns that transgender people allow other people to call them. It rightly instructs to simply prioritize the person's latest self-designation. It is not uncommon for transgender people, especially non-binary people, to be OK with names and gender pronouns that do not match their preference (despite the stereotype perpetuated by transphobes that transgender people are universally militant about their names and pronouns). Regardless, as you are well aware, on Wikipedia we use the person's self-designation, regardless of what other sources use. So let's actually try to figure out what Halberstam is going by these days:
Going by these sources, I would say that the article should use "Jack Halberstam" and/or "J. Jack Halberstam", but not "Judith Halberstam". It's fine, however, to mention that he used to go by "Judith Halberstam" in the past. Kaldari (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari, no need to ping me. I disagree with your "walls of text" characterization. I understand that some people look at long posts and think "too long; didn't read, but long posts are sometimes needed to sufficiently relay one's points or arguments. This is seen in a number of our venues. As SMcCandlish, who also weighed in on the Ezra Miller matter and commonly makes long posts (with one long post at the Ezra Miller talk page thus far) has made clear, people who invoke "too long; didn't read" are often being lazy and are attempting to dismiss another's argument. I'm not stating that you are, but many of us have an attention span that exceeds three hefty paragraphs and one small paragraph. I'm not going to exchange a thoroughly sufficient post for a less sufficient post. I don't need to be lectured on long posts as though my posts are always as long as the above post or even that long half of the time. You've seen me argue plenty of times before, including in discussions where you have made long posts. You know that I don't make long posts without good reason. And, frankly (but I'm saying this with no offense intended), I find your "walls of text" characterization rude. But I will, as I often do, consider ways to trim my post when fewer words will do.
As for the rest of your argument, this is not a discussion about the article's title (although I did mention that "Judith Halberstam" can still be argued to be Halberstam's WP:Common name). This perhaps got lost because of my long post. I didn't state or imply that MOS:GENDERID says anything about names and pronouns that transgender people allow other people to call them. It is not as though I was arguing that we should use feminine pronouns in this article for Halberstam. I was sure to zero in on the "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." aspect. That is why I stated that Halberstam has been clear that he is not a trans man and I noted that he is well known as "Judith Halberstam." Because he is well known under the name "Judith Halberstam", we note "Judith Halberstam" in the lead. This is per WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. You stated that MOS:GENDERID "instructs to simply prioritize the person's latest self-designation." Yes, it does. And that does not apply to article titles (although it's been misused in such a way in the past). You stated, "It is not uncommon for transgender people, especially non-binary people, to be OK with names and gender pronouns that do not match their preference." That is true, and Halberstam has been clear that he allows/accepts people calling him "Judith" and by feminine pronouns. Because of this, because the name "Judith Halberstam" is so prominent and he hasn't rejected it, and because he has been clear that he is not a trans man, I've argued that the lead should continue to state "also known as Judith Halberstam" and note that Halberstam uses allows for use of masculine and feminine pronouns with regard to him. When a person uses singular they, for example, it is not uncommon for us to make sure to note that in lead as to not surprise readers. There will still be many readers surprised to find that Halberstam goes by masculine pronouns. And even if there weren't, we should not lead readers to believe that Halberstam has transitioned into a trans man when Halberstam has addressed that more than once, as seen here and here (for just two examples), and has been clear that he has not. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, long posts are fine when they are presenting information and arguments that are relevant. Trying to make them seem to be a civility problem is itself a civility problem. Where long posts become a WP:TEXTWALL issue is when they are repetitive, or filled with off-topic material, or with subjective venting. See, e.g., the average text-wall at ANI for the difference; the vast majority of complaints and counter-complaints posted there could be compressed to about 1/5 their original size or smaller without losing any actually pertinent information or evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about alternative name usage in the lead[edit]

There is a clear consensus that the lead of the article should state "also known as Judith Halberstam" instead of "formerly known as Judith Halberstam". The consensus is that the subject does not consider "Judith Halberstam" to be a deadname and that including "Judith Halberstam" in the lead complies with WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES.

Cunard (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disagreement exists on whether the lead of the article should state "also known as Judith Halberstam" or "formerly known as Judith Halberstam." Mentioning, and how to mention, Halberstam's pronoun usage in the lead is also a point of discussion, but is not the main focus.

