Talk:Sharon Needles

Pronouns

Well, the way the article is currently written, it uses both male and female pronouns, and I feel that the article should be consistent. Seeing as female pronouns are predominantly used on the show, among drag queens in general, and in past Wiki articles of contestants, those should be used. I'll be editing this article to reflect that. Amkutzko (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've just finished a rewrite for the article and every source I found (including Needles' offical website) refers to Needles in the feminine. Granted, this may be deemed as confusing for the casual reader here on Wikipedia, and many of these sources were quite possibly writing for an audience that they were assuming was already "in the know" regarding Drag Race being a series featuring drag queens, but unless/until sources and/or Needles herself, begin to refer to her in the masculine, I also believe the article should be written using the feminine. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Aaron Cody is a MALE. He is a FEMALE IMPERSONATOR. If male pronouns are used for RuPaul's article, then they should be used in this article. Coady legally remains a male (e.g. passport, driver's license, etc.) and unless he undergoes a sex change operation such as Amanda Lepore, Candis Cayne, or Chaz Bono, male pronouns should only be used. --XLR8TION (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, all articles on past RPDR contestants use male pronouns. The only exception would be if there is an article written for Sonique (season 2) who is presently transitioning into female. She has posted information on her Facebook page discussing her progress and is into her second year of a 5 year process in order to achieve her goal. Sharon Needles is a character. What would people think if we were to change Martin Lawrence's article to show only female pronouns simply because he does a majority of his characters in drag (e.g. Sheneneh, Big Momma, etc.) Not only would this be grammatically incorrect, it would be misleading.--XLR8TION (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, but Sharon is female. If the article is about Sharon, it should use feminine pronouns. If it's about Aaron, pronouns should be masculine. I think it should be decided whether this article is about Aaron, the creator of Sharon Needles, or the character, Sharon, herself. Sharon doesn't need a sex change, because she's a character. Would you write an article about a transgender character on a TV show in the opposite sex pronouns of the character (because the actor is not transgender)? I think we should change the pronouns back to feminine ones. 1:24pm, 5 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkcory (talk • contribs)

