Jump to content

Talk:Pip Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Page protection for claims of death

Resolved

I've semi-protected this page for 3 days as no citations were included to confirm the subject is deceased. Any claims that may be disputed about Mr. Wherrett will be subject to bioraphies of living persons policies. As such, any uncited information should be removed at once. --Moni3 (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter passed away at 09:50 p.m. on Monday March 23, 2009. Confirmation came by e-mail from [removed for privacy reasons] and from [removed for privacy reasons]. Lee Keith at lkeith@jonesday.com. Can you correct the tenses and a little grammar in the learning to drive portion. Thanks Alice - sorry about Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.98.67.18 (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the information must come from a reliable source. I just checked the Sydney Morning Herald and they have not reported on Mr. Wherrett in the past 8 days. Do you have a reliable source that has been published to confirm this? The email is not sufficient. I apologize for the inconvenience, but this absolutely must be confirmed by the best 3rd party published source available. --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they have not reported on Mr. Wherrett in the last 8 days, he only died last night. Check with Calvary Mater Hospital Palliative Care Unit in Newcastle. I should think his carer, his daughter and his fiancee might be adequate confirmation that the man has passed away. Thanks very much for your condolences. Besides, since when have any newspapers been reliable. It took until two days ago for this site to get his birthday corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.98.67.18 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your protest, but the policies of Wikipedia demand that a published source must confirm that an article subject is deceased. See this section of a BLP where an anonymous user edited an article to state someone had died who was in fact very alive. It may not make sense right now, but these are Wikipedia's policies, put in place by too many editors abusing the "anyone can edit" feature. --Moni3 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now confirmed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I have removed the protection now that his death has been confirmed to allow new editors to contribute. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lived as woman

This isn't mentioned in the article, but he decided to live out his remaining life as a woman [1]. Iam (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this now, thanks for the link. -- Banjeboi 09:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with this medium, and it took me a while to figure out how to send you a message. Peter Wherrett (aka Peta Wilson) last year legally changed his name back to Peter Wherrett with the intention of remarrying so I am not sure how you should handle the "lived as a woman" part.168.98.67.18 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go by what reliable sources state. Do you have anything that confirms this? -- Banjeboi 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think that it would be all primary sources. Obviously, I was a personal friend and am a primary source. The only secondary sources likely would be if close friends had their recollections published, making them either attributable published quotes or secondary sources depending on the quality of the publication's fact checking. On the subject of the name change, I guess you'd need to look at whether there is a way of accessing a public record of people in the Australian state of New South Wales who changed their name and when. Yes, I know far more than is in the article or on this talk page but I'm not disclosing anything that is not reliably sourced or an attributable published quote. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously much could be written but lets start with the current bit - After Wherrett and Mathers separated in 2006, he went to live as a woman at Lake Macquarie.
So ... what should be added to this to help our readers understand the subject? Including some delving into name changing and other transitioning steps, or perhaps why they weren't done, would help. -- Banjeboi 12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed

This was removed as it was presented unsourced. If any reliable sources can support some of this it will help. -- Banjeboi 02:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that was added from the same IP address as was used to remove the death date from the article before it was verifiable. I'm a little surprised to see that added from that IP. Since I know who did the removal, I probably know who did the addition but I've been unable to contact them today to confirm it. If there is primary source documentation relating to the name changes, that IP editor will probably be in possession of it. I'm not familiar with OTRS but is such information able to be submitted that way? There is no way that anybody else can access the information within the NSW Births Deaths and Marriage Registry, as I emailed a question on that and the answer was no. From a primary source perspective, I can confirm the name change to Peta Wilson is true (around March 2008), and that special dispensation to return to birth name less than 12 months after a previous name change was given (around December 2008) based on terminal illness, not on possible marriage. For his family's sake, he wanted to die under his birth name. The marriage was only briefly canvassed after the terminal illness was known. I understand that a pre-nuptual agreement would have been part of that, as it was intended not to affect Peter's estate. He was still in love with Kim to the end, and marrying Lee was only intended to get his family to accept her. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly bothered one way or another. Regardless of what we write on this content it's likely to be tagged for sourcing. A possible solution would be to have one of those involved to write up on a webpage their version that we could then quote - according to _____. We're also not in a rush here so if they are in grief it can wait. -- Banjeboi 10:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever has at least tried to verify some of this information - thank you. I met Peter in 1963 when I was 18 years old and we had an 46 year enduring love affair that carried us over four continents, through three wives and many affairs. Whether that constitutes a primary source I don't know. One thing we do know, I was a constant in Peter's life while others just came and went. In any event, it is now irrelevant. Our commitment to be married came last year in July. Peter and I had spoken of a date in April this year and the event was to take place in Hawaii. I had booked and paid for a condominium for a week, we were to enjoy that time together and the plan was for him to return to California for a short time, but he knew he couldn't be away from his doctors for long. I think our marrying was to be more symbolic than anything, for he told me then that he only had a couple of years to live. He said he simply wanted me, finally, to be "the last Mrs. Wherrett." Sadly. it was a very short time later, that his daughter was the one to have to call me with the news he only had six months to live, he was too upset. Jane and I are friends. I know Kim and she and I have been in contact as well since Peter's death, she is a lovely lady. As most of those close to him know he was a dichotomy, an enigmatic, multi-faceted and magnetic personality. Years ago, I bought him his first good wig, shopped with him for shoes and clothes, and for a time when he was "protecting his public image" he shared an apartment with my cousin where he could go to dress in peace. He was, as has been indicated in published articles, proud of his achievement of living as a woman, but he also told me that "I've proven I can do it, that's the main thing". It meant a lot to him, but he also wanted to continue to live in both worlds. The reasons for changing his name back were twofold. His family and I wanted him to die under his birth name, and he and I wanted to be married. Peter said there was a time restraint and he had to wait a year but at my suggestion he spoke to his doctor, who then wrote a letter to enable him to change his name back for medical reasons so he could do it under the 12 month time frame. The change was finally accomplished in October, 2008. Incidentally, at no time was a prenuptial ever mentioned, but if there had been one it would have been for the opposite reasons than those stated by the previous poster. During my visit with him in November we spent time with his daughter, son-in-law and three of his grandchildren - a very happy time and the last trip he was able to make anywhere. Just prior to my arrival Peter spoke of getting married while I was there, but there was not enough time to get the necessary paperwork handled and, of course, no further opportunity arose. At this point Peter is dead, and will be that way for a long time. So, write what you will, he will not care, the only people who might be hurt are his family. For myself, I have a collection of letters and poems, the last of which he wrote to me on January 9th of this year and it is extremely poignant and clear on his feelings for me. These words, his emails and letters will sustain me and others may find solace wherever they would like. For those who were close to Peter, I send you my best wishes on your loss as well and soon all we will remember will be the happy times. 168.98.67.18 (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angry about a car?

The sentence beginning 'Angry at the lack of motorsport performance in his family's car...' makes no sense as it stands. How did his 'anger' earn Wherrett a job on a newspaper? Should the word be 'disappointed'? Is it implied that Wherrett was trying to make Australian motor car manufacturers aware of how dull the average family sedan was, and so he was invited to write a motoring column ? 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:B8EB:25EC:889F:2DCB (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Changes Wherett to Wilson

I noticed that an ediitor had made a wholescale – and in my view radical change to this article: changing all but one of the reference to “Peter Wherrett” to “Pip Wilson”, and changing the name of the article in the same way.

I contest the changes you have made – and I’m surprised that you did this unilaterally with no prior flagging of the changes, nor discussion. You will, I expect, have noticed that similar changes had been made before - and then reversed.

I imagine that your rationale for the change is that the person who the article refers to a) had a long established practice of cross-dressing in women’s clothing spent (noted in the article, and the book by the article’s subject), and; b) the reported fact of article’s subject spending most (but I understand not all) of their last several years of life living as a woman with the name Pip Wilson.

