Talk:Miriam Rivera/Archive 1

Miriam is the Transsexual Porn Star Victoria from Bob's Tgirls

As of this writing you can see Miriam on the front page of Bob's Tgirls:

http://www.bobstgirls.com

She's the t girl with the black hair and black minidress. Just in case the above page changes, you can see an archived version of it below:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050304030657/http://www.bobstgirls.com/

Miriam did her first photoshoot for Bob's Tgirls. She also did three videos for Androgeny. She goes by the name Victoria when doing porn (just Victoria, no last name).

On Bob's below Yahoo! group you can read a message where Bob, the owner of Bob's Tgirls (and also a photographer for his site), says that the transsexual porn star Victoria and Miriam (from There's Something About Miriam) are the same person:

From: Bob <bk_btg@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Jan 9, 2006 5:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Bob's Tgirls Yahoo Group] Victoria

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bobstgirls/message/499

Note that you have to become a member of the group to read the messages, but the group doesn't require pre-approval. Hence, so long as you have a Yahoo! account you can instantly become a member by joining from the front page at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bobstgirls/ . Of course, it's free to join this Yahoo! group.

Within the male-to-female transsexual porn community (of fans, producers, and the models) it is a well-known and undesputed fact that Miriam and Victoria are the same person. Only someone who doesn't know much about the subject would despute that fact (unless of course they're being dishonest; I'm not saying anyone here is, I'm just saying this to be logically complete).

On Bob's paysite at http://www.bobstgirls.com in the Victoria section Bob also states that Victoria is Miriam from There's Something About Miriam, and he also has a collection of articles about her involvement with the television show there. Of course, Bob knows Miriam/Victoria personally; as well, he is the first person to photograph her professionally.--Jamie, 209.208.77.117 01:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For more information on Victoria/Miriam, see the below HungAngels forum links:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=22441

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1960

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1857

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=1314

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=862

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=841

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=646

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=593

Jamie, 209.208.77.82 21:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

This is the background of the Star of TV show There's Something About Miriam. She has stared in at least 2 pornographic movies, which I can verify. Currently Getting title name of second movie. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacks246 (talk • contribs)

What is required to "source" the pornography list? Will links to the videos be enough or is something else required? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.195.47.90 (talk • contribs) .

That depends on where the list is, and who's credited as starring in the films on such lists. -- Longhair 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

She is not listed as an actor at the link (adult content) provided as a source. Reverting. -- Longhair 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

She IS listed, look under the performers section. Listed as her stage name Victoria. In the DVD cover she is the redhead in the top left. Viewing movie would also confirm her appearance. User:Jacks246

Earlier you added and redirected [[Victoria (TS}]] to your own user page, User:Jacks246. I deleted the redirect (from the Deletion log, 00:51, 10 January 2006 Longhair deleted Victoria (TS) (content was: '#REDIRECT Jacks246'). I'm not convinced. Please provide a direct link to the source, or the information remains omitted. -- Longhair 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The redirect was an accident, it was supposed to go to this page, a mistake on my part. Please give me some more details on what proof you will find acceptable? This is a well known fact in the transgendered community. Why do other pornstars non need linked proof for each movie they have been in? Jacks246

Please provide a direct link to your source. Readers of Wikipedia shouldn't be expected to research further. Also, why have you changed your ip address from

217.195.47.90 (talk · contribs) to

80.190.242.130 (talk · contribs) and again to

212.65.15.99 (talk · contribs)

during the course of this conversation, yet signed your edits User:Jacks246, all inside of an hour or so? -- Longhair 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*Le sigh* I did link to proof. If that is not acceptable please state exactly what you would want. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.57.48 (talk • contribs) .

Refer to the link in the heading above, Citing sources, or here. A direct link not requiring the user to search endless performer names would be nice. -- Longhair 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The link (above) lists 5 performers named Victoria.

1. Victoria Givens (18 titles)
2. Victoria Rose (2 titles)
3. Victoria Slim (2 titles)
4. Victoria Sweet (47 titles)
5. Victoria Vanoza (1 titles)

I'm going to impose a block if you persist with your blantant trolling. -- Longhair 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Block away, if you do not want to see the truth for what it is. If you paid attention you'd see that the actress is Victoria and not Victoria <Surname>. As stated before viewing said title will also confirm this fact.

Correct dates?

Are Miriam's birthdate and/or adult video filming dates correct? Because if she was born in 1982 and did her adult videos in 1999, that would mean she was seventeen at the time of filming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiryu84 (talk • contribs)

We are about facts

Wikipedia is suppose to be pure facts, right? Then why do this article refer to a man as a "she"? Miriam Rivera is a man who is 'trying' to be female with the help of hormones and operations, right? But that does not make a man a woman. He is still a man.

For EXAMPLE removal of ones penis does not make you a woman. You are still a man, but with your penis removed. And trying to create a penis on a woman does not make a woman into a man.

Miriam is a he, right? Then why not write that? We are about facts and not political correctnes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.234.26 (talk • contribs)

Facts of law do allow someone to change there gender & name if they feel they must change sex so if miriam has done this then by law she should be considered female & referred to a SHE, there are some backwards, hypocritical countries (USA for example) that havent adjusted their laws to reflect this change, but perhaps just like in the sixties this will be adjusted hopefully. so this is not about PC it's about law (in some countires) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.196.108 (talk • contribs)

Please sign in and sign you comments

The trouble with your arguements is that there exist many counter examples. let me ask you...Can a woman be a woman without a vagina? Consider the plight of the so called intersexed individuals. They are born without traditional well formed genitalia. They are ambiguous. What are they? In practice they end up being exactly what they want to be what they feel they are. Regardless of any surgeries performed at birth.

So you are right the state of one's genitalia does not make one a male or a female. The state of a persons mind does. (Such is why EXAMPLE a man who looses his penis in an accident does not become a woman. A transsexual was never quite 100% a man to begin with inspite of thier genitals.)

A transsexual is a person who has normal genitalia who by their behavior betrays a state of mind that is contrary to those genitalia. There is much speculation about what causes this. (see Transsexualism, or for another view point Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory) The final analysis is though that the true gender of a person is determined by their state of mind, their behavior, and their acceptance in that role by society at large.

Miriam, has lived as a female and been almost 100% accepted as such since she was about 13. She is now 24. She has had to deal with life as a woman for 11 years. She has earned her right to be called she. NOT BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY CORRECT. No that is a poor reson to do anything but because it is more correct and true to call Miriam She than he for most practical everyday pruposes she is the right description.

Last but not least, read the article, she has not had the operation and has no plans to. Many younger TS's are not in a big hurry to have the op. It's expensive. --Hfarmer 23:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You do not earn another gender. Miriam was born one gender and will always be that gender. It has nothing to do with mind. Nor accaptance in society. The body is the body. You can not sneak around the laws of nature and simple facts. Sure, call Miriam a "she". But she is a he. Thus this "factual", not practical, article is innacurate. No offence. I bet Miriam is a great person. And he sure does look like a beautiful woman. But from a "Wikipedian" point of view Miriam is a he. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.234.26 (talk • contribs) 1:58, 1 March 2007

If you are such an expert wikipedian then why dont you have an account with which to log in?

