Talk:Joey Soloway

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindsaympatton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns

@Malik Shabazz: The article says that, "Soloway uses gender-neutral pronouns." I don't know whether Wikipedia honors that, but an anonymous IP corrected my last edit to use gender-neutral pronouns, and I don't care much, so I preserved it. Franzboas (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The usage is inconsistent, because "she" is used in the second and third sentences of the article (and elsewhere) but "they" is sometimes used. Somebody with more patience than I have needs to standardize usage throughout the article. I don't think there's a specific guideline on the subject, but WP:GENDERID (and common courtesy) would seem to support using the subject's preference. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm definitely not that person with patience because gender pronoun stuff bores me. I'll join you in continuing to use "she" until someone combs the entire article. Franzboas (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I just changed the remaining "she" pronouns to "they", and added a new source for Soloway's nonbinary gender identity and pronoun preference. Funcrunch (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Singular Jill

Why not "Jill also known for Jill's work..."? 31.154.8.98 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd just like to make the comment that I agree - use the given name. This they/their thing doesn't make much sense and is *really* confusing in reading an article, as one automatically assumes a reference to multiple individuals.

As a "'fer example"...? "Soloway collaborates with their sister, Faith Soloway, who serves as a co-writer on Transparent.[32] They were inspired by their parent who came out as transgender."

In the lead, who is 'they'? American In Brazil (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

One sentence they refers to a singular Jill Soloway, the next it refers to Jill and Faith. This just doesn't work and is simply too confusing to the uninitiated reader. Coladar (talk) 05:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that 'they' is distracting and reads as an error. 'They' - when used in this context - is very clearly established as a plural. The reader wonders who is the other person being talked about. Perhaps someone should ask Jill what gender they would prefer Wikipedia to use in cases like this? Axcelis555 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Axcelis555, please read singular they. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the "singular they". But this context is quite different. When you say "A magician never reveals their secret" or "Someone lost their keys", you are not talking about a specific person whom you have just identified in the previous sentence. Please re-read the current "they" I am objecting to; "Soloway won Best Director for the film Afternoon Delight. They are also known for their work in...." In this context, "they" is juxtaposed with Soloway, switching the subject in readers' minds from 'Soloway' to multiple people. (Even the most 'woke' of us). To correct this, I suggest the sentence read "Soloway won Best Director for the film Afternoon Delight, and is also known for..." Axcelis555 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, and singular they should not be used in the same context as a plural they (as it was above, with J. and Faith Soloway). Singular they is a last resort, not a norm, and it can almost always be written around.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Soloway's Accolades, Criticism and Filmography

I would like to incorporate some more information about Soloway's show, Transparent, and the accolades it and Soloway have received along with some scholarly discussion of the show that I have found in some articles and peer-reviewed journals that I have posted below.

Also, I would like to add to the paragraphs about Soloway's film career and give descriptions of the films and criticism or praise the films and Soloway received.

Lastly, I would like to write more on the themes in Soloway's work as this is the focus of some journal articles about them. Also, Soloway gave a talk on the female gaze that gives some insight into their work and views on film, television and representation.

Here are the articles that I'd like to incorporate: Villarejo, A. (2016). Jewish, Queer-ish, Trans, and Completely Revolutionary: Jill Soloways Transparent and the New Television. Film Quarterly, 69(4), 10-22. doi:10.1525/fq.2016.69.4.10

Rosenberg, R. (2017). The Importance of Jewish Ritual in the Secular, Postmodern World of Transparent. Jewish Film & New Media: An International Journal 5(1), 75-101. Wayne State University Press. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from Project MUSE database.

Benson-Allott, C. (2017). On Platforms No Such Thing Not Yet: Questioning Television's Female Gaze. Film Quarterly, 71(2), 65-71. doi:10.1525/fq.2017.71.2.65

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/afternoon-delight-2013

https://dobmovies.com/watch/jill-soloway-on-the-female-gaze-master-class-tiff-2016/pnBvppooD9I.html

(Lindsaympatton (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC))

MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles

Regarding this move by Rab V, I just want to inform editors that MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. It is not about that. The policy to look at is WP:Article titles, specifically WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES in this case. That is why the beginning of MOS:IDENTITY, which MOS:GENDERID is a subsection of, states "and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article." Now if one wants to cite WP:Ignore all rules, then cite that. But "Jill Soloway" is Soloway's common name. Because of this and what MOS:MULTIPLENAMES states, I added "Jill Soloway" to the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your understanding of MOS:GENDERID here and whether Jill is the commonly used name. Solloway publicly changed names a while ago and several RS since then establish Joey as the common name. This isn't actionable in this case though so no worries. I will also note MOS:MULTIPLENAMES only states that old names should be included in article space in this kind of situation not that they need to be bolded and in the first sentence. Uninterested in pushing this but stylistically it seems out of date from how RS include previous names these days. Rab V (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

