Talk:Rebecca Sugar

Influenced By and Influence Of

It's probably worth noting that Jhonen Vasquez's work with Invader Zim had an influence on Rebecca Sugar when she was younger. There's an archive of some of her fan fiction from the early 2000s. I wonder what else influenced her or who she has influenced? --Bushido Hacks (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I remember she said that she was influenced by anime like Revolutionary Girl Utena. A quick internet search brought this up, saying "One content creator who supports the fanfiction genre actually wrote fanfiction herself before she began creating her own original content. When she was 15, Rebecca Sugar, who later created the show "Steven Universe," wrote "Invader Zim" fanfiction stories." And Sugar herself said in 2016 that "Well, it’s [Camp Pining Hearts] meant to be a “Degrassi”-style show, though I never watched much of that myself! When it came to watching something obsessively and writing fan fiction, for me it was “Invader Zim” and “One Piece.”" She also wrote the foreword for The Art of Invader Zim. Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns

I was wondering, so I checked. According to the bio currently at the top of https://twitter.com/rebeccasugar, "She/her or they/them, thank you for caring!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(I'm just commenting to draw attention to this observation, which is still accurate, since I see edits changing it back-and-forth some more. Not all non-binary people use they.) -sche (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment when I reverted back to "she" yesterday, and now I have it is clear the subject is happy with either form. However, the reference used in the article to support the fact that she identifies as non-binary uses "she". Dorsetonian (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

If someone uses both they and she, use both interchangeably. It's not hard. Shardok (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, pick one and use that. When Sugar says "pronoun flexible" that means she's okay with either, it doesn't mean she approves of or is seeking inconsistent usage. Keep in mind that English Wikipedia, more than any other, attracts readers from other languages and using two different pronouns could be very confusing, even leading one to believe that more than one person is being referred to, one with the she and another with the they. Currently, the article uses she/her, and has for quite some time. It should remain that way unless a future discussion gains consensus that it should be handled differently. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca Sugar is a non-binary woman.

Rebecca Sugar is a non-binary woman, and is the not only the first woman, but the first non-binary person in history to independently create a series for Cartoon Network. Those are two impressive moments in her history and to only mention one is partially erasing history. It doesn't matter what Rebecca publicly identified as during the show's creation, she came out because she wanted people to know who she is. She based her gems, from creation, to be nonbinary women like herself. To only give her half the credit is erasing history. The first person to be openly non-binary during a show's creation will not be the first non-binary person to independently create a series for the network, it will always be Rebecca Sugar. That is a fact, and it deserves to be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cultrocknroll (talk • contribs) 13:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but we do not have a source stating this. We only have a source for the "first woman to..." aspect, not for the "first nonbinary person to ..." aspect. To avoid WP:OR, we must not draw unpublished, novel conclusions. Sandstein 13:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree here with Sandstein. If we can find a reliable source that mentions her being the first nonbinary person to create a series for CN, then this should be updated, but right now, the best source says "woman".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with Sandstein, along with the additional comment they made in the edit history: "this wrongly implies that there were binary women who had [d]one this before, which is not the case". Dorsetonian (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried to find some sources for this, this link mentions "first non-binary woman", this link confirms it is the first series not created by a man (which directly implies there were no other known non-binary creators before). Would either of that be enough? Ynneblack (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It only wrongly implies that if one wrongly believes that an accomplishment by a nonbinary person must come after an accomplishment by a binary person. Shardok (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Compare "Neil Armstrong was the first American to walk on the moon". That sentence is true, but it wrongly implies that someone of a different nationality had been there before, which is not the case. The qualification "American" is not only unnecessary, it also misleadingly belittles his achievement. Similarly, qualifying Rebecca Sugar's achievement is also belittling it. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Sandstein 14:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

In response to this edit summary from Shardok: She is not a woman, she is a nonbinary woman. I'm legitimately confused by this. Surely to say that you are a non-binary woman is to say that you are both non-binary and a woman? I'm not sure it makes sense to say that she is "not a woman". Meanwhile if Sugar ever did come out and say "I'm not a woman" I would, in that case, fully support changing the wording of the lead. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda (talk · contribs) I agree. I've always assumed "nonbinary woman" means someone who identifies as a woman but does not fit themselves into the socio-cultural gender binary. So she can be both, without one cancelling out the other.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

