Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Birth name

@Why? I Ask, as I'm sure you can imagine -- the editing notice you removed should have made that doubly clear -- this has been discussed before here. Please discuss before re-adding that. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Including her original name in a de-emphasized spot, where it was used in her early career, is not undue (even if those early career appearances were not the most notable of things). This is especially true when several sources used directly in the article use the name as such. Currently, the MOS provision does not apply, and looking through the archives, I am hard-pressed to find good policy-based reasons not to include it. No, it should not be placed in the infobox or bolded at the top. But a single sentence mention for those wishing to do a potential deeper dig is encyclopedic. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Why? I Ask, you've revised my post. That is not okay. Please revert your edit now. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry! It was due to an edit conflict! Nonetheless, that notice did not make any sense. The policy does not apply, so it does not mean anything. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries, edit conflicts happen. I don't have an opinion on the content, but removing an edit notice that instructs you not to add the deadname in the same edit in which you add that deadname is clearly ignoring the fact there's been discussion. This is a contentious subject, and this is a contentious type of edit. Valereee (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That's why I like to WP:BEBOLD. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Deadnaming trans people that weren't notable under their deadname isn't being bold, it's being disruptive. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Where did I deadname them? Do not confuse deadnaming for recognizing that they have previously had a different name. Accusing someone of that? Now that is disruptive.

Transgender people are not special in the slightest. They are normal people. With that said, they do not deserve any special treatment from the basic rules of Wikipedia. If several reliable sources mention her birth name, then Wikipedia, which is de facto a summary of reliable sources, should probably include it, too. I am of the belief that while we should do our best to be inclusive and respectful, they have a Wikipedia page. They lost their right to privacy as soon as the The Guardian published their birth name... twice. We do not have to call any sort of attention to it, but including it seems pretty basic for archival purposes alone. If their birthday is not undue, then neither is the name. Anyway, I am done with conversation until the RfC at the Village Policy is over. See you around! Why? I Ask (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

They lost their right to privacy as soon as the The Guardian published their birth name... twice. That's a pretty terrible argument to make. The invasion of privacy by media, while sadly common, does not actually remove in any way an individuals rights to privacy. It's so common a thing that we actually have our own policy surrounding it for living individuals, and application of that policy routinely leads to exclusion of verifiable facts like birth dates if the article subject complains about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a brief mention in the body would be appropriate. A) We're past the "two years at the outside" window given by WP:BDP. B) The name is mentioned in a good deal of high-quality sources. I went back to the archives to refresh my memory - see comments on that page from Binksternet and GRuban's which list many RS which connect SOPHIE to her birth name at various stages in her career, including posthumously. (As a side note, I think a bigger issue of due weight is the use of the surname "Xeon" in the lead. If I remember correctly, this was originally sourceable only to an obscure primary source (a registration for a corporation or web domain or something). But it's since been picked up by the press based on that initial OR usage on Wikipedia, via citogenesis, so it's probably too late to do anything about it, especially since she's sadly no longer around to clarify whether she intended to be identified by that surname.) Colin M (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly appropriate to mention the birth name once. We discussed this several times; check both the archived talk pages. Lots of good argument for mentioning the birth name, as it was credited in the early career and on the 2015 Madonna album Rebel Heart for the song "Bitch I'm Madonna", and reliable sources published it a bunch of times. Binksternet (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

There were also lots of good arguments made against including Sophie's deadname. With regards to the spirit of GENDERID, Sophie was not notable prior to transitioning, and GENDERID is pretty clear that we base inclusion or exclusion of a deadname based on the name that was in use at the point in which the person became notable. And at the time of the last discussion, because of WP:BDP, it is pretty clear in my view that the deadname provisions of GENDERID would have clearly applied. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

My immediate thought is that we should wait. As some may be aware, there is currently a set of three RfCs over at Vilage pump (policy) about the scope and applicability of MOS:GENDERID when it comes to deceased trans and non-binary individuals. While it's early days for those RfCs, it is within the realm of possibility that a new version of that guideline will find consensus in a form that unambiguously applies to this article. Sophie's deadname has not been included in the article for a few years now, and I don't think there's any harm at all in continuing to exclude it while the related RfCs are running.