To make sure about the common name, I did a google news search and found RS from NYT, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, AV Club, NME, USA Today and plenty more all using the current name. This doesn't matter though since MOS:GENDERID is about uses of a subjects name as well. Rab V (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You are obviously allowed to respectfully disagree with my understanding of MOS:GENDERID. But, as made clear at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style before, MOS:GENDERID has never applied to article titles, despite you and a few others using it for an article title argument. We have an article title policy and MOS:GENDERID is not it. The MOS:GENDERID guideline does not trump the WP:Article titles policy. And I will start a discussion about this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style soon after this post.

As for noting the name "Jill Soloway" in the lead, yes, that name should be there. Obviously. A brief comment at the end of the lead about Soloway preferring to be called "Joey" instead of "Jill" without making it clear that Soloway was, is also known, as Jill Soloway, does not cut it. MOS:MULTIPLENAMES states, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in article space only when the person was notable under that name." You argued that it states "article space" instead of "the lead." But that section is obviously about leads. It isn't about any section in an article, but rather the leads of articles, as is clear by its examples. And WP:Alternative names, a policy, states, "When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Like I noted when you reverting you, "We don't exclude the notable/common name in the [leads of the] Chelsea Manning, Caitlyn Jenner, or Chaz Bono articles, and we especially should not in the case of this article where the new name hasn't even caught on yet and isn't their legal name." It was only a few months ago that Soloway announced a preference to be referred to as Joey rather than Jill. As is clear by the References section in the article, they are overwhelmingly known as "Jill Soloway." Their published works are under that name. But you argue that this new name is now the common name? I disagree. But I'm not arguing to change the title of this article.

I'll point editors to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You note the policy MOS:MULTIPLENAMES only states name should be in the article space; I'm taking it at it's literal word. The policy is clear and able to distinguish between lead and article space when it necessary. MOS:GENDERID even notes about MULTIPLENAMES "In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first," showing it's known that there is not a specific place that former names need to be included. Also per WP:BRD re-adding the note after being reverted is not an ideal way to keep a discussion going. You do not unilaterally own this page. Rab V (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

If you were to take it at its literal word, then you would have no issue with Soloway's significant alternative name -- the name Soloway is known for in the vast majority of the literature -- being in the lead. Well, except for personal feelings. But matters such as these should not be based on personal feelings. You have not given a good explanation for why the lead of this article should stray from our usual practice of including the name the person became notable under. There is no valid reason that we shouldn't do for it what we do for the Chelsea Manning, Caitlyn Jenner, and Chaz Bono articles. They are more famous than Soloway, but still. MOS:GENDERID notes about MULTIPLENAMES "In other respects, the MoS does not specify when and how to mention former names, or whether to give the former or current name first" after telling us that "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name." As for not unilaterally owning this page? I think that should be stated to you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Flyer22, you missed the part of WP:NAMECHANGES that states Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change. The sources you are looking at are from before the name change and therefore have little weight; sources written since the name change use the new name, which makes it the WP:COMMONNAME per our standard for accepting name changes if reliable sources do so. I also disagree with your assertion that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to titles, which would produce inconsistent and often bizarre situations; plainly it applies to all article content, including titles, categories, infoboxes, and so on. But the reason why that has rarely come up with titles specifically is because the bit of WP:NAMECHANGES I quoted means that we almost always reflect changed names unless reliable sources completely ignore the change (and in the case of name changes due to transitions, this simply does not happen with high-quality reliable sources today, making the question moot; we always end up respecting self-identity because that is always what the sources do.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Like I stated at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, I missed nothing. I pointed to WP:NAMECHANGES because I know what it states. And I do not see how "Joey Soloway" is now Soloway's common name. Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. It's still the case that Soloway is primarily known as Jill Soloway. Furthermore, I was clear that I was not trying to get that article changed back to "Jill Soloway." If you want MOS:GENDERID to apply to article titles and categories, then I suggest you propose it instead of stating that it does when it clearly does not. Stuff like this ha snot come up rarely. I've made my points on that at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. It flatly does. That's what the part of the policy I cited means; coverage after a name change is given more weight than coverage before it, so a name change that is accepted by the sources is immediately reflected in Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You came back to state that days later? Really? After all the debate that has happened since then below? Okay, you keep believing that sources written since the name change using the new name automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. I obviously disagree. SMcCandlish's "05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)" post below says it all. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

