Talk:Sophie (musician)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Review?

I am neither unregistered nor a new user, and I have edits that are "automatically accepted" on this page, so why now pending revisions awaiting review? nyxærös 22:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: Either a) a bug (I've seen that, rarely) or b) you edited a version which was not reviewed, and did not accept the version thereafter (do you have PCR?), in which case it is perfectly normal. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have PCR yet, and my last couple of edits have been that way. Although most of the edits that took place before the revision I created are accepted automatically, like this one, I still got pending review. Hope it will be fixed soon. Thank you for the reply. ภץאคгöร 17:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Notable people who gave tributes to SOPHIE

The extensive list of people who gave tributes to SOPHIE has been cut down to one person who had an unreleased collaboration (Rihanna), and two other people who were not connected to her in any way (Sam Smith and Christine). I can't understand why someone would have a problem with having her tributes be related to people who were known friends and collaborators spanning years. People are just blatantly ignoring the fact that the people mentioned in her death had little to no influence on her life (which I know shouldn't be assumed, but I feel the people I listed are better suited to be mentioned)

Artists in the current links for that section which include friends and collaborators are: Charli XCX, Danny L Harle, Shygirl, and Arca. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DayNightman (talk • contribs) 23:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi DayNightman, you can sign your posts in discussions by ending them with the code ~~~~. Wikipedia is primarily based on secondary sources, which tells us what to say, where to say it and how to say it. In that regard I see there's several sources presented in the article already and I am in favour of including more names—those mentioned in multiple good sources, maybe, or those in headlines of articles. However, long lists of names are only so useful and maybe something actually said in the tributes (that are quoted by secondary sources) would be good to quote—this could give information to readers about what some people think Sophie's legacy will be.

It is on the job of Pitchfork et al. to actually be determining whose tributes to Sophie are the most important and so I don't think it's our place to be re-evaluating from scratch who was most connected to Sophie or whether that's even the most important factor (I might expect someone's level of "household name"-iness or the viewership of their tribute to be important factors too). — Bilorv (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Birth name yet again

@FreeEncyclopediaMusic: edited the article to add Sophie's FAMILY name at birth. I rejected the edit as a PendingChanges patroller, and others have done so before me, so I am bringing it here for discussion. WP:DEADNAME simply that a person's assumed name only should be used, not making it explicit that it refers only to personal / first names. However, MOS:NEE states that editors can or should add the birth family name - Courtney Love nee Harrison is an example cited. I don't have a strong view but it seems to me, from my very limited knowledge of the matter, that Sophie actively wanted to avoid use of her birth family name and that, all things being equal, such a wish should be respected even after her death. Views please ... Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Some editors have made the argument on WT:MOSBIO that SOPHIE was notable as "Sophie Long". Do any Reliable Sources verify this? I haven't seen any. Newimpartial (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

The birth Name absolutely SHOULD be included. This is a real person, who is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia entry. Reference to Gender should be handled delicately, but it is, aside from that there should be no consideration of what a deceased strove for in terms of concealing their identity. If a valid, legitimate, history of the person is not something their fans want, then they should NOT have a Wikipedia entry. This is meant to be a resource, and provide real information about subjects, including persons. Almost all other entries of people who use a stage name or adopt an identity have the real name and personal details. Why is this even being discussed, if such information is available, it ABSOLUTELY SHOULD be put in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.85.31 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not what MOS:DEADNAME says. Newimpartial (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The birth name should be included. The person is truly dead and their feelings cannot be hurt. There's excellent discussion on this matter at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sophie_(musician)/Archive_1#Birth_name_yet_again 173.88.246.138 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion you link to did not reach a consensus to include the birth name. Also note that, like all BLP policies, MOS:DEADNAME applies to recently deceased persons. Newimpartial (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This not about feelings. Their Birth name was unnotable. I see absolutely no reason why a recently deceased person should be respected any less than a living person. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Christ, are we seriously reverting to this discussion? The link to the "excellent discussion" is discussion that did not establish any consensus to include the birth name at all, as Newimpartial said. As for the whole "feelings" thing, it's not about anyone's "feelings", regardless of how disrespectful and gravedancey it is to shoehorn a trans person's deadname into an article where it bears no real relevance - Sophie wasn't famous under that name whatsoever, hence why it wasn't in the article before the recent death. It's about the fact we need to follow MOS:DEADNAME as the article concerns a recently deceased person. Now can we please move on and stop trying to add this where there is quite clearly NO consensus for it? Cheers. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 03:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The birth name appeared in the article for many years, so I don't know why you are saying "it wasn't in the article before the recent death." Here are instances of the name in the article in March 2017, December 2017, August 2018, December 2018, May 2019, November 2019, April 2020, September 2020, and 26 January 2021, the final state of the article before her death date was introduced. Certainly there was edit warring to remove the name, but the status quo for several years was to preserve the birth name in the article, based on Pitchfork and NME articles containing the name. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was ever a stable version, but even if it was, a status quo against clear MOS standards wouldn't really count for anything. Newimpartial (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You might be surprised to find that there was a time prior to Wikipedia having a deadname policy, where we instead had a changed name policy. The MOS:DEADNAME shortcut was created in July 2018. At the time, the relevant policy was this: "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either 'born' or 'formerly'. " The next month, August 2018, we had a wider discussion about Sophie at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive273#Sophie_(musician), at which only a few editors said that the birth name should not be present. The majority acknowledged that the birth name had already been published by a dozen high quality sources including two LGBT-friendly publications. Binksternet (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

My point was basically WP:CONLEVEL. Now we do have site-wide consensus (recently reaffirmed) for MOS:DEADNAME, so as to any local consensus to include the birth name in this article - as we used to chant for the losing local side at football matches, It just doesn't matter. Newimpartial (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Better photo?

Is there any way we could use a better photo? The current one is a frame grab from a low-quality video of a live performance. Could we get something like this? Or this? Surely something is out there that's better than the current one. HarryKernow (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not it's the best image currently at commons:Category:Sophie (musician). On Flickr you can search for keywords along with Commons-compatible licenses, or you could try to find an ex-agent to contact about taking a press release photographer through the donating copyrighted materials OTRS form (unlikely they'd agree), but other than that it may be that we can't get ahold of a better image without some change in the situation (e.g. someone freely publishing a better-quality image of Sophie from a live performance). — Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Birth name again

The following discussion 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.

