Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

Boleyn, do the existing third-party sources not demonstrate notability to you? If so, I'd be happy to set up the AfD for you. hinnk (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Gender Comment

I've seen some edits playing with gender. I am not aware of the artist's personal preference for their gender but in independent sources https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/jan/24/sophie-live-review-village-underground-bipp-msmsmsm it appears the masculine is used. Ifnord (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a link at the end of the career section stating the artist confirmed her use of she/her pronouns in Stereogum https://www.stereogum.com/1967789/sophie-its-okay-to-cry-video/video/ shortly before the changes were made to the Wiki page. Pflumle (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Her being tans should really be mentioned in the article, I had no idea before I looked at the categories.★Trekker (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

As per MOS:GENDERID, most current sources refer to her using she/her pronouns: TeenVogue, 7 Dec 2017, The Guardian, 14 Mar 2018. I will now clear up the pronouns in this article. Biexx (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed Name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Changed_names makes it clear that for transgender people, former names should only be listed if they were notable under that name. Is there some way we can protect the page from this being readded, as it's a violation of privacy for the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.101.50 (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I added a note to the infobox, hopefully that will help a little. Alduin2000 (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the note because the transgender protections of MOS:MULTIPLENAMES only apply to the first sentence of the lead section, not to the infobox, nor the prose in the article body. There is no explicit restriction against putting the birth name somewhere besides the first sentence. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note that Sophie's birth name, Samuel Long, is widely published, appearing in the following sources: Guardian, RedBull, Queerspace Magazine, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, MusicBrainz, NME, NOW Toronto, Los Angeles Times, Exclaim and AllMusic. It's perfectly appropriate to summarize these reliable sources and tell the reader the birth name. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To state that there is "no explicit restriction" on its inclusion in the infobox does not contradict its being an unnecessary invasion of privacy, nor is the ease of availability elsewhere on the Internet determinative of this. Mlleangelique (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sophie_(musician) doesn't support your removal, so I restored the birth name. Here's what I wrote at the noticeboard: "I think it's an extraordinary leap away from normal encyclopedia practice to remove birth names from the articles of those who have abandoned those names. It's respectful to use the preferred pronoun, but to turn away from known facts is to take a step towards extinction as an encyclopedia. Our readers come here to find out facts, and if we are in the practice of concealing facts, why are we here? Birth names should always be stated when they are found in multiple reliable sources." To me, it looks like some folks are projecting their own opinions onto Sophie, who has not expressed publicly any dysphoria about having her birth name listed. The case of Sophie reminds me of Laura Jane Grace, who is apparently quite comfortable discussing her former identity. (She says her gender dysphoria was strong before transitioning, not after.[1]) So we should not assume that the listing of the birth name is automatically harmful. In any case, whatever harm has been done was done years ago by lots of other publications, including ones catering to the LGBT community. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Was she notable under the old name? Even back then articles primarily referred to her as Sophie, the other name is brought up but it seems like she was still mainly known to the public as Sophie. Rab V (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No consensus for removal

The archived discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive273#Sophie (musician) shows that there is no consensus for removal of Sophie's birth name, as it has been published by mainstream sources, and even by the LGBT press. Binksternet (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of birth name

Is there really any need to keep Sophie's birth name? I've re-added it a few times because there hasn't been a consensus to remove it but I'm not sure that it really adds anything of value to the article. We can argue that it is not against policy to add the name, sure, but even if it is allowed by policy (which is pretty unclear) should we just leave it out anyway. The birth name is not really relevant knowledge and thus could be argued to be UNDUE and there also seems to be more downsides than upsides to keeping it. On the one hand, having the name makes the article marginally more comprehensive but on the other it could be seen as a personal attack on Sophie and whether you think that that's an over exaggeration or even an under exaggeration it's certainly true that whilst the name is included it will constantly cause controversy and for what? For one mention in the infobox? Removal of the name is of little consequence in terms of the content in the article and I think that the name is not a notable part of Sophie's musical career. Alduin2000 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, where people expect to find information. You are proposing to remove widely reported and well-cited information, so I fundamentally disagree with your proposal. If we are here to serve the reader then we need this information.

As far as your assertion that the birth name is "not a notable part of Sophie's musical career", the cited sources disagreed enough to print it. Binksternet (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, she was never primarily referred to by that name and a google news search reveals that RS have even stopped including it in articles at least since January 2016. So even though plenty of sources about her have been published since she's been out and put out her album, her birth name has not been enough of a relevant fact about her now as a trans woman to be included. Rab V (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea that every bit of sourced information about a subject's life is relevant encyclopedic data is demonstrably false. When deciding what information should be included in an encyclopedia, we must ask whether that information is relevant and useful to the projected audience. For example, there are plenty of biographical sources out there that mention that Dwight Eisenhower loved to make spiked eggnog for White House parties; this isn't mentioned anywhere in his Wikipedia page because it's not relevant encyclopedic information, despite a wealth of sources. At some point, many of you have made the decision that someone's birth name, even if it is not a name by which they are in any way notorious, is important to include in their encyclopedia entry. The claim many of us are making is this: it isn't. It just isn't. No one knows SOPHIE by her birth name, and even when she was referred to by that name in the press it was almost always as "(deadname), better known as SOPHIE." The argument that deadnames are universally relevant encyclopedic information is mostly advanced by transphobes who believe, incorrectly, that the fact of one's birth designation is in any way relevant to their notoriety as a public figure. 12.237.57.40 (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