A persons gender is different from their physical sex. The EXAMPLE of the intersexed person who has no definate genitalia (which does happen by the way) is proof enough of that. Miriam is as much a she as a girl born with Androgen insensitivity syndrome who also has XY chromosomes and all that. Then there are people born XXY Klienfelters syndrome a condition that cannot be really diagnosed without a chromosome count. For all we know Miriam could have such a condition. What of her gender then?

The fact is that gender is more complicated that the simplistic approach you have advocated mystery person. Re read the archives of this talk page and others on ohter transsexuals you will find that the conclusion is always to use the pronoun of the subjects choosing. --Hfarmer 04:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please limit the discussion on this page to improving this article, and not general discussion. Jokestress 11:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced statements removed

I have done some preliminary cleanup on this and removed all the unsourced statements, especially the claims about a recent attack. If this is the case, it should appear in the news, at which time we can include it here. Blogs and message boards do not meet WP:RS. Jokestress 11:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the logical fallacy known as a non sequitur. It doesn't follow that if an attack such as this happened that it "should appear in the news." It possibly should in the moral sense, but in the existential sense that doesn't follow. Brutal attacks happen all the time which don't make it into the news.--209.208.77.128 18:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that you've been shamelessly hypocritical in your edits (that is to say, self-refuting). You've incompetently deleted passages supported by mainstream major media news articles, while at the same time leaving in passages unsupported by said documentation. Such as Miriam's birth date, or that "She is sometimes credited as Victoria or Miriam D'Abo and has also gone by Miriam Xtravaganza." Indeed, Miriam's porn career is not documented in any mainstream media news article. Instead, the fact that she has been in porn and that she has worked while in porn under the name of Victoria is entirely and only supported by the very references which you say have no place on Wikipedia.

Not only have you acted as an illiterate and incompetent editor, but so also you have acted as a hypocritical editor. Nor is my pointing out these facts a personal attack, as they are directed toward your fallacious edits, and not you as a person.--209.208.25.219 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey long time no talk. I have no idea why this has not appeared in the news but it is definately the case. She was attacked. Her friend Nikki has posted pictures that show her injuries and that it is definately her. If you checked out that particular message board you would notice that it does not take registration to read it. Darn. she just went ahead and took those pictures down. They were here.

Why hasn't this been reported in the news. Afterall the firing of someone who was a no name prior to being fired has been reported. I don't know. In one of the threads they talk about this having been reported on telemundo but does not say when or where. To be honest I don't think this has or ever will be reported in the news. Why the "transgender activist community" does not seem to give a crap about this? ? --Hfarmer 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

About the Photo's

Perhaps you should look at the editing history of the page and see who added those pictures before you go removing them. [1]. Notice the name of the contributor? "Mariamarcen" the user only existed it seems to put those pictures of her here. Including the picture of Miriam as a kid which only Miriam or a blood relative would have had. Look at that picture that's from grade school, generally there is no yearbook from that level. The picture looks...like one that the parents would get to keep in their wallet you know what I mean. The second picture does not look like a photoshoot or anything. A very early picture of her "dressed". I cannot imagine who other than Miriam herself would have access to those pictures. All together this is a good circumstantial case that these pictures where added by the subject herself. She held the copyright and she released it properly. There is no reason to remove the pictures. Further this article is one of a few where a transperson seems 100% comfortable with thier transness mostly because a picture of her "as a boy" does not seem to bother her.

I could be wrong, I just don't see how. --Hfarmer 14:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

About the name used in the article

I just noticed that you changed the name within the body of the text from Miriam to Rivera. If that was the last name that she used consistently that would be ok. But it is not these days it seems she prefere's the last name "Xtravaganza" in reference to the house she belongs to "the house of Xtravaganza". To be correct to what you are thinking of the last name in the article should be changed to this.

I personally would rather stick to the first name because that has remained constant as the name she went by (at least with people she knew personally) for many, many years. It will simplify our lives to do this. --Hfarmer 14:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

News: it does seem that this should be covered in the news. I suggest her friends contact the LGBT press and local activists, which will likely lead to an outpouring of support once it's confirmed. The lack of specifics makes this difficult to confirm: no police report, no name of hospital, no explanation of attack, etc. If she is willing to speak with the press, I can personally arrange this so it can be independently confirmed. As it stands, this information is insufficiently sourced for including in Wikipedia.

Photos: The one photo remaining on that message board says the patient's name is Miriam Mendoza, and the bands appear to have been altered manually or digitally. The photos here on Wikipedia do not appear to be properly sourced. Some are copyrighted photos taken for promoting her reality show, so we may be able to use those. We cannot confirm those were added by her, though, and the sourcing information does not say that. The Wikipedia issues are separate from other press issues. The first step is to get her in touch with activists and press to confirm details. As I said, I will be happy to confirm this and get a reporter, as I am very good at getting to the bottom of situations like these. Jokestress 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the wikipedia issues. If we cannot source the pictures then so be it. I can't imagine where some random person would have gotten a picture of her from like 5th or 6th grade. That's all I'm saying about that. As I have heard it...certain facts including where Miriam is hospitalized are being closely guarded by her friends for fear that whoever did this may try to finish the job. The best way I know of to get initial contact with them would be via a private message on the message board that I linked to, "HungAngels". --Hfarmer 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add. Nikki, a close friend of Miriam's says that they have been contated by GLADD (or was it the other way around?) either way that was almost a full week ago now. --Hfarmer 20:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop the Incorrect and Illiterate Editing

I reverted your changes for reasons described on the talk page. Also, please review WP:NPA. Jokestress 17:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are illiterate. That's not a personal attack, it's a statement of objective fact. It has nothing to do with who you are personally, as possibly you're the most literate person in the world, but that you simply chose to make illiterate edits on purpose.

For one thing, you apparently do not know how to properly use quotations. At least you have been changing proper use of quotations to illiterate and improper usage, such as using the incorrect ""..."" in quoted passages, and changing correctly-formatted mutli-paragraph displayed quotations to incorrect single paragraph non-displayed quotations. For more on this, see my comments at the below link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Northwoods#Please_Stop_the_Incorrect_and_Illiterate_Editing

As well, you have been getting rid of sentences within the article which were sourced via mainstream major media news articles, such as "When she was 11 years old she met another male-to-female transsexual person who explained about feminizing hormones: how they make breasts grow and make a person appear more feminine."

So please stop your damaging and illiterate edits.--209.208.77.128 18:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Many of these quotations are unecessarily long and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article on the subject. This part of the sentence is certainly not relevant to this article: "how they make breasts grow and make a person appear more feminine."

Calling people's edits "illiterate" violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please stop, or you may get blocked. There's no need to be unpleasant like that. Jokestress 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you're on a power trip, as per, e.g., your threat. You have damaged this article with your incorrect (i.e., illiterate, per the dictionary definition) edits, as well as your deletions of passages that were referenced by mainstream major media articles. Pointing that out is not uncivil, it's an objective fact. You are the one who is being uncivil by your insistence of maintaining your incorrect (i.e., illiterate) edits. It is a fact that you are changing proper quotations into improper (i.e., illiterate) quotations. It is a fact that you are deleting passages that are supported by mainstream major media news articles.

