Jump to content

Talk:Dylan Mulvaney

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willthacheerleader18 (talk | contribs) at 15:24, 17 November 2023 (→How much did Bud Light pay her?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Improvements

Any help with improving this article would be appreciated. Eric Carpenter (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this my draft? Saint concrete (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Can someone add a photo of her? Saint concrete (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Saint concrete. I looked on Wiki Commons and there aren't any pictures for the subject at this point in time. We rely on editors uploading photos for which they hold the license (ie: not pictures pulled offline). Now that the subject is becoming more high profile, I'm sure at some point an editor will get a photo of her. --Kbabej (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. Thanks anyways. Saint concrete (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

I believe that this article should be protected, semi protected at least due to transphobic vandalism. Saint concrete (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place to request page protection is WP:RFPP. However, if this is regarding the use of the term "actor" vs. "actress", there have been many, mostly inconclusive, discussions about whether it is more appropriate in Wikipedia articles to use the gender-neutral term "actor", or the gendered term "actress", which some people consider old-fashioned, sexist, or both. A clear exception would be if the subject has expressed a preference for one term over the other, but I haven't seen any such statement from Mulvaney. It would probably be better to discuss this here on the talk page before jumping to RFPP. Personally I think "actor" is better in all cases, for the same reason that many gendered occupation names like "policewoman", "saleswoman", "aviatrix", etc. have rightly fallen out of use. A recent discussion can be seen here. BTW, calling the use of the word "actor" to describe a woman "transphobic vandalism" is quite out of line and you should not repeat that. CodeTalker (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker: After this earlier edit, which was blatant transphobic vandalism and was hardly alone, I wouldn't fault Saint concrete for lumping that potentially-good-faith change in with the clearly bad-faith stuff.
@Saint concrete:I've got eyes on the article, so if the abuse by IPs continues, I'll likely semi-protect the article. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @C.Fred. I'm aware that there's been transphobic vandalism on this article and I have reverted some myself, but I had thought that this section was regarding Saint concrete's latest change. Hope the new vandal has given up. CodeTalker (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Would you mind protecting the article now that there have been some more of those disruptive edits by IPs today? Best, Bridget (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget:  Done —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: This article is no longer protected. Eric Carpenter (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been protected again after a request at WP:RPP. Best, Bridget (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History merge with the draft

Hello, I am the creator of the Draft:Dylan Mulvaney. I created the draft a month ago, some other users contributed to the draft but it was later rejected. Another user created this page by copy-pasting the draft here. I believe that a history merge is necessary for proper credits. Saint concrete (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Saint concrete: It's not just a credit thing: it's actually a copyright thing. —C.Fred (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Saint concrete (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other acting roles

There are some more roles listed here that can be incorporated into this BLP. I'm heading offline for the night and not sure if we want to incorporate chronologically, so just throwing the source here in case other editors want to incorporate. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

What makes this page notable? TheMouseMen (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMouseMen: The general notability guideline states A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The editors who created this page must have judged that, according to her coverage in reliable sources, Mulvaney should have an article. You don't seem like a new editor, so I'm assuming you know about the various avenues or alternatives to deletion (WP:DELETE) if you think she isn't notable. Bridget (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure, the WP:ANYBIO guidance states you need one of these:
  1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or
  2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or
  3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).
1 doesn't seem to have been met here (or at least the evidence isn't presented), 3 isn't met here. 2 can be debated, so I suppose thats the focus for this page.
Are we saying the contribution was "widely recognised" and part of the "enduring historical record"? TheMouseMen (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TheMouseMen: Not necessarily. Those bullet points are taken from the "Additional criteria" section of the notability guideline for biographies (WP:BIO). That section also states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
The section above that, "Basic criteria", states: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Mulvaney's TikTok series, meeting with Biden, and other media appearances are covered by reputable news outlets like The New York Observer ([1]), NBC News ([2][3]), The Times ([4]), among other sources used in the article. Just note that these guidelines aren't meant to be exact or precise rules that can exactly determine the notability of any single article subject – they are there to, as the name suggests, aid and guide us in making these kinds of judgements.
If you would like to further discuss the question of notability, you should start a deletion discussion at articles for deletion (AfD) so we can get input from a larger pool of editors. Bridget (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity - this AfD has just been opened: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Mulvaney. Bridget (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The correct actual answer is nothing whatsoever. Page should be deleted. Skcin7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's a good thing this article was kept, since Dylan's star definitely grew just a few months later. Mark RaceFan (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better profile photo