agree with the above. PS: I didn't know sophie was trans before this, and I've listened to her album; it was never relevant, neither was her birth name. HarryKernow. Talk. 17:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The editing question is whether the information is WP:NOTEWORTHY. Some editors may say yes and others may say no. But what info might be helpful to the reader? (Censorship or inclusion??) WP has much toleration for different points-of-view, as long as the points are presented in a neutral manner. But to say "that name is 'trans-phobic'" is itself a POV statement. We want to present info info in a non-POV manner – which is why presenting the birth-name is proper. Moreover, we want info supplied by SECONDARY SOURCES, which means we strive to minimize our own point-of-view in these matters. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If the question is simply over noteworthiness, the birth name itself does not qualify. It may be notable the Sophie transitioned (ie with an explanation that she changed her name from Samuel to Sophie), but the name alone serves no purpose and could actually be confusing (especially without explanation, since many (including myself) didn't know she was trans). Aside from the cold bureaucracy of wiki rules, it would seem moral to err on the side of caution and not include it without further explanation - read from our own article, transphobia if you want a more empathetic view. HarryKernow. Talk. 05:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Part of the editing controversy in this article involved whether it is "transphobic" to provide the reader with Sophie's original name (anywhere in the article). As Sophie is quite open in telling us about the transformation, I hope we can expect readers to be tolerant of the fact. And readers might wonder how much of the old name was used (if at all) in the new name. A good article for our editing reference is Deirdre McCloskey. (Another example is Renée Richards.) In each article both the old and new names are presented – without being categorized as "transphobic" or "deadname". Now that our SPA IP is blocked, Sophie's article can be edited in this fashion; e.g., without disruptive POV edits. – S. Rich (talk) 06:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, I think the most appropriate thing to do then is to clarify that she is trans somewhere in the article as opposed to just having the name. HarryKernow. Talk. 06:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't get around the fact that Sophie's gender identity has changed (differs) from her gender. And such information is not private – birth documents, legal name-change requests, and other sources make this info available. If (or because) the article is in the "Transgender and transsexual artists" and "Transgender and transsexual woman musicians" WP:CATEGORYS, the article text needs information which justifies the categories. E.g., we just can't say "Sophie is transgender/transsexual" and leave it at that. The readers are entitled to "who, what, where, when, and why". And so this discussion is about how much prominence the info gets. In the Richards and Manning articles, the info gets higher "billing" because the changes were prominent public issues. In McCloskey the info gets less billing because her notability is based on her status as a scholar. In Sophie's case I think her birthname should stay out of the infobox, but her switch should go in the lede. Her birthname belongs in the text. – S. Rich (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It's worth stating again that many sources have seen fit to print Sophie's birth name, including Guardian, RedBull, Queerspace Magazine, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, MusicBrainz, NME, NOW Toronto, Los Angeles Times, Exclaim and AllMusic. Wikipedia has always followed the example of reliable sources, and in this case the sources thought that the birth name was important enough to mention. Personally, I don't care where in the article the name appears, infobox or article body, but I will always advocate for the name to remain. I am definitely in favor of the biography containing a brief explanation or history of Sophie's gender identity. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 November 2019

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Sophie (musician) → SOPHIE – The relevant guideline is WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark." Among the works currently cited in the article's references section, 'Sophie' appears 14 times, and 'SOPHIE' appears 36 times. If we exclude primary sources (Twitter, Transgressive Records, Billboard charts, Soundhound, Apple Music), the count becomes 32 to 10 in favour of SOPHIE. I think this satisfies the "demonstrably most common" standard (it also has the advantage of being natural disambiguation). There is also the matter of whether this is the primary topic for SOPHIE. The only other topic at Sophie (disambiguation) which is commonly rendered in all caps is SOPHIE échelle spectrograph. The musical artist gets 200x as many views as that article. Colin M (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Here's a further quotation from that guideline: "Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation." Although it is a possible method of disambiguation, I'm not sure it is the most useful one in this case, although I would certainly concede that it is the primary meaning of SOPHIE in all caps. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @C.Fred: Thanks for bringing that part up. My interpretation of that sentence is that it's giving an elaboration on what it means to follow "standard English text formatting". i.e. "Items in full uppercase should have standard capitalization [unless full uppercase is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark]". But I agree that it's confusing or maybe even ambiguous. But an example that supports my interpretation would be NGHTCRWLRS. It's purely a stylization (not an acronym) and there's no other topic at "Nghtcrwlrs" that full-caps naturally disambiguates with. An RM found consensus against moving to a title with standard capitalization. Colin M (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see how recognizability will be improved by the move. Oppose per WP:AINTBROKE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Recognizability will be improved (for "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject") because they will be used to seeing her name written as SOPHIE, because that's how RS usually write it. It's the same reason that a move from Imac to iMac would improve recognizability. Anyways, recognizability isn't even the only or even the main benefit. It's significantly more WP:CONCISE and for readers who type "SOPHIE" into the search bar, it gets them where they want to go immediately. Colin M (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Full scale nuclear oppose with bells on honestly. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely oppose. Pure stylisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose all-caps vanity styling should be avoided on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Well, I'm seeing a lot of opposes, but so far only C.Fred has tried to engage with the WP:TITLETM argument for moving. I think it would be helpful to recentre the discussion on policy, rather than WP:JUSTAVOTEs or WP:IDLI. Colin M (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Colin M. Not seeing a policy-based rationale for opposition. — Bilorv (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. The guideline at WP:TITLETM talks about the case where a unique spelling is "demonstrably the most common usage", not the stylization. The very next sentence tells us that an all-caps stylization should be changed to standard capitalization. I don't see support for arguments showing that the all-caps stylization has wide usage. Binksternet (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is an overly close parsing of the text. Earlier in the same sentence, it refers to "standard English text formatting". I've given my reading of the second sentence (on "standard capitalization") above in response to C.Fred. Note also that the sentence ends with if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. This is precisely the situation here.

  That said, since it seems like the wording of WP:TITLETM is ambiguous (and this ambiguity has been brought up before), I think it's worth having a separate discussion at WT:AT about how we can clarify the wording. Colin M (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Binksternet: am I perhaps misunderstanding something, or does the following quote from TITLETM answer your question as to why it's relevant that all-caps are widely used? ... if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation. — Bilorv (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about a side effect

Here is a big misgiving I have. What happens if we do move the article? The MOS is pretty clear that the artist's name should be rendered as "Sophie" throughout the article, except for one mention of the styling in the introduction. If we make that the primary title, how often are we likely to have to deal with well-meaning editors who haven't read the MOS changing the capitalization? —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Nowhere does the MOS say that we should violate parts of it to potentially mitigate other users making mistakes. I know a page where there's been a dozen cases of reverting "installment" back to "instalment" because the latter is the correct British English and the article is on a British topic. A hidden comment reading "this is the correct British English" doesn't help. What's the solution? Just keep reverting and explaining. It's not to throw out the MOS and give up. But here this is a hypothetical problem you're considering so I'm even more unconvinced. — Bilorv (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• This is a fair point, but I don't think it outweighs the benefits of a more concise, naturally disambiguated title. The undo button is cheap. If it really becomes a chronic problem, an edit notice could be added, or just a simple comment at the top of the article saying "please don't mass-replace Sophie with SOPHIE without consulting the talk page first". This article doesn't get a ton of editor traffic, so I wouldn't be too concerned. Colin M (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reports of death, January 2021