But maintaining your ego intact is obviously more important than the integrity of the article.

I have put a lot of work into this article to make it better, but you came along a took a big dump on it (figuratively speaking). I gave the above link to the Operation Northwoods article talk page to demonstrate that I very well know what I'm talking about and that I am *very* skilled at greaty adding value to Wikipedia articles. But obviously none of that mean anything to you. Your ego is what is important here. Very well, crap on this article to your heart's worth. Don't defer to people who have more knowledge, skills, and attention to detail than you.--209.208.79.164 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that you've been shamelessly hypocritical in your edits (that is to say, self-refuting). You've incompetently deleted passages supported by mainstream major media news articles, while at the same time leaving in passages unsupported by said documentation. Such as Miriam's birth date, or that "She is sometimes credited as Victoria or Miriam D'Abo and has also gone by Miriam Xtravaganza." Indeed, Miriam's porn career is not documented in any mainstream media news article. Instead, the fact that she has been in porn and that she has worked while in porn under the name of Victoria is entirely and only supported by the very references which you say have no place on Wikipedia.

Not only have you acted as an illiterate and incompetent editor, but so also you have acted as a hypocritical editor. Nor is my pointing out these facts a personal attack, as they are directed toward your fallacious edits, and not you as a person.--209.208.25.219 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact that she has been in adult films is also evidenced by all the pictures that exist and the DVD that was commercially released. As for the message board postings...I guess jokestress is right by the letter of wikipedia's policy those have no place here. As for what it says about her having found out about hormones from a slightly older transsexual when she was 11 that is backed up by mainstream media reports. I have one picture that is a very high res and readable scan of a newspaper article about Miriam. Further I think that detail is remarkable enough to mention.. It helps explain how she can look the way she does. I mean hormones at 11 getting them any sooner would not do much good.

Also to the IP editor there is no need for personal attacks. --Hfarmer 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no need for personal attacks, which is why I don't engage in them. What I do do is point out when someone has made fallacious edits. Regarding Miriam having been in porn films, per Wikipedia standards, that is what is called "original research." In other words, there is not actually a so-called (by Wikipedia) "reliable source" for that conclusion (since no mainstream major media outlet has ever reported on it), but rather an individual looks at that and says something along the lines of "Hmmm, they look a bit alike, don't they?" Of course, there does exist much hardcore documentation that they are indeed the same people, but all such strong documentation falls under what Jokestress terms unreliable sources.

Of course, by these standards, one would have to deny the nose on one's face until the New York Times (or some similar outlet) told you that it is there.

The cognitive dissonance arises when a person thinks that the major media (or journal publications) somehow equals truth. They don't. Often quite the opposite.--209.208.77.212 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is clear based on your posts that you are an educated person. This does not excuse you from violating the civility and personal attack policies, and dismissing the comments of other editors. I am not going to get involved in the specifics here, although I will point out that the Wikipedia manual of style allows for both inline and block quotes, as do most major style manuals such as APA and Chicago. Further personal attacks will be removed, and eventually you will be blocked from editing. I'm posting this here since you change IP addresses. You are encouraged (but not obligated, of course) to sign up for a Wikipedia account. Rhobite 05:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rhobite, clearly you do not know proper quoting typesetting. I have read the Wikipedia manual of style, and apparently you have not (or at least not very well). When a quote goes over three lines, the standard (default) typsetting style is to format it as a displayed quotation.

Nor do I change my IP address. That is my ISP doing that. I have no control over that.

And Jokestress is being shamelessly hypocritical in her edits. Many things about Miriam in the article are not backed up by mainstream media articles, such as that "She is sometimes credited as Miriam D'Abo," as well as her porn modeling. Or for that matter, that she was born on February 20.--209.208.77.109 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always read that the general rule is over four lines (this is actually what WP:MOS says). This is not a hard-and-fast rule, it is just a stylistic guideline and it is open to editorial interpretation. It isn't worth an edit war or personal attacks. This is your last warning; further personal attacks will result in you temporarily losing your ability to edit Wikipedia. Rhobite 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to say over four lines. But I got you to admit here that Jokestress was making incorrect edits, since she didn't conform to this standard typesetting rule. Getting that much out of you is quite an accomplishment.--209.208.77.109 08:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing, but Rhobite beat me to it. A lot of your comments are personal attacks, however you try to justify them and your tone is often not CIVIL. Tyrenius 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never made a personal attack on Jokestress. Rather, I have pointed out that she is debasing this article and <personal attack removed>.--209.208.77.109 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, even her last name used for the article, "Rivera," isn't sourced by a mainstream media article. It's not sourced by anything in the article.--209.208.77.109 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed page move

I propose we move this page to Miriam (entertainer). Per comments above, since there are conflicting and unconfirmed surnames and stage names, we should stick to the stage name used in published sources. Miriam alone is obviously taken, so we need a parenthetical. We don't want a name that describes who she is, like Miriam (transwoman), since the naming conventions are to disambiguate by what someone does. "Entertainer" covers both the alleged pornography work and the reality television appearances. I hesitate to say Miriam (actress) because she was essentially appearing as herself, but I guess that would be my second choice. Thoughts are welcome. Jokestress 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to delete the passage regarding the alleged pornography work by Miriam, in addition to her supposed birthdate of February 20, and most of her filmography. None of that is supported by sources which you find suitable.

This article was far more correct and scholarly before you decided to come along and debase it with your hypocritical and factually incorrect edits. Now the article is virtually a stub. At the rate Jokestress is going, it will be half a sentence by the time she's done.

Based upon Jokestress's knowledge-damaging and incorrect edits, one has to wonder if Jokestress is a shill for Miriam and/or her agents, attempting to get various undesired information about Miriam put down the Orwellian Memory Hole.--209.208.77.109 09:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Most remaining unsourced statements removed

The adult film work could use a clear published confirmation connecting Victoria/Miriam. As we build this back, let's keep it encyclopedic and well-sourced. No information is better than wrong information. Jokestress 09:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Ideas for the page move etc.

First I would like to thank you for having gone to bat in the past for pages we created such as "black transsexuals" etc. Too bad some people cannot Imagine that transsexuality could have some culture specific quirks.

That said what you have done to this article has really been well... not good. It had much more information and was better before those edits. There is no reason to remove the pictures. They have clear copywright status. They are encyclopedic and they tell in pictures this womans's life story. Which a biographical article should do (within reason, of course). Then there are the details that are sourced to people who knew her by way of various message boards. As well as published sources.

Take a look at the following picture. It is a scan of a long biographical article about Miriam which backs up and cooberates everything that was previously in this article...

File:Miriamsuninterview.jpg

Click it for a full resolution version.

Everything that is mentioned in the old version of this article is mentioned in this interview.

This is my reason for reverting this article to it's last state.