That said, on the merits of the edit, I don't think we should include Sophie's deadname. While the current letter of GENDERID restricts it to living and recently deceased individuals, the spirit and intent of it has clear applicability here. In life, Sophie went to great pains to conceal their identity prior to coming out as a trans woman, with the press speculating on Sophie's identity during their early career. It's pretty clear that Sophie had already transitioned by the time in which Sophie became notable, and were Sophie still alive today it's a pretty open and shut case that GENDERID would apply.

This is especially true when several sources used directly in the article use the name as such I've just checked into this, which is related to why I just marked a bunch of citations as dead. Of the 96 citations currently in the article, only 9 mention Sophie's deadname. Of those 9, 3 were published after Sophie's death. Based on the current citations, I think that inclusion of the name is undue. As for the list of sources that were provided by Binksternet in March 2021, Pitchfork, and Redbull Music have since edited their articles to remove Sophie's deadname. The remaining articles cited in the past discussions still contain Sophie's deadname. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think anything that's mentioned in around 10% of RS sources that talk about a particular topic has a very strong claim to being WP:DUE! If we consistently applied some standard where we consider information to be undue if it's mentioned in this fraction of sources (or less), we would need to drastically reduce the size of the article. e.g. I doubt 9 of the currently cited sources mention that "Sophie collaborated with producer Cashmere Cat on several tracks from his album 9", or the fact that "At the age of approximately nine or ten, Sophie expressed the desire to drop out of school to become an electronic music producer" or the fact that she has a planet named after her, or... Colin M (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

We've had this discussion a few times already and the answer always comes up as the same. As of the discussion, there is no consensus to include the deadname. I concur with that and the fact inclusion isn't WP:DUE. Sophie was not notable under this name, barring receiving some album-book credits under it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No, there is not existing consensus. The RfC decided there was none either way for the body. Do not try and claim as such for your side. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Amended. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

No consensus to include is not the same as consensus to leave it out (and the RfC happened when WP:BDP was a factor). My main issue is that arguing that her deadname is WP:TRIVIA and undue is such a flimsy argument. Sophie was not notable enough for a Wikipedia page at her birth, so we should not include her birthday and birthplace under the same circumstances, right? That information is not WP:DUE under your same argument. To put it bluntly, her deadname is a basic fact about her that was used professionally and in a significant portion of reliable sources. Mentioning once is not calling attention to it nor does it disrespect her. Please explain how a basic fact used in several dozens of sources is WP:UNDUE. As far as I have read, that only applies to viewpoints, not simple facts. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

To put it bluntly, her deadname is a basic fact about her that was used professionally and in a significant portion of reliable sources. It's also a fact that Sophie's identity was something that they went to great effort to try and conceal early in their career. The first time Sophie's face or voice was actually seen and heard was in October 2017, about five years into their career. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The assertion that "Sophie's face or voice" was not seen or heard until October 2017 is completely wrong. Plenty of performance and publicity photos exist of Sophie before she transitioned, using her birth name, for instance the Motherland album cover shoot[1] and the Sfire album photo;[2] on that album Sophie is credited for vocals under her birth name. Discogs shows a clear image of Sophie performing on electronics pre-transition.[3] She coloured her hair to be bright red! Sophie welcomed publicity before deciding to transition, at which point she became secretive. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

And? To put it bluntly again, we already have plenty of personal information about her. We can be respectful of her wishes but also recognize that she is dead, famous, and has her birth name in a myriad of reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You can't be respectful of a trans person's wishes and at the same time misgender/deadname her after her death. That's not how it works. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 19:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Where did I misgender her? She no longer uses the name, nor should it be used for her, but at the same time, it was undeniably used by her, and establishing a connection is of potential encyclopedic importance per the liner notes and early discography that the artist had. Including the birth name in a de-emphasized spot is not misgendering her. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to remind you, as well as other people in this discussion, that the "living" qualifier was added without consensus by Sdkb in 2020. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

That Sophie concealed their identity early in their career is an argument against your point that it was used professionally. I would advise against making a RGW argument on this however, as it equally would apply to anyone seeking to include Sophie's deadname as a way to set the record straight.