So should the lead of the article state "also known as Judith Halberstam"? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Yes, use "also known as." Halberstam is not a trans man, "Judith Halberstam" is not his deadname, and he is still widely known as "Judith Halberstam." There is no indication that he shuns "Judith Halberstam" or considers "Judith Halberstam" as solely a past matter in reference to him. Furthermore, Halberstam's Facebook page uses "J. Jack Halberstam". As seen here regarding one of his books, the J stands for "Judith." When one looks at his book "Female Masculinity" on Google Books, it lists both names -- "Judith Halberstam, Jack Halberstam." Even if a recent re-issue of the book "Female Masculinity" uses the name "Jack Halberstam" instead of the long-standing "Judith Halberstam", this is no indication that he now shuns "Judith" or considers it as solely a past matter in reference to him. With the release of his "Gaga Feminism" book, he already told us in a 2012 interview that he goes by "Jack" these days. In that same interview, he told us "some people call me Jack, my sister calls me Jude, people I've known forever call me Judith" and "I try not to police any of it. A lot of people call me he, some people call me she, and I let it be a weird mix of things." And there still is no evidence that this has changed. Although this 2013 The New York Times source and this 2017 Popular Inquiry blog source state "formerly Judith", it is clear to me that these two sources did this to let readers know of the name Halberstam went by before using "Jack." Having the lead state "formerly Judith Halberstam", use the masculine pronouns, and exclude any mention of the gender identity aspect will lead readers to believe that Halberstam never uses or allows for "Judith" and is a trans man. But he's told us before, including in the 2012 interview, that he is not a trans man. And unless he states that "Judith" is something the public should only use in a "formerly" sense, I don't think that Wikipedia should state it for him. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • No, use "formerly known as" - Flyer22's assertion that Halberstam is still "widely known as" Judith Halberstam just isn't accurate, and the only recent source that Flyer22 cites is talking about Judith Butler, not Judith Halberstam. As I laid out above, all recent sources refer to Halberstam as "Jack Halberstam" or "J. Jack Halberstam", and those are the names that Halberstam has used for himself for the past 10 years. Unless Flyer22 can find some recent reliable sources that use "Judith Halberstam", saying "also known as" just isn't true, regardless of the WP:GENDERID and WP:BLP issues. Kaldari (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake on the "Judith Butler" aspect. The two have been confused before (including on Wikipedia) and now I've fallen prey to that. Not sure how I continued to miss it during this discussion. My eyes are usually sharper than that. Well, actually, a health issue I'm dealing with might have contributed to it. But, either way, it would not have happened if I'd taken the time to read the source instead of skim through it. Still, per what I stated above, "just isn't accurate" isn't accurate. Kaldari continues to cite "J. Jack Halberstam." And like I mentioned before, the "J" in that stands for "Judith", indicating that he does not shun "Judith" or consider it as solely a past matter in reference to him. Again, Wikipedia should not be stating "formerly" for him on this matter. And stating "also known as" is a not WP:GENDERID and WP:BLP violation in any way. It clearly adheres to WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    You know very well that WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE doesn't apply to this debate (as it's for titles) and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES actually says: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly". So no, your wording does not adhere to either WP:GENDERID or MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. Kaldari (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take your tone down a notch. WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE does apply in this case, as it applies in the case of all articles that have an alternative name for the topic it is about. It quite clearly states, "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended." It also states, "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article." All of this does not only apply to topics about objects, but also to topics about people. "Judith Halberstam" redirects here, and we include it as the alternative name in the lead for obvious reasons. And MOS:MULTIPLENAMES stating that "one can introduce the name with either 'born' or 'formerly" doesn't mean "also known as" can never be used. And in a case such as this specifically, it is not the typical transgender case of the person considering their birth/old name a deadname or otherwise something to avoid. WP:GENDERID is an essay. And MOS:GENDERID tells us that "the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, use "also known as." As noted above, it is not a deadname and adheres to WP:ALTERNATIVETITLE and MOS:MULTIPLENAMES. It's not only allowed by the letter of MOS:GENDERID, but the principle behind MOS:GENDERID means we should not seem to imply someone is a trans man when they have been clear they are not one. [1] He states there, the back and forth between he and she sort of captures the form that my gender takes nowadays. Not that I am often an unambiguous “she” but nor am I often an unambiguous he. Third, I think my floating gender pronouns capture well the refusal to resolve my gender ambiguity that has become a kind of identity for me. There's no basis there to conclude that he does not identify with "Judith" at all anymore and that "Judith" is "formerly" for him. And "Judith" is still used by some excellent sources. See, for example, this from Duke University Press. This book and its description refer to "Judith Halberstam". If this was a former name, they would never do this. And while it is true the author link says "Jack Halberstam", that just shows that both names are in use. While overall "Jack" seems more common now, and thus the article is at that title, "Judith" is not a former name. Crossroads -talk- 04:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crossroads: That Duke University source is from 2011 which is right before Halberstam started using the name Jack, so that doesn't prove anything at all. Nor does Halberstam's statement about gender pronouns. Non-binary people are just as covered by MOS:GENDERID as trans men and trans women, and MOS:GENDERID requires that we give precedence to a person's latest self-identity (not present their old and new identities equally). It's irrelevant whether Halberstam allows other people to call him Judith, what matters is Halberstam's self-identity. If you can show me a single source from the past 5 years where Halberstam self-identifies as "Judith", I will gladly change my vote. Kaldari (talk) 14:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The book itself is from 2011, but the website is from today. Again, there is no evidence that "Judith" is an old identity. Quite the opposite. He states his self-identity includes both. Crossroads -talk- 18:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, use "also known as," self-designation takes precedence over COMMONNAME, but the individual has made it clear that he is comfortable with either name. I don't see why we should not also be, giving precedence to 'Jack' - as we already do. As others have said, this is not a deadname and we should not create the impression that it is. There is no clear acknowledgement from him that he rejects 'Judith' and clear indication that in his most recent pronouncements, that many people he knows use that name (ie AKA). Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pincrete: It's irrelevant whether or not Halberstam is "comfortable" with the name Judith (which, for the record, they have never said). The only thing that matters is whether or not Halberstam self-identifies as "Judith". Show me a source within the past 5 years where Halberstam has self-identified as Judith and I will gladly change my vote. Kaldari (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, his own website says pretty explicitly that he is comfortable with either name and any pronouns and that he regards his gender identity as fluid. Although the date on that is 2012, it is reasonable for us to think that he would choose to change his own website if his position had changed. The only indication that his position has changed, is people OTHER THAN him using 'former' in a manner which is ambiguous. Either we accept that clear self-designation has primacy, and do so consistently - or we make it up to media outlets to decide (ambiguously even in this case). Pincrete (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He doesn't say anything about being comfortable with the name Judith in that blog post. He says "some family members still call me Judith." And that was 8 years ago! Since then Halberstam has published numerous blog posts, articles, and even books, all under the names "Jack Halberstam" or "J. Jack Halberstam". And regardless, what names Halberstam is "comfortable with" is irrelevant. "Comfortable with" does not equal "self-identifies with". If we're interested in accurately reflecting Halberstam's self-identity, how come no one is proposing that we say "also known as J. Jack Halberstam", which would actually make sense? Kaldari (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From his own website " I have debated switching out Jack for Jude to try to compress the name ambiguity into a more clear opposition between Judith and Jude. But then again … when it comes to names and pronouns, I am a bit of a free floater" ... " consider my gender improvised at best, uncertain and mispronounced more often than not, irresolvable and ever shifting" ..... " the back and forth between he and she sort of captures the form that my gender takes nowadays. Not that I am often an unambiguous “she” but nor am I often an unambiguous he … I think my floating gender pronouns capture well the refusal to resolve my gender ambiguity that has become a kind of identity for me." ...."So, while I could “transition” and still live in the ever-evolving, improvised territory of transgenderism…well, I prefer not to". Whether he is 'comfortable' is VERY relevant IMO. MOS:GENDERID is not an 11th Commandment to be followed slavishly and dogmatically, it allows us to deviate from our general rule of WP:COMMONNAME, ie how others generally refer to a subject, because of the specific sensibilities associated with gender identification. If the subject doesn't mind, why should we? Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, MOS:GENDERID tells us that "the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first." And although people have used MOS:GENDERID to argue against WP:COMMONNAME, MOS:GENDERID is not about article titles. It is a guideline, not a part of our WP:Article titles policy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we ask the subject in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Original research. Personal communication isn't a reliable source (for one thing, it's easy to fake an e-mail, and an account).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, I considered that overnight. Wikipedia has sometimes listened to BLP subjects via contacting them directly or them commenting on their Wikipedia talk page, including on naming issues with regard to gender. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If they comment on the talk page, trust that they are who they say they are could happen if their account is confirmed via WP:OTRS. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask them to make a tweet or FB post from their account so that it is publically verified. Until than I think it is reasonable to stick with the status quo. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "also known as", since it fits the facts of actual usage and the subject's own published statements. This one-size-fits-all campaigning around TG/NB people really needs to stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is one source from 2012 that indicates any resolution that places undue weight on one or the other would be inaccurate to preference for non-resolution to a single name based on preconceptions about their gender identity [2]. It does not however accurately indicate recent self-identification as Judith. If this source were recent I would think it a good indication they have no preference as stated. But an old dusty blogpost is just not a reliable source for a BLP issue. This is a matter of poor sourcing as much as it is one of MOS:GENDERID. We have strong sources for self-identity as Jack or Jude but no strong source for Judith. I am in favour of any approach that allows us to better source the use of the name Judith, including OTRS verified contact with the subject Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "also known as." agree with points raised by Flyer22 Frozen Idealigic (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Let's establish some agreed upon facts:

  • Halberstam currently self-identifies as "Jack Halberstam" or "J. Jack Halberstam". They do not self-identify as "Judith Halberstam".
  • Jack Halberstam is transgender and non-binary.
  • WP:GENDERID applies to non-binary people, not just trans men and trans women.

Does anyone disagree with any of the statements above? If so, please cite your sources. Kaldari (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet point 1, They do not self-identify as "Judith Halberstam", is incorrect. Emphasis added: I mostly go by “Jack” nowadays, although people who have known me for a really long time and some family members still call me Judith....when it comes to names and pronouns, I am a bit of a free floater....the back and forth between he and she sort of captures the form that my gender takes nowadays....I think my floating gender pronouns capture well the refusal to resolve my gender ambiguity that has become a kind of identity for me....consider my gender improvised at best, uncertain and mispronounced more often than not, irresolvable and ever shifting. [3] Crossroads -talk- 18:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gaga Feminism[edit]

Hi everyone!

I made some edits to the Gaga Feminism section in an attempt to summarize in a bit more of a descriptive way. I struggled to find explanations for the tenets, however, and am not familiar enough with them myself to comment more. If anyone has further knowledge or examples, I think that would be a helpful clarification! Heather.paglia (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Halberstam&oldid=1194880062"