Frankly Jokestress the last thing this woman and her plight need is less coverage. I am still perplexed by why someone getting fired from their job get's more play than Miriam being thrown out of a window. --Hfarmer 17:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out a few other things. The fact that the English press did not know how to spell Hermosillo is no reason to say that her birth place is disputed. It is common and CLEAR knowlege that she was born in Hermosillo. and many other things. --Hfarmer 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to add things back in, please cite sources,starting with Hermosillo. I did not remove the images. Someone else did, because they are unsourced and copyright violations, like the full article above. Let's add things back in one at a time. Jokestress 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the Swain piece to the references, but there is nothing in there that isn't already in the article (except that her father is an architect). In fact, it backs up the other citatons for the birthplace of Hermosa, which is in fact the name of several mexican towns. As I said, if you have a published source, we can always add it. Jokestress 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be so. But it is a known fact that Hermosillo is the town. Those pictures were most likely added by her. I trying to enlist an "expert" someone who knows Miriam personally to back this up. (remember the "expert" rebellion. Right now this like you trying to tell me about physics. You know not of what you write.)--Hfarmer 18:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You are still unclear on how Wikipedia works. We cannot use "someone who knows Miriam personally to back this up." We can only rely on published information in reliable sources. It's as simple as that. please read WP:NOR and WP:RS. Jokestress 18:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to have missed is that when dealing with someone in Miriam's position there may NEVER EVER be more written about her. By that logic if someone who's biography is on wikipedia dies...and it is not reported in any publication then wikipedia can never ever mentione that. I know I know the sinbad thing. This is different (as I mentioned on your personal talk page) YOU called Allahna Starr yourself. You know the attack happened for a fact.

By the blind adhearance to those rules this article will always be woefully incomplete. --Hfarmer 20:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As I discuss on your talk page, the recent incident is not confirmed independently. And even if I had irrefutable eyewitness proof, that would be meaningless here. Wikipedia can only use information in reliable sources. If the article is incomplete, so be it. We can only include as much as can be confirmed by reliable published sources. I understand this is frustrating, but we must abide by that here. Jokestress 21:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok OK I see what you mean. However the way you are going about this is all wrong. I know you mean well. More or less you are rewriting the article. As you go along finding out that basically everything here was based in truth and sourceable. Thus making the rather extensive reweite you have in fact undertaken unneeded. I have been trying to get anyone who can pin down her birthdate and brithplace to come forward by way of that message board. Since just a couple of weeks ago it seemed so many people there knew her.  :-\ Or at least claimed to. I am also glad that you took what I wrote as it was meant. I am frankly at a loss for where any of this could be sourced at all. I still feel that those pictures were just fine as they were. --Hfarmer 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The article required a total rewrite per WP:BLP. It was not encyclopedic and was poorly sourced. A birthdate cannot be sourced from a message board. In this case, there are conflicting unsourced birthdates. The best sourced claim we have is that she was 22 on February 13, 2004, making a likely birth year of 1981. That matches up with porn modeling age requirements, which makes 1982 less likely. If it's all sourceable as you say, we should have no problems citing the published sources. Please review Wikipedia:Image use policy to understand why the images were not just fine as they were. Jokestress 00:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So you like official policies eh?

(:|)

Consider the following...

I have all together too much time on my hands. So I was thinking about this situation. Something in the pages entitled "expert rebellion" and "expert retention" kept coming to mind. In the process of reading those I found the very set of wikipedia guidelines that legislate the flexibility that I was looking for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Which is official wikipedia policy. It also links to Wikipedia:Use common sense. Those are all I am talking about. In particular the Ignore all rules guideline says simply and elegantly "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them." That's what's happening here. The article had perfectly good cross checked information added and hashed out carefully over a number of years,by many many editors. The contents of which were not in dispute at all. I have reviewed all policy and in fact not just "ignore all rules" but also use common sense are policies of the wikipedia they are on my side in this case.

Basically as I said, and now I find it is backed up by wikipedia policies, blind adhearance to rules can and in this case had lead to a fact poor and outdated article. Far from encyclopedic it is just incomplete and lacks much well known information about her.

In closing pursuant to the policies Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense I will begin to immediately undo most of what Jokestress has done. I will keep some of it such as the picture she found. I will resurrect a couple of the old pictures and ...or perhaps even something better. I wonder if wikipedia can link to a you tube video... --Hfarmer 06:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been up entirely too late. I am done with this for now. You may notice that I have added a reference to the HungAngels website. This is not a link to the message boards but to the front page where this website reports news. Now I look in my crystal ball and see that someone will note the presence of the word "blog" in the url leading to that page. Obviously this page is not a personal blog in any sense. This is just an artifact of the software being used to create the webpage. For all intents and purposes the Front page of Hung Angels is as legit a news source, on the transsexuals the website is concerned, with as the New York Times or Chicago Tribune. --Hfarmer 08:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR applies to improving Wikipedia. It does not improve Wikipedia to have unconfirmed information and speculation in articles. I removed the hungangels.com site. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). Note there are additional stipulations. The YouTube quotations are fine, though links to YouTube clips of copyrighted shows are usually removed per WP:EL and copyright issues. Jokestress 09:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The specific area that I have referecned is not self published. That area is controlled by the staff of the website. As I said that "blog" appears in the URL is just in reference to the type of software they use. Instead of learing how to edit HTML they use blogging software to create the front page. That's all that means. This particular page [HungAngels: "shemale blog"]. I encourage anyone who is interested to look at the content and context of the webpage. Jokestress, that particular URL on HungAngels is not exactly what it seems to be (no pun intended). :-) --Hfarmer 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore what's with removing the references to the TV show itself? That's not self published. Those you-tube clips are a way that people who live in a country where that TV show has not be broadcast (like the good ol USA) can see that show. Hear the subject of this article describe herself and her life in her own voice. What could be better or more reliable. --Hfarmer 14:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't put external links in the body of an article or in captions. Please read WP:MOS. You can lean about how to do wiki markup so you don't mess up footnotes here. I'll have some other people stop by and comment on the use of the blog. Please cite your sources below for each item. We'll do these one at a time, the way it is supposed to. Jokestress 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Given name

What is your published source for the given name you keep inserting, and why did you remove the published statement that she will not reveal her old name? Jokestress 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the alleged given name until we have a better source, especially in light of this in the Sun article: "Her passport identifies her as male and carries her original name, which she refuses to reveal." (Swain reference in article) Jokestress 20:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Last name D'Abo

