Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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) reply

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) reply
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) reply
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) reply

Dyktalk hook

The hook in the {{ Dyktalk}} box here got edited at some point; the hook that actually ran was from before Sophie came out, so it used male pronouns. I've removed it since it incorrectly suggested that even before Sophie came out Wikipedia wasn't using pronouns in Sophie's article, but obviously I'm not eager to misgender Sophie. The original is available at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/October, but if anyone feels it's important to include here, I'd suggest bracketing any changes for something like ... that anonymous music producer Sophie chose [that] name because [Sophie] thought "it tastes good and it's like moisturizer"? hinnk ( talk) 20:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Source for identifying as a trans woman?

In none of the sources cited for Sophie identifying as a trans woman does it actually mention the term, only transgender. Is there another source for this or should the mention of woman be deleted? 87.92.111.76 ( talk) 23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Resolved
. -- MikutoH talk! 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Hansford, Amelia (2022-09-17). "How SOPHIE's legacy of trans liberation lives on after her untimely death". PinkNews. Retrieved 2024-06-01.

It wasn’t until 2017’s “It’s Okay to Cry” that SOPHIE included her own voice, and image, in a release. It wasn’t a coming out – that she was certain of – but it was the first time the public got to know SOPHIE as a person, as a trans woman.

– RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 03:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Quoting a posthumous statement does not clarify that Sophie said this by oneself. In an interview for Jezebel, Sophie even expressed disinterest in the trans label and tied one's transness with transhumanism. -- MikutoH talk! 23:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Pronouns again

With Sophie in the news with the announcement of her upcoming posthumous album release, I'd really like to revisit the decision to use no pronouns in the article, because I think it's kind of embarrassing to the project at this point. Wikipedia follows reliable secondary sources, apportioning due weight when they differ. In this case, the overwhelming majority of RS, before and after Sophie's death use she/her pronouns. She is also referred to in this way by her friends, collaborators, and family, as quoted in reliable sources. For example, here are a few recent articles about the upcoming album:

  • Pitchfork: "According to a press release, SOPHIE was nearly finished with SOPHIE before she died."
  • Rolling Stone: "On Monday, the producer’s family announced they will be releasing some of the late, avant-pop artist’s unreleased music on an album named Sophie, out Sept. 27, more than three years after her tragic death. "
    • This article also quotes a statement issued by her family: “When we, Sophie’s family, took our first steps towards bringing this project to fruition we contacted the dear friends with whom she envisioned the album,”
  • Stereogum: "SOPHIE’s stature and influence, already significant during her lifetime, has only grown in the years since her 2021 death."
  • Out: "Pioneering Grammy-nominated hyperpop producer SOPHIE sadly passed away at the young age of 34 in January of 2021, but her legacy is living on through a new self-titled second album, set to be posthumously released this September."

These aren't cherrypicked, they're just the first articles that came up in a Google News search. The avoidance of pronouns in our article is embarrassingly out of step with the overwhelming preponderance of sources, as well as making the prose awkward. The "no pronouns" concept is based on the statement of a single unnamed "representative" which was issued to Pitchfork shortly after Sophie's death. Pitchfork and a few other sources followed this in their reporting in the immediate aftermath, but outside of this brief window of time, sources have consistently used she/her (including Pitchfork itself, as quoted above). Frankly it just defies common sense to square the idea that Sophie didn't want to be referred to by pronouns with the fact that her family and other loved ones all refer to her as "she". Colin M ( talk) 21:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 04:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with all arguments GLORIOUSEXISTENCE ( talk) 07:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Fully agree. —  ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 10:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I've looked back and re-read the original discussion on the use of pronouns in this article, and I think at that time they only had one reliable source indicating SOPHIE's preference for no pronouns, and one against. That was not a lot of material one way or another to make a major decision.
The second major discussion on the topic of pronouns (October 2022), if anything, seemed to come to the conclusion that it was appropriate to use She/Her pronouns, but this was not subsequently followed through on.
Now in our third major discussion on this topic, OP has shown a clear trend by new reliable secondary sources using She/Her pronouns. As per Wikipedia guidelines, we must always defer to reliable, secondary sources.