The article isn't just about the character – it's also about the performer himself (early life, personal life, etc). I originally planned to rewrite the article using male pronouns, however, I ended up changing my mind to err on the side of using female pronouns after all the sources I could find were referring to Needles "in universe" as female (even the ones discussing his early life, personal life, etc). I ended up changing my mind back for several reasons, the two most important are: #1) As stated above, this article is about both the performer and his better known drag persona. #2) Using female pronouns is confusing for the average reader (who may not be a fan of Drag Race) to decipher whether the subject is a man or a woman. I can see how this issue concerning drag performers in particular is a little confusing (since drag performers have only really begun to gain "mainstream" notoriety in recent years), but there are several issues to consider: Many public figures (actors, singers, etc) change their given names to professional names (Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Rita Hayworth, etc), however, it's Wikipedia's policy to keep their pages under the names that they are best known (for example: the majority of people are not going to embark on a search for "Francis Gumm" when they want to look up Judy Garland). The best example I can give in this case is the Wikipeda article about the drag performer Divine. Divine was born "Glenn Milstead", but he worked professionally as "Divine" (even later in his career when he played male roles). I don't know if it was ever a deliberate decision on his part, but there comes a time in a celebrity's career when their "stage" name, for all intents and purposes, replaces their "birth" name in the eyes of the public (as far as studios were concerned, putting the name "Glenn Milstead" on a film poster would have zero marquee value, while the name "Divine" would be instantly recognizable to his public, thereby making money for the studio). If Sharon Needles begins to decide to make professional appearances in film, television, etc, and makes a deliberate attempt to be credited professionally as Aaron Cody, then we can consider moving his page to reflect his given name. Until such time, I believe "Sharon Needles" should be considered the "professional" name that he is best known by, not just a "character", but also as a public figure. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • I recently initiated a discussion on the pronouns used in Carmen Carrera's article. They were changed to feminine after she announced on an ABC News news program that she was now a transgender woman. As a result, even the category female impersonator was remove. RuPaul's article uses male pronouns because he has always identified himself as a male. Unless a public declaration is made with regards to gender identity (gender dysphoria) or gender reassignment surgery (such as Chaz Bono, Candis Cayne, and Amanda Lepore) than male pronouns will be used in this article. Aaron Coady's birth certificate, driver's license, and passport all identify him as male and to change gender on those documents he would have to file a legal motion with the courts. By the way here is an article on singer Tom Gable who announced she is a transgender female and will begin gender reassignment surger. [1]. Notice how the author uses female pronouns only after Gable made his public announcement.--XLR8TION (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Needles refers to herself as she/her, see her website: http://sharonneedles.com/#about This article calls her "her" throughout: http://www.out.com/entertainment/2012/08/15/sharon-needles-drag-superstar-aaron-coady Per MOS:IDENTITY, Sharon Needles should be referred to using the gendered nouns and pronouns (e.g., "she", "her") that "reflect [her] latest expressed gender self-identification." This applies in references to any phase of her life. Sharon Needles is not a "he." 184.75.114.3 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The website is about Sharon Needles the character. This article is about Aaron Coady, the performer who plays Sharon. He identifies as a MALE and thus the article should use MALE pronouns, as do all of the other Drag Race contestants. The article is titled "Sharon Needles" due to the fact that he is more well known by that title, like Lady Gaga or Freddie Mercury, but that doesn't magically change his gender. 94.6.55.190 (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sharon Needles refers to herself as she/her, on her website, in interviews and in real life. (See http://www.out.com/entertainment/2012/08/15/sharon-needles-drag-superstar-aaron-coady which refers to her as she/her) The Sharon Needles wikipedia article is about Sharon Needles. Per MOS:IDENTITY, stop changing her pronouns to male pronouns.50.74.152.2 (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Cody appears to identify as a man. He makes it pretty clear in the Out interview that he is gay male, referring to himself as "gay" multiple times and even as a "f**got." He also makes it clear that Sharon is merely his performance persona and, in fact, she has a completely different personality than his real one (she is stupid; he is smart. She is sweet; he is an asshole). And this Wikipedia article is about Aaron Cody. . .it just uses the title "Sharon Needles" because that is the name Aaron is most famous under. But title notwithstanding, this article is about Aaron the real person, not Sharon the drag persona. MOS:IDENTITY makes clear that in cases of individuals where their gender is in dispute, we go with the person's latest gender self-identification "even when source usage would indicate otherwise." So it doesn't matter if most articles refer to Aaron as "she" because his latest gender self-identification is still that he is a gay man. Almost every article about a gay male drag queen on Wikipedia already uses male pronouns. See RuPaul, Divine, and Bianca Del Rio. There is simply no reason according to either Wikipedia guidelines or Wikipedia precedent to use female pronouns in this article. Rebecca Weaver (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is titled Sharon Needles. It is about Sharon Needles. Sharon Needles is female. If this article were titled Aaron Coady, sure, have male pronouns. But it isn't. It is about the character Sharon Needles.

Name

I also changed her name to (bolded) Sharon Needles (the title of the article) in addition to (bolded) Aaron Coady. I could list any number of professional entertainment figures who do not go by their legal name but a stage name, and Wikipedia calls them by their stage name. This goes doubly for drag queens (The Lady Bunny, Hedda Lettuce, Coco Peru, et al.) Amkutzko (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I agree. It's become standard practice for drag performers to refer to themselves, and each other, by their public persona/drag names. While the he/she debate (referred to above) may reach a different consensus, I'd definitely object if someone attempted to move the page itself to Needles' given birth name (a name which, arguably, very few would recognize). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguity

There's a Sharon Needles who is also part of the old group Butt Trumpet (see article Betty Blowtorch) and Betty Blowtorch is not mentioned here causing the casual reading to be less able to differentiate between this Sharon and the one who is in Butt Trumpet (or are they the same person and if so, please add this notable mention as part of the article or accept a "stub"/needs attention tag). Johnhgagon (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Singles