What is your published source for the surname D'Abo? Jokestress 16:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Read wikipedia:Ignore all rules again. There have been plany of editors who disagree with you, they were annon but that should not matter for this. I am going to have to undo much of what you want. As for the reference to youtube being where it is. It is in the most logical place for it. It makes no sense anywhere else in the article. Ideally I could set it up so that clicking the picture would take one to the you tube video. I have also noticed that you remove other citations of "There's Something About Miriam" via you tube. What's the logic for that. None of the objections you have raised apply to the description she gives of her early life. --Hfarmer 16:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I undid what happend to the foot notes probably as you were writing you comments.--Hfarmer 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a more pressing concern with the you tube links as it is possible that copyright is being infringed here. This raises the question of just how to reference anything said in the TV show. On HA someone expressed the hope that she would write a biography some day. Well she told so much in that show it is basically a short autobiogaphy in many ways. With that in mind it is crucial that any article that hopes to be complete make reference to what is said in that TV show. But how to reference something that no one on this continent has ever seen? One could claim that she said anything really. I need to think about this problem for a while. --Hfarmer 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as it is an exact quotation or accurate paraphrase, it doesn't matter if others have seen the show, but the person who adds it need to to be precise. Ideally more than one person would confirm the accuracy. The show has been picked up by Fox and will air here in time. I have asked other editors to come take a look at this. You have removed several important footnotes, probably accidentally, including the Emily Smith piece on which this heavily relies. I await your sources for the two above items. Jokestress 16:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

probably unintentional. There were a few times when there was a "editing conflict" and things got messed up. I doubt that TSAM will even air here. I know that it was advertised once way back when. I know that Fox Reality channel has the rights to it now. I think there are other legal and political reasons that show will never see american air, ever.

See this for links to tons on info on her [2]

The concern I had was using the show as a reference...if no one in the USA has seen it can be prickly. Ideally references in wikipedia should be online, because then any interested party could check the reference with a simple click. The next best thing is a published reference that one could reasonably find in the library. TSAM is neither of those things....but for linking to YouTube where some fans have uploaded clips. But those probably infringe on the Fox Reality Channels rights, to a show that in all probability they will never ever air at least not on this continent.

I believe that the Miriam D'Abo alias was originally sourced to a website she had way back when. This page has a refereence to her use of "Miriam X" which is short for Xtravaganza. [3]

How do I know that? Because of this website[4] List other members of the house, and they have all at times signed their names to a website, message board whatever with just an X. (For example as Nikki did here [5]) Using a bit of common sense there.

In the process of looking for a link that deals with her name I found one that confirms she was born in hermosillo. [6]. But then on the same website... [7]. I wonder if the "Hermosa" she was born in is a sort of suburb of Hermosillo? That would explain it. People do that all the time. I.e. Jokestress, You living in Southern California would tell another Southern Californian that you live in Riverside or Arleta, or Santa Monica or something...but when talking to somone from Houston you may very well just say that you live in Los Angeles and leave it at that. Same sort of deal. With that it would be best to say her birth city was Hermosa near Hermosillo Mexico.

As for her names Migdalia, and the use of the surname D'Abo that can be found here.[8] Before I do anything more I will just let you look at this for a while.

--Hfarmer 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first link has been in the article for many months. There's Something About Miriam is absolutely a reliable source, though she was reported as South American during filming of that. It doesn't matter if others have seen it as long as it is verbatim or accurately paraphrased. Miriam X is sourced by the article in Spanish I added the other day (again, not ideal). Hermosillo and most places called Hermosa are in different parts of the country. Her old official site is a reliable source, as long as we preface "according to," which we should do on all of this, since there is so much conflicting information. The transfan database doesn't seem especially reliable for Migdalia and D'Abo. Victoria seems borne out by similarity in appearance in the pornography, but that link could be better sourced. And please spare us the rhetoric and theatrics you display below. It's not civil and does nothing to help improve the article. If you are getting stressed, you should take a break. This is an encyclopedia, not an up-to-the-second news bulletin or fan site. Try Wikinews if you want to write a news flash, but remember they will require published sources, too. If you want to write an offsite transfan site similar to another admirer of Miriam's, you can write whatever you want there. If you want to work with Wikipedians here, you need to stay calm and provide good information to discuss for inclusion, like the stuff you included above. Jokestress 00:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You say she was reported as being south American I will direct you to this clip from the show on youtube [[9]] She clearly says that she is from Mexico. The English press calling her "Brazilian" is no different than the english use of the word "Bohemian". Their calling Miriam a "Brazilian" is a reference to her status as a transsexual. Second the cite you refere to as a transfan site, is a site that catalogs the stage names and filmographies of performers. For what it's worth I went ahead and looked in the IMDB a "respectable" website if you like to think of it that way [10] This also affirms that she is credited sometimes as Miriam D'abo. She also in the show somewere confessses that she has been in porno. There is no DVD box set of this show to buy or rent to comb it for all the information. As for my staying calm I will. Sometimes I just detect (in particular from Allison, and longhair) a undercurrent of elitism and snobbery.

I want you to know that I will do whatver is within reason and the rules to ensure that this page stays as complete as it was just a month ago. --Hfarmer 03:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

{outdenting) Getting back to the original topic of this section, Maryam d'Abo is a blonde actress who appeared in a James Bond film, which may have caused some confusion on the transfan porno site. I'm taking it out until we have a better source. Jokestress 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Blographical sources

Hi all. I'd just like to point out that anything controversial that is to be added to a biographical article of a person who's alive needs to be rigorously researched and should cite reliable sources. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons covers this in detail - Alison^☺ 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes. See the sources I listed above. Those are authoratative enough. The ruels agianst using blogs and websites do not bar using biographical information if it appears on a blog or personal website that person made themself. Not different than using a person's autobiography. Just look at the sources I listed in the above reply.--Hfarmer 22:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Further I would like to say that Alison your word might as well be comming right from Jokestress on this. Ok it convinces me of nothing. If the resources that I have fetched such as the archive of Miriams old website and. the TS identifacation database are not "rigourous" enough then I don't know what to tell you. I think you need to pull you head out of the clean white sand and take a good hard look at the realities that people like Mirmiam live with. To get a taste of it consider this A post on HA by someone who has a better idea of what's going on than either of you, and your TS. The gist of it is that one cannot expect a front back or any page of the New York Times or Washington post to carry news that someone like Miriam has been killed, let alone injured, under most circumstances. Knowing this we have to settle for sources that are just as credible but not as well known such as The webpages, archives of her personal and official marketing pages, as well as pages like the one I found the reference to Miriam D'abo on. Do you get it.  :-) I hope so. --Hfarmer 22:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what seanchaí means in Irish by any chance? (a teller of tall tales. Seriously!). Yes, User:Jokestress mentioned the article on my talk page for all to see. I think 1) you need to keep editors' TS status or otherwise to yourself. It's irrelevant and none of your business, 2) you're coming close to a personal attack right here. Please don't do that. The HungAngels website hardly qualifies as a reliable source of information. Best to use reliable sources in a biographical article esp. as saying the wrong thing can lead to defamation - Alison^☺ 23:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You may sense I am a little tense on this. Well, you'd be right. How to put this more civilly. This story has aspects that are out of your league...out of your area of experience. So much so that what you would write about it would seem, ignorant. That's the right word for it to be truthful. There are many things about the world of a young androphilic transsexual that you are simply ignorant of. The most important one of those facts for the purposes of this discussion is that people like that are usually never heard from in any mainstream public forum (at least in this country). If the only reliable source to you is a news paper, or major network TV coverage or some such that may very well never happen.  :-(