I have noticed on twitter and other social networks posts that indicate that Sophie has died, but am finding it hard to substantiate this with any news sources. Anybody else noticing this? Lazar Milin (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

For now the only source that shows up on google news is this: https://mixmag.net/read/musician-sophie-reportedly-died-news Lazar Milin (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There is another source from NME.com that confirms her death (Anonymous): https://www.nme.com/news/music/dj-and-producer-sophie-has-died-2868461

Not actually born in Scotland

I am trying and failing to source a citation for this, but it came to light when the scottish album of the year awards had to withdraw oil of every pearl's un-insides from the eligible list of albums after information from her record label came forward stating she was not infact born in scotland despite this being a commonly mentioned fact in the press, even moreso now that it has been on this article as a cited fact for years. sfs (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021

In the Personal Life section, Pitchfork is cited as saying, "Sophie preferred not to use gendered pronouns." Article was edited to use they/them throughout. The cited Pitchfork article states that SOPHIE, "prefers not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns." Requesting edit to reflect the correct request, and to edit the article to remove pronouns and replace with Sophie's name. Jilliangrace (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, note this was being discussed above, here. They/their doesn't always signify not identifying as a gender. Replacing all pronouns with "Sophie" throughout the entire article makes sentences a mouthful. Examples: "By the time Sophie was approximately nine or ten years old, Sophie confessed to Sophie's parents that Sophie wanted to drop out of school to be an electronic music producer (although they did not let Sophie do so, and Sophie continued their schooling). ... The music video for the song was the first time Sophie used Sophie's voice and image in Sophie's work. ... According to Sophie's UK label, Transgressive, Sophie slipped and fell to Sophie's death while climbing to watch the full moon. Surely it shouldn't be changed to that? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Edit requests are for "replace wikitext X with wikitext Y"-type suggestions. As you can see, it's quite a challenge to avoid all pronouns and maintain readability. We need more voices in the discussion above so feel free to give your perspective there, Jilliangrace. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to use pronouns, it would be more appropriate to use she/her/hers then, since Sophie was a transgender woman and is referred to as she/her in mainstream media, queer media, and social media alike. Jilliangrace (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Edited to answered since the conversation is continuing above. My apologies. Jilliangrace (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2021 (2)

Change grammar in this article from pronoun "they" to "she": Sophie is referred to with the pronoun "they" throughout the page. She is a trans woman and uses the pronouns "she, her, hers." 2600:8805:8982:6B00:A9EF:CF15:3D61:3913 (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sort-of-done. See discussion above—Sophie preferred to use no pronouns at all. — Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Cause of death

Can it be changed to following a fall instead of following an accident? MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

See, e.g. 'Visionary' music producer Sophie dies aged 34 at www.bbc.co.uk/news, States:

A further statement from her record label Transgressive, explained how the "terrible accident" had occurred. "True to her spirituality she had climbed up to watch the full moon and slipped and fell," they posted online.

Yadsalohcin (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. MikaelaArsenault (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can the statement about the fall and her spirituality be properly attributed please? According to the NME it is a statement by Sophie’s family. It was probably made public via her record label. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.139.165 (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This needs further discussion, with The Guardian and the BBC reporting that it comes from the label and NME saying it comes from the family. We could say both or neither—these statements aren't necessarily contradictory—but I've not implemented anything until there's more discussion and consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth name yet again

I see absolutely no need to keep her birth name in this article. Sophie has only ever been known professionally as Sophie, even before she came out as trans. To list her birth name sets a bad precedent that trans people are required at all times to disclose their former identities. I can accept that some notable trans people have transitioned during their careers, and may have professional ties to their old name, but for Sophie that simply is not the case.Eilidhmax (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can read through previous discussions about this, which resulted in the longstanding consensus to tell the reader her birth name one time in the article. Binksternet (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I see a weak consensus at best for including the name; with more eyes on this I see no reason we can't establish a firm and fresh consensus. My two cents are on excluding—we often exclude legal names when it's sensitive (e.g. low-profile individuals, or allegations of a crime) and it's definitely sensitive information in this case. Likely the artist would not really want continued publication of the name, based on the profile that I'm reading (concealed identity for a long time etc.). — Bilorv (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to say, the actual MOS for deadnames (MOS:DEADNAME) states "If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it.". As Sophie wasn't notable under this name, I'm gonna suggest we don't ignore the actual MOS for Wikipedia and keep the deadname out. ser! (let's discuss it). 18:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

But Sophie was indeed known and notable under the birth name... We talked long and hard about this in 2018 and 2019. Note that our policies and guidelines are meant to protect the living, but after death the concerns drop away about damaging the person's reputation or livelihood. The style guideline WP:DEADNAME specifically applies to living persons. If we decided to have the birth name in the article when Sophie was alive, there's even less of a reason to remove it after death. Binksternet (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased). Why would concerns drop and not increase in regard to the effect on somebody's reputation once they're no longer around to object to the way they are referred to? — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The concerns of WP:DEADNAME were always about the emotional health or livelihood of the living person. Once the person has died, those concerns disappear. The subject being deceased fundamentally changes how we approach the issue. There's no more emotional health, and no more livelihood to be concerned about. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly ghoulish and untrue. WP:BLP applies to recently deceased as mentioned just above. After all respect for the recently deceased is a basic decency we should have as editors. Rab V (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, why does the birthname keep getting removed? I am not interested in references to wikipedia guidelines, but ignoring the history of her gender identity is like ignoring the fact that Michael Jackson was born black. Officially Mr X (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The guidelines can be helpful for learning why, for example the quote to treat "pre-notability name as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name" for trans people who were not notable under their deadnames. Deadnames are also used to indicate hostility or incredulity for trans peoples identities so including the name isn't value-neutral, besides the valid privacy concerns. The article makes no attempt to hide that Sophie is a trans woman and states it explicitly so there is no hiding of her gender history either. Rab V (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Officially Mr X: you argue for something the article already includes, the "history of her gender identity". We say that Sophie was a transgender woman and expand in significantly more detail under Identity. A name isn't a gender identity. The fact of historical gender with respect to its significance in Sophie's music production is already covered. — Bilorv (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Poll

Do you support, or do you not support the inclusion of the birth name?