Just to notify whoever created/edited the pages for "This Club is a Haunted House" and "Call Me on the Ouija Board," they aren't notable enough to have separate articles. Keep them as redirects to the album PG-13, which is already a stub (the information for the songs could easily be merged onto that page). Neither song has charted (which is what justified pages for songs for RuPaul or Willam Belli) nor do they have reviews or the references to make anything but a stub. In the case of Ouija Board, it isn't even technically a "single" because it didn't have a separate release from PG-13; it is only a music video. Burnberrytree (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support for such a move  Philg88 ^♦talk 05:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Sharon Needles → Aaron Coady – He is a man, not only as opposed to a woman in general, but as opposed to a (genuine) trans woman. It is important not to confuse trans women with drag queens. A trans woman (e.g. Christine Jorgensen) is a woman. Was Christine Jorgensen a woman throughout her life?? Yes, only in the wrong body before it was changed with surgery. She always had her female brain structure. A trans woman should be referred to with the same terms a woman in general is referred to with (e.g. woman, she, her, girl, daughter, sister, aunt, niece, wife, lesbian partner, stepmother, adopted mother.) A drag queen is not a real woman. Is Aaron Coady a woman?? No. He is not a woman, and not even a trans woman. He is a man, and must be referred to with male terms. Georgia guy (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This stage name is the common name, just like any other stage or pen name. Leaving pronouns in running text aside, there is no reason to move the article away from the common name, and no risk of confusion for anyone reading the article. We wouldn't move Marilyn Manson to Brian Hugh Warner or George Eliot to Mary Ann Evans, and need not move this. Dekimasuよ! 20:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The stage names is the common term by wich the public identifies this individual. Found5dollar (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The naming guidelines for articles about people do not mention anywhere that they can be vetoed if the subject is judged to be "not a real woman" - not that this peson claims to be a woman. The guidelines for articles about people do mention preferring common names above legal names, and this article is undoubtedly at the subject's common name. While it is off topic here, I cannot help but observe that the WP:MOS:IDENTITY guideline, containing a separate parallel naming convention for military veterans who leaked classified information and the claimed to be transsexual, is bad, wrong and harmful. By creating a separate, privileged, "protected" class of article subjects, it creates the impression that it is desirable to read people out of the protected class based on one or several editors' personal judgement, and in so doing to "punish" the article subject for having been read out. The avove nomination is not in itself a BLP violation, but it is perilously close - and follows naturally from the class-based naming conventions that apply differently to protected versus unprotected people. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, which Dekimasu alluded to above. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and the reason for the proposed move is simply an opinion about how to gender classify people. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

  You mean, plenty of people are entitled to the opinion that drag queens are real women?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose You're not getting anywhere with this move request, let me say… Seems you're right, this person self-identified as male. His stage name still was Sharon Needles, and he was still known by it. —innotata 20:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. When stage names are better known than real names that's what we use. I'm not really sure where the nominator's argument is coming from? Is it that they think this is insulting to transsexuals? I really don't see how. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  He is not a woman, not even a transgender woman. Unlike Christine Jorgensen, who is a trans woman, this person is a drag queen, and unlike trans women, drag queens are not real women; they're men who dress as women for entertainment purposes. This requested move is not analogous to a move of Christine Jorgensen to "George Jorgensen". What am I getting wrong?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  For the purposes of this line of argument, it seems like it would help to discard the assumption that someone popularly known as "Sharon" must be a woman. Dekimasuよ! 20:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per Dekimasu and Marilyn Manson. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TAXIDERMY

please create a page for "Taxidermy". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.81.41 (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Source re: Billboard charts

• https://www.billboard.com/photos/8463635/drag-race-queens-charts-record ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Discography

What happened to her discography page? I could've sworn she had a full discography page just recently and now it seems like its been removed without a trace? Could someone please fill me in?Gagaluv1 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Abuse allegations

This is a very delicate issue and I think we need to think about how are we going to handle it, but since I haven't seen any comment on it I thought it's at least necessary to start the conversation to see if (and if yes, how) it's something that belongs in this article. I'm going to try to keep the wording as neutrally as possible.

A longtime fan of drag race that goes by the name Annecy posted a lengthy document accusing Sharon Needles of abusive behavior, including giving drugs to a minor, encouraging them to self-harm and quit medications, indecent exposure, and advising them to stay quiet about potential abuse by other people. Here's the twitter thread where they started the accusations.. There is also a very long google document elaborating on everything told in that thread. It has explicit imagery and language, so I'm not sure if I should link it, but it's linked within the thread.