---

The discussions above have petered out but I see there's been a lot of back-and-forth additions and reversions of SOPHIE's birth name over the last few months, and particularly the last few days. It's hard to say whether there's been anything resembling a 'status quo'. July 3 - August 9 was the longest period of stability, with no birth name in the article throughout that period. From April-July it seems like the birth name may have been present more often than not, but there are a lot of reversions related to the birth name during that period, so the edit history is hard to grok.

My (potentially biased) summary of the state of sourcing around this issue: SOPHIE's birth name is mentioned in coverage by several RS from before she publicly came out as trans (see examples linked in comment above by User:Binksternet). However, it seems like most RS coverage from that period does not mention it, and those that do always do so in passing, while primarily referring to her as SOPHIE. This is quite different from, say, the example of Deirdre McCloskey (mentioned above as an example of an article on a trans woman which includes her birth name in the infobox), where much of the writing for which she is notable was published under her birth name. It's also different from the example of Laverne Cox (whose birth name is not mentioned anywhere in her article), where her birth name is simply not WP:VERIFIABLE by reliable sources.

For the sake of discussion, I'd like to present four potential options re birth name:

1. Include it in lead sentence
2. Include it in infobox (under the birth_name parameter)
3. Include it in body
4. Don't include it anywhere

I mention 1 for completeness, but it seems like there's pretty strong consensus against this option, per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES (aka MOS:DEADNAME). That leaves 2-4 as viable options. The edit history has a lot of ping-ponging between 2 and 4, but 3 hasn't really been discussed, and I'm curious whether it might represent an acceptable compromise between 2 and 4. If we were to include it in the body, I'd suggest doing so in the "Origins and early years" section. i.e. "Sophie was born and grew up in Glasgow, Scotland." -> "Sophie was born Samuel Long, and grew up in Glasgow, Scotland."

The rationale for 3 would be that the birth name is WP:NOTEWORTHY, but not a "key fact", and therefore not appropriate for the infobox (per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE / WP:DUE).

My first choice would be 4, but if that fails to find consensus, I would support 3 as a compromise. But curious to hear others' thoughts. Colin M (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• 3 is fine for me. I prefer a prose presentation to the bare infobox entry of 2. I am strongly against 4 as it would represent Wikipedia turning away from basic biographical facts that have been published by reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Colin M found a good prose solution with this series of edits describing how Sophie's identity was represented in her early career. I'd say the birth name problem is fixed. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to make it clear for anyone reading this that news organisations Do Not Care about whether printing someone's birth name is relevant to their career in whatever field they choose. They only print it because they want to stir up public opinion of trans people and dehumanise them. Taking after news organisations in your style of editing is never a good idea, as they will always have biases, and wikipedia is one of the most unbiased sources of information in the world. No matter what any other source prints, discussion as to someone's deadname should first and foremost take the person's opinion into account, and only then should discussion as to whether it is relevant to their career happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesGordon69 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The news sources that printed her birth name did so before it was known that she was a trans woman, so I don't think it's fair to read transphobia or ill intent into it. Colin M (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

JamesGordon69, your idea that dead-naming "should take the person's opinion into account" is not at all part of Wikipedia's style or policy. And I have never seen a source talking about Sophie's opinion about this. Your preference would be impossible to implement.

Dead-naming is a serious problem for people who are not famous, but Wikipedia only has biographies of famous people, so the issue is hardly as important as you make it. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

New poll after death

• 4 sfs (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sophie's deadname should not be included anywhere in this article. This is not just widely accepted best practices, it is also Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Gender_identity. Jilliangrace (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Jilliangrace (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No, it's not black-and-white like you think it is. Sophie was known under her birth name which was published multiple places in 2015, which is why we are having this discussion. Your link to Wikipedia:Gender_identity is an essay, which does not set policy. The style guideline for this issue is at WP:DEADNAME, which specifically applies to living persons. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Still 3, but more explicitly placed. Now that Sophie has died, I think we should provide the reader with the birth name stated clearly in the origin and early years section.[1] Wikipedia is in the business of telling facts to the readers, and this is an important fact in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I ardently disagree. Providing Sophie's deadname does provide any significant biographical information that is not already covered by stating that Sophie was transgender. This is further bolstered by the fact that Sophie's professional name has always been Sophie. Jilliangrace (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jilliangrace (talk • contribs) 20:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC) Jilliangrace (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1, 2, 3 — include in lead sentence, infobox, and body as "Born as ...". Reason being, that the name was known well before Sophie announced being transgender. The birth name is a fact, and I do not support the whitewashing of facts and history. -Mardus /talk 22:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• 4 Per MOS:DEADNAME, WP:DUE and WP:BLPPRIVACY. She was never notable as her deadname, that's why this page never was titled with it. She intentionally tried to keep her name anonymous and RS only ever mentioned the name in passing before she transitioned if they mentioned it at all. A lot of the rationale above against 4 includes sentiment against DEADNAME policy in general, ex. "birth name is a fact, and I do not support the whitewashing of facts and history." Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Including dead names is a value-laden decision that wiki policy as well as RS now recognize needs to be avoided in situations like these. Rab V (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

−

• Comment attaching a poll to a convo that ended years ago as well as having a striked poll lower down in the talk page with the more recent convo makes this all hard to follow. Also this may end up need restarting as an RFC anyway if there is enough disagreement. Rab V (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I was the one who started the poll below, then discovered this one here, and then struck mine. This boll is better, as it allows people to be more specific about what options to use. -Mardus /talk 22:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1, 2, 3 — Either of these, I agree with the reasons given by Mardus and Binksternet.Halbared (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• 4 only notable incident regarding birth name happened after Sophie's death, which was recorded under "the male name of birth". nyxærös 15:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 3 after more consideration of arguments presented, but 'recently deceased' applies, so not immediately. Acousmana (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 In the current period, BLP considerations still apply, but even after that I think there is understandable hesitancy in the community about publishing the deadnames of dead trans people on WP. This would be an awful case (and a kind of gravedancing) to include it here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 3, if sources being used use Sophie's dead name, and if Sophie was notable before changing names. Otherwise 4. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: having checked, none of the sources used announcing Sophie's death on this article mentioned Sophie's deadname. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• 3 - As noted previously, this person was minimally notable under her Deadname, therefore that deadname should be mentioned. However, because WP:DEADNAME (as part of WP:BLP) applies to the recently dead, we should not highlight it (yet). So - my call would be not 1, or 2 (yet). Revisit the question of lead and infobox in about five years (just to give an arbitrary number). Blueboar (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  Not an attack, but I am wondering where people get the impression that Sophie was minimally notable under [the] deadname? The policy standard is, did a person meet WP's standard for Notability at a time when they had not yet announced a preferred name different from the deadname (and in accord with their gender identity)? I have seen no evidence that that standard was met in this case, and I don't find that the 2019 discussion (above) presented meaningful support for that claim. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• 4. Referring to trans people by their deadnames is in most cases regarded as highly upsetting and offensive. Wikipedia doesn't, for example, refer to people by using ethnic slurs, even if reliable sources do so; the issue of deadnaming should be considered as more akin to that than to the mere reportage of facts. AJD (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  It does, actually, where historically appropriate. See a long list of examples in Use of nigger in the arts, or the cover image for And Then There Were None, for probably the most prominent ethnic slur. We try to avoid doing so for living people, but other than that, we do try to give all of history, including the good and the bad and the ugly. --GRuban (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 3 as a note in the body, I believe is suitable. Trillfendi (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 per Rab V. BLP applies also to recently deceased people, which applies here. Regardless of birth name, the artist was not notable under the deadname (was only ever notable as SOPHIE or Sophie Xeon) so it's bizarre to insist on including it here. To add to this, none of the sources for the death (most recent event) use the deadname here. ser! (let's discuss it). 17:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  They do, actually. See the obituaries in Variety [2], The Chicago Tribune, and [3] The Times (of London) [4] --GRuban (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  None of these are sources included in the article. ser! (let's discuss it). 13:06, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  True. But surely you'll agree it's a poor argument to say "we excluded all the sources that used his birth name, so no sources use it!" --GRuban (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• 4 As per ser!.Rab V & Per MOS:DEADNAME, WP:DUE and WP:BLPPRIVACY. The idea that every bit of sourced information about a subject's life is relevant encyclopedic data is obviously false. Her birth name was never a noteworthy fact about her, it was revealed only after her notably was fully established as Sophie. When her birth name was revealed in the press she was briefly referred to as "(deadname), better known as SOPHIE." Including her deadname makes the article fractionally more comprehensive but it is both an unnecessary depth of detail that is WP:UNDUE and harmful to trans subjects. MOS:DEADNAME in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography states In the case of a living transgender or non-binary person, the birth name should be included in the lead sentence only if the person was notable under that name...If such a subject was not notable under their former name, it usually should not be included in that or any other article, even if some reliable sourcing exists for it Even though her birth name was revealed, it was after she became famous, she was not notable under her deadname, she was always almost exclusively known as Sophie. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 per User:Ser!, User:Rab V, User:Bodney, User:AJD, MOS:DEADNAME, WP:DUE, WP:BLPPRIVACY, etc. Despite notable press coverage of the musician under the deadname prior to coming out, SOPHIE was never meaningfully known under that name for the majority of SOPHIE's career. It seems appropriate to exclude from the article when you also factor in the considerations applied surrounding the deadnaming a trans person. Sliceofcode (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 per Rab V. In particular, I would note that including the deadname would be undue weight, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. GreenComputer (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, so now birth names are indiscriminate information. Next we need to get rid of birthdates and birthplaces. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4: WP:BLPPRIVACY applies as Sophie does not seem to have discussed the birth name willingly and was never known by it (even if notable while it was Sophie's legal name). — Bilorv (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• 3: Reliable sources giving the name include Variety (after death)[5], the Guardian, [6][7] The Chicago Tribune (after death) [8] The Times (of London) (after death) [9] - these are some of the most reliable and highest standard sources we have. They put the name later in the body of the article, not in the lead, so we can follow their lead on that as well. --GRuban (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

None of these publications makes any difference in the context of MOS:DEADNAME, however. Newimpartial (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

They do, actually. We write our policies and guidelines, not completely, but to a great extent, based on what the leading news organizations of the world do. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense. The whole point of the widely-participated discussions that produced MOS:GENDERID and MOS:DEADNAME was to produce guidelines to cover these situations on a site-wide basis, and to pre-empt appeals of the kind, "but this is what The Telegraph does" or "but this is what The Guardian does". You may not like it, but it is so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

4. It's really interesting to see just how quickly some people are rushing to add Sophie's deadname before the body's even cold. To me, such behavior reads as people completely disregarding the intent of all guidelines to do with deadnaming. It is not merely to do with respecting the living, but also respecting the dead, as well as to respect those who knew Sophie, or even those with similar qualities. My honest take is that most of the people who are pushing to include Sophie's deadname simply have grown up without having to experience the kind of distress and alienation associated with seeing people like you disrespected, which creates an unfortunate cycle where people who cannot empathize with how that feels staying on Wikipedia and people who can feeling like there's no point. This kind of Wikilawyering is absolutely revolting, and Wikipedia is worse off for some people trying to include random trivia. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 19:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Abryn—many of us have grown up with the experience of "distress and alienation". I don't think Wikipedia has separate classes of people for biographies. As an encyclopedia we compile information relevant to a subject. We do this by default. Why should we deliberately omit information that may be of interest to the reader? Bus stop (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

When the argument for inclusion is merely that it is exists and thus should be included, I do not find it at all compelling to include something like this and continue to contribute to Wikipedia's representation problem. The issues is not that "we include all info for all BLPs," it's that majority groups are not as able to grasp how damaging it can be to deadname someone, and to see how quickly people jumped at the opportunity to do so. So in the future, I would recommend some introspection on how Wikipedia negatively impacts certain communities more than others and how you may contribute to that. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

At least 3, probably also 1 and 2. Option 4 does not apply. MOS:DEADNAME (an application of WP:BLPPRIV) does not apply to dead people. We just had a huge RfC about this, with a very detailed close. It's still at the top of WT:MOSBIO. That RfC has way more consensus buy-in that this one ever could, so this one is not in any position to contradict it, per WP:CONLEVEL policy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You gotta scroll down just a little further to find WP:BDP, so it's understandable if you missed it. Parabolist (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, your argument here seems improperly formed: the RfC in question did not address the issue of how long BLPPRIV concerns apply after death (in the case of trans people or otherwise), and while Sophie was alive the birth name was quite clearly not one by which the article's subject was known - the deadname principle established well before the late 2020 RfCs. So I am at a loss to see how your !vote is intended to be anything but an expression of personal feeling. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

4, at least for now. Per WP:BDP, recently deceased people should be entitled to the same consideration as the living out of respect for their families and friends. If there are valid RS references for her deadname then maybe it can be included later, although I struggle to see what it adds to the article. Searching the public records to dig it up would not be remotely valid and I very much hope that nobody will demean themselves by attempting to do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I reject choice 4, which is "Don't include it anywhere", but I am amenable to choices 1, 2, and 3. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 per Rab V, Ser!, Newimpartial and especially Abryn. Certainly 4 for now per WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BDP. The only reasonable argument for inclusion seems to be the information exists, so let's include it. Nobody knows her by that name, nobody will search for her by that name, it's trivia at best. Do we really feel so strongly about absolute inclusion that we want to dance on the grave of recently-deceased trans people by bolding their deadnames in the lead? It's disturbing that I even have to ask that. Even after an appropriate amount of time has passed, I think it would certainly be undue for the lead. Depending on the level of independent coverage it could be mentioned in the body, but from the cursory Google I've done even that doesn't seem warranted. Srey Sros^talk 06:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• 4 Per above, WP:BLPPRIVACY, WP:BDP, etc. Seems like there's nothing really encyclopedic about including it, having it on the page contributes little to understanding the subject. This is a pretty clear cut one. Sophie was always Sophie, it turns out. Parabolist (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2021 (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.

Early credits with birth name

Sophie was credited as Samuel Long several times up through 2015, and once as S. Long. People who worked with Sophie used the he/him pronouns before transition. Here are the various credits that have been published online and in the liner notes of physical releases.

• Light Asylum. Sophie remixed the song "A Certain Person" in October 2010, according to Light Asylum's post on their SoundCloud page in November 2010. The link to the SoundCloud song says, "Remixed by our friend in London the incredible Samuel Long. October 2010."
  • This remix track was included on the Light Asylum EP In Tension, as a bonus track on the CD release (not the vinyl). The track credits read, "Remix by S. Long."
• Sfire (musical group), composed of Jeffrey Sfire and Samuel Long. The 2013 12-inch vinyl disc titled Sfire was published by the CockTail d'Amore label. On the back of the release it says the first song "Sfire 2" was sung by Jeffrey Sfire, and the second song, "Sfire 3" says "Vox: Samuel Long". There's a third track taking all of the B-side, "Sfire 3E", with no vocal credits. Below that, it says "All tracks by Jeffrey Sfire & Samuel Long. Mixed by Photocall. Recorded in Berlin and England." The disc catalog number is CDA 007, the seventh title from CockTail d'Amore.
  • "Sfire 3" was remixed by John Talabot in 2016. The remix was described in 2016 by TIUmag (Spanish language music magazine) as a new remix of Sophie: "Sfire es el proyecto que unió en un mismo estudio a Jeffrey Sfire (Detroit) y Samuel Long (SOPHIE); juntos y vinculados por su pasión por el sonido New Wave/Synth-Pop, han dado forma al proyecto desde 2013 con diferentes intervenciones."[10] Talabot's remix was also released on the CockTail d'Amore label as CDA 016.
• QT (musical group), composed of Alexander Cook and Samuel Long. The Netherlands promo CD has one song, "Hey", listing the credits as "Written by Alexander Cook, Samuel Long." Released by XL Recordings in 2014, catalog number XLDS690. The various UK releases list the song as "Hey QT" with no credits given, containing two or three versions of the song: Radio Mix, Original, and Diplo Remix.
• Madonna's track "Bitch I'm Madonna" featuring Nicki Minaj includes composition and production work by Sophie. In Madonna's March 2015 album booklet for Rebel Heart,[11] the song credits are listed as: "Written by Madonna, Thomas Wesley Pentz, Ariel Rechtshaid, Maureen 'MoZella' McDonald, Toby Gad, Onika Minaj and Samuel Long." The name Sophie does not appear anywhere in this album booklet.

Sophie began using the Sophie moniker at least by January 2012,[12] but music was still being issued as Samuel Long in 2015, so there was some overlap. Jeffrey Sfire was using he/him pronouns talking in 2014 about his months of close collaboration with Samuel Long,[13] but when Sophie died, he tweeted a remembrance with she/her pronouns.

The credits using birth name are relevant to MOS:DEADNAME, showing that the birth name was used professionally, which it certainly was for a few years. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That certainly is interesting and relevant. Are there any reliable sources (besides perhaps TIUmag) that used her deadname back then? Newimpartial (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are. In 2015, Pitchfork said, "SOPHIE—long known to be the work of London-based producer Samuel Long". The same year, NME said, "SOPHIE is not a girl, but a dude: London-based producer Samuel Long"... I should think they wouldn't print that insensitive wording today. Another 2015 source is Canadian magazine Exclaim! who wrote, "SOPHIE, aka Samuel Long". The Guardian said in 2016 that Sophie was a British producer "whose real name is Samuel Long". The same year Red Bull said that Sophie was mysterious, but "we do know some basic stuff now, like what his real name is (Samuel Long), where he comes from (Glasgow) and where he currently resides (London)." Also in 2016, Queerspace magazine said "SOPHIE, the pseudonym of London-based producer-DJ Samuel Long". Another queer-friendly magazine, NOW Toronto, said in 2016, "Sophie... aka Samuel Long". The Los Angeles Times wrote in 2016, "a little-known producer, Samuel Long, also known as Sophie." In 2016, AllMusic's biography of Sophie said, "Under the moniker SOPHIE, reclusive London-based musician Samuel Long made a huge, fizzy splash..." This is probably an incomplete list of early references to the birth name. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to this article: this musician's birth name. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet, that is an interesting list of references, but I observe that all of them take the form SOPHIE ... aka (deadname) in one style or another. That is, none of them would establish the deadname as a name under which the person was notable, for purposes of MOS:DEADNAME. Newimpartial (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no. The only reason I bothered listing these credits here is because they show the birth name to be prominent. The Madonna Rebel Heart album liner notes, published in March 2015, list Samuel Long and not a trace of Sophie, and this from a widely seen major label release. Pre-2012 stuff is 100% Samuel Long with no Sophie, for instance her membership in Motherland 2008–2009, and her remix of Light Asylum's "A Certain Person" in 2010, credited to Samuel Long of Motherland. There's also her collaboration with Jeffrey Sfire in 2013, with no Sophie mentioned in the credits for Samuel Long. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

And are there any independent, RS for the credits up to 2013? (That is, non-proimary sources?) Newimpartial (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There were German underground interviews during the Motherland period, but I wouldn't have the first clue as to where to find them now. The 2014 song "Hey QT" has multiple versions listing A. G. Cook and Sophie, but there was one radio promo release distributed in Europe crediting Alexander Cook and Samuel Long, which puts the birth names on the map as successful producers of this one song. The 2015–2016 sources listed above supply various additional connections to earlier times. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Unwarranted Claims of Cause of Death

No cause of death beyond an accidental fall has been reported by a credible source in the months following her passing. Any attempt to change that particular context should be seen as vandalism. 2601:204:CA01:A940:61B8:BFAC:F14C:FB87 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Making consensus on pronouns clear

It appears that the discussion at Talk:Sophie_(musician)/Archive_1#Pronouns indicates Sophie's preference was to avoid gendered pronouns. Is avoiding them the official consensus for now? Or is she/her more appropriate? Thanks - HarryKernow (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Immediately after Sophie!'s death, the strongest sourcing supported a preference for no pronouns. However, I have not followed the subsequent publication history since then - has the situation changed? Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I definitely think it's worth reviving this discussion. Looking at recent mentions in RS, I'm seeing most sources having gone back to using feminine pronouns. Here are some of the first few results I got when I did a Google News search for "Sophie PC music" and sorted by recent:

• Nylon
• Metro
• INTO
• Vulture

The first three use she/her. The last one does the awkward no-pronouns dance, but its topic is a eulogy written by her close friend and collaborator A.G. Cook, and Cook himself consistently uses feminine pronouns. e.g. the article opens with the following quote from Cook: “I’m still processing Sophie’s life… her nature, her work, her beauty,”.

As I think I said in the earlier discussion, I think this was just a miscommunication that blew up in the immediate aftermath of her death. She's consistently referred to in RS by feminine pronouns before her death, and friends, family and coworkers speaking about her after her death consistently use she/her. Obviously they would not do so if it were contrary to Sophie's wishes. Colin M (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear: if we now have a preponderance of she/her in postmortem sources, and the apparent declaration in favor of no pronouns turns out to be an outlier (a publicist's error or what have you), I have no problem if the article goes back to feminine pronouns. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I have an objection. While there is any ambiguity, I would like to continue avoiding pronouns altogether. Dispelling ambiguity would require some sort of statement from a friend or family member of Sophie, and it is regrettable if that is unlikely, but the matter is not in our control. — Bilorv (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly a tough issue balancing the heartless/soulless nature (if you will) of Wikipedia and actually respecting Sophie's wishes. From my perspective, avoiding pronouns is very difficult and should only continue to be done if it's very clear that those were Sophie's wishes by the time she died - otherwise this handling of pronouns seems to be based on speculation or rumor and nothing really concrete. My own opinion is that both were likely acceptable to Sophie, or perhaps Sophie was beginning to transition to no pronouns but died before that could be made clear. HarryKernow (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that a figure Pitchfork treated as significant and took to be close to Sophie was spreading "rumor" rather than at least their genuine impression of the truth. The speculation is in what is "likely acceptable to Sophie". — Bilorv (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The handling of pronouns is speculative (on the Wiki article's part) if there is such limited (or tantamount to no) evidence that this is the handling preferred by Sophie. While "rumor or speculation" might be harsh, one source's "genuine impression of the truth" does not decide the language Wikipedia uses, even if Pitchfork trusts them. I'm also not sure to what Pitchfork article you're referring to - two example articles about tributes from A.G. Cook and Charli XCX are using feminine pronouns, and nobody else mentioned a Pitchfork article in this discussion. HarryKernow (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the Pitchfork source that made the comment on pronouns discussed in the archive you link to (referenced in the article). I thought this was the only one, but there's also The Guardian and maybe more. The point is that we are not assuming anything by avoiding pronouns—it cannot be inaccurate to refer to somebody by their name. This is not just the version that accords with those sources' suggestions, but a default option that we use in cases of ambiguity. — Bilorv (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

It is unfortunate if we are unable to determine any correct pronouns to use as that will, of course, constrain our writing and may lead to slightly less elegant prose. Even so, if we really can't be sure what is correct then I agree with Bilorv. We can avoid pronouns and it is better to be slightly inelegant than to risk being incorrect. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

"it cannot be inaccurate to refer to somebody by their name" - I agree and considering this fact I think we are safe to continue using no-pronouns as our consensus. HarryKernow (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Accent

I had seen from this article that Sophie was born and grew up in Glasgow, so I was surprised when I listened to some interviews on YouTube and found she spoke with a rather posh English RP accent. Some upper-class Scots do consistently speak RP, like the actress Rose Leslie, daughter of a clan chieftain, or the residents of the Moray Feu in Edinburgh, but I don't see any suggestion that Sophie had an upper-class background. People do sometimes change their accent when they move away from their original home, but I think it's unusual for a Scot to switch entirely to RP (with a hint of estuary) and lose all trace of a Scottish accent. When I Googled 'Sophie musician accent' I found a Reddit discussion of the point, where someone claimed that in fact she grew up in Northampton. Another article/interview mentions that her mother comes from Northampton, so it does seem possible that she spent a lot of time there in childhood. It's a very minor point, but the present article does not cover it, and I'm probably not the only person who may be puzzled when they hear her interviews. The possibilities seem to be (a) she was one of the minority of posh Scots who have been brought up in Scotland speaking RP (and maybe went to a posh schools like Fettes or Loretto); (b) in fact she was brought up mainly in England, which means the present article would be incorrect; or (c) she was a 'dual accent' speaker, like the actress Gillian Anderson, who speaks with an English accent in England and an American accent in America, which would be quite interesting in itself.2A00:23C8:7903:2B01:BD3A:E7B6:F652:6E46 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Another article/interview mentions that her mother comes from Northampton — Which one? Or which other sources do you think are relevant for us to include information from about her upbringing? — Bilorv (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

She was not born in Scotland and whilst she may have spent some time in Scotland as a child mainly lived in England with English parents. There is no citable source for this, but many people in the events industry have seen her passport for booking flights which contains her birth place, and this was the reason she was not included on the eligible list of Albums for the Scottish Album of the Year. Not everything artists say in interviews is true, myth building and fictional back stories are common in experimental music. --2A02:C7F:8F8E:2900:6533:69CE:CB72:314B (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

If she was not born in Scotland… why is Glasgow listed as her birthplace. This is misinformation on the page? Magnumb22 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Identity's first paragraph

So, Skyerise recently removed the first paragraph of the "Identity" subsection for WP:OR, which was reverted by Binksternet. To avoid an edit war, I think it's better we discuss this removal here. I was actually about to do the same as Skyerise, after reading it. Despite the information being factual, none of the sources used are discussing the usage of Shopie's deadname in albums after they changed their name, instead they are primary sources of the places where the name appears, which would qualify this as original research. Isabelle ^🔔 02:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

It's very clearly original research based not even on primary sources, but on background knowledge + primary sources. Without a secondary WP:RS that makes a direct observation about the names in the credits, it just points at a bunch of credits that don't establish identify. It's pure BS and ought to taken to the No original research/Noticeboard for a broader look-see at its justification. Skyerise (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored the information once again, with the same pile of references that we talked about back in March, as may be seen at Talk:Sophie_(musician)/Archive_2. Regardless of how we all feel today, in 2015–2016, the media were not so hesitant to connect the dots of identity, and a handful of writers published the birth name with the stage name. Binksternet (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I won't pretend to speak for Skyerise, but my issue with that paragraph is not how the media portrayed Sophie back then (indeed, we've advanced a lot when it comes to transgender acceptance in recent years), but that the writing seems like original research. What that paragraph is missing is a secondary, reliable source that says something along the lines of "Sophie kept being deadnamed in song credits and reviews..." Without that, we have an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources (WP:OR) right now. Isabelle ^🔔 03:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph is a mixture of clear OR and undue weight. Firstly, there are no sources that say Xeon's birth name was credited in any of the songs listed, this is simply being inferred from the credits themselves which is an inference from a primary source that wouldn't be immediately obvious to someone who didn't know Xeon's birth name (therefore clearly OR). Secondly, Xeon's birth name was credited in a few songs and remixes and mentioned in articles; why is this relevant to an encyclopedic biography exactly? No RSes mention this fact, but for some reason the article gives an entire paragraph to what amounts to irrelevant trivia. Furthermore, "Prior to taking the stage name Sophie, the artist's birth name was used in larger projects. Sophie appeared in promotional photographs of the band Motherland during 2008–09, sporting a shock of red hair and androgynous facial features." and "The artist began using the Sophie moniker in 2012" aren't even sourced at all. The paragraph clearly should be removed. Alduin2000 (talk) 03:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Our collective job is to summarize reliable published sources. The paragraph in question is such a summary. We have plenty of high-quality Wikipedia pages that similarly summarize the published material. The cited reviews for Sophie's Product identified Sophie by her birth name and stage name. The paragraph in question lists those. Would you rather have the same information appear scattered throughout the article, at each instance of musical output? No, it is much better for the reader to bring the secondary sources together with the primary ones and summarize them clearly. The paragraph in question provides an increase in reader understanding of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph amounts to: Unsourced statement about Xeon's appearance in photographs taken with a random band. Xeon's birth name was credited in this release [primary source]. Xeon's birth name was credited in this release [primary source]. Xeon's birth name was credited in this release [primary source]. Xeon's birth name was also mentioned in a whole load of random sources (the birth name isn't a major part of any of them or discussed at all, it just happens to be briefly mentioned in them).

As stated before, inferring anything from primary sources that could not be easily inferred by anyone without prior knowledge is original research. Therefore, all of these statements are original research as nobody who didn't know Xeon's birth name could make that inference. Taking a minor, irrelevant detail from a few sources is undue weight even if it wasn't also OR, which it is because none of the sources say that the name they list is Xeon's birth name. The only part that might be useful for the article is "The artist began using the Sophie moniker in 2012" but this isn't sourced. The rest is OR and undue weight. Alduin2000 (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

And combining it with sources which do equate the two names doesn't change the fact that the sources mentioned about do not stand on their own and can only be supported by synthesis, which isn't allowed. I've removed that original paragraph again because it is WP:UNDUE and won't stand up without WP:SYN. Skyerise (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your dedication to a shittier version of the biography, less informative, less useful to our readers. Binksternet (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

For those who think this article is still covered by WP:BLP principles, the existence of the name in secondary sources after Sophie had already announced a preferred name is not grounds to include it, per MOS:DEADNAME. One editor's idea of what is less informative does not overrule policy-based considerations. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The entire list of which sources mentioned the deadname is and WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of trivia. Rab V (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Im confused as to why you cant use her deadname in the article? Did she ever explicitly say she didn’t want her deadname mentioned etc… most articles of trans musicians, etc will feature a deadname. Is there any reason Sophie is different? Sorry, just confused. Magnumb22 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles about trans people in general can only include deadnames under certain conditions, laid out in MOS:DEADNAME. Rab V (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well in that case she was known by that name in song credits, and the only reason laid out in that is for privacy but SOPHIE has passed away sadly. So I guess I would assume it should atleast incorporate the name Sophie Long? Magnumb22 (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't meet the requirement for being notable under that name from deadname and the consensus on this page from many editors is not to include it. Read the this talk page and archive if you want to learn more. Rab V (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP protections may also apply to "recently dead" individuals: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Based on that quote, we're probably approaching a timeline where it would make sense to consider lifting BLP restrictions. Colin M (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The convention is for strict DEADNAME exclusion to last up to two years. Also, there isn't any community consensus about the inclusion or otherwise of non-notable deadnames outside of that time frame. Newimpartial (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

pronouns again

Per this RfC, I'm wondering if we should replace the more awkward of the usage of Sophie with they? I believe in the early/personal life sections, it would be more appropriate to use she, as that's what the family and girlfriend called Sophie, but I'm leery of using 'they' in the career sections and she in the personal life sections. What a pickle.

I feel like I'm getting into OR here, but from the reading I've done to me it seems clear this was a person who used she pronouns in her personal life as Sophie, rejecting all pronouns for the public persona as SOPHIE. I'm a little afraid of actually influencing how Sophie is written about. Can't remember the term for that. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Neopronouns RfC has the result of banning name-only articles, or requiring that we ignore all pronoun-related preferences beyond he/she/they. The status quo (no pronouns) is probably still preferred here. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

RoxySaunders, but in this case we don't actually know Sophie used no pronouns in personal life. Sophie's gf and family referred to her as "she" and "her". Valereee (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Are we sure about the no-pronouns thing for the person rather than for the public persona?

We're actually altering a direct quote from Sophie's girlfriend in order to avoid using a pronoun she used. I'm not sure that's the best choice.

Sophie's girlfriend, Evita Manji, said that "it took the police and fire brigade around 90 minutes to get [Sophie] out" before their arrival to the hospital.

I'm seeing a quote from family that uses pronouns too:

"Tragically our beautiful Sophie passed away this morning after a terrible accident," the artist's family said an emailed statement provided by Sophie's representative, Ludovica Ludinatrice. "True to her spirituality she had climbed up to watch the full moon and accidentally slipped and fell. She will always be here with us. The family thank everyone for their love and support and request privacy at this devastating time."

Other than that single statement by a representative after Sophie died, have we seen any evidence this artist didn't have a pronoun preference in private life? Valereee (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't believe there is any other evidence. I'm not too sure why you caveat "in private life", because on Wikipedia we're only concerned about Sophie's public life. I'm reluctant to infer from our limited information that Sophie preferred no pronouns only in public life and "she/her" in private, but there's not too many explanations I can come up with. But the crux to me is this: it can't be wrong to call Sophie "Sophie". It could be wrong to call Sophie "she".

Bear in mind that quotes in the media are often not literal, but contain elided words, rephrasing by swapping in or out pronouns and actual names, and so forth. To take literally the one news article I have open on my browser now, I imagine the headline quote "A celebrity? Only if you like niche maths videos on the internet" is not something the interviewed figure said, but rather that the interviewer asked if she considered herself a celebrity and she responded "Only if you like niche maths videos on the internet". — Bilorv (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that we're only concerned with a person's public life. A bio is about a life, not just a person's work or public persona. This person in particular seems to have been quite private, but someone this talented who has died at a very young age in tragic circumstances will very likely have detailed bios out, so we'll likely learn more. But both Sophie's girlfriend and Sophie's parents were quoted using she/her multiple times.

What I'm trying to get at -- and it's taking me a bit of back and forth in my own thinking -- is that in a case like this, we're dealing with a person who may have presented differently in private than in the public persona, and a bio should deal with both. For instance, we might say "the public persona SOPHIE did not take pronounse; the private person Sophie Xeon used she/her/hers pronouns." (I mean, obviously I'm assuming we can find at a couple of good sources confirming what was apparently reported by Pitchfork as a statement by a single representative and not until after Sophie's death.) I think we need to be careful when we're saying something akin to "Clark Kent could fly and see through walls". :) Valereee (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

This is what the gf herself wrote on Insta:

“Sophie was a real angel , she was the sweetest , the kindest to every soul and everything around her. A very very special creature .... She was so curious about what is out there in the cosmos , I can feel her being happy and excited to explore the unknown. She’s an immaterial girl now, she can be anything she wants... and she is in everything around us...." I don't know what mixmag is, maybe not usable as RS, but it's enough to make me think this is worth looking into instead of assuming the person Sophie (as opposed to the persona SOPHIE) rejected pronouns. (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

USA Today, NYT, Billboard, all using feminine pronouns. Everything I'm seeing is someone reporting someone else said a representative of Sophie said Sophie didn't use pronouns, and when I click on the provided link, the link doesn't say that. It's very weird. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sophie's record label, per Vanity Fair, states: "True to her spirituality she had climbed up to watch the full moon and accidentally slipped and fell," Valereee (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

From the RS, and statements from Sophie's girlfriend and family, this appears to be a trans woman, Sophie, who took feminine pronouns and, according to "a representative" in a statement I'm having a hard time verifying (per above the various sources keep taking me around in circles), may have preferred no pronouns be used in describing Sophie's artistic persona, SOPHIE. I am proposing we edit the article to reflect this. Pinging @TheresNoTime and @Sideswipe9th and @Tamzin for advice/input, if you're willing to offer it, as I'm a bit concerned about doing this too boldly. Valereee (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to get up to speed on the research you've done, is there a list of the sources you've discovered so far? Is it the reflist at the end of this section? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are the ones I've found in a not-exhaustive search. I came across this, not an expert, and thought this person might not actually have identified (as a person) the way this person identified as an artistic persona. I'm really just trying to make sure we treat this person respectfully w/in WP policy. If Sophie used feminine pronouns, whether or not SOPHIE (the artistic persona) did, then I feel like we should too, unless there's RS evidence to the contrary. Valereee (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It's all good. I just wanted to make sure I'd read what you'd found first before checking for any that you might have missed :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, reading through the six (there's a duplicate) sources linked so far. Mixmag doesn't use any pronouns in their voice. The Mirror, USA Today, NY Times, Billboard, and Vanity Fair use she/her. Billboard is the only source published prior to Sophie's death, was from 2018.

In terms of other reliable sources published after Sophie's death there is: Pitchfork (already in article), The Guardian, PinkNews 2021, PinkNews 2022, BBC News, The Atlantic, NME 2021 NME 2022, and them.us 2021, them.us 2022.

Pitchfork seems to be where we've sourced no pronouns from. PinkNews uses she/her in both articles. BBC appear to use no pronouns, except in quotes but don't state why. The Atlantic also use no pronouns, and say A publicist told The Atlantic that Sophie preferred not to use pronouns. NME in both articles use no pronouns, saying In SOPHIE’s (the aforementioned statement requested that media outlets “please refrain from using pronouns” when referring to the trans artist) reality, no sound was off-limits. in the 2021 article, with "the aforementioned statement" coming from Sophie's team. Them.us uses she/her in both articles.

So what does that mean for us? Honestly, I dunno. On the one hand we have The Atlantic who say that Sophie preferred to use no pronouns without qualifying it as "the artist". On the other, we have some sources that use she/her pronouns, and quotations from Sophie's friends and family that likewise do the same. Though it seems like a cop-out, I'm tempted to repeat what I said last night at WT:MOSBIO, that we just don't know for sure if Sophie did use pronouns and what pronouns were used.

On balance though, the choice seems to be between no pronouns at all, no pronouns when referring to Sophie's stage persona and she/her for Sophie's offstage persona, or she/her for everything. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by when I click on the provided link, the link doesn't say that. Pitchfork says that [SOPHIE] preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns, according to one representative.

I agree that the situation is weird: Pitchfork quotes a statement that uses "she/her" pronouns in the opening paragraph, though they don't use it in their own voice. No other publications seem to have gotten any message to avoid pronouns, nor was there any indication that I know of when Sophie was alive.

I suppose what I don't agree with is that we can conclude with any certainty that Sophie used "she/her" pronouns. My stance is that we can't conclude anything. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

But most RS and the person's family/friends are using feminine pronouns to refer to the person? I feel really uncomfortable referring to the person as someone who doesn't take pronouns. I mean...what should we default to if we don't have good evidence there's something else? Valereee (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

what should we default to if we don't have good evidence there's something else That's a great question, and there is another discussion on this point happening over at Talk:Celia Rose Gooding, where that BLP's pronoun usage is also unclear because of a Twitter thread from early September on identity and trying to find the right language that fits.

Some how how we handle this stems from the discussions surrounding James Barry (surgeon). For those unfamiliar, Barry was a military surgeon in the early-mid 1800s, though they lived their entire adult life as a man, presented as such both professionally and privately, at a post-mortem it was discovered that Barry was assigned female at birth. The current consensus is not to use pronouns in that article, due to there being no confirmation of Barry's gender identity, and early to late 20th century literature on Barry being inconsistent in use of she/her and he/him. We'll probably be revisiting that in another year or two, as I think modern reliable sources now consistently use he/him.

Unfortunately I don't know if there is a right way to handle circumstances such as this. Just maybe a least wrong way. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

preferred not to use gendered or nonbinary pronouns, according to one representative, that's what I've been trying to follow back. No one seems to be giving anything more. When, who...I'm not finding it. I find references to this statement in other sources. I just feel like we should be able to attribute it. Valereee (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The only variant I've seen is from The Guardian who said Sophie’s team said that pronouns should not be used when describing the artist., which I believe was said/released after death.

The problem for me though is in how broadly do you define "the artist". Is that referring to Sophie by profession, in the same way we'd refer to another musician by artist (or at one stage in the case of Prince, the artist-formerly-known-as)? Or is that referring to a separation between Sophie's onstage and offstage personas? If it's the former, then the answer is to not use pronouns. If it's the later, then which pronouns do we use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I guess, if I were writing this from scratch, I'd probably (don't ask me for all the sources, this is just what I'm remembering right now) go with something along the lines of referring to Sophie with feminine pronouns, and then creating a section for the non-gendered SOPHIE.

Do we have any other bios that are person/persona? Valereee (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The only articles that jump into mind that are tangentially relevant are those on drag artists who are notable for both their character and personal lives. With the exception of Dame Edna Everage/Barry Humphries who unfortunately has two separate articles, I can't recall any specific examples at this time, but I suspect searching through the various contestants of RuPaul's Drag Race and its country specific spin-offs will likely have some hits. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking at minimum we should respect the gf's quote, so I'm going to make that change. Valereee (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: @Bilorv: I think a reasonable interpretation of MOS:NB would suggest she/her pronouns are correct. "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent 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." - key words, "reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification", not what another source imposes onto the person. Using name only I think violates this policy because Sophie never word for word said to do that. Maybe this could be escalated elsewhere for more attention? I agree that the last thing we want to do is make a hasty assumption and end up disrespecting Sophie's memory, either way the pronoun/no-pronoun situation is resolved. HarryKernow (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

A name is not a pronoun and using it does not violate policy. No policy requires us to use gendered language, only for us to not use incorrectly gendered language. — Bilorv (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm a SOPHIE fan myself. I think I might be a bit late to this discussion but here's the thing: 1. after SOPHIE came out, I'm pretty sure most publications since then refer to soph as "she" and "her", 2. a bunch of Sophie's own friends refer to her as with she/her pronouns, including her girlfriend, and sophie's own best friend A.G. Cook (in his tribute to her after she passed away, which can be seen here): http://agcook.com/msmsmsm/. I think that we should refer to sophie as she/her; her own girlfiend and all of her friends called her that, plus really the only sources truly sticking with the "no pronouns" shtick is her spotify bio and the one anon source from pitchfork. I haven't seen her brother call her anything other than "SOPHIE", so i guess you have the counter-arguement there. I agree with user Valereee, who said "I'm thinking at minimum we should respect the gf's quote, so I'm going to make that change." Tengoritmo (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tengoritmo, thank you for your input. I've been dithering around this for months now, thinking perhaps to do a rewrite that treats SOPHIE the artistic persona separate from Sophie the person w/re: pronouns. I go back and forth because doing so has seemed like it may involve some WP:original research? If you know of any sources that would confirm this (and allow us to avoid original research), please bring them here. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

References