myriad of reliable published sources Is somewhat misleading. There's a little over a dozen in total that have been linked, 9 currently in the article, and 4 from the last discussion (excluding duplicates and two which no longer contain Sophie's deadname). Within the greater volume of sources about Sophie, that to me does not a myriad meet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't intend to set the record straight on anything. Simply, the sources provided by Binksternet are compelling to why one would include the prior name. They have released music under that name. That is literally the only reason why. Also, I have found plenty more sources that use the original name. Just because they are not currently cited in the article does not mean they are not weighted toward inclusion. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said before, excluding duplicates and two sources which no longer contain Sophie's deadname, Binksternet only provided four additional sources. As editors, we can only weigh the sources that are in front of us, whether they are currently in the article or provided in a list on the talk page. If there are a multitude of other sources, providing a list of them could be helpful.

However, as I've said above it is also entirely within the realm of possibility that GENDERID's deadname provisions will be altered in a manner that unambiguously applies them to this article, due to the RfCs currently ongoing at VPP. Because the not notable under a former name (a deadname) part of GENDERID clearly applied up until the point at which some are stating that BDP ceased to apply, I think it would be prudent to put a pause on this discussion until that RfC is closed. There is, in my mind, no sense in altering or discussing altering this article to include Sophie's deadname, as it's entirely possible that in a few weeks time the guideline will be changed to state that we should not include it. The article hasn't included Sophie's deadname for a couple of years now due to the current applicability of GENDERID post-death through BDP, and a few weeks longer won't make much difference. There is, after all, no rush. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 RfC "Neopronouns and the singular they"

Note [a] in the article reads "The subject is referred to without personal pronouns as a representative told Pitchfork that Sophie "preferred not to use gendered or non-binary pronouns".[8]” The entire article is written so that every time there would be a standard pronoun it uses a full name. This results in a disruptive, off-putting read.

Which Wikipedia policy or guideline is being used to literally proscribe the use of all pronouns? Isn't "Sophie" itself a neopronoun, if used in the exact same way as a pronoun, consistently, through the entirety of this article?

Since it is being used identically to a neopronoun, "Sophie" should be counted as a neopronoun and be replaced with singular they as per the 2022 RfC: Neopronouns and the singular they. MOS:Biography says "If a person exclusively goes by neopronouns such as ze/hir, then the singular they should generally be used instead of neopronouns when referring to that individual, though their requested pronouns should usually be mentioned in their biography (such as in prose or in a footnote)." JM2023 (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the decision to omit pronouns affects readability, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that "no pronouns" counts as neopronoun (it is, by definition, the lack of pronouns). Or at least, I certainly wouldn't view that as an outcome of the RfC without further discussion. We're not using Sophie as a nounself pronoun, Sophie's name is literally just a proper noun.

Current consensus seems to be that this is the least bad way of handling articles about individuals with no unambiguously appropriate set of gender pronouns. A change in that consensus would also presumably affect Public Universal Friend, Marsha P. Johnson, Albert Cashier, Murder of Tessa Majors, so this might should be a centralized discussion at WT:MOSBIO.

The straightforward reading (for better or worse) of the Pitchfork source is that Sophie didn't want she or they to be used, so under MOS:GENDERID the article should respect this. Although much ink has been spilled speculating on how accurate that statement is to Sophie's personal life, for the article's purposes, it's all we have. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

One would hope that eventually (with discussion?) the RfC can be extended to apply the singular "they" in cases of ambiguous or absent gender identity. After all, "[singular "they"] typically occurs with an indeterminate antecedent" and was invented to do so, and if we're going to use singular "they" in place of neopronouns on Wikipedia, then we might as well use singular "they" in place of "nouns-in-place-of-pronouns" like Sophie, the Friend, Majors, etc as well, as it seems to be the same policy or an extension of it. Improves readability and consistency. I don't know how to make an RfC and I don't know if I have the privileges to do so, so I'll hold off on that. JM2023 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

All editors are allowed to start an RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment for more information on that. WP:RFCBEFORE, it's best to begin by thoroughly discussing the subject (to the point of exhaustion) prior to starting an RfC. I think I'm roughly in agreement that they/them is appropriate in these articles, but as always it's a matter to handle with care. I'd personally wait to and see what other editors have to say on this matter. You might also post a neutral notice of this discussion at WT:LGBT to attract attention. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 21:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)