I think this is a very straight forward Agree for me. If another editor was able to show more reliable sources supporting the idea that SOPHIE did not wish for this, I would be perfectly willing to change my mind, but that has to happen first. CeltBrowne ( talk) 15:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
To nitpick, the relevant guideline specifically states that we gender people based on most recent expressed self-identification ... even if it does not match what is most common in sources, so a clear trend would not typically be sufficient. On principal, we do not care how sources gender a person, only how that person prefers to be gendered. A source reported that such a preference existed, and others repeat it as fact, [1] [2] [3] so the guidelines-as-written would be to stick to no-pronouns even if it puts us out of step with other sources.
There is a case for WP:IAR here, but I'm not sure if there's a strong justification to assume that other people using their own words are more reliable than a representative claiming to speak for the artist. I would not bank on the assumption that a trans person would never be misgendered by the press or her family. "Anonymous SOPHIE spokesperson to Pitchfork" is certainly questionable evidence, but their word is the currently the only meaningful thing which current Wikipedia guidelines say to base decisions on. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 16:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
In the aims of writing sensitively about a recently deceased trans person with a clearly nuanced relationship to gender identity, I would urge strongly against basing pronoun-related arguments on common sense, what is embarassing to the project, or readability. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 16:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree. Almost every source close to SOPHIE uses she/her pronouns to refer to her, and while as other users have pointed out there's definitely valid concerns about her family and the press misgendering her, her friends have also referred to her this way (example: this Charli XCX interview). These are people that verifiably knew SOPHIE (as opposed to a vague representative), but also people SOPHIE chose to be around and who have shown so much respect towards her so I find it very unlikely that they would all be misgendering her publicly. With this, I'm concerned that the lack of pronouns in the article ends up inadvertently "degendering" SOPHIE in a way that could be harmful (not sure how well known that term is, basically "degendering" is when someone describes a trans person who uses gendered terms and identifiers with non-gendered ones). It's definitely not intentional, and obviously wouldn't be a problem if that was how she identified, but with so few RS about it and the overwhelming majority implying that she did use feminine descriptors, it's a factor I would like to acknowledge as a part of the broader discussion. Overall, I think this is a strong case for WP:IAR at the very least. Thedualcitizen ( talk) 21:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree Applying MOS:GENDERID here, it's hard to establish a lack of third-person pronouns as "the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources". Several publications adopted that standard immediately after Sophie's death, apparently based on the statement made to Pitchfork, but it hasn't borne out over time. The statement to Pitchfork doesn't indicate when Sophie would have made such a request, so it's a leap for us to assume that it was more recent than the she/her identification stated by contemporaries, family, etc. To me, the fact that the publication that was the source of that statement has revised its own style based on later statements is an indication that we shouldn't be treating no pronouns as definitive.
I appreciate RoxySaunders's comment about sticking close to the guidelines on this. Gonna post this discussion to the LGBT WikiProject so we can get some more eyes on this from people familiar with the relevant issues. hinnk ( talk) 01:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with use of she/her per sources provided by Colin M, CeltBrowne's summary of past discussions, hinnk's application of MOS:GENDERID. Wracking  talk! 04:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
At a previous discussion at Talk:Sophie_(musician)/Archive_2#pronouns_again the best I could come up with was that there was a single source, quoted in a couple of other sources, that seemed to indicate SOPHIE (the stage persona) used no pronouns, but that it was abundantly clear everyone close to Sophie (the person) used she/her. We've been cautious about this, but I believe we should be using she/her when referring to the person and no pronouns when referring to the stage persona. Valereee ( talk) 11:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Respectfully Disagree, pursuant to points made by RoxySaunders above. Taking secondary sources over the words of the individual undercuts Sophie's agency, something we should be especially conscious of given that Sophie is no longer alive. In reading the article I don't think the repetitive use of Sophie affects reading comprehension, even if it feels unusual compared to how we usually write about people. Even knowing that people close to Sophie used she/her pronouns, we as editors have a fundamentally different relationship to Sophie and should not assume that Sophie's preferences for day-to-day pronoun use with family would be the same as Sophie's preferences for press/publications/public use. I echo all of Roxy's assertions, especially when they "urge strongly against basing pronoun-related arguments on common sense, what is embarrassing to the project, or readability." Violetstork ( talk) 16:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
But, @ Violetstork, where did Sophie ever say Sophie (the person) used no pronouns? The best I can find is who preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns, according to one representative, a rep who was never even named. This isn't a statement by Sophie. It's not a case of most recent expressed self-identification. Sophie never said this. An unnamed rep did, after Sophie's death. Valereee ( talk) 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agreed, I don't think the statement by the rep (who might have been misinformed, working from outdated info or been misunderstood) outweighs all other RS and statements by friends and relatives. It's not a self-expression if it's a game of telephone with no knowledge how or when Sophie expressed it to the rep. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 07:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand both you and @ Valereee's points. I'm still inclined to follow the guidance that a representative (even an unnamed one) used in a conversation with a well-known media outlet like Pitchfork, because Wikipedia feels more in line with Pitchfork than with SOPHIE's close friends/family. In other words, I think it's more reliable to continue following the practices set out by a press representative (even posthumously) rather than deciding to mirror the language of individuals who knew SOPHIE personally. Neither the representative's statement nor the pronoun usage of close friends can be taken as most recent expressed self-identification. The reality of the situation is that we don't have a record of preferred pronouns straight from SOPHIE, but in that case I'm still more inclined to follow the guidance given by a representative to a member of the press.