*Support. Encyclopedic style requires including the birth name, which was well-known before Sophie announced being transgender. Personally, I do not support such whitewashing of the birth name, as it's equivalent to the whitewashing of historical facts. -Mardus /talk 22:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Strike that, there's a poll above already. -Mardus /talk 22:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Remove completely the dead name of the subject, Sophie Xeon, from the article. Its appearance is immaterial at best and transphobic at worst. 2601:282:8102:1870:F42E:BD0C:4D15:3B70 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it was removed just before or right around when you posted this. Rab V (talk) 05:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Where has the earlier part of the talk page gone?

I can’t see an archive link to the earlier parts of the talk page. Can it be provided please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.139.165 (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@86.155.139.165: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sophie_(musician)/Archive_1 Here you go! If you check the talk page's history it was archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. -- VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reactions to death

Why did a moderator scrub this artist's friends and collaborators' reactions to their death? Is that the right thing to do, especially so soon? -- VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@VariousDeliciousCheeses: common mistake but admins (not "moderators") have no more power over content than any other user—all they can do with their additional technical abilities is uncontroversial actions (e.g. blocking an obvious troll) and actions with consensus (e.g. implementing the result of a discussion), and any other edit is in their capacity as a normal editor like you and me. I take it that Tone removed these comments as the sources don't show significance—we use secondary sources like newspaper articles to determine what to say and in how much detail, so something being true is not a sufficient reason for inclusion by itself. I can tweet whatever I want but does that mean that somebody in ten years' time should be reading it on an encyclopedia? But if The Independent, say, points to the tweet then it shows it's of some importance. — Bilorv (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Admin, then. I'm not a frequent user of this site. Here are articles from The Independent, the BBC, and The New York Times primarily citing one specific tweet for whatever reason, and here is a larger article from Pitchfork that appears to be purpose made for including tweets on Wikipedia. My question does not concern years, but instead hours. I'll skip my idea of the functionality of their inclusion to say that regarding tact, it feels a bit callous to snip messages from people close to the deceased within twelve hours of the announcement of their death (especially while including the remark ′not much point in listing who twitted what′), which was my main point. -- VariousDeliciousCheeses (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and in a long term, it will be pretty irrelevant what some people twitted within hours. Look in the long run. A good example is the corresponding section in Kobe Bryant's article, what kind of tributes are worth mentioning - such as a memorial mention at music awards, which is likely to happen. --Tone 09:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

With the given sources, including an entire Pitchfork article about it and the three sources given, this is significant information. News organisations decide what is significant, not us. Memorial mentions at music awards can of course be mentioned if/when they occur. I have a complete disdain for Twitter but I do agree that the edit summary was insensitive in the context of a recent death. — Bilorv (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"Brash and hyperkinetic"

I removed a variant of this phrase from the lede because I can't make out what it is supposed to mean. That change was reverted by Kkollaps. Let's discuss, shall we? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster on hyperkinetic: "characterized by fast-paced or frenetic activity." Synonyms: "hyperactive, hyperexcitable, jittery, jumpy, nervous, skittery." Virtually every piece of writing on the music emphasizes its distinctive sound, often with phrases like the above to point out the exaggerated, hyperactive pop sound. If you can select some better, sourced descriptive terms, that’s fine, but removing a description of the sound that she’s famous for pioneering altogether would be bad. Kkollaps (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I know what hyperkinetic means, but I don't immediately see analogous descriptions elsewhere. The Guardian has "abrasive industrial"; Pitchfork has "abrasive" and earlier "house-adjacent". If anything, "abrasive" (while not particularly helpful either) would be better-sourced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you at all familiar with Sophie’s work? For the record, I don’t see “industrial” as a term that is predominantly used to describe Sophie’s work in general. "Abrasive" would seem to negate the "sugary pop" elements that are more frequently emphasized. Kkollaps (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with her work, but that's what the reliable sources say. If you have RS that say differently, besides AllMusic, please provide them. Red Bull Music Academy is not a reliable source for criticism—it's a promotional entity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

None of the sourced AllMusic description strikes me as unrepresentative in writing about Sophie: "huge, fizzy splash on the 2010s underground dance-pop scene ... contorted elements of giddy Euro-dance, Japanese and Korean pop, and experimental sound design into blindingly neon-colored pop-art gems. ... SOPHIE's sophisticated, hyperkinetic productions typically feature high-pitched female vocals, sugary synthesizer textures ... creating bizarre noises that resemble bubbling water, inflating balloons, elastic bands, and other non-musical sounds, adding to the surrealist, blatantly artificial quality of her music." Kkollaps (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is RBMA, using the terms brash and "sensory-overload": "[Sophie]’s music, which often features pitched-up vocals, cute dance rhythms, and impeccable sound design, is about as loud and brash and intense as pop can get. But there's an undeniable immediacy and inviting accessibility that makes the extreme, sensory-overloaded aspects of his music not only surprisingly palatable but vigorously original.link Kkollaps (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The reality is SOPHIE doesn't neatly fit into one box and a list of various attempts to describe it fro respected publications / journalists might be the best way to represent that difficulty in catagorising it or genre tagging it. sfs (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

it's promotional hyperbole, probably concocted by a publicity agent, ideally it should not be in the lead. Let's remember, record labels supply press copy to journalists etc. buzzwords form part of the branding, it's industry waffle. Acousmana (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, but I wouldn't support removal—just replacement with a better description or quote that summarises critical analysis. Something of genre and style should be mentioned early in the lead. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"replacement with a better description or quote" sure, if we can find a critical analysis that isn't loaded with hyperbolic descriptors! Acousmana (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