I emphasise the last point – most of the last two years of life – as my understanding is that the person concerned, towards the very end of life, reverted to the male persona of Peter Wherrett – doing so at the behest of family members – and thus dying under the name Peter Wherrett. You will see in the “talk” comments reference to this.

I do understand that the person under discussion, as noted above, and to quote the Seahorse Society obituary: “… lived full-time as a woman in the Lake Macquarie area for the last two years of her life, which she described as "my last great achievement". Notwithstanding that, I contend that for the bulk of their life – and certainly with regard to all of the things for which the person is known – motoring journalism and motor racing – they were know as Peter Wherrett. The persona Pip Wilsom was not know for any of those things - so it is nonsensical for the article to state, for example, that “.Wilson raced in the Bathurst endurance race in 1969 in a Mazda, in 1970 in a Ford Falcon, and in 1974 and 1976 in Alfa Romeos “or that “Wilson was also a pit reporter for Channel 7's coverage of the 1983 James Hardie 1000 at Bathurst.” Pip Wilson did none of those things, Peter Wherrett did.

So, in the spirit of discussing major change first, I propose to revert the changes from Wherrett to Wilson. Ian Smith (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In follow-up to my proposal above - to which there was no response or objection by any users - I proceeded with the changes. I explained my changes. User Georgia guy promptly reversed those changes - with no explanation. I've reverted to my changed version, and stand by the argument for the change. If Georgia guy wishes to discuss the arguments for/against the changes then I'd welcome that. Ian Smith (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2022

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus where to move, but there is consensus that the current title Peter Wherrett (aka Pip Wilson) is inappropriate. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, I'm moving this back to Peter Wherrett, the name under which the subject acquired fame and continued to be referred to after her death. Basically, there is a tension between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:GENDERID, for which there is no single clear answer, as the subject is deceased. WP:SPNC actually favors "Peter", since this is similar to the Cat Stevens case. No such user (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wherrett (aka Pip Wilson) → Pip Wilson – We treat transgender people by their latest accepted gender. Georgia guy (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I thought that was only the case for those who achieved some notability under their new names? Which I don't think was the case here, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. Ask most Australians who Pip Wilson was and you'll get blank stares. But they all know who Peter Wherrett was. I would prefer it was moved back to Peter Wherrett, with mention of the name change in the lede and body of the article. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 17:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As the person who – after proposing and explaining the name change and edits, and after receiving no objection to those changes – made those changes I think it important to respond in some detail and to say, not surprisingly, that I do not agree with the proposal to rename the article to Pip Wilson.
      I argue for retaining the article name as it now is: Peter Wherrett (aka Pip Wilson) – as that nomenclature both recognises the subject of the Wikipedia entry for the many notable achievements under the male persona “Peter Wherrett” and the female persona “Pip Wilson”, in which latter form Peter/Pip lived several of the last years of his/her life.
      To apply the rule that Georgia guy (talk) advocates, viz: "We treat transgender people by their latest accepted gender” would in this case be a procrustean application of such a rule. As Jack of Oz [pleasantries] observes, the persona Peter Wherrett is well known in Australia – especially by those interested in motoring, and beyond that too. People seeking information about the person who was a motoring journalist/safety advocate – such as those who search Wikipedia – are most likely to search “Wherrett”, not “Wilson”. That said – those searching for information about the person who lived for a time as Pip Wilson will find that too. I argue that retaining the article title and content as it now is is a good and sensible compromise.
      I’ll be interested in further discussion. Ian Smith (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

It appears that Ian w smith wants this to change to:

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the gender the person is most notable under, as indicated by most reliable sources.