This is also raising some, "why now?" questions for me. If we've gone several years not using pronouns on this page, why start now just because a posthumous album is being released? Again, I understand both of your points, but my gut still respectfully disagrees. Violetstork ( talk) 03:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Agree with using she/her. While the person's preferences are important, this has to be balanced with the need to write this version of Wikipedia in Standard English. This is why the guidelines state that someone who prefers a non-standard neopronoun should be referred to as they. No pronouns at all is also non-standard, and I agree that it results in Sophie effectively operating as a neopronoun. By default that would mean using they, but we have reliable sources referring to Sophie as she and quoting close friends and relatives doing likewise. Finally, I've never heard of a trans woman taking offense to being called she. Perhaps there's a trans woman out there who does — stranger things have happened. But the main purpose of the MOS:GENDERID guidelines as it concerns trans women is to protect them from being referred to as he. Anywikiuser ( talk) 21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Avoiding pronouns is a Standard English handling for someone whose pronouns are in question. While the gender neutral singular they pronoun is excellent, excluding third person pronouns entirely is a stronger form of avoiding grammatical gender in the English language and entirely proper, arguably it's more formal. Also your characterisation of the purpose of MOS:GENDERID is strange to me. MOS:GENDERID exists to lay down a baseline approach to gender identifiers used in an article, and it's explicit that that baseline should begin with the stated preference of the individual. Of course said preference must manifest through some form of source, as all information on wikipedia must. Any argument around which pronouns to use for Sophie should revolve around assessment of sourced statements of preference of gender identifier, not speculative assessments. Antisymmetricnoise ( talk) 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Sophie's father would play cassettes of electronic music in the car and take Sophie to raves as a very young child, and Sophie quickly became enamoured of the music is pretty awkward. Valereee ( talk) 11:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Complex and repetitive-sounding sentences can be fixed with judicious editing (e.g. by splitting each clauses into its own sentence). I don't think prosaic flow or grammatical awkwardness should be considered an overriding concern to MOS:IDENTITY. This would have troubling implications for the those who earnestly insist that the singular they or lowercase names are ungrammatical.
After my edit here, the article reads Sophie said in an interview published by Lenny Letter, "[My dad] had brilliant instincts, taking me to raves when I was very young. He bought me the rave cassette tapes before I went to the events and would play them in the car and be like, 'This is going to be important for you.' [...] As soon as I’d heard electronic music, I spent all my time listening to those cassette tapes. I’d steal them from the car." – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 18:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Great improvement. We still use Sophie ~100 times in this article. And we don't actually have much evidence Sophie (the person) didn't take she/her pronouns. I agree that flow and awkwardness isn't the primary concern. But this person's closest loved ones, including this person's girlfriend, referred to this person as she/her. Valereee ( talk) 00:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't stop someone from carefully replacing some instances of Sophie with the artist (etc.) and otherwise tinkering with sentence structure, but I don't see this as a substantial problem outside that particular example, and this replacement shouldn't be overdone; see Wikipedia:The problem with elegant variation. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 05:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
But why? We have no evidence Sophie (the person) ever requested no pronouns. The only evidence we seem to have that even SOPHIE (the stage persona) ever wanted that is apparently a single statement by an unnamed person described by Pitchfork as "one representative", after Sophie's death, and three years ago. An actually directly attributable statement by one of Sophie's labels, Transgressive, referred to Sophie at the time as she/her. Literally every other source, including more recent ones such as Variety, the NYT, and even Pitchfork -- the apparent sole source of the original confusion -- seems to be using she/her. We literally could be misgendering this person in our attempt not to misgender this person. Why are we so determined to take the word of one unnamed person three years ago to do that? Valereee ( talk) 10:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I can respond without repeating what I've already said. With the current MOS:GENDERID, the question is By what pronouns did SOPHIE prefer, according to the most recent reliable sources?. This is IMO a distinct question from What pronouns do people and reliable sources feel comfortable using for SOPHIE?. With the current sources we know of, the answer is A representative told Pitchfork that Sophie "preferred not to use gendered or non-binary pronouns".[1] Anything else is speculation, WP:OR, WP:RGW, etc.