And regardless of what WP:NAMECHANGES states, it doesn't mean that "Jill Soloway" shouldn't be in the lead. MOS:GENDERID quite clearly tells us that "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Changed names calls for mentioning the former name of a transgender person if they were notable under that name." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, you wrote that Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. This is in almost perfect contradiction with the passage of WP:COMMONNAME applicable to this case, which states, If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. The only difference I can see between what policy states, and what you deny, is the word routinely. Are you suggesting that the use of the new name by the RS is not (yet) "routine"? Because that is the only policy-compliant thing I imagine you could be saying about the article title (the inclusion of the former name in the lede is of course an entirely different matter). Newimpartial (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a contradiction. It states "routinely"; I did not. And it does not state that the new name is then the common name, only that "Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match." And it stating that obviously does not mean that "Jill Soloway" shouldn't be in the lead. Furthermore, Rab V moved the article to the new name a day after Soloway announced that they preferred to be referred to as Joey rather than Jill. Clearly, WP:NAMECHANGES was not adhered to. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For what reason are you suggesting that NAMECHANGES was not adhered to? Are you claiming that reliable sources have not been using the new name "routinely" since the change?

Also, since COMMONNAME says that article titles should use the common name, and NAMECHANGES says that the article titles should be changed to reflect the new name once the RS do so "routinely", then the policy is actually saying that the new name is then considered by policy to be the common name. That's Aristotelian logic, folks, to which much of our policy (rightly or wrongly) adheres. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

For what reason? So you are arguing that a day after Soloway announced that they preferred to be referred to as Joey rather than Jill, "Joey Soloway" became the common name? That's "routinely" to you? What? As seen in cases like Chelsea Manning, which had substantial debate and made its way into the news, we waited. Blueboar has noted this. We did not wait a day. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

How long it takes WP editors to agree about the implementation of a name change is really an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS issue. To me, if all the reliable sources use the new name, then that is "routine" coverage. The argument that sources will appear in the future using the deadname strikes me as WP:CRYSTAL. And NAMECHANGES tells us to set aside pre-name change sources in COMMONNAME determination, so the result seems obvious to me. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, do not break up my post like that again. I went ahead and copied my signature to the above post, but I shouldn't have to. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notes that "These 'other stuff exists' arguments can be valid or invalid." My argument about waiting is valid, and it's what WP:NAMECHANGES advises us to do. I'm not entertaining you on the rest, especially since I never argued that "sources will appear in the future using the deadname." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

As for your argument regarding what COMMONNAME and NAMECHANGES state? A new name does not become the common name after only a few days, or weeks, or even after a few months. Not when that person was known under the established name for years. The same applies to other topics, including medical matters. As made clear at WP:MEDTITLE, we will go with the "scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)", but that doesn't mean it's the common name. "Heart attack" is still the common name for myocardial infarction. With regard to living people, the reason we go with the new name if reliable sources routinely do is both because it's an article about a living person and to be up-to-date. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misreading COMMONNAME. The policy is quite clear that, once the new name is "routinely" used in the reliable sources, the fact that rhe person was known under the established name for years is not a policy-relevant consideration. This isn't a GENDERID thing, but is true for all NAMECHANGES. And your citation of MEDTITLE as if it extended to the names of BLP subjects is quite strictly a red herring. You yourself seem to recognize this in your conclusion, and you have stated that you are not trying to change the article name back, so I'm not able to understand the motivation for continued discussion of this. Newimpartial (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You aren't making a bit of sense. Not a MOS:GENDERID thing when the editor moved this article based on MOS:GENDERID, as if MOS:GENDERID is about article titles? As if it trumps WP:Article titles? You also keep focusing on the article title aspect instead of focusing on whether or not "Jill Soloway" should be in the lead, when that is what this discussion is about. I did not focus on the title aspect. I only mentioned it, noting that MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. And if "Jill Soloway" was removed per MOS:GENDERID, that also contradicts MOS:GENDERID. To repeat what I stated elsewhere, "I'm not debating you any further on this. I know how you debate, arguing against arguments that were never made, twisting arguments, and so on. No thank you." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22, if you don't want to focus on the article title aspect, maybe you shouldn't carry out the discussion in a section titled MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titles in which your entire opening paragraph is focused on the article title, and in which your second most-recent comment is still an argument about article titles. So concerning the article title, as I stated in that other discussion, I don't see why it matters whether an article is correctly titled per GENDERID or per COMMONNAME, so long as it is correctly titled. WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we are to change the article title when the reliable sources routinely use the changed name, and you have not presented any evidence that any sources are still using the deadname, so I don't see any need to discuss that topic further.