Sophie does not use pronouns, and all instances of pronouns should be removed from this article as per Wikipedia pronoun policy MOS:IDINFO. “Sophie’s team said that pronouns should not be used when describing the artist.” —-AsterRoc (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur that pronouns should be removed except in quotes. Using nouns such as the musician (etc.) to refer to Sophie instead of pronouns. --Gimelthedog (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

and I note that in writing this article the Guardian used feminine pronouns. Thincat (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to the person who gets you all to scramble to never use any nouns or verbs or the letter 'e' when talking about them, or whatever the next thing will be. 65.103.84.233 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The same Guardian piece quoted Sophie's management team: "Sophie’s management confirmed to the Guardian that the artist died around 4am at home in Athens, “following a sudden accident. At this time respect and privacy for the family is our priority. We would also ask for respect for her fanbase, and to treat the private nature of this news with sensitivity.”" (My bolding to make the point.) I hold no firm views either way; but use or not of pronouns is not instant confirmation of anti-trans bias. Cross Reference (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP we need to err on the side of caution and avoid all pronouns, because we have a strong source indicating this is correct. Notice that The Guardian doesn't use pronouns in its voice, only in direct quotes. I've removed pronouns from the lead, so far. — Bilorv (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I see Abbyjjjj96 has averted some of the pronoun uses but also gone with "they/them"—I think "they/them" is not quite the suggestion and maybe worse than "she/her", as reliable sources seem to use only the latter pronouns. I think the best options are "she/her", or rewriting to exclude all pronouns altogether (so either avert usage of a subject or refer to the person as "Sophie" only). — Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't realize they/them pronouns would be an issue. I assumed not using pronouns meant not using he/him or she/her. I can see that this source said Sophie "prefers not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns", but does that mean they/them shouldn't be used at all? I think the article would be very oddly worded if it's constantly using Sophie the entire way through, and they/them can be used for men and women anyway without meaning they don't identify as either. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime, I will match them to avoid various different styles being used throughout the article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's okay, it's a reasonable thing to think. It's a bit ambiguous what "gendered pronouns" means, but I think "nonbinary pronouns" would include "they/them". It is oddly worded to write English text with no pronouns, but I think it's a worthwhile tradeoff. It can be made to look okay when you do it in a skilled way (which can take a long time). Using "they/them" as a sort of singular, ungendered meaning is definitely a possibility—I don't think it's the best option but others could disagree (or I might change my mind as I learn more). — Bilorv (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I second the argument that they/them is worse. Sophie never publicly used or was referred to they/them pronouns, only she/her or none. Jilliangrace (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 I realize it would be helpful to tag you. I do think she/her is more appropriate than they/them, considering the fact that Sophie has never used nonbinary pronouns and identified as a transgender woman. It seems wrong and misgendering to discard she/her pronouns in favor of pronouns that haven't been used to describe Sophie, in the case that the request of no pronouns is not honored. Jilliangrace (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

As of the latest revision, the article should now not use any pronouns to describe Sophie. However, I've undoubtedly made mistakes, introduced some awkward constructions etc. If people can help to improve these then that would be great. — Bilorv (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Jilliangrace but the source says that Sophie did not want any gendered pronouns used, so that includes not wanting to be referred to as she/her. I'm not sure how the article could work without using any pronouns, though. I think they/their is more neutral than she/her. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 As per the same source, Sophie also did not want *any* nongendered pronouns used, so the use of they/them is not neutral in this case. Using no pronouns would be the only choice that would respect Sophie's wishes and lived identity and I agree with the decision by Bilorv to use Sophie's name in lieu of pronouns. However, if that decision to not use pronouns is overruled and Sophie's wishes are not honored here, it would make more sense to use the pronouns Sophie used more recently rather than substitute a different set of pronouns that Sophie also rejected. Jilliangrace (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Media is now reporting that Sophie "preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns," which would clarify that they/them would not be appropriate. Jilliangrace (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I included that Pitchfork source above. Neither he/his, she/her, or they/their were preferred. I agree with Bilorv that this can be resolved using Sophie's name/averting usage of a subject. I disagree with your suggestion above to use she/her again; Sophie may have used those pronouns recently, but we know that since then Sophie no longer used them so it would be misgendering. My issue is whether all of the sentences in the article can still make sense without using she/her or they/them or becoming ridiculous sounding due to the repeated use of just "Sophie", which is why I pointed out that the words they and their don't always signify someone is non-binary and can be used for anyone. For example, Bilorv rephrased a sentence to "When asked by a half-sister to DJ her wedding, as Sophie admitted that the half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ." which didn't make sense and was unclear that it was Sophie's half-sister, and you have since rephrased it to "Sophie's half-sister asked Sophie to DJ her wedding, as Sophie admitted that Sophie's half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ." which is incredibly clunky because you use "Sophie" five times in one sentence. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 I agree that it is clunky and needs revision. However, we both agree that she/her and they/them are both incorrect and misgendering, which should render our debate over the relative merits of she/her vs they/them moot. We should instead focus our energies on writing less clunky sentences that correctly gender Sophie. In the meantime, I believe that a clunky sentence that is respectful and biographically correct is better than a sentence that misgenders our subject. Jilliangrace (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't agree that they/their is misgendering. 'Their' is not dependent on gender, and can be and is used for people who do identify as a man or a woman, not just non-binary people. I don't really see how the sentences can be less clunky without using a pronoun, but go ahead. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abbyjjjj96: absolutely, the rewording I made was imperfect. But this was a first draft hurriedly written because I needed to be somewhere. I believe it can be improved much further with collaboration and expertise to the point where it reads just fine. But I do dispute that this is semantically unclear. Who else would "half-sister" be in relation to? Why is it not clear when you read the sentence what the intention is? — Bilorv (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 Bilorv I think my most recent edit to the sentence in question should be satisfactory. We can all keep making edits for clarity and neatness over time while respecting Sophie's wishes. Jilliangrace (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for forgetting to sign. Updated with signature. Jilliangrace (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

"Sophie was asked by a half-sister to DJ her wedding, later Sophie admitted that the half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ." This uses "a half-sister" and "the half-sister" which was part of my issue with Bilorv's prior reversion. It sticks out while reading that section because it doesn't make clear that she's Sophie's half-sister. Bilorv, I see you dispute that but I disagree and think it's poorly worded and thus not optimal. I have created a section on the WP:MOS talk page HERE to hopefully get more input. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bilorv that the sentence as constructed is clear, there isn't anybody else the sentence could plausibly be referring to. That said, I agree with peaceray's suggestion on the talk page you linked to, using "the musician" and "the musician's" would alleviate any issues with clarity vs clunkiness throughout the article. - Separately, though, I noticed that you said you didn't agree that using they/them is misgendering. Using nonbinary pronouns to refer to a person who specifically does not want to be referred to by nonbinary pronouns is misgendering. Jilliangrace (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The point was 'their' does not always denote a gender, and those new articles you've linked don't seem to say what you suggest. But I thought the decision was to not use any pronouns and just try to find the best way to word things? I think the suggestion of using "the musician's" could work in some cases but not all. E.g. "Sophie was asked by the musician's half-sister to DJ her wedding, later Sophie admitted that the musician's half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ." It's still clunky, although an improvement. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