In following SOPHIE's own alleged words on the matter, I don't think Wikipedia is at serious risk of misgendering or harming someone famously uninterested in tidy labels [4], and clearly not especially concerned with being digestible or scrutable to the mainstream public eye. The label [trans] has got some issues surrounding it, I think. There are misconceptions about what that is and what that means. I don’t really know. Nobody really knows. [5]. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 16:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Carving out exceptions to MOS:GENDERID makes me uncomfortable; the guideline's straightforward and hardline stance helps shorten unnecessary (often insensitive or misguided) pronoun discussions. If we WP:Ignore All Rules here, it should be because it is obvious and unambiguous to infer that SOPHIE's loved ones would consistently use the most correct pronouns for SOPHIE, and are thus, a reliable source on what pronouns SOPHIE preferred. It should not be because using pronouns is more convenient, readable, or because it Just Feels Right and that a transfeminine person with a feminine name would Naturally prefer feminine pronouns.
What would this look like in-text? Following Sophie's death, a representative told Pitchfork that Sophie "preferred not to use gendered or non-binary pronouns".[6] Many sources, including Sophie's girlfriend Evita Manji, use she/her pronouns for the artist. This article uses she/her pronouns. There's a lot of friction between those two sentences. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 16:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We're probably just going around in circles, and I'm not trying to bludgeon here, just drill down on what the exact disagreement is; I know you are completely well-intentioned, and I hope you know I am too. MOS:GENDERID doesn't actually say By what pronouns did SOPHIE prefer, according to the most recent reliable sources?. It says the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. (emph mine)
I think what we're getting down to is that you believe a 2021 quoted attributed to an unnamed representative in Pitchfork trumps the 2018 reporting in Jezebel that said Sophie, Sophie's self, had announced that Sophie was using she/her pronouns, because it's the more recent?
For me, the Jezebel seems to be reporting the person's own expressed self-identification. The Pitchfork is second hand; someone else was stating this about Sophie, and after Sophie's death, so Sophie had no chance to correct it. So for me this part isn't IAR; it's using the most recent self-expressed identification. But re:IAR, I guess in the case that Sophie had indeed rejected all pronouns sometime between 2018 and Sophie's death, I'm comfortable assuming Sophie's girlfriend, record label, and family, the best RS -- someone somewhere other than a single unnamed person about whom we know literally nothing -- would have been respecting Sophie's decision and just calling Sophie "Sophie". And literally no RS seems to be not using she/her. I personally don't feel that's carving out an exception, other than going with what in a particular case seems like common sense.
Again, not trying to bludgeon, or at this point even change your mind; you've clearly given this thought. Just trying to agree on what we disagree on. Sorry this is so long. :) Valereee ( talk) 13:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand exactly what you mean, here, @ Valereee, re: the secondhandness of the Pitchfork article. But I think preferring the Jezebel source raises some other hesitations, given that gender identity can change quite a bit in three years' time. So then the question becomes: Do we prefer the source that has a direct quote from SOPHIE but is outdated, or do we trust a secondhand account from an unnamed representative? To muddy the waters further, I may also introduce this 2021 Guardian article that states, "Sophie’s team said that pronouns should not be used when describing the artist." We can't be sure, but it seems like this was the general guidance given by Sophie's team to media outlets after the artist's death. I know it's secondhand, but I doubt that such a decision would have been made by the team for no reason, and I'm pretty sure that Sophie would have been involved in planning such PR decisions even if that decision wasn't made public until after the artist's death.