While I understand that Sugar says she identifies as a nonbinary woman, however as far as I am aware these are not compatible labels. A woman is a binary gender identity and nonbinary is a nonbinary gender identity. I am not certain what if any authority can confirm this however the LGBT foundation uses a definition that suggests one can't be a woman and nonbinary. I don't deny that she uses she/her/hers and they/them/theirs, and she may describe her identity as woman and non-binary but how should we proceed given that it isn't logically consistent? In regards to "does not fit themselves into the socio-cultural gender binary" if the noconformity is in gender expression they are simply gender non-comforming. Gender nonconformity isn't a gender identity and doesn't indicate gender identity. Technically neither does gender expression so it seems to be a moot point. [1]05:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriarRose2020 (talk • contribs)

BriarRose2020, I understand what you are saying, but here is the problem:

however as far as I am aware these are not compatible labels

Yes, but we (as editors) are not here to use deduction or apply our knowledge of logic to what someone claims as their identity. As far as we know, she is perhaps not using "nonbinary" as an adjective to describe "woman", in which case your logic doesn't apply. It's possible "nonbinary woman" is as indivisible a term to her, as "trans woman" is to someone else, and it's not for us to say they are incompatible. However, even if she is using the term in the way you conceive of it, it would be original research to replace her characterization with ours. Consistency and logic doesn't enter into it, really. If you need a few additional data points, you can try searching "nonbinary woman". Mathglot (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't go looking for sources right now, but to my memory, Rebecca has (in an interview or two, I can go looking later) described the gems in "nonbinary woman" terms (i.e. describing how they fit under that description) by describing them as not thinking of themselves as women but not being, like, offended or something if they're perceived as such. It's not outside the realm of possibility that this is the line of thought for what those two words mean when used together. Not a contradiction at all, IMO, though using her description of the gems as a clear evidence of description of herself would be OR-y enough to be deduction. XP - Purplewowies (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that as well. There's already enough evidence out there that she is non-binary, already noted in the article itself, so unless some other interview comes up, I think the current description of her, especially the "Personal life" section, is pretty good at the present. Historyday01 (talk) 13:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I always took the "non-binary woman" descriptor to mean that she recognizes that many see her as a woman (either 'cuz of biology or culture or some other aspect that "codes" her as such in the eyes of some), but she herself rejects binarist labels and behaviors.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Emmy nominations

So Steven Universe was just nominated for another Emmy, and so someone quite sensibly increased the number of nominations Sugar has received from five to six. One problem though: the cited source, the Emmys website, still lists only five nominations for Rebecca Sugar. Is there a way to handle this? Do we just have to say, well, Steven Universe was nominated for a sixth Emmy, but Rebecca Sugar herself wasn't, because that's what the Emmy Awards website says? AJD (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the late delay, but it looks like the site lists the sixth nom.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Profile picture

Why is Rebecca Sugar’s image here a picture of Matt Bennett? Ms8763 (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. AJD (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Non bianary woman?

No idea who this is but isn't non-binary women a contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganBlade (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca specifically called herself/themselves non-binary woman and is quoted explaining it here. Ynneblack (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is a contradiction in terms. Notably the article linked above doesn't actually explain the usage of the term. She establishes that the alien race (Crystal Gems) which do not reproduce sexually with eachother appear female. But are more representative of nonbinary women. It is unclear how this is the case. She states that they are nonbinary women and suggests they are more representative of nonbinary women than females. She says their also a nonbinary woman but we know it can't be for the exact same reasons as the crytal gems because Sugar is a homo sapien and would therefore have a binary sex or intersex condition. 05:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriarRose2020 (talk • contribs)

Already responded above why this is not a contradiction. Mathglot (talk) 08:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

"Non-binary woman" redux

In this interview, Rebecca Sugar describes herself in a couple of places as not identifying as a woman: "I don't really mind if people are perceiving me as a woman, but it's something I personally don't feel is true"; "I didn't feel like I could talk about the fact that I didn't identify as a woman." Does this mean we should revisit the "non-binary woman" description that we use in this article (also taken from an interview with Sugar)? AJD (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, this is a good point, and a good discussion to be had. I'm curious if Sugar was expressing discomfort more at being seen as a "role model for little girls and women in the industry" given that she's a LGBTQ+ non-binary woman (i.e., not a normative woman in the way the media sees the term). IDK if that makes sense.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked to see if anything more recent or clear had come out about this, and didn't spot anything except that Sugar's twitter (usable for WP:ABOUTSELF statements of gender) says "Nonbinary, bisexual, pronoun flexible, she/they": perhaps it is indeed time to revisit the "nonbinary woman" descriptor, given the statements above about not identifying as a woman and the twitter statement identifying as nonbinary (only). (We would then need to revisit and somehow reword/rework the "...first woman..." thing discussed a few sections up.) -sche (talk) 09:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, time to update this. AJD (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