At least three former contestants have commented on this. Joslyn Fox stating that she knows it's true, Phi Phi O'Hara to say that people shouldn't cheapen it by linking it to jokes about his run in the show, and Aquaria to say that her experiences with Sharon were not abusive, but without downplaying the accusations. As far as I know, there haven't been any pronouncements by Sharon about it, although Annecy states that they received a message from Sharon responding to the accusations.

I know this is very complicate, considering we're talking about the biography of a living person and this kind of material needs to be carefully assessed before any move, so I'd like to ask: Where do you think we stand on this? Is there enough weight in this situation to include it in the article? Not A Superhero (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can include anything on this until and unless there's WP:SECONDARY coverage of it; it's highly contentious material being added to a BLP. Tweets can only be used as sources if they satisfy the criteria of WP:ABOUTSELF, which these don't since they're not even Tweets by Sharon herself. Armadillopteryx^talk 23:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx is correct about this. With something this loaded, we cannot include it in a Wikipedia article on the basis of social networking content or blogs — we simply can't go there at all until real media start reporting on the situation as news. Disseminating unverified and unreported claims about people's private behaviour, solely on the basis of what people say on Twitter, is not what Wikipedia is here for. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I highly disagree with Armadillopteryx. These allegations are important to include in the article and several pages have already covered all of the allegations. Like I edited, there is already a news site that covered what happened with Annecy. I'm begging you guys to keep it here as people who oome in contact with Sharon uninformed may be endangered. Redandvidya (talk) 12:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Redandvidya, and thanks for posting here! Whether or not we include this information is not up to our personal views or beliefs about these claims. On Wikipedia, we can only add information that has been reported in reliable, secondary sources. Most of the citations you added were to Tweets, which are not allowed as sources because they are self-published. Sources like tha are only acceptable if they are Tweets by the subject and are only making claims about the subject themself. In this case, Tweets by other queens about Sharon do not satisfy that criterion.

I see you did link one secondary source, namely this. However, I am not sure whether it is considered a reliable source. It is difficult for me to find evidence that this source exercises editorial discretion and has a reputation for fact-checking. If this source is deemed reliable, we could include only the information mentioned in this source. However, because the claims you want to add are contentious, and because this is a WP:BLP, we need to exercise caution and gain consensus on the talk page first. Pinging Not A Superhero and Bearcat as other participants of earlier discussion. Armadillopteryx 00:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I would have to dismiss "Reality Titbit" as a reliable source; it's pretty clearly a blog, which is not a class of source we can use on here either.

Redandvidya, please note that Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. It is not our job to concern ourselves with things people say on Twitter — our job is to rely on journalism in real media, not social networking platforms or blogs, and to say absolutely nothing that hasn't been backed up by professional journalists. If you're concerned that "people who come in contact with Sharon uninformed may be endangered", then take it to the media whose responsibility it is to do something about that — if you cannot show that a real journalist has investigated the claims and found them to be true, then it's simply not our responsibility to say jack spit about them here in lieu of real journalism. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat and Armadillopterix here. While I brought the issue up, since my first post I acknowledged it was a very delicate issue, and I'd agree that the coverage we have had about it is insufficient and insufficiently reliable to allow inclusion in the article. Not A Superhero (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The entire thing is Sharon has reason to not address these allegations. But the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence shows that Sharon did in fact assault Annecy or be inappropriate on so many occasions. Doesn't help the fact that there are literal mounds of crazy Sharon fans denying these abuse allegations out of obsessed standom. And again these ARE sharon's coworkers and friends PUBLICLY agreeing that the victim is right and Sharon is manipulative. There has to be another way to solve this instead of censoring it, because what y'all's essentially doing is going with the narrative that the victim didn't do anything and that Sharon is innocent when he's not, he's a total predator. Redandvidya (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

First, please post replies below the comment you are replying to (and below other replies of the same level); don't post in the middle of other people's comments, which separates them from their signatures. I have moved this comment for you.

Second, we can reason all we want about the allegations and Sharon's motives to address or not address them. But at the end of the day, it does not matter even if we all agree we think the claims are true and that people should hear them. Only verifiable information previously published in reliable, secondary sources can go on Wikipedia. As Bearcat said, If your main concern is getting the word out, the right people to contact would be the press, not Wikipedia. If reliable, secondary news sources first write about these claims, we can then cite those sources on Wikipedia. Armadillopteryx 14:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Redandvidya, it's not a question of whether Sharon has personally addressed the claims or not — it's a question of whether journalists have investigated the claims, and published their findings as journalism, or not. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism from IP

The new "Controversies" section has faced repeated vandalism/removal over the past few days by what I'm guessing to be Sharon fans. Would it be appropriate to request semi-protection on the article? Thank you. shanghai.^{talk to me} 14:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Use of N-word

Hi, I'm not often an editor, hence the no account (and I'm not sure I've formatted this correctly), but I recently edited this page to remove the N-word from the section on controversies, whilst maintaining a link to the page for the slur. I feel it's not relevant to have the full word there in reference. One of the sources has the full quote, including the word, but most do not. It seems uneccesary to repeat the use of a slur when reporting on the use of a slur, unless as a quotation. I'm starting this discussion because Lol1VNIO reverted and tagged Wikipedia is not censored, so clearly there's different ideas. 2.28.186.212 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"Not censored" is policy, so I'm not sure how relevance or necessity plays a role here. N-word is a euphemism, which should generally be avoided in accordance with MOS:EUPHEMISM. While "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content, it isn't the case here (see the rest of the guideline). Spelling out the entire word is relevant to avoid misquoting her, especially if it's surrounded by quotation marks. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 18:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources for those abuse claims.

@Gordo7179: Regarding this edit. First, I thank you for giving an explanation.

The Daily Beast is yellow on WP:RSP; OK fair, sometimes RS, sometimes not. However, its entry says to be really cautious for controversial statements on WP:BLPs. Abuse and harassment are hefty accusations and seeing the dark side of their track record, it's pretty much entering the red territory at this point, in this specific situation. It's good that you know of RSP, because you also reinstated (I'm assuming this was overlooked twice) content cited to a Metro source. The Headgum podcast and YouTube videos are just WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB, respectively. Additionally, I fixed some weaselwording ("activists Enakai and Maura Ciseaux" instead of "some") that you reverted also.

Point is, we've now solved the secondary-source-needed problem discussed above -- however, the reliability issue is still very much in question. Best, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 20:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

From my understanding, DB thoroughly investigated the subject matter and received a large amount of evidence from the alleged victim(s) and viewed it in person along with their lawyers. Yes, DB has a rocky track record but that does not mean that every article released by them fits into that. The alleged victim also previously released a long document of evidence validating their allegations. Many wikipedias have used Daily Beast articles regarding abuse as citations (see: Nick Carter (singer) which was authored by the same writer.) Needles has a long, public history of violence and it is well documented in the DB article. It is imperative that these allegations are discussed not just for the sake of biography, but people should be aware for their own safety. Gordo7179 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Alleged victims releasing papers, even with seemingly irrefutable evidence, cannot be directly cited, especially for heavy accusations, since they're WP:BLPPRIMARY. I am completely disinterested from Needles, but she denies all of these claims and BLP dictates the praesumptio innocentiae principle. Furthermore, these accusations need higher quality sources than something its former editor-in-chief called a "'high-end' tabloid" (this is an article they just published today). With this in mind, I would argue that the Nick Carter statements should also be removed; however, there's a CNN reference standing right of it that verifies the identical statement, so I'll leave it as is.

On a final note, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with WP:BLP as one of its content policies. To report for the sake of biography should be the only thing it does. Otherwise we would see The Sun and Daily Mail in every single biographical article. Best, ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 21:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

What of sources like PinkNews and Vulture, which are listed as green on WP:RSP and have published articles about the story? While restricting tabloid journalism is clearly for the best, if multiple reliable sources have referenced or published articles about the story, shouldn't that give the story more credibility?

Additionally, this story is a significant event in the life and career of Needles. If Wikipedia is to act only as a biography, shouldn't a story that has drastically effected the trajectory of her career be covered? 114.45.136.175 (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)