Again, I'm a bit troubled by the timing here, and not in an entirely objective way-- I confess that on a personal level, it feels a bit like "giving in" to the decision that "Just Feels Right," to use @ RoxySaunders' words. I would feel differently if the article were entirely unreadable, or if it made it difficult to decipher the information, but as it stands, I think what we're really talking about is that it's not "tidy," and I would respectfully suggest we follow official media statements over public opinion, especially when it comes to issues of identity. I understand the instinct to go with what the majority of reliable sources are doing, but I also confess that I don't really trust media sources to respect Sophie's wishes as opposed to doing what "feels right."
Ultimately, it's possible that this doesn't matter at all. But I also feel like we're kind of the "final frontier" of still respecting the boundaries set by Sophie's team, and that feels more important to me than adding in some pronouns for the sake of style. I'm not saying my priorities are right or wrong, it's just kind of how things shake out in my gut. Looking forward to continuing the discussion, if you like, although I know it feels somewhat circular :-) Violetstork ( talk) 04:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Violetstork, I don't mind circular as we kind of drill down. I want us to consider carefully, and I'm glad we're doing that and have taken a cautious approach. I agree with you that the question is Do we prefer the source that has a direct quote from SOPHIE but is outdated, or do we trust a secondhand account from an unnamed representative? and also that identity can change. I'm not sure I agree that we shouldn't trust the best media, though -- if it were media that habitually or just sloppily didn't respect gender identity, yes, but these are excellent media, and even Pitchfork, which is what we're getting 'no pronouns' from, is now using she/her. But even if these weren't media that typically did respect this stuff, we also have Sophie's family and girlfriend and label using she/her. To me it's not "just feels right" -- if I believed Sophie (the person) really wanted no pronouns, fine. To me, it's what Sophie Sophie's self said + what RS are saying + what Sophie's family and friends and label are saying vs. the single unnamed representative, and to me that feels like a pretty huge weight.
FWIW, I have no objection to continuing to refer to the artistic persona stylized SOPHIE with no pronouns. My best-faith interpretation of the Pitchfork quote was that was what that person was intending to say: that Sophie the person considered SOPHIE the artist to have no pronouns. Valereee ( talk) 11:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Mixmag published this at the time of Sophie's death: "SOPHIE's team requested pronouns are not used in this article and we refer only to the artist by the name SOPHIE." Skyshifter talk 04:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • It seems that Sophie's team has told multiple publications (Pitchfork representative, Mixmag, The Guardian was also mentioned above) that Sophie should be referred to without pronouns, so I'm going to oppose. Skyshifter talk 04:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      Mixmag is also now using she/her. So is The Guardian. As far as I can tell, all of the media that reported that and used no pronouns three years ago are now using pronouns. Valereee ( talk) 11:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      This does not change the fact that this is what Sophie's team wanted. Considering that Sophie has unfortunately passed away, this is the closest we can get to "most recent expressed self-identification". Unless we get another statement from Sophie's team saying "use she/her", we should keep referring to the artist as is. Skyshifter talk 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
      Most recent self-expression is she/her, in 2018. Most recent communication from team is she/her, in 2024. Sophie's label is Sophie's team. They're using she/her. Valereee ( talk) 19:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agree per several of the comments above, I think there's evidence that those close to Sophie used or use she/her and the Pitchfork seems to be an outlier that can't be proven to supersede her own most recent declaration. Suggest GENDERID does not mandate genderless pronouns here.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Consensus?

This discussion has been open for a little over two weeks. I did a rough headcount so far and counted:

  • 9 editors in favour of switching back to she/her
  • 2-3 editors in favour of keeping the article as is (I counted RoxySaunders as the maybe-3rd person in this group, since she seemed to generally argue for the status quo as the correct result of a strict reading of MOS:GENDERID, but did at least leave the door open for invoking IAR)
  • 1 editor (Valereee) who advocated for a middle ground option

It seems to me like we have rough consensus for she/her pronouns at this point. But if anyone disagrees I'm happy to post a request for closure from an uninvolved editor (or leave the discussion open another week if anyone thinks that would be helpful?). I guess this is mostly directed to those who opposed (or only partially endorsed) the change (@ Violetstork, Skyshifter, RoxySaunders, and Valereee:). Thoughts? Colin M ( talk) 18:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE; three of the nine agree !votes you're counting say little more than "yes, per Valeree". One argues from the need to write this version of Wikipedia in Standard English, which was rightly dismissed.