^^ Agreed! Awesome. I wish I saw this section before jumping in on one of the other many gender sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BriarRose2020 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, can there be an edit then? “Sugar is the first non-binary to independently create a series for the network.” Erinious (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source verifying this? AJD (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay here, but a source can be found on page 154, note 112 in this this book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Gen. Quon, that is a good point there. Also, I just got the final art book for Steven Universe and she talks about writing characters "through a nonbinary lens." I already added that source to the "Personal life" section of the main page yesterday, along with the Paper Mag interview she did in Oct. 2020, which is cited in the same section and noted by AJD in their comment back in August 2020. I think the phrase should be "Sugar is the first non-binary person to independently create a series for the network" as a descriptor is missing after the word "non-binary." I know that's a bit of a change from Erinious's original phrase, but it makes sense. She also identified as a "non-binary woman" in 2018 (quotes the interview she did for NPR's 1A), but that has changed since to just as a "non-binary person" as of March 2020. Historyday01 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it be gauche to maybe include a note explaining the situation (that is, how she was widely cited as the "first woman," but since her gender identity has been clarified in the intervening years, that descriptor is not quite accurate anymore)?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 13:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Gen. Quon, that would be OR in my view. She did identify as a woman at that time, as far as we know, so the description is still accurate. The article should not give undue emphasis to all these gender issues; this is a person notable for her creative work, not her gender identity. Sandstein 13:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how that's OR; it's just parsing the situation for readers so that they might better understand it. (OR, imho, would be guessing about her gender identity or postulating about her experience.) Additionally, I don't see how a little note would place "undue emphasis" on the issue. It's just a clarifying point. Either way, I'm not 100% on the idea, I just thought I'd offer it up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Sandstein; I don't think that the fact that she (perhaps) identified as a woman at that time means "the description is still accurate". MOS:GENDERID says we should use descriptions congruent with the subject's most recent verifiably-expressed gender identity. I'm still in favor of language saying that Sugar "was described as" the first woman to etc., rather than that she "was" the first woman; I'm ambivalent on a note such as Gen. Quon suggests. AJD (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Gen. Quon here. I think a note could be helpful, but I'm not totally dedicated to it either, to help readers of the article. I'd say the recent edits by Gen. Quon are acceptable for the page at the present are better than saying "was described as" the first woman as Ajd is suggesting. Historyday01 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The recent edits by Gen. Quon say "She is the creator of the Cartoon Network series Steven Universe, making her... the first woman", which turns out to be untrue. Wikipedia shouldn't be stating that she's a woman, which is entailed by the current formulation. MOS:GENDERID says we should refer to people "with gendered words... that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification". Saying she was described at the time as the first woman to create a CN series is accurate and verifiable, and doesn't make claims about her gender identity that contradict her recent expressed identification. AJD (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ajd, the issue is that Sugar did identify as a woman in the past (as she identified herself in a 2018 interview that I noted earlier), so I'd say it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, if not in the opening part, perhaps in the personal life section. I think a clarifying note could help here, as Gen Quon is advocating for, and/or bring back that text "Sugar is the first non-binary person to independently create a series for the network" and put that at the beginning of the article instead of what is currently there. If that text was added, it would supported by existing reliable sources which are already within the article itself. In any case, I'd like to hear Gen Quon's further thoughts on this.Historyday01 (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course we can say she identified as a woman in the past, and on that grounds was described as the first woman who etc. But what we shouldn't do is state, in Wikipedia's voice, something that entails that she is a woman. AJD (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That confusion is why I think a note would be useful for the average reader.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, also, I don't think my edit is incorrect. In the Paper interview, Sugar said she "didn't feel like a woman" when talking about herself in 2015. In 2018, she ID'd as a "non-binary woman." So I think my addition follows what MOS:GENDERID has to say.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sugar has said she prefers any pronouns. Her official Twitter profile calls her "Cartoonist, animator, songwriter, creator of Steven Universe" and adds "My views are my own. Nonbinary, bisexual, pronoun flexible, she/they." --Historyday01 (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

They/them pronouns should be used. Even though sugar has publicly used both, they/them should needs to be the standard to help normalize the pronouns, especially since Steven is canonically a trans character 76.72.35.96 (talk) 08:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

76.72.35.96 should see the above discussion, where editors specifically addressed Sugar's pronouns and how to describe her. It also says on her official Twitter profile, which I checked this morning: "Nonbinary, bisexual, pronoun flexible, she/they." --Historyday01 (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion or preference about what pronouns we should use for Sugar, but Steven being canonically a trans character is both (a) false in a technical sense (the character is metaphorically or allegorically trans, but not literally) and (b) not relevant to the question. AJD (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

To add a TL;DR of what I understand as current consensus, just for short context for the requestor: Sugar is a nonbinary woman (this is just a fact I'm establishing this blurb with rather than consensus people had to decide on) who uses she/they pronouns (that is, either are fine). Consensus is currently on "she" rather than "they" because most sources use "she" even though they recognize her as a nonbinary woman at the same time (as well as for consistency so it's not switching back and forth). I could have sworn there was a guideline about pronoun use that covered potentially switching (and advised consistency) but I can't find one so... I'm probably remembering a discussion or RFC somewhere or something. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And, Purplewowies, Sugar herself has said she is fine with any pronouns, but more specifically she and they (as I also said in my comment above). I'm pretty positive there have been some discussions about pronoun usage on here, probably on the LGBT project on here and perhaps in some RFCs but I'd have to dig a little further on that.Historyday01 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"Nonbinary woman" may not actually be accurate; see the previous talk section. AJD (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Rebecca is nonbinary! NOT a women.

You can't be nonbinary and a woman. 87.115.67.22 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly discussed already. Please read previous discussions before posting. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You know, those people (usually IP addresses) never read previous discussions. Its just classic drive-by editing. --Historyday01 (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Transphobia

“ making her(??) both the first woman(?) [1] and the first non-binary individual”

They’re non binary, this needs to be edited, the whole “first woman” thing is inaccurate, they were the first NON-BINARY individual, not first woman. This is just misgendering them. 2607:9880:2FC0:E1:8141:5C9A:E3AA:CB1B (talk) 15:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Same IP as section immediately below this. Addressed there. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

STOP IGNORING THIS

there are multiple active discussions about how many people have expressed that Rebecca sugar is non binary not a woman.

And nobody is doing anything about it. 2607:9880:2FC0:E1:8141:5C9A:E3AA:CB1B (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rebecca Sugar identifies as a "nonbinary woman" (quotes used here specifically to note that it's her own phrasing, not that it's scare quotes). Given the way she's described the gems as nonbinary women, this particular phrase likely means something like "doesn't think of herself as a woman but knows she's perceived as such" (but because she hasn't described herself in so many words like that, using the way she describes the gems to describe her may be original research). We use "she" as opposed to "they" because Rebecca is pronoun-flexible and most sources use "she"--the general guideline on Wikipedia in scenarios like this is to stick to one pronoun for consistency. Part of the reason discussions came to a consensus they did is likely because of the sources. Nobody is ignoring it; it's just that current consensus is to use "she".

As for describing Rebecca as nonbinary... there was a version of the article which a not-quite-old account (but not new either) decided to revert away from. I'm going to boldly re-add that phrasing as it was a bit more direct with describing Rebecca as nonbinary (while not erasing the reference to being described as the first woman to independently create a CN series). If someone reverts me re-adding the rephrasing, I'll personally take that as a lack of consensus to use that description and I'm afraid you'll need to actually participate in discussion rather than directly accusing everyone in multiple repeated threads of ignoring things simply because they don't want to make a change without consensus. - Purplewowies (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Purplewowies, there's evidence that Sugar did not identify as a woman as of August 2020. She said in a Paper] interview "I don't really mind if people are perceiving me as a woman, but it's something I personally don't feel is true." and "Because I was the first woman to create a show for Cartoon Network, people would tell me constantly that I was a role model for little girls and women in the industry which felt extremely important to me to the point where I didn't feel like I could talk about the fact that I didn't identify as a woman."

IP 2607, there's been debate here and at Talk:Steven Universe about the best way to phrase the "first" point. What would you prefer? Firefangledfeathers 19:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That was what I was getting at with the "doesn't think of herself as a woman but knows she's perceived as such" bit--the "doesn't identify as a woman but doesn't really mind" thing (though I strayed from suggesting she didn't mind in my prior thing because I wasn't searching for specific sources to see what had been said and was operating off sources I could bring to mind mentally that I remembered existing last time I went looking for some, which was awhile back). Definitely wasn't trying to say Rebecca identifies as a woman anywhere in that. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Changed the phrasing to match one previously used in another edit which still brings up the distinction that was notable in sources at the time (lots of sources before she came out centered on the "first woman to independently create a series" thing) while perhaps more strongly centering the fact Rebecca is nonbinary. If there's anything else you're unsatisfied with, you will need to participate in discussion to change. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I like it. Pinging FMSky, who later reverted that change without explanation as part of a rollback. Firefangledfeathers 19:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I also like it as well. I don't know why a bunch of IP accounts swarmed here at the beginning of the year claiming that this was being "ignored" especially since Sugar hasn't even posted anything since...September of 2021. And there aren't any new articles about Sugar either. Strange. Historyday01 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in to say I like this as well. Good job! This is a tricky situation.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely is. The same goes for the Noelle Stevenson article too. Stevenson said they have changed their name in a recent post, but did not announce what that new name is as of yet, which I mentioned on Talk:Noelle Stevenson#Name?. Maybe Stevenson will change it to a character from one of their stories. Sugar, on other hand, hasn't made any indications of a name change, as far as I'm aware. Historyday01 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gen. Quon, @Purplewowies, and @Firefangledfeathers I thought you'd be interested in a new Q&A where Rebecca described herself as a "queer and genderqueer artist" (see 0:14 in this video clip). I haven't seen the whole Q&A (its about 17 minutes long), but I thought it was relevant enough to mention this here. Historyday01 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! That would definitely be a source statement about her gender identity. Since Rebecca uses she/they pronouns, do you think an option would be to add in some singular they's and their's in between some of the she's and her's? I feel like that could probably be done in a non-confusing way.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I like the changes! Not sure if we should sprinkle "they" between the "she" but that's mostly (beyond the current consensus thing, which could definitely change) because I see people with more than one pronoun tend to end up with only one in use on Wikipedia articles and I'm wondering (especially considering the fairly consistent/common phrasing of notes regarding why one pronoun is used over another on various articles I've seen) if there's some sort of guideline on the subject or if it's just happened that the ones I have in memory have all ended up in the same sort of situation naturally. - Purplewowies (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. For me, the only issue with adding in the singular they's and their's is that someone might think that the pronouns in the article have been changed, even though we're mainly sticking with she/her for now. Apart from that, I might add something to the The Mitchells vs. the Machines page about Rebecca's comment on the film too. As an aside, I guess I'm in the minority of not thinking the film is as groundbreaking as people say since there have been LGBTQ characters, even in Western animated films for years. The one I can remember most is Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs since the alien is basically non-binary, or Bodacious Space Pirates: Abyss of Hyperspace (more in the series than the film though). And maybe this year will be the year I watch Adolescence of Utena. And that Bob's Burgers movie is coming up later this year and one of the characters is bi (from what I remember), so that will probably be added to the list of animated films with LGBT characters page at some point. Historyday01 (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I can't find any specific guideline, though the consistency of the phrasing ("X uses a and b pronouns. This article uses b pronouns for consistency." which I have seen near exactly and unchanged on Noelle Stevenson, here, and Elliot Page at least) weirds me out if there's not some guideline regarding it. I think it makes more sense to stick to one pronoun in something like this (yes, for consistency), though I'd be willing to discuss which pronoun that is, if consensus is moving away from "she". Hrm... (In !vote parlance this would be a "weak oppose".) - Purplewowies (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it would make sense to stick with only one pronoun for matters of consistency. I would be willing to change it if Sugar indicates a preference toward using a specific set of pronouns. I think that pronoun template was copied to a bunch of pages and I didn't follow the change to the Elliot Page entry, but the Stevenson page was changed relatively recently from what I remember. I wish there was a guideline on it, but unfortunately there is not, right now. Historyday01 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's fine! One pronoun approach makes sense to me; we want to avoid confusion, and that probably would cause some confusion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

Change "she" to "they" whenever you are talking about Rebecca. Lauwerys (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, have you seen any sources suggesting the Sugar prefers they/them pronouns over she/her? The most recent source we currently have cited expresses that Sugar uses both types. Firefangledfeathers 03:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes the order people list them in is an indication of level of preference (i.e. they prefer the first more), but importantly: A) this is not always, without fail true (so it might be synthesis of some sort to assume based on order), and B) Rebecca's various social medias change up the order anyway (Twitter lists "she" first, while Instagram lists "they" first, so it's inconsistent to assume based on order because the order is inconsistent). - Purplewowies (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Theodosia Okoh in infobox?

Gen. Quon reverted an edit by an IP introducing Rebecca's husband, Ian Jones-Quartey's, grandmother (Rebecca's grandmother-in-law), Theodosia Okoh (notable for designing Ghana's flag), to the relatives section of the infobox, because they were unsure if in-laws were typically listed. I went looking for some guidance and happened to find virtually zero policy, guidelines, or even discussions that made consensus clear (the closest I got was soap opera character infobox discussions from 2012).

Though it's a bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I decided to see if any Featured Articles (specifically biographies in the "media" category of FAs so that I had a limited list which was relevant to the type of article this is) linked to in-laws, as at least that would imply that in some cases they're not necessarily omitted for quality reasons. The following three FAs of media personalities technically link to in-laws in one way or another: Katrina Kaif (links to a subsection of "List of Hindi film families" regarding the Kaushal family, which she married into), Dimple Kapadia (links to Akshay Kumar, her son-in-law), and Priyanka Chopra (links to Category:Jonas family, which contains notable members of the Jonas family, which she married into).

I thought about using this as a tentative, just-as-cautious rationale for reverting back to including it, but I thought it may be better to start a discussion to come to consensus about including her?

(As a note: Rebecca has been included in the same fashion in Okoh's article since November 2020, so if consensus is to not include, perhaps it's worth removing from Okoh's article as well?) - Purplewowies (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It was a hesitant revert, tbf. Something about it felt kinda strange (I feel like it could easily get out of hand, especially with celebs), but I'm not opposed to it being added. I think, however, it's more pertinent in Ian JQ's page, rather than Rebecca's.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 19:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gen. Quon on this one. It does seem a little strange, but I'm not really opposed to it being added either. Historyday01 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, even though I opened the discussion... I don't even really know what I would do (which was why I looked so hard for guidance about what was best to do...). I do think it's more... "at home" on Ian JQ's page, myself, but other than that I'm very... *awkward shrug* - Purplewowies (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk page template

A template at the top of this page says, "This biographical article uses the pronouns she/her. See her Twitter profile." When I click on the link, I see her profile says "she/they". Should the template here be updated? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should be updated. Historyday01 (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The article currently uses she/her because that's current consensus (since Rebecca uses multiple sets of pronouns, though I do think people are open to further discussion that could in theory change the consensus), and the template is specifically meant to be guidance about which pronouns to use in-article. But perhaps there may be a better way to phrase what is meant by "see Twitter profile" (which is that Rebecca has mentioned being pronoun flexible and has specifically mentioned being fine with they/them and she/her, and the consensus of which to use is currently at she/her rather than they/them). Of course, the way I laid that all out could potentially be wordy in that template, but maybe it's appropriate to lead with seeing the Twitter profile and then noting a few discussions present on the page that contributed to the current consensus? Like maybe the template could read something like:

...Is that (or something similar to it) overkill? - Purplewowies (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I like something along those lines: a brief explanation of why the article uses she/her and a link to previous discussions. It does seem clearer than the current message. This got me thinking, though: I'm looking at Talk:ND Stevenson for reference, and the message there does a better job, I think, with specific explanation for why the article uses the pronouns it does. That's because there was a recent discussion there with more participants and a more solid decision. Meanwhile, this article is just going off of "we've been using she/her pronouns for ages and no one has started a new discussion for consensus recently", and thus doesn't have solid supporting reasons... perhaps we should have a new discussion on what pronouns to use. Aerin17 (t • c) 22:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the last edit I did to the article (which, admittedly, was to revert they/them to she/her purely for consensus reasons... and also a little editorialism on the editor's part...) I personally noted I thought one reason for she/her still being the consensus was inertia—most people willing to participate in discussion on the talk page lately are kinda "down for whatever" it feels like (but there hasn't been much in the way of new discussion), and most people changing the article to they/them are doing it without establishing new consensus via discussion (and are often drive-by IPs or new accounts)... and if they do show up on the talk page, they're often not discussing so much as calling everyone on-page *scrolls up* transphobic, ignorant, or at the very least unwilling to normalize underutilized pronouns, which they basically WP:CAPSLOCK at all present before leaving forever.

I think the current consensus is "well, Rebecca isn't against she/her, and most sources use she/her"... which is a consensus with a rationale (even if the rationale is only slightly stronger than, say, a plastic lawn chair in the wind), but I think the rationale could in theory just as easily exist with at least that "level of strength" (even if not an identical rationale) for they/them (particularly as Rebecca is also okay with those). I'm personally very neutral as to which way I'd swing in this kind of discussion but now I wanna pore over policy and guidelines and sources (and previous discussion) and try to see if there's a nice rationale that could be put forth. XP - Purplewowies (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what you've laid out here. I've been thinking for a bit about this topic, actually, because I think it goes beyond just this article. A discussion here could change the pronouns in this article, but more articles keep popping up all the time where this situation comes up. Wikipedia doesn't have an overarching policy for what to do when an article subject uses multiple pronouns and has no preference, as far as I could tell last I looked. Thus, it's always up to consensus on specific articles, and the same arguments are rehashed over and over on various talk pages (by editors, and by frustrated readers/one-time editors). I've been hesitant to start a large discussion because I have a feeling I know which way it would go ("we should use one set of pronouns to avoid confusing readers and that should be the one that is most common in reliable sources", aka basically what articles are doing anyway), and I don't know if I agree with that.

Either way, I think that it is valuable to consider what readers have to say, even the ones who stumble onto a talk page and yell at editors because they don't understand how Wikipedia works and think we're all transphobic jerks. It's easy to discard those comments because of how they're phrased, and I'm not saying we shouldn't, but there maybe is some substance there. I was shaken a few months ago by a conversation among some friends of mine in an online queer space, where they were criticizing Wikipedia for the use of she/her pronouns in a similar case, Jessie Mei Li (saying it's transphobic, it's conforming to the gender binary they've said they don't fit in, it's not that hard to understand multiple pronouns, etc). These are people whose opinions I value generally, so to hear them share these points made me less quick to throw them away. Clearly a decent portion of our readership feels this way, and I don't think those points should be discarded in any potential future discussion, whether or not you or I agree personally (and yeah, I too am not sure yet which way I'd go). Aerin17 (t • c) 23:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Right. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy when it comes to people with multiple pronouns either. I still tend to favor using the same pronouns throughout an article, whether she/her or they/them in terms of Rebecca. At the same time, I do tend to believe that the most common pronouns should be used for Rebecca. I did find an interview with Matt Braly, the creator of Amphibia, where he uses they/them to describe Rebecca's work, saying, in part, "Well, so I'm a huge fan of Rebecca's. I've always loved their stuff and their music...we were friends and I knew them...I really just love their work." 2021/2022 articles in Variety, Polygon, NPR, Insider, AWN, and Movieweb all use she/her for Rebecca, but articles in Feminism in India, Variety have used they/them, while Kuow uses both, as does Out Magazine. But, certainly, the opinions of those in online queer spaces are important, especially to discussions like this one. I sometimes struggle with the policy on here about needing reliable sources in that it tends to privilege mainstream media sources, as noted in MOS:TVLEAD and WP:FILMLEAD, in that it can be hard when it comes to indie animation, as such sources can be hard to come by. I know that's a whole other discussion, but I do think about that, and the fact that there are inherent biases within Wikipedia which may be a barrier to entry for those in online queer spaces, or that the environment on here is too conflict-prone that they don't want to engage, which I totally understand. There is a part in MOS:GIDINFO about pronouns which might be helpful here:

If consensus cannot be reached over which pronouns to use for a subject, rewriting to avoid pronouns altogether may be considered. However, this can make the article very awkward or confusing to read and therefore should only be done as a last resort. Some editors favor the use of the Singular they in cases where gender identity is in question and no pronoun preference has been declared by the biographical subject. Other editors do not. they/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them.

I did a search on the LGBT studies Wikiproject and found some discussion about this one in 2021 (which I actually participated in, something I didn't remember until now, lol), including comments like:

• "Switching between pronouns without a visible explanation would probably confuse the majority of readers"
• "I still think that some sort of guideline that mandates the use of multiple pronouns for individuals that have expressed they want to be referred to as such is necessary"
• "...only one (like they/them or she/her) [set of pronouns] should be used in an article, rather than switching back and forth...I still would say that for consistency sake, generally, only one set of pronouns should be used" (my argument at the time)
• "I oppose switching between multiple pronouns within an article, as confusing to the average reader"
• "Many RS do use multiple pronouns...so one cannot make a blanket statement that it contravenes RS to use multiple pronouns"
• "My answer, generally, no, we shouldn't [use multiple pronouns]; this is encyclopedic prose, we should pick one acceptable set and stick to it. But there are exceptions"
• "As long as switching back and forth [between pronouns] causes no confusion, I'm not against it for those cases"
• "Yes, this has been proposed multiple times before, and been rejected. There is no reason to think consensus would have changed on it."
• "Personally I think articles about individuals who use multiple pronouns should just mention it once"
• " For individuals with multiple pronouns, i believe it's best to use multiple pronouns, but i can see how that is frustrating for consistency"

There have also been past edit wars over "a set or reversions over pronouns" on other pages, especially for non-binary people, and a whole discussion as whether non-binary (foreign) persons prefer masculine/feminine pronouns (in English). And there are even older discussions talking about using the person's pronoun of choice for transgender people, the same principle which applies to Rebecca and current pronoun usage. Also, this about drag queens could be somewhat relevant here, in terms of using multiple pronouns:

Generally speaking, the rule for writing about drag queens is the same as the rule for speaking about them: when you're writing about the drag character, you use the pronouns that are applicable to the gender of the character, but when you're writing about the performer's personal life out of drag, you use the pronouns that are applicable to their real-life gender identity. Yes, this can result in mixing of pronouns when a drag queen identifies as male in his personal life, but of course there are also both cis and trans women who do drag, as well as queens who identify as non-binary or genderqueer and use gender-neutral pronouns — and both of the articles you've singled out actually appear to be doing it wrong, because they both use female pronouns consistently, even for out-of-drag personal life content, without actually stating or sourcing that either Zavion Davenport or Joey Santolini identifies as female outside of their work as drag performers.

Apart from this, MOS:NB states "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise" although this doesn't mention multiple pronouns. Another comment in yet another discussion says "as the statement is that they identify as enby, and they have no firm preference, it would be consistent to use singular they as a pronoun" and another said "Changing the pronouns to pronouns that are in direct conflict with a person's gender identity is in violation of the MOS:IDENTITY guideline."

So, without a unifying policy, I guess its all up to consensus on here to decide if to use multiple pronouns or not. Sorry for the longish comment. I did NOT intend for it to be this long when I started it... it just morphed into this beast of a comment. Historyday01 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your digging! That April 2021 discussion on the LGBT WikiProject is especially insightful. I'm getting the sense, from skimming various discussions and from what I've seen across a variety of articles, that there is a sitewide consensus as of the past few months/years, it's just not explicitly stated anywhere. (Or perhaps it's more that each article determines individual consensus, but they all end up with the same thing anyway.) That implicit consensus, as is probably evident, is to pick one set of pronouns for consistency (generally that which is most common in reliable sources, or that which the subject prefers if they've stated a preference), clarify in the article with a footnote after the first use of the pronoun (e.g. "Page uses he/him and they/them pronouns.^[3] This article uses he/him pronouns for consistency." from Elliot Page), and include notes for editors explaining this decision in various places (talk page, edit notice, and/or invisible comments). I haven't found any cases of modern subjects using multiple pronouns that are handled significantly differently. (Though there are, of course, other cases of pronoun confusion; entirely unrelated to the current discussion, but I recall an interesting discussion from October.)

Back on topic, given the apparent implicit consensus and the interview links provided by Historyday01 above, which demonstrate she/her being used more frequently in RS, my preference would be to stick with she/her pronouns for this article (i.e. not change anything in the article itself) and clarify the talk page template with that language Purplewowies suggested up above. Aerin17 (t • c) 17:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I'm definitely fine with that consensus and using she/her pronouns for the article while clarifying the talk page template with the language Purplewowies proposed. Yeah, I'm ok with that. I think in the coming year, it is likely that more articles will start using they/them. That's just my guess. The discussions on the LGBT WikiProject are usually pretty good actually, especially when there's a discussion with someone who has multiple pronouns. Historyday01 (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I read all this text and lost all ability to think of any response other than "cool, yes, I agree with all of this". XD (I do want to clarify from when I brought it up initially about IP/new users yelling and then leaving that my problem was more with them leaving--incivility is one thing (and can be a byproduct of passion or frustration, even the WP:CIVIL policy acknowledges this), but when the person who leads with it leaves forever after doing it, there's no opportunity for course correcting or engaging them in deeper, productive discussion (even if other people discuss within the same section).) ...I still kind of want to do my own snooping around later but I think the current suggestions are... good? - Purplewowies (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think so too. There is a phenomenon of run-by edits of pages, often by IP editors who make one comment, and then follow-up with any further discussion, which can be a bit frustrating. I've had some good conversations with IP editors/new editors, but sometimes they can also be disruptive, so it can be a mixed bag. Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)