If, on the other hand, you want to have a discussion focusing on whether or not "Jill Soloway" should be in the lead, then I would suggest creating a new section with an appropriate title addressing that topic, and refrain from citing policies such as COMMONNAME that have no bearing on what text is appropriate for the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I created that heading to briefly focus on the title with respect to MOS:GENDERID, but I ended my post with a focus on the lead per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES and WP:Alternative names. I thought about mentioning WP:Alternative names, which concerns article titles and mentioning a significant/notable name in the lead, but I didn't feel I had to. To repeat what I stated at the MOS talk page, it matters not that I stated that I'm not looking to move this article back to its previous title. This section was not created for that. It was created as a note about MOS:GENDERID and an explanation for why I added "Jill Soloway" to the lead. WP:Alternative names does concern WP:COMMONNAME. But argue whatever. I've made my case. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry about splitting your previous comment; I simply misread the page layout and didn't see what I had done. The fact remains that if the RS have used the new name since the name change, there is per COMMONNAME no argument against moving the article to the new name except that the new name is not being used consistently ("routinely") by sources since the name change. Since you have no evidence that this has happened, I don't see how this not CRYSTAL. As far as MOS:MULTIPLENAMES is concerned, it is to be interpreted through GENDERID in such cases, so I don't see why you felt the need to appeal to it in your (rather oblique) treatment of your proposed inclusion in the lead. Newimpartial (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are the one wanting to continue to focus on the title aspect when I have been clear that I am not looking to move this article back. I stated what I stated, and I stand by it. MOS:GENDERID should not be invoked for article titles. You are misusing WP:CRYSTAL. And either way, WP:NAMECHANGES is clear that we are to wait. It does not conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. You stated, "As far as MOS:MULTIPLENAMES is concerned, it is to be interpreted through GENDERID in such cases, so I don't see why you felt the need to appeal to it in your (rather oblique) treatment of your proposed inclusion in the lead." What? I'm done replying to you in this section. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Where do you think WP:NAMECHANGES is clear that we are to wait? It tells us to make a determination based on the sources since the name change, period.

And to rephrase my last point, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES doesn't give any guidance for situations of gender-altering name changes that isn't already reflected in MOS:GENDERID. That might be easier to understand than my statement last time. Newimpartial (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• If there's any CRYSTAL happening here, it is the assumption that a name change this recent is or very soon will be so prevalently taken up in reliable sources that it has become or is just about to become the COMMONNAME. I don't think there's any evidence showing this is true (though it actually might be). That said, I've never had much faith in the argument that an article "must" be at the most common name anyway. The most common name is simply the default choice to test against all the WP:CRITERIA and all other applicable policies and guidelines. In the end, I don't think it matters much. We have redirects for a reason. It's best for readers if the title agrees with the article text, in most cases. Nevertheless, my long RM experience tells me while WP doesn't change an article immediately after a subject's name change (whether individual, organizational, political, or whatever). WP will do so "fairly" quickly, based on what most contemporary sources are routinely doing, not what all sources going back to the beginning of the subject do in the aggregate. Otherwise, it might take decades for new sources to outnumber old ones, resulting in WP stubbornly using an anachronism years after every other publisher has moved on. I think the question here is whether enough current sources have switched to Joey, and how many of those sources there are (i.e., how much this person is still generating coverage). I don't yet see an actual analysis of this here. PS: Yes, of course Jill has to be in the lead. Should be in the very lead sentence, since the vast majority of sources about this person use that name, and the vast majority of their existence as a notable subject has been under that name. Only some fractional subset of people who regularly follow entertainment news (or LGBT+ news) will even be aware of the change.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, SMcCandlish. And since MOS:GENDERID is not about leads while MOS:MULTIPLENAMES focuses on leads, it's obvious why I would refer to MOS:MULTIPLENAMES in my hidden note and above. It specifically gives examples on formatting leads in a case such as this. It is correct that MOS:MULTIPLENAMES doesn't state that the alternative name must go in the lead, but it being in the lead, or at least in the infobox, is more helpful for readers. As you know, so many people (or most) do not read past the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree that this is an instance where the DEADNAME should be included in article space, probably in the lede (though not in the article title, as previously discussed). Newimpartial (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2020 (UTC)