I don't think invoking closure mechanisms makes sense here, given that this was not a formal or centralized RfC. We could make run it through one if we wanted to, but my preferred outcome would be to table this as WP:NOCON until the sourcing situation actually evolves somehow, or someone who was close to SOPHIE catches wind of how Obviously wrong our article is, and either comments on it here or makes their own statement declaring that Sophie preferred she/her pronouns.
If we do resolve this merely by counting heads, then I would first insist on pinging the dozen editors who discussed this at length in previous archives, and seeing how they feel currently. – RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ ( 💬 •  📝) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
'Per (whomever)' doesn't mean an opinion has no weight. It can simply mean they were convinced by the argument, which is valid. And just because someone's noting numbers doesn't mean they're counting heads. No one here is saying it's a vote. Discussing the numbers is just providing context, in most cases.
We can ask for a formal close by someone not involved if you like, but I don't think this is NOCON, and I'd agree with Colin that there does seem to be consensus at minimum for referring to the person as she/her. I certainly don't think expecting someone close to Sophie to comment on Wikipedia's pronoun usage is reasonable. I don't think it's reasonable to expect any source to announce, "for a while there in 2021 people thought Sophie preferred no pronouns, but now we know she preferred she/her for her personal self and no pronounse for her artistic persona" or whatever. Everyone close to Sophie is using she/her, for one thing. And they may not even be aware of this article, much less how to comment on it. And as far as I can see, all current sourcing is using she/her, which...seems like the sourcing has resolved itself? If you want to ping everyone, no objection, but please make sure you do ping everyone. Valereee ( talk) 18:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I want to again point out that the most recent sources' choice of pronouns is a self-resolution in one light, and a breaking down to societal norms in another light. Would it be crazy of me to try to reach out to Sophie's team and see if their position has changed? (That is a genuine question, and something I'd be willing to do.) Violetstork ( talk) 01:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Violetstork, do you mean the label?
So, several things here. We can't do original research -- that is, you couldn't just come back in here and tell us 'they said "X" ' and have us use that as a source -- but sure, you could let them know of the confusion over the Pitchfork statement. And if that would convince you, maybe you being convinced would convince others.
The thing is, her label IS currently referring to Sophie as "she/her". Why is that not enough?
But since that's where we currently are -- people aren't believing what Sophie's label is saying -- in order for us to use it as a source, they'd need to make some sort of a statement somewhere. It could be in their own official media. Clearly it would need to be a very clear statement, since the label simply referring to Sophie as "she/her", which they are currently doing, isn't convincing those who are unconvinced by that fact. They might feel it was a bit silly for WP to be asking for something like that when literally the entire world is calling Sophie she/her. But no, it's not crazy. I reach out to article subjects regularly to ask them to upload a selfie to Commons. I've had good luck with it. Valereee ( talk) 10:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah yes, no original research, of course! My mistake, thanks for the reminder.
I didn't mean the label, per se, as much as whoever was managing PR for Sophie. It might be a label exec, but could be an external firm. Unfortunately those details are hard to come by given that the artist has passed away. So to answer your question about whether the label referring to Sophie with she/her pronouns is "enough," I suppose I have some hesitations given that a label doesn't necessarily represent the interests of an artist to a tee. But you could also say the same about Sophie's representatives, or Sophie's close friends and family, which leads us directly back to your concerns about self expression.
I still keep coming back to the "why now?" of all this-- Why should we turn away from the guidance provided at the time of the artist's death (the closest in time to Sophie's last possible self-expression) now, in July 2024? We've already concluded (I think?) that standardized style isn't a good explanation. The close friends and family reasoning makes more sense to me, but then I still feel that their usage of pronouns shouldn't supercede the guidance set out by Sophie's reps for media outlets.
Another thread running through my mind comes down to the matter of caution-- not using any pronouns doesn't suggest that people can't refer to Sophie with she/her pronouns in casual conversation, as friends/family have in numerous interviews. But in cases where the artist's preference for pronouns is brought into question (as I very much think it is here), isn't it better to be more cautious and not bring pronouns back into the fold after an explicit statement was made about the artist's lack of identification with gendered pronouns? I know we say to "be bold," but I worry that in this case, boldly bringing she/her pronouns into the fold equates to normifying (that's not a word but I'm going with it) others' gender identities. Actually, now that I think about it, I wonder if it would be bolder to not use she/her pronouns here. But now I'm just thinking out loud (or on screen.)