Oh and Alison take a page out of Miriam's book and learn to be as comfortable with yourself as she is. --Hfarmer 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll say it once more; you need to use reliable sources in a biographical article of a living person. Those are the rules. Seriously. And there's a very good reason why this is the case. While I can understand your rationale, we have to adhere to this rule. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox to get your message out. It's an encyclopedia. I'm sorry you feel tense about all this. May I suggest maybe working on some other article for a while and then maybe come back to this one? - Alison^☺ 23:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (incredibly comfortable with myself, thanks for asking! :) )

The sources of the information I cited above are in fact reliable. I have read all the damm policies etc. Most of what I am about to to is backed up by links to the "way back machine" internet arhive...these are verbatim archives of a website that was made (probably with professional help) by Miriam. Wherein she mentions where she was born, her name, etc, etc. I have also found another cite that is not a blog or anything that is a source of news and information about TS adult film actors. Those are as reliable as they need to be. I'm using them. I will fight for the preservation of the facts contained in this article no matter what. --Hfarmer 01:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So you are quoting from a site that is no longer active, as well as one called "HungAngels", yes? If you don't mind my asking, why is the site you are quoting from no longer active? - Alison^☺ 03:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont know for sure. Perhaps it served it's purpose for her. Perhaps she had been unable to turn a profit on the venture. I could speculate more. Why does the name of "Hung Angles" have anything to do with credibility? It is afterall a website that is all about TS adult entertainment, social life, industry news etc , frequented by TS's who do or have done adult entertainment and the people who consume it. It has a message board yes it also has a distinct front page where often news about various notables in that industry is shown. (news that someone has died, or new releases, Various parties and events etc. etc.) It might be better to think of it as a sort of online magazine rather than a mere blog (which makes it sound as if a lone "collector" was behind the whole thing.) Look beyond what the people do for a living, look beyond the name and you find people who are really not as objectionable and more competent than they usually get credit for. --Hfarmer 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - at this point, User:Hfarmer has petitioned ten other admins to look into this article and has requested a full protect. As I was originally requested by User:Jokestress for help [11] and that User:Hfarmer has accused me of not being 100% neutral [12]. In light of this, and in light of the fact that other admins are now here, I will now step back. It should be noted that I have never once edited the main article, other than voicing my concerns on this talk page. - Alison^☺ 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm one of those admins. Being pulled into an argument that I know nothing about is very difficult, but based on what I've seen, Alison's demands for reliable sources is perfectly reasonable - Hfarmer, please read the living persons guidelines. They state, among other things, that improperly sourced negative information about a person can be removed without further notice or delay. It is up to the editor who added it to properly source it. You said in the note to me that you do not fault Jokestress at all; highly admirable of you. Ignoring her edits, and your edits, from the history, however, and I see very little in the way of a major dispute or edit war. Alison has only been posting on the talk page, which is hardly nothing to complain about - we should all hope that disputes appear on talk pages first. And Longhair's policing of the images is also sound, though I suggest that they should be taken to IFD instead of being speedied. They may be speedy candidates in normal circumstances, but doing it in an article that is under heavy argument and flux can be seen - even if it is in truth not - as a dogpile, a way to just beat up on the people in the argument. I'm not saying that's Longhair's intention at all, but I can see how it could be interpreted. I'll take the fall on this one and send them to IFD.

Since I see little edit warring going on - since by Hfarmer's own admission, she and Jokestress are working together on this - I see no reason to protect the article. I'll add it to my watchlist for a few days, though, to see if I'm missing something. --Golbez 04:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, I find Alison's objections valid, and commend her again for bringing them up on the talk page. No need to step back. --Golbez 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Having also been asked to examine the dispute, I concur in Golbez assessment. I also wish to commend Hfarmer, and recognize the validity of a point made above -- it is very difficult to find "mainstream" sources on people existing in society's margins. It is also difficult for those of us not within a particular marginalized group to assess completely the reliability of certain sources known primarily within that marginalized group. It may well be that "HungAngels" is an accurate source for information on transexual/intersex people. However, with respect to living people especially, the encyclopedia has a duty to refrain from reporting information that cannot be verified; in cases of sensitive content, it is best to err on the side of caution and include only those details that can be confirmed absolutely. Surely, no subject wishes to have unfounded rumor spread about himself or herself: it is for this reason that blogs, and other personal webpages, are generally disallowed. It is better to report nothing than to report falsehood. I thank all parties here for their relative calmness, and hope that further research will yield conclusive evidence regarding the matters under dispute. I also see no cause to protect the page at the present time. Xoloz 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I was asked to comment. Having reviewed the history, my feelings are very similar to those expressed by Xoloz. While I do understand Hfarmer's frustrations at our strict WP:BLP policies and their implication for sourcing information from individuals marginalized by mainstream society, I can't support the use of "HungAngels" discussion thread as a reliable source. I would consider the use of site "cover story" as a source if it was non-controversial and non-critical, though only if we could be convinced of the reliability of the site as a news-source for that community. As there appears to be a number of opinions canvassed, all parties are keeping it relatively civil and because this is far from my area of expertise, I'll keep and eye on the debate but refrain for contributing further. Rockpocket 07:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I understand your policies and see why they are as they are and feel why they are stricly adhered to most of the time. How could I prove that Hung Angels was a reliable source for news related to the industry and subculture that it addresses? The most straight forward way would be to compare the number of retractions they have had to publish to that of a metropolitan newspaper or major magazine ("Dewey defeats Truman", "Abe Vigoda's obituary" in Time). Nobody's perfect. There is the fact that the front page is done using bloging software. Therefore if a story was patently false a comment saying so could be posted and probably would be. Taking a quick look back at it (mixed in with allot of things that under 18 should not see in most US states) are many death announcements, not one Abe Vigoda affair. So far they are doing better than time magazine. Sounds pretty reliable to me. But I understand that others differ. --Hfarmer 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how marginalised people that do not get any form of mainstream media coverage would necessarily be able to afford lawyers to press a site for retractions, and I am not sure that marginalised people would have the time and ability to press a site for retractions. I think in any case a soon-gone blog article would not attract anything like the same amount of attention from people who feel misrepresented or that untruths have been printed as Time magazine. It does not have the distribution or the lasting nature. I'm not sure your argument is consistent. 88.96.135.14 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Soap box? & the Size of the "world of transsexual/transgendered people"

Allison has often accused me of using this article as a soapbox or something. Other than about two passing comments on the curious lack of coverage. Other than that all I have spoken on are the points at hand.

Another salient point would be that the "world of transsexual/transgendered people" is not a large place. There are various prevalence numbers from 1/500 to 1/30,000 people (roughly see transsexualism for better info) the median is that about 1/2500 people are transsexual (TS) or transgendered (TG). That means that in a city like New york of 15 Million people there would be about 9000 transsexuals. Nationwide 375000 of us. A very small minority. This makes for a situation where There is at most 2 degrees of separation between any two of us. In this very small community someone telling a lie of this magnitude would be screwed for life. Don't belive me? If you have ever lived in a small city you know how it is. Not everyone knows everyone but pretty darn close to it. Just something to think about. --Hfarmer 10:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Reliable sources in this article

This is a dispute about what constitutes a reliable source 00:19 March 23 2007 (CST)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

I am not sure what is supposed to be here a reacap of things people have said or just a sort of statement of my position so bear with me.. My position hinges on the wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Which is official wikipedia policy. It also links to Wikipedia:Use common sense. Those two policies are worded to countermand basically all other rules even the reliable sources rule in some cases. There are no expetions made or caveats. Now I ask you. Look at this article as it is now... vs This version from about a month ago, VS this intermetiate version. The question seems to be what makes the wikipedia "better"? Being true a select class of sources or in cases like this of people who are not served by the mainstream press being accurate to the information that is available. Miriam lives in a small subcluture of young urban transsexuals. A group that is much maligned even by other transsexuals for being "sterotypical" or what have you. I could say more excuse me if this is incoherrent for it is midnight and I need either sleep of coffee. --Hfarmer 05:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that much of the information in this biography is disputed, and no information is better than wrong information. I have written dozens of articles on controversial people, pornographers, and people in the New York ball culture. In the case of someone like Miriam, conflicting information is often provided deliberately to obfuscate a past they don't wish to confirm. That's why we have all these different names, why she has told the press she refuses to give her birth name, and differing accounts of her birthplace, birthdate, and other biographical information. We can't even source the surname used in the article title right now. Most of the current editing was precipitated by inclusion of a post in a blog that said the article's subject was attacked and thrown from a fourth story window. When I removed it and said we needed a more reliable source due to the extraordinary claims, I began looking at all the other information and finding all the discrepancies. This read like a transfan site or puff piece, not an encyclopedia article. I removed anything that could not be sourced and asked that we add back in any information once we found a source. I have done this many times, and in this case, I have personally made calls to people in New York who can follow up with assistance for the article's subject (whom I have not met). I don't think that information on a sex worker blog (and I know the author) or a pornography afficionado's amateur site constitute reliable sources. If there are gaps in the article, that's OK. We need to abide by policy. I have written many biographies of trans people of color (see Delisa Newton, Lorrainne Sade Baskerville, Octavia St. Laurent, Pepper LaBeija, Dorian Corey, and members of Miriam's house Venus Xtravaganza and Anji Xtravaganza). As you will see, these articles have information of varying completeness, but we can only go with what we have in published sources. We can't lower the bar for people, especially living people, just because sourcing is harder to find. It leaves the door too wide open for introduction of misinformation and errors, as we have seen here. I understand that the article's subject has spoken with the press about the recent attack claims, so we should be patient and wait for published confirmation, per policy. Everything else needs to be sourced, and where there are discrepancies, those need to be mentioned and sourced. I would argue that articles like this need more stringent sourcing rather than a relaxation of policy, since it's highly likely that published sources will have conflicting information. Probably the best example I have worked on personally is Paul Barresi, a pornographer who has made many extraordinary statements to the press that he later recanted and has used numerous aliases. He actually contacted Jimbo directly to complain about the sourcing in the article, which was stubbed and built back up to what it is now. That's all I did here, and I feel the article will be stronger for it. Thanks to all who are looking at this. Jokestress 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. If you read my complaints to the other admins you, Jokestress are not one of the people who I accuse of edit warring. Or elitism. Here's how what happened looked to me. You asked Alison to "explain about sources" she did. I found other sources. I.e. Miriam's old website (which you yourself said would be a reliable source). Wikipedia's policy pages on reliable sources say that if a link like that is dead the web archive("the way back machiene" is a valid alternative. Alison then after I did that then writes more about needing to find reliable sources and, in contradiction to a wikipedia policy goes on to say that Miriam's old website is not a reliable source. Do you see why I needed to get other admins involved?--Hfarmer 16:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to stay clear of this but seeing as you're still talking about me; it needs to be pointed out that I did not at any time state that Miriam's old site was not a reliable source. Please check again. What I did do was question why the site had been deleted, which you have stated that you didn't know. However, I will state quite clearly that I believe the "HungAngels" site does not meet the criteria for a reliable source - Alison^☺ 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Alison did you not write the following?

So you are quoting from a site that is no longer active, as well as one called "HungAngels", yes? If you don't mind my asking, why is the site you are quoting from no longer active? - Alison☺ 03:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like you are saying that her own website is somehow an invalid source of information just because it now only exist in the form of an archive? Which if that is what you are saying is contrary to wikipedia policies. --Hfarmer 22:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What it sounds like to you is neither here nor there. It's a question, and one which you could not answer. To reiterate: I did not state that the deleted site was not a valid source of information. Please stop making assumptions about me as a person, and please stop putting words into my mouth where they were not. I've been ignoring it so far. Done now? - Alison^☺ 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I will be done when I am confident that this article is factually complete, up to date, and prosaically pleasing in writing. I will stop when this page is stable; which will happen as soon as I figure a reliable way to cite that TV show There's Something About Miriam in a fasion that could be checked (perhaps with youtube referenced simply for it's convience). Then I will stop for a long while and probably put this page on my watch list so basically no. I will never be done as long as there are people who will feel a need to delete this information...or (as happned way up at the top of this page) people who feel a need to label her a man. --Hfarmer 00:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jokestress, no information in the article before you came along was disputed. Indeed, even you never disputed the accuracy of, e.g., the matter of Miriam being attacked: rather, you simply made a blasé blanket reference to a Wikipedia rule concerning supposedly reliable sources. You're here inventing an ex post ante justification for your actions. That's what is called intellectual dishonesty on your part.

As well, you never had a problem with the well-known and undisputed fact that Miriam has done porn modeling until I pointed out your glaring hypocrisy of deleting information which you wanted to delete by claiming "reliable sources." After my pointing out your blatant hypocrisy on this matter that information was deleted as well, even though no one who knows much of anything about Miriam would credibly dispute it. Indeed, even now I haven't heard from anyone that disputes that Miriam has done said porn modeling (after the matter had already been cleared up, via my above posts under the name of Jamie).

So not only are you inventing ex post ante rationales for your actions, but your stated rationales also have no basis in empirical history and fact.

Hence, thanks entirely to you, Jokestress, this article has become a completely sick joke. One again petty ego-stroking and ignorance rules Wikipedia.--209.208.77.186 20:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Ignore All Rules is a policy, but a secondary one. It cannot overrule the more central rules of Wikipedia, among them no original research, verifiability, and the living persons policy. Please stop using IAR here, as it is not relevant to a BLP dispute. --Golbez 06:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I read in a rush the whole story here (after I was asked to comment on the issue by Hfarmer). I think this case here reveals a serious problem an encyclopedia like ours may face: do we include a probably true information not cross-verified by verifiable sources? What are we doing if our only sources (for an event we do know it is true!) are blogs and unsigned publications in like-blog sites? I'm afraid to say that unfortunately we do not publish this information, even though this solution does not seem to serve truth and accuracy. I understand Hfarmer's furstration, but unfortunately the current sources are not verifiable enough to justify the inclusion of the attack case in the article. A non-signed publication in a blog of the style "I verified that ..." is just not enough. As a jurist, I also made this thought: Let's say that we include this info. What if Miriam regards it as a defamation and sues the encyclopedia. On what grounds? By saying, "no news site published this info, I tried to keep it private, and now you a world-wide online encyclopedia intruded into my personal life in the most disgusting way, and made public a humiliating issue that I did not want to get publicity attention. This is a violation of my private life". I don't say that this will happen, but if it happens Wikipedia will be legally in a really tough position.--Yannismarou 09:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses and criticism

This article is not a balanced depiction of 2004 press coverage, which fell largely into two broad groups:

1. Reality television has hit a new now. (generally transphobic responses)
2. Miriam's actions perpetuate damaging stereotypes. (generally pro-trans responses)

This comment was removed:

An Australian television critic described her appearance: "The transsexual looked as excited as someone about to undergo root canal work. The housemates picked her 'secret' almost immediately. No-one was fooled."