Any corrections to what I said?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be reporting what the MOS says correctly, but following that religiously is simply the wrong approach in this case. Jack of Oz and Ian Smith have it right. The subject clearly deserves a Wikipedia article for his achievements while living as the man known as Peter Wherrett. Nothing the subject did while living as Pip Wilson would even entitle her to an article. Insisting on calling the article Pip Wilson is confusing and unhelpful to readers of Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, do you really agree with what Ian w smith wants changed?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Ian Smith arguing for the status quo, NOT for a change. ("I argue that retaining the article title and content as it now is is a good and sensible compromise.") HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - I'm arguing that the change I made should stand - that is that the article should be named Peter Wherrett (aka Pit Wilson). Georgia guy wants that change undone. Ian Smith (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian w smith, please read the above LONG post of mine in this move discussion. Georgia guy (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure which "LONG post" of yours you refer to. I thought I had read all of your posts - but maybe I have missed something? If so, please can you point me to it?
I have read and considered Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity.
So too, I’ve read and considered https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability That policy says, inter alia: “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.”
Applying that test, Peter Wherrett meets the notability test. Pip Wilson does not.
I argue that applying Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity.and insisting that the article be named Pip Wilson – and the content referring to multiple activites undertaken in the pesona of Peter Wherrett as having been the work of Pip Wilson, makes no sense, and will confuse people looking for information about Peter Wherrett.
(For example: “.Wilson raced in the Bathurst endurance race in 1969 in a Mazda, in 1970 in a Ford Falcon, and in 1974 and 1976 in Alfa Romeos “or that “Wilson was also a pit reporter for Channel 7's coverage of the 1983 James Hardie 1000 at Bathurst.” The Pip Wilson persona did none of those things, the Peter Wherrett persona did).
On this notability aspect of Peter Wherett vs. Pip Wilson I put forward this evidence, having in mind this policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources The death was reported in 9 on-line obituaries that I found. Of these, eight reported the death of “Peter Wherrett”, one the death of “Pip Wilson” that later inter alia referring to: ”... Pip's male persona, Peter Wherrett was a well-known television motoring journalist” and using the words "She was also the writer of many books, including "Desirelines", co-authored with her late brother and well-known theatrical director, Richard Wherrett, in which Peter/Pip revealed that she was a cross-dresser. Note the recognition there of the multiple personas of Wherrett/Wilson.
Looking more broadly at the media contribution of Peter/Pip - a search of the Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper) archives for “Peter Wherrett” returns 678 results
https://smharchives.smedia.com.au/Olive/APA/freesearch/?action=search&text=peter_wherrett#panel=search&search=0
Repeating the search using “Pip Wilson” as the search term produces 32 results – only one of which, it appears, may be written under the Pip Wilson persona.
On the notability issue – I think I have made out the case. Let's please focus on having an article that will be useful to readers, not one that is driven by a desire to adhere rigidly to one Wikipedia policy over others. Ian Smith (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My understanding is that – as a request has been made for this page to be moved/renamed – that an independent and experienced person will be along some time to review the arguments on said request.

I’ve made out above some argument for why I believe that a sensible course of action – one that will make this article useful for those seeking information about the person discussed in the article – is to retain Peter Wherrett as the name of the article, and to also retain the references to Wherrett for the actions and achievements he is notable for, while noting that – as an extension of his long-term cross dressing – this person lived for several years in the persona of Pip Wilson.

I observe that[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy] seems to be relying on 

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity. Which  says:

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.

However, the last of the Wikipedia Five Pillars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars#:~:text=Wikipedia%20has%20no%20firm%20rules,improving%20Wikipedia%20requires%20making%20exceptions. says this: “Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles.” . I am mindful of that guidance in making my argument here.

I will too add another point of argument in favour of preferring Wherrett over Wilson in this case and I reference an element in the same policy that Georgia guy cites: “the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources”. Operative point here is “reliable sources” The Wikipedia guideline on reliable sources says: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”

What reliable sources are we relying in on this instance to make the judgement (tied to the Gender Identity rule) about the “most recent expressed gender self-identification" of the subject of this article? We do have two sources, from the Seahorse society that refer to “ Pip Wilson” One is the obituary, which references both names: Obituary - Pip Wilson (Peter Wherrett). The second piece from Seahorse society is a reflection on the live of Wilson/Wherrett. The piece is titled: Peter Wherrett (a.k.a. Pip Wilson) 1936-2009 and the author says: “You will notice that I flip between using the names Peter and Pip, as well as both gender pronouns, depending whether I am discussing the public or private persona. This is deliberate.”


We also have a number of reliable sources – in the form of obituaries – that use the name Peter Wherrett. These include obituaries from a major Australian newspaper (Sydney Morning Herald) and the Australian Broadcasting Association – both of which can be regarded as authoritative sources - as well as other, less prominent/notable, sources.

I return to my earlier point – do we have a reliable source giving a clear indication that Wherret/Wilson had made a firm gender expression that should be adopted and applied in an article about their life? I say not. I agree with the author cited above - the names Peter Wherrett and Pip Wilson are both accurate, depending on the public or private persona being described. As Wikipedia is reporting on the notable public persona – Peter Wherrett – a sensible approach is make that the name of the article, with acknowledgement too of the private persona of Pip Wilson. Ian Smith (talk) 11:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: relisting for clearer consensus as to which name the article should be moved to. – robertsky (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
02:25, 30 December 2022 Ian w smith talk contribs block  92 bytes +92  Ian w smith moved page Pip Wilson to Peter Wherrett (aka Pip Wilson)
00:28, 25 May 2022 Qster2323 talk contribs block  71 bytes +71  Qster2323 moved page Peter Wherrett to Pip Wilson: WP:SPNC MOS:GID

The subject is far better known in sources by this former name, and likely to remain so, but if that changes then revisit it. So WP:SPNC doesn't seem to apply here, and MOS:GID does not since Peter/Pip is sadly no longer with us. The current title, while it has something to recommend it IMO, is not currently supported by policy or practice, and I doubt it ever will be... It grates. But something similar and more consistent with Wikipedia use of special characters in article titles (as () and / are already used for other purposes) might be suggested for cases such as this. Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User Paintspot made changes to the name and pronouns for the subject of this article. I've undone those on the basis that the issue of the gender identification and pronouns of the article subject is under discussion currently - and thus it is premature to be making the changes that Paintspot made.Ian Smith (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Pip Wilson. A redirect, hatnote, and brief mention in the lede will give readers the needed clarification. IAR in favour of subject's preferred name and pronoun won't confuse readers so much that the information in the article itself is unhelpful. It is a kindness to those who survive Wilson and are probably still around to have an opinion on the matter. And, well, I've not heard anyone complain about a glut of kindness. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:56, 18 January 2023 (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.

Redirect from Pip Wilson

Forgive me as I'm rather new to this, but there is another Pip Wilson who is a British Psychologist who is getting redirected to Peter Wherrett's article, is the correct procedure not to have a Disambiguation at the Pip Wilson page? This has been undone by @Eejit43 which was probably correct, but just trying to understand what is the correct course of action. Thanks Wikijohnword (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as there WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, especially as the other Pip Wilson doesn't have an article around them, it isn't best to have a disambiguation page there. If notability is sufficiently established and an article is written, a hatnote can be placed at the top of this article. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wherrett → Pip Wilson – As per the recent RfC in 2023, specifically subtopic/question 1, the clear consensus regarding MOS:GENDERID is that for deceased persons, we still should principally use the most recently expressed gender identity prior to their death. We should therefore be using Pip Wilson to refer to the subject of this article, as that was the most recently expressed name and gender prior to her death.

The key meat of that RfC: "Should Wikipedia articles always principally refer to deceased trans and nonbinary persons by their most recently preferred name of choice, as reported in reliable sources?", to which the answer was "There is clear consensus to amend MOS:GENDERID as proposed.". GraziePrego (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pip_Wilson&oldid=1264877083"