@ Valereee, when you say we would need a "very clear statement," I'm getting the sense that the statements made in the Guardian, Pitchfork, and MixMag don't qualify as that for you. They seem clear to me, but I'm curious to hear more about what makes them unclear to you. Is it that they're outdated, or that recent media isn't following those recommendations anymore, or something else entirely? (Please imagine a very respectful/genuine tone of voice when reading all of this, and thanks again for the advice/feedback about original research.) Violetstork ( talk) 02:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
No, the current usage of she/her, including by those who complied with the original statement to use no pronouns, is what's convincing me. It's apparently not convincing others, which is why I think they'd need to make a clear statement.
The 'why now' is in the first sentence of this long wall of text -- Sophie is in the news because of an upcoming release, and many announcements are being made, all of which are using she/her. Valereee ( talk) 10:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
AFAIK Wikipedia:Closure requests is not limited to RfCs. This discussion had a well-defined scope, was well-attended, and was advertised on at least one Wikiproject (WP:LGBT). I think it would be a waste of everyone's time to have the same discussion a second time but using an RfC template.
Since you and Skyshifter have expressed that you don't think consensus is obvious here, my inclination is to post a request for closure within the next day or two (unless the discussion picks back up before then). Colin M ( talk) 23:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, they'll do non-RfCs. They might want it to be open for 30 days, though? Which is fine, there's no urgency, we can leave it open for another 2 weeks. Valereee ( talk) 23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I would echo @ RoxySaunders here. I don't know much about RfCs so I can't contribute there, but I do think that we should proceed with caution when it comes to overruling the guidance set by Sophie's PR team in 2021 (according to Rolling Stone, MixMag, and the Guardian.) Violetstork ( talk) 01:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree that there is a consensus, especially because the situation has recently changed. Until yesterday, it seemed that the only source asking for Sophie to be referred to without pronouns was "an unnamed representative for Pitchfork". Yesterday however, me and another editor found that Mixmag and The Guardian also received similar instructions. Skyshifter talk 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That doesn't actually change consensus, but I'll again point out that as well as Pitchfork both Mixmag and The Guardian are using she/her currently. As far as I can tell all the references saying no pronouns are older. Valereee ( talk) 19:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It doesn't directly change consensus, but it means that the editors that voted "agree" may want to reconsider their vote. Skyshifter talk 19:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Skyshifter, you're saying something has changed, but it hasn't. Sophie expressed a preference for she/her in 2018. In 2021 an unnamed person described by Pitchfork as a representative said no pronouns; this was quoted by other sources. Since then, everyone, including Pitchfork and the sources that quoted Pitchfork, is using she/her. What's changed? Valereee ( talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't want to speak for @ Skyshifter but I think what they're saying is that the evidence that has led us to describe this source as "an unnamed person" has changed, as it's no longer just one source quoting an unnamed representative, but multiple sources, some of which (The Guardian) mention Sophie's team, rather than a representative. I think by saying "the situation has recently changed," Skyshifter was pointing out that new evidence has been brought into the discussion, and therefore it might be safest to wait before considering this matter closed. Violetstork ( talk) 01:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Exactly this. Skyshifter talk 01:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
It seems like a stretch to characterize this as new information that potentially invalidates the discussion here. The Mixmag and Guardian articles have been part of these discussions since Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 1#Pronouns. The "representative for Pitchfork" phrasing is inaccurate; we have been discussing a representative mentioned in Pitchfork.
In the threads after Sophie's death, I see editors raising concerns that other publications (e.g. Slate) were going off Pitchfork, but a rough consensus that we should follow the sources' understanding of Sophie's preferences. Valereee is actually raising the new development since the previous threads, which is that two other publications in addition to Pitchfork which adopted gender-neutral pronouns based on this representative also now consider them less reliable than the recent press release. hinnk ( talk) 00:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Just for clarity, those publications used no pronouns based on that rep and are now using she/her. Valereee ( talk) 11:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sophie_(musician)&oldid=1234063730"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE