Talk:Julia Collins (Jeopardy! contestant)

Erroneous sentence was corrected, then reverted by an administrator

I'm trying to understand why an administrator would not only revert back to an incorrect and misleading version, but actually claim that the correction of misinformation is "vandalism".

In short, this is in reference to the second sentence of the article, right in the opening, which currently states "She is best known for being a 20-day champion on the quiz show Jeopardy! with the most consecutive wins of a female contestant until Amy Schneider surpassed her December 29, 2021."

This sentence erroneously states that Julian Collins had the record "until" December 29, 2021. In December 29, 2021, an individual did indeed exceed 20 days as the champion, but that individual (Amy Schneider) is described as a "trans woman" in the Wikipedia article on Amy Schneider. To understand what this means, the article on "trans women" states that "transgender" as "an umbrella term for persons whose gender identity or expression (masculine, feminine, other) is different from their sex (male, female) at birth". Furthermore, that article clarifies "Thus trans women fall under the umbrella of being transgender because their gender was assigned male at birth but they identify as a woman."

Therefore, when my edit clarified that on December 29, 2021, the individual who surpassed 20 days as champion did not change the fact that Julia Collins held the record as the longest record-holding female, this is consistent with both the article on Amy Schneider and the article on Trans woman.

Furthermore, the edit is consistent with Wikipedia's policies, and is consistent with the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Gender identity. In no way does this clarification go against any of these Wikipedia policies.

So, it is currently unknown why administrator Drmies would not only revert the edit making this correction, but threaten sanctions for doing so.

Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Schneider's bio describes her as female. The pronoun "she", is used throughout that bio. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion about the use of "male"/"female" in category names is pretty relevant here. In short, it's very normal to use "female" in a broad sense to mean "Of or relating to a woman or a girl" (in fact, that's verbatim one of the definitions of "female" given by the Oxford English Dictionary). Yes, "female" is sometimes used with a more technical, biological meaning, but that meaning is not the salient one in the context of this article. Colin M (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I would consider that meaning the salient one in the context of this article. Out of curiosity before seeing your reply, I also looked up the word "female" in the dictionary today (using Dictionary.com) and its definition appears to be unambiguous to me: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/female. The usage of important words that goes in direct contradiction to the common and accepted usage of those words does not appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia's goals. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

That page you linked to includes the definition "of, relating to, or characteristic of a woman: female charm". I disagree that this is in contradiction with common usage. For example, if someone refers in conversation to their "female colleagues", it is understood they're simply talking about their colleagues who are women, not their colleagues who are capable of producing large gametes. Our language juggles colloquial vs. technical definitions like this all the time. Fussing over the use of "female" in this context is kind of like complaining about having a caption describing this image as a selection of berries for sale, because ackshually a raspberry isn't a berry. That might be relevant in a botany article, but not if we're talking about an article about, say, farmer's markets. Colin M (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In any event, Sloppyjoes7, for Wikipedia article text (as well as, mutatis mutandis, in categorization), MOS:GENDERID specifies that Wikipedia uses gender identity rather than assigned sex in discussing (and catagorizing) article subjects. You have stated the opposite of this in your edit summaries and other comments, which suggests that you may not be fit to edit in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)