When you do not know somebody's pronouns, (or in this case, lack thereof) you are absolutely correct that they/them is a neutral choice. However, once somebody has stated otherwise, it is no longer neutral to use they/them against that person's wishes and you should not do so. Yes, the decision was to not use any pronouns and to figure out another way to word things. And from there it seems we have with an improved way of doing that, which we should apply from here on. Jilliangrace (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Abbyjjjj96 Thank you for your last partial-revert edit, applying the consensus choice. Jilliangrace (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is absurd. The source says preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns. They and them fall into neither category, and if you don't believe that, consider that had Sophie truly preferred that no pronouns be used at all, the statement would have been simply preferred not to be referred to by pronouns (pretension though that would be). EEng 04:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: what would nonbinary pronouns refer to? Based on my understanding, the most common "nonbinary pronoun" by a large margin is "they/them". I think we have to accept that the statement is unclear and redundant/imperfect in some way (perhaps because it wasn't Sophie who wrote it and summarising another person's complicated opinion has gone wrong). If "non-binary" is a gender identity then "gendered or nonbinary" is redundant, for instance. — Bilorv (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is true. Singular “they” is not only a non-binary pronoun, but also a genderless pronoun. Consider the case where you are introduced to someone, who tells you “Hi. My name is Max. I use they/them pronouns.” You will say “Hi Max. Nice to meet you. (I’m X).” Later, when telling your friend about Max, you will say, “I met Max earlier. They were really nice.”

This is a case where “they” is a non-binary pronoun; it refers to a single individual of known non-binary gender.

Now consider the case where you and Max are at saloon in Amarillo drinking iced tea together. Someone walks in through the swingy saloon doors shrouded in dust, wearing a cowboy hat and bandana. The piano player stops abruptly. You recognize the newcomer. You turn to Max and whisper, “Who is that person? They look so familiar. I’m sure I recognize them!”

This is a case where “they” is a genderless pronoun; it refers to a single individual of unknown (male or female or nonbinary) gender.

So “they” can be used either with an antecedent whose gender we know to be non-binary (and who we know uses “they”), or with an antecedent whose gender we do not know (or do not consider important or relevant). Dylanvt (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources listed are relying on the one report from Pitchfork, which says that one rep said that, and doesn't say when they said it. Her representatives seem to have released notices about her death using female pronouns, and Sophie doesn't seem to have said anything like that herself, including in relation to in-depth interviews she conducted that refer to her as "she" or "her". I am all about using correct pronouns, but I don't think we have enough information to make a determination here, we have what amounts to a rumor. Sophie was non-binary, but also a trans woman, and I don't think it at all disrespectful or incorrect to refer to her as "she/her" until more, and more reliable, information is received. TMagen (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The full statement from Sophie's representatives, as quoted by Mixmag, reads, "It is with profound sadness that I have to inform you that musician and producer SOPHIE passed away this morning around 4am in Athens, where the artist had been living, following a sudden accident. At this time respect and privacy for the family is our priority. We would also ask for respect for her fanbase, and to treat the private nature of this news with sensitivity. SOPHIE was a pioneer of a new sound, one of the most influential artists in the last decade. Not only for ingenious production and creativity but also for the message and visibility that was achieved. An icon of liberation." Mixmag adds, "Alongside the statement, SOPHIE's team requested pronouns are not used in this article and we refer only to the artist by the name SOPHIE." This statement avoids pronouns, and the request aligns with what multiple other sources including The Guardian have also said Sophie's representatives directly requested. Pitchfork was first, but its no longer the case that outlets are simply quoting that outlet. Jilliangrace (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• The good news is that this isn't the stupidest discussion ever of (alleged) bizarre pronoun preferences; that honor goes, IMHO, to WT:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun, in which is was claimed that someone's preferred pronoun is tree ("because we all come from trees, so it doesn’t matter if you’re a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone’s a tree. I want to call my friends 'tree' and me 'tree' and everyone 'tree.' So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I’m going to say ‘tree.’") and someone actually changed the article accordingly [3]. EEng 20:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I still think this sentence "A half-sister asked Sophie to DJ her wedding; later Sophie admitted that the half-sister "didn't know what I was doing in my room on my own" and had assumed Sophie was a DJ." is ridiculous given it's about Sophie's half-sister. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: the article Public Universal Friend also avoids pronouns for its subject, for the same reason, and could be read as a good example of how to accomplish it. AJD (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

On what are we basing not using any pronouns? The only source (a Pitchfork article) supporting this states "In 2018, SOPHIE – who preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns, according to one representative...". So we have an unknown person in one source, who actually comments on what someone preferred to use (not preferred to be referred to as)... is that all we have? And in the article we have quotations from the subject that include the word "I", which is a nonbinary pronoun. We should have more than this to justify removing all pronouns, but a lot of people are very keen to leap in and do that. EddieHugh (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you dismissing The Guardian? Newimpartial (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some other sources have copied Pitchfork, referring to "Sophie's team" or "SOPHIE's team". Who are/is this team or representative? 34 years of existence, including a few of (some) fame should be enough for preferences to have appeared. We're supposed to follow (MOS:GENDERID) the subject's stated preferences (at least while a BLP). I see no such statement, but I do see uses of "I" that contradict the "team". EddieHugh (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

On what basis do you say The Guardian is copying anyone? Also, "I" isn't a "gendered or nonbinary" pronoun in the sense referred to in the article.Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, they appear to be copying, or they appear to be using the same statement, or they appear to be using the same person/"team" for information. That doesn't matter; the key is that no one has presented a source that directly reports (e.g., a quotation or interview) this person's preference. So many people are rushing to change the article and we don't even have a source stating directly what the person wanted! EddieHugh (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Does MOS:GENDERID set a standard of proof that isn't being met, here? Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Enough to stop the rush to remove all pronouns, yes. "that person's latest expressed gender self-identification" isn't satisfied by an unknown person or group claiming to know what that person's preference was. (Would there be a rush to change the article if an unknown person or group claimed to know that this person had recently asserted a male identity and had mentioned a preference for "he"? We'd want more evidence, wouldn't we?) EddieHugh (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You aren't really pointing to a policy-based standard, more of a personal feeling. And while the phenomenon may be regrettable, we do expect public figures to speak through their authorized representatives, and trust RS like The Guardian to parse that information correctly. It would be OR to apply an undue Hermeneutics of suspicion in this case, particularly since no sources (that I have seen) have contested this statement on pronouns in any way. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