Is it possible some editor could add a better profile photo for this article, the current one appears to be out of focus. Eric Carpenter (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

Unsourced soapboxing ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This article needs a criticism section, as Mulvaney has courted a significant amount of controversy on Mulvaney's portrayal of what Mulvaney believes a woman to be. Many gender critical commenters are referring to Mulvaney's videos as sexist and misogynist. Some transgender commenters are displeased with the impression that Mulvaney is giving regarding transwomen, due to Mulvaney's high profile social media presence and political activism, including Mulvaney's visit to the White House. The article doesn't really portray a balanced view of this controversial character, if such criticism is not included. 2A01:4C8:80C:2D35:90AE:BFA3:D804:8712 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create one. If you can validate it with reliable sources. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And then you'll just delete it and accuse people of vandalism if you don't like what the sources say. You lot do this on anything that points out the dangers of male genital mutilation (circumcision). Grow up. 2A00:23C1:FC83:3801:F69A:D005:B898:2533 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general articles on Wikipedia are factual and NOT opinionated, therefore no need to include other's opinion about Dylan, especially criticizing her. Again, as someone suggested above, if you wish to do so, please post your own criticism of Dylan, backed by reliable sources. Personally, I see no reason to start a Criticism section. As of today, Dylan has not done ANY genitalia surgery, as you mentioned. You will probably find other sites on Wikipedia where you can talk about anything that points out the dangers of male genital mutilation (circumcision), (your words from above posting), which you feel should be talked about here on Dylan's Wikipedia. Just wondering, why do you have the need to include a criticism section in the first place? (Julieprus (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Virtually all Wikipedia articles of people are expressing some criticism towards them, especially if they're controversial. It provides perspective.
Now to what one may criticize her for. I've read a bit about people who claims that her behavior is "insulting towards women" and that she is merely "using womanhood as a costume". For instance, in her first episode of Days of Girlhood she says "Day 1 of being a girl, and I have already cried three times. I wrote a scrating email that I did not send. I orded dresses online that I couldn't afford. And then, when someone asked me how I was, I said fine, although I wasn't". Moreover, critics of her is finding it odd that she, as an adult, is referring to herself as a girl (child). There are additionally many critis of hormone replacement therapy (which she uses), and espesely people who "innfluence other to use it". Within the trangender community, she has been criticized (by a fellow famous transwomen of whom I don't remember the name) due to her refusetal to (I don't know what tecnical term is) to put her penis inside her butt in order to have a more female-looking down-part.
(I apologies for the misspellings of mine.) 193.71.137.34 (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, without reliable sources these "criticisms" are worthless. --Pokelova (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is that you just look the other way. If objective truth is your goal, you've come to wrong place.H Remster (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New related article

Editors interested in the article might also be keen to work on the recently created 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"Mulvaney was born on December 29, 1996, in San Diego, California." It would be helpful for readers not very familiar with Miss Mulvaney or the direction of her transition to write instead: "was born (as) a boy". Does anyone find a problem here? Retal (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered quite prominently in the "Career" section. It doesn't need to be mentioned in every section. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the problem. In fact, the word "boy" (or "male", for that matter) is mentioned nowhere in the article. It would be useful to use it once early on.Retal (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is compliant with MOS:GENDERID and I don't see the necessity. That she transitioned is very much in the article and "trans woman" makes it pretty clear what direction the transition is. Galobtter (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of criticism from feminists

Women from across the spectrum were offended by Dylan Mulvaney's day 1 of being a woman video as it was choc full of negative stereotypes about women. I'm really surprised that there is no mention of this at all. Mulvaney is a highly controversial character and this page does not at all reflect that properly. Accipio Mitis Frux (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first step would be providing reliable sources discussing this criticism. Then we would need to consider WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT policies. --Pokelova (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like personal transphobic views and not necessary biographical information. All transgender people are, unfortunetly, seen as "political" and "controversial" because of their transness. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above replies that this request is unsourced and based on WP:UNDUE stereotypes about trans women needing “approval” from cis women. Dronebogus (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:COATRACK

I am opening this section as a follow-up to my removal of recently-added content [5]. My edit summary did not include a reason for removal that I think is pertinent to also consider, including that for a biography of a living person, there is a particular need to consider issues of balance in an article. From my view, this article already links to the 2023 Anheuser-Busch boycott, and that article appears to be an appropriate place for ongoing information about that event. The WP:COATRACK essay and the WP:OFFTOPIC section of the Writing better articles explanatory essay both seem to help further explain how this seems beneficial for this article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to include the information following the partnership, it’s global news and relevant to the article, sourced properly and the article is extremely light on information that the other article doesn’t include. RossButsy (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the addition again [6], including according to WP:ONUS and the pending discussion here. The article about the event and the company can be expanded, and the fact that this has not yet happened yet does not appear to support adding further detail about the event and company here. Beccaynr (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN Two reverts now and many many more over a long period of time on this page, think it’s time for a third party to have a look at your habits. RossButsy (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a third party, I wholeheartedly endorse Beccaynr's reverts and their rationale. — SamX [talk · contribs] 20:19, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:OWN to revert vandalism, or dubious additions like yours. You're the one trying to push irrelevant or badly sourced ideas into the article for the second time now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes isn’t “badly sourced” the entire edit was direct quotes from the article but whatever guess a lot of articles need to be expunged now since they use Forbes. There’s nothing irrelevant about a company losing $27 Billion as a result of a partnership with the person in question. That’s literally unheard of buddy and you calling my edits vandalism is a borderline personal attack and has been treated as such RossButsy (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RossButsy, I interpreted Maddy's comments to reflect a review of at least some of my editing history on this article, after you mentioned it here - because my editing includes reverting vandalism (not by you), removing badly-sourced content added by another editor, and poorly-sourced/undue content we previously discussed at my user Talk page. I hope that helps clarify the comments about the content. Beccaynr (talk) 23:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also your personal beliefs are clearly a conflict of interest. RossButsy (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RossButsy, the purpose of an article Talk page is to discuss the associated article, and it is good practice to stay focused on the article content. But I do not see any indication of a conflict of interest, much less a clear one, and in any event, this is not the appropriate forum. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All three of you use gender pronouns id say given the subject matter it’s entirely relevant. This is just you disagreeing with edits I’ve made and you’ve nearly broken three revert rule twice now and the second time is absolutely ludicrous in my opinion I can swallow the first one but not this time. RossButsy (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usage of preferred pronouns on the article abides by Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically the section WP:GENDERBLP. The standards for gender identity have been agreed upon by editors in various discussions listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity#Discussion timeline. As mentioned, the talk page for Mulvaney's article is not the most relevant place to discuss the manual of style or what you perceive as an editor's conflict of interest for respecting it – a better place is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography or a related discussion page. Bridget (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beccaynr: I must say, I don't really see why that sentence is undue but the details about Kid Rock shooting cans and the bomb threats are mentioned. Aren't those equally off-topic? The section could be quite a bit shorter. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the three sources in the article supporting the content, it appears the Kid Rock event happened soon after Mulvaney's social media post, and is reported as related to Mulvaney, i.e.
Given the timing (close to the Mulvaney post), nature of the coverage (seemingly more focused on Mulvaney, not the company nor the boycott that has its own article), and amount of coverage, I think there is support according to the WP:DETAIL section of the WP:SUMMARY guideline to include this well-sourced detail to introduce a larger topic that has its own article, and it seems to help provide some context for what is later reported by secondary sources about Mulvaney and her responses, which helps build this article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How much did Bud Light pay her?

It seems, Dylan Mulvaney was paid much more than thought, 185 000 $.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dylan_Mulvaney&oldid=1185561643"