I was going to add this as well:

But she admits the Australian men in the house might be a bit harder to fool than the British men who thought she was the real thing in Something About Miriam, so she will be known as Maria. But Miriam says she isn't out to fool anyone in the Big Brother house and just wants to spend some time with the guys and the girls there. "They probably know who I am because they might have heard about me or seen pictures," she said. "I might be recognised as soon as I walk in."

If there are other published sources to round out the coverage, we can include them, but I think it's important to note that Miriam was widely criticized for participation in TSAM, and the local reaction to the Australian BB program. Jokestress 18:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the possible goal in mentioning that she was clocked at all? I mean we all have days be we surgically SRS'd, FFS'd, (insert umpteen other acronyms here) to the hilt, or not that we get spooked on even if it is just once in a year. That comes with the territory of being a transsexual. That's like mentioning that Fredrick Douglas was once called a N-word at some point in his life. I have no way in the world of knowing what you are doing. I could only react to what I saw and I am sincerely sorry if I jumped the gun. If you ever are in Chicago you get one free swing at me if you want to take it. (seriously, just no brass knuckels) I mean, suppose someone felt a need to add to the page about you that you or some other random TS got clocked at some random time (I would curse out anyone who would do such a thing to any TS.) I recall reading the episode synopsis at one point. No one recognized her but this one gentleman who was in the house said he had been to Thailand and seen enough ts's to know not all of us have deep voices. (the lack of a deep voice on her threw off another house mate who was a bit suspicious).

Your point that she was criticized is valid and well taken but this can be done without sounding quite as hostile as it did when I deleted it and made my comments.

I also will not object to your moving this page. Her name like where she was born seem to be in flux even on her own website. A total mystery... --Hfarmer 23:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of her involvement in TSAM goes fine on that show's page, and I added it there. However, her involvement in BB was less notable and may or may not be best on that page. In both cases, it's important to explain how she presented herself, how the production team presented her, and the response by participants and critics. Jokestress 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply for Jamie aka 209.208.xx.xx

Hi Jamie, if you have specific concerns about individual statements in this article, or citations to verify some of the missing information, please provide them. The article as it was had all kinds of statements that have not been verified. Oh, and please spare us all the rhetoric and drama. You are not going to make me feel bad about demanding accuracy here, trust me. It's a waste of your time. Let's focus on the article instead of all the attacks. Thanks. Jokestress 00:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Reportedly

The story of Miriam's near fatal attack was very briefly covered on FOX 5 in New York. I have no reason to doubt this at all. But I also have no way of finding out exactly what was or was not said. I will look on their website and see if I can get a transscript or perhaps talk to someone in their news room about this. Tomorrow. --Hfarmer 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed them and see if they respond. Email is simpler. --166.217.206.191 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Still no response.--Hfarmer 23:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Now I am going to have to resort to calling that TV station. --Hfarmer 00:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Never was able to get through to anyone at that TV station. After a long silence some verified news. According to [13]

October 4, 2007 -- THE gorgeous star of "There's Something About Miriam" won't be doing any promotion for the dating show, premiering on Fox Reality channel on Halloween. The show, which first aired in Britain in 2004, featured six men competing for the 21-year-old Mexican stunner. They were filmed in Ibiza, Spain, kissing and seducing Miriam for weeks before she revealed she was a pre-op transsexual - a she-male. One contestant punched out a producer and they all sued, claiming they'd been tricked and were devastated. The men settled for an undisclosed amount. Miriam lives in New York, but won't help promote the series. Sources say she was seriously injured last spring when she was thrown out of a third-story window at her home. "She's not doing any press. She's living a very private life now," a Fox Reality spokeswoman told Page Six. And Miriam still has her male equipment. As Brian Lowry noted in Variety, "The show's use of Miriam's [sex organ] approximates the shark's role in 'Jaws' - Just knowing it's lurking down there helps maintain a certain level of suspense."

For what it's worth I will register my objection to a Transsexual being characterized as a "she-male" in a major media source like the New York Post. Such a word is a term that is only ever proper in context of adult media. The girl is as transsexual as anyone ever was. Someone else can add the line about her anatomy. I also feel that it is irrelevant.--Hfarmer 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Such terminology and associated media sensationalism and negativity are common to the majority of depictions of all transpeople in the media, though they run against the Reuters and AP style guidelines. I used to have a weblink quoting from the Reuters stylebook/similar to back up my point, but unfortunately I can't currently find it. If you want to complain I advise you do so and cite the AP stylebook (in this case) and challenge them as to why they deviated from it in this article. No doubt there will be some Victim blaming by them as she has been in the public eye on the basis of being a pre-op mtf transsexual. 88.96.135.14 (talk)

Why the hate?

It is immoral to ever reveal a TSs birth name or EVER refer to them with male pronouns. The references make me mad. SHE refused to reveal HER name of birth. Her passport wrongly and slanderously refers to her as male, not "his passport." She has a birth defect of the wrong parts, she is not a "man becoming a woman." That is a stupid notion that needs to die hard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.191.204 (talk) 07:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please correct any uses of wrong pronouns... there should be a wiki policy somewhere on them. Like the Reuters journalistic policy regarding addressing transfolk appropriately and non-hatefully, even if it exists it can be easily ignored. Unlike such media wikipedia errors are easily corrected and disputes mediated. As for not revealing a birth name... unfortunately that's something that any transfolk in the public eye have no way of avoiding. There is no law against it. People simply have to accept it. Trying to conceal such things simply results in embarrasing and hostile exposés by downmarket tabloid newspapers. 88.96.135.14 (talk)

Indeed there are Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Identity on this issue. We can't change the contents of the quote used in the references though. Barrylb (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miriam (TV personality). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090322111342/http://www.elmanana.com.mx:80/notas.asp?id=105421 to http://www.elmanana.com.mx/notas.asp?id=105421
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/news/entertainment/040220_miriam.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130118070418/http://www.nypost.com:80/p/pagesix/item_IG6JTgSVq4XfjWh3LUYhQN;jsessionid=8F48E2DB62CB384D66C7CB91948A2937 to http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_IG6JTgSVq4XfjWh3LUYhQN;jsessionid=8F48E2DB62CB384D66C7CB91948A2937

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) 09:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)