But this statement was made after the person's death, so there's no chance for the person to confirm or contradict it. And it's the only statement that we have. That's weak. EddieHugh (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

So long as the article's subject expressed this preference in life, I don't think the timing of the announcement is of any import. The question is whether the (by now, many) sources saying so are reliable, and I don't see any reason to question them. Newimpartial (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"So long as the article's subject expressed this preference in life": just so; a source quoting the subject is what's lacking here. EddieHugh (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

On what basis are you questioning The Guardian's statement on the matter, which is clearly not referring to a seance or other post-mortem communication? You seem to be going to great lengths to question a factual claim that the RS on the matter do not question. WP:OR isn't our job, yo. Newimpartial (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As I commented elsewhere, there's something about this matter that makes some people misrepresent what others are saying, and now you've done the same thing. It's difficult to have a discussion in such circumstances, so I'm at least pausing my participation in this one. EddieHugh (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My reference to post-mortem communication was hyperbole, and I'm sorry that you felt misrepresented. While I realize that The Guardian may not seem definitive to you on this, Slate said, SOPHIE preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns - do you have some reason not to find this statement reliable? Newimpartial (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Decent society has accepted that using an improper pronoun to refer to a trans person is an act of aggression against them. The natural way to avoid using an improper pronoun is to ask, which has led to the notion that we follow the subject's guidance. In this case, Sophie's guidance undercuts the reason we are asking in the first place. We under no ethical obligation to humor this performative nonsense. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To what guidance do you refer? Newimpartial (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sophie's girlfriend referred to her using female pronouns in this article published today that clearly shows she was using female pronouns at the time of her death. parqs (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

similar issue came up at the Genesis P-Orridge article, an artist that claimed to be both non-binary and genderless, and rejected birth name. The constructions s/he, h/er, and h/erself were at one point used throughout, because apparently that's what Gen preferred, then it was changed to using the "surname" - P-Orridge. Can do exactly the same here, just use Xeon instead of he/her etc. problem solved. Acousmana (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

unless i'm mistaken since coming out as a trans woman Sophie never said she didn't go by female pronouns. In fact we have hard evidence supporting the fact that she did in the form of her girlfriend's interviews with the press that let us know that nothing had changed in that department in any time leading up to her death. Those were the pronouns used on this wiki. And now, after she's dead, we have a "representative" who requested to pitchfork that they avoid pronouns at all in their article and refer to her simply as Sophie. To me, that sounds like an artistic ploy for the sake of her media eulogy. So all we have is a request by a "representative" to use just her name in the media obit from Pitchfork and then we have her GF giving interviews calling Sophie "her" in her last moments before death. I really don't see how there was enough to completely degender this whole article, seems really overly gung-ho and dramatic. parqs (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

no brainer then, if gf released statement employing "her" we follow that unless RS states otherwise. Acousmana (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

But we have many RS stating Sophie's wish that pronouns not be used. I still don't see any reliable sources questioning the sourced statements, just OR skepticism. Parqs, why do you suggest that the interview clearly shows she was using female pronouns at the time of her death? That sounds like SYNTH.

And to Acousmana's earlier comment, the relevant pronouns have all been removed from the article already, AFAIK. Newimpartial (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"we have many RS stating Sophie's wish that pronouns not be used" oh, OK, impression I got above is that we don't. There are no pronouns because 'Sophie' is used instead, personally I think it should be 'Xeon' per P-Orrige example. Acousmana (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Sophie used female pronouns while she was alive, and to my knowledge no statement was ever released while she was alive stating anything to the contrary. Literally all we have is her representatives asking publications to report her death without using pronouns. The representative did not state she didn't used pronouns or that she didn't want to be identified by female pronouns, all we have is a request made specific to the way in which publications eulogized her. In contrast, we have countless sources of her using female pronouns while she was alive as well as those closest to here and literally present for her death using female pronouns. There is simply not enough to go on to have removed all pronouns from this article, that was a big overreaction in my view. If Sophie truly did not want to be referred to by female pronouns that information will clearly be forthcoming but as of now I don't think the statement as reported to have been passed on by a representative meets that standard. parqs (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The statement in Slate was, SOPHIE preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns - I don't see why that would be not enough to go on. I also don't see why the absence of a statement while [Sophie] was alive has anything to do with this question. Newimpartial (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

You really don't see why the subject never stating this supposed preference for no pronouns to be used when referring to her has "anything to do with this question"? This was not a posthumous statement from Sophie revealing a preference for no pronouns, it was a request made by one person in control of an artists commercial interest being taken as gospel by the music media and printed without context. You really don't think that's problematic, especially when the individual closest to her as a person directly contradicts what pronouns were used for Sophie in her personal life? In all likelihood this question will be further clarified and expanded upon by her family, friends, label, etc at some future time and it may turn out that Sophie indeed preferred to be remembered using no gendered pronouns. I simply stand by my statement that her gf using female pronouns for her contradicts one representatives claim about her pronouns enough to have put the brakes on degendering this entire article - especially when her own label used female pronouns in announcing her death. All we have is one person saying she didn't use gendered pronouns and a whole litany of others close to her contradicting that. Really all I have left to say on the subject bc at this point we're beginning to talk in circles. parqs (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

What you are describing is not what Slate plainly stated, namely, SOPHIE preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns. That sounds like a posthumous statement from Sophie revealing a preference for no pronouns to me. Why is Slate wrong? How is the interview supposed to be contradicting this? Newimpartial (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

So I spoke to the author of the Slate article just now over Twitter asking for clarification and he informed me that he was following the language used in the Pitchfork article based off of that one representatives statement regarding avoiding using all pronouns. He stated he believed there was a link in one of the Pitchfork articles to an interview with Sophie talking about her not using pronouns but I double checked all the Pitchfork articles and no such link to an interview existed. I think it's reasonable to infer that all of the posthumous articles referring to Sophie's lack of pronoun usage are using the same unnamed "representative" referenced in the one Pitchfork article. parqs (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But why are they wrong to do so? The existence of a recent interview where the widow uses gendered pronouns for the deceased surely isn't evidence - I am aware of a number of cases where a person is willing for their intimates to use pronouns for them in the context of a relationship that they would not at all tolerate in that person's own public statements. Why would it be any more OR for me to impose that interpretation on this case than for you to impose the interpretation that "the interview reflects reality, and the rest is all the work of publicists and not the intention of the deceased?" I mean, really? Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You're misconstruing my position, I am not saying that the article should use female pronouns because of two interviews with the subject's widow, I'm stating that the article should have never been degendered in the first place based off of the single word of an unnamed "representative", and I'm casting doubt on the reliability of this "representative" in light of three things: 1) Sophie's use of female pronouns while alive and the lack of direction to use otherwise, 2) The two interviews with the widow, and 3) Most importantly the official statement released by Sophie's record label using female pronouns. That statement is the only public official statement we have and they use female pronouns. So we have all three of those things, the third of which is most certainly not OR, that indicate female pronouns and we overrule all of that based off of an unnamed "representative" (with no official statement from Sophie's team to affirm such a position) to make an active change to the article with no/little prior discussion? Why does this unnamed rep carry more weight than an official statement released by the label? parqs (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

But why should editors try to resolve this question? Isn't this something the RS do for us? You seem inclined to do a lot of OR here, for some reason. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We have tons of RS in this article supporting female pronouns. It's filled with them. We have posthumous RS supporting female pronouns. Yet one RS (because that's all it is, one - Pitchfork, which is being cited by all other other articles) is enough to completely overhaul the page. For some reason. parqs (talk) 02:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

According to policy, we follow the most recently expressed preference, not the tons of sources from before the announcement that did things differently. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with parqs here. If we take the pitchfork statement at face value, how are we to square that with all the consistent recent use of she/her pronouns from people who knew and loved her? Not just her girlfriend, but her label, her friends, and her peers. Closing the gap requires something improbable, e.g. that all these people close to her are intentionally using pronouns that go against her wishes; that her pronoun preferences changed recently and she only told one member of her team; that her pronoun preferences have some conditional rules like "she/her for people I know, but no pronouns for strangers/the media" (keeping in mind that around the time of the release of OoEPUI her team requested that the press use she/her pronouns). It's so much easier to believe that one person on her team accidentally misrepresented or misunderstood her wishes. (I've heard that Sophie was basically pronoun-indifferent, so my best guess is that some flak mistranslated "no pronoun preferences" to "prefers no pronouns". But that's just one theory.) Sadly, we don't have the gold standard here, which would be a recent statement from the article subject herself, so we have to consider a bunch of imperfect evidence. I happen to think the preponderance of it points to she/her. Colin M (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't require such heroic assumptions. What it requires is that we trust the RS to get it right in interpreting the statement/statements, and the statement itself seem awfully clear ("prefers that no gendered or nonbinary pronouns be used" seems too specific to result from a mistranslation, but I digress). If it turns out that this statement did not, in fact, represent Sophie's final preference re: pronouns I'm sure we will find that out in time but during the meanwhile, it's what we have. Newimpartial (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. The policy states we honor the subject's stated preference, not some unnamed third party. There is simply a mountain of evidence that this person (who gave themselves the name "Sophie" by the way) used she/her pronouns, and a wisp of a rumor of a suggestion that they wanted no pronouns. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't be daft. Slate stated, SOPHIE preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns - that is a clear statement of the subject's preference in a RS (as it happens, in more than one RS). It isn't our job as editors to research our way out of this through OR and imaginative reconstruction - it is to follow the sources. That is exactly how this works. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We have one RS stating that she didn't want to use pronouns and we have another RS (her record label) in the form of an official statement using gendered pronouns. Why does one take precedence over the other? parqs (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

According to what WP policy is the record label an RS? Also, why do you keep misgendering this BLP subject: it is starting to look POINT-ey to me. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The record label statement was published by numerous RS. Those articles are all RS. I am not misgendering her, I am using the pronouns she used for herself and the pronouns her family used for her and her girlfriend used for her and her record label used for her. I could say the same for you, re: POINT. parqs (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The record label statement was reported in RS, but the statement I quoted from Slate was reported in RSes as a statement of Sophie's preferences, in their own editorial voice. As far as I know, no RS has done so with the statement by the label.

Also, how could I possibly have misgendered SOPHIE? Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Refusing to use any pronouns for someone who used pronouns is a form of misgendering. Your current editorial position might be right by the letter of WP policy and maybe it is how Sophie would've preferred to be remembered. I just think it's a shame how quickly and easily a part of someone's personal identity can just be erased like that on the word of one unnamed person. parqs (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I really do get that, but once the inevitable biographies come out, if they come to challenge what SOPHIE's last word on the matter actually was, it will be easy enough to revise the article again; after all, it is much easier to add pronouns than to remove them! As far as the mourning of (one's perception of) another's personal identity, that is a very widespread feeling and is mostly unavoidable. Look, for example, at all of the people who are emotionally invested in Elliot Page having a Trans male identity and those equally invested in him/them having a Nonbinary identity. Odds are that eventually, one of these groups is likely to be disappointed and will likely feel (something akin to) your pain. Newimpartial (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Second Album Title

I understand that the whole final area of Sophie's career section is listed with a citation needed template, but is there any proof that Sophie's second album was going to be called "Trans Nation"? All I can find on it is a Reddit post from a fan who made a fanmade version of Sophie's second album by compiling unreleased songs together called "Transnation", and that Sophie had an unreleased song with the title from 2018. Other than that, there's no real proof that Sophie was teasing a second album called "Trans Nation", "Transnation", or anything of the sort. If there's nothing to back any of this up, it should probably just be removed rather than awaiting a source that will never come since it's spreading misinformation if it's not true. Thoughts on this?

Also, I noticed that the career section is missing the singles "Metal" from 2020 and "Unisil" from 2021, which was released only a couple days before Sophie died. Redandsymmetry (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed the "Trans Nation" stuff as I can't find a source either. Added "Metal" and "Unisil" with a couple of sources. Feel free to make improvements as you see fit. Thanks for the suggestions! — Bilorv (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)