The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more non-binary people. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Many, but not all, non-binary people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was created or improved during Wiki Loves Pride, 2020.Wiki Loves PrideWikipedia:Wiki Loves PrideTemplate:Wiki Loves Pride talkWiki Loves Pride
Can we get a definitive answer on whether the subject prefers gender-neutral pronouns, please? I have no objection to the article using them, IF that is the actual case. I'm not convinced it is. Many recent edits have gone back and forth (none with source), creating grammatical travesties like "them self." Any insight on this would be great. Jessicapierce (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Genderqueer is ridiculous. The types of sexuality like heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality are understandable. The types of gender like male, female, transgender male-female, multigender are understandable. Even combination of sex and gender are understandable but genderqueer? Never. It is just made up to catch public eye. Nico is male and bisexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.229.121 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not up to you to decide, on wikipedia, what is "ridiculous". Genderqueer identities exist, there is a Wikipedia article on the matter, and the debate ends there, as far as Wikipedia is concerned ; keep your opinions for your preferred social media feed. Odusseys (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Tortorella prefers they/them pronouns doesn’t mean he isn’t male and shouldn’t be referred to as such😭 Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to represent the objective reality?--FollowTheSigns (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Tortorella prefers "they/them/their" doesn't mean it is grammatically correct. Equality is one thing, but incorrect Grammar leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Identify as whatever you want - but use neutral language. They and them in these contexts sounds Plural - not singular. Sheesh.
Just because Tortorella prefers they/them pronouns doesn’t mean he isn’t male and shouldn’t be referred to as such😭 Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to represent the objective reality?--FollowTheSigns (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanting to be extremely thorough in terms of having given Red Echidna ample warning and opportunity to read MOS:GENDERID and understand that they are making disruptive edits and edit warring against that guideline. As per the warning on this page, they are at risk of discretionary sanctions if they do not self-revert. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to note that there is no agreement between Red Echidna and me on the use of pronouns in this article, despite what they attempt to insinuate in this edit's summary. This article should clearly use they/them to refer to Tortorella, as per the subject's stated preference. In the interest of avoiding further edit warring, I've reported the matter to the BLP noticeboard. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Others and I have tried to explain to JoeyConnick what the errors are, but he persists in antecedent-pronoun disagreement. We have again tried to explain that for an encyclopedic entry such an error is not appropriate, that impartiality is the priority, and that his grammar and mechanics have made the article appear informal, elementary, and riddled with errors. I have reported the issue to the board on BLP and also the RfC board. RedEchidna (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "antecedent-pronoun disagreemnt", RedEchidna? You say at [1] that 'They' is not singular. 'It' is singular. 'He or she' is singular. [...] I understand you're not a native English speaker and this can be confusing, which is why I thought those links might help you. This is not a 'view.' These are rules of grammar. Well I am a native English speaker and you are wrong. You have already been pointed to singular they and MOS:GENDERID has been explained to you. You are applying a prescriptivist viewpoint as if it is the viewpoint of all English speakers, which it is not. It contradicts most modern style guides and our policies. The article must use singular "they" rather than "he or she" (Tortorella is neither) or (the dehumanising) "it". You must also stop changing "polyamorous" to "polygamous". Please learn the difference between the two words and you will then see why the latter is incorrect here. If you research further and are still confused then I'll be happy to explain it to you. — Bilorv (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but that comment was not directed at you. If you thought I was addressing you, that would be my mistake. Antecedent-pronoun disagreement means the pronouns that are currently used in the artcle (third-person plural) do not agree with their antecedents (the subject preceding the noun or pronoun). Tortorella is one (1) person. He is also male. However, because there is a preference for neutrality, we would use either 'he or she' or 'it.' Isn't saying something is 'dehumanising' subjective? Who decides what is dehumanising and what isn't? By this regard, we could have all sorts of inclusions or exclusions that contradict each other. If there were an article on a famous Hollywood actor, and this actor wanted to be addressed as 'His Grace,' would an encyclopedic entry have to placate him? By this standard, we must request permission from all living persons how they prefer to be regarded. The aim is to be neutral. The difference between those two words is that one is fabricated and superfluous. 'Polygamous' is the word for more than one mate. What you are trying to argue for is a very romanticized, aggrandised tone of article rather than neutral. Is this what Wikipedia is for? If it is, then I must have been mistaken. Red Echidna (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, being neutral means that we summarize what sources say without adding our own interpretations. In this case, sources consistently use the word "polyamorous", so should we. And after reading through our articles on polyamory and polygamy, that makes sense.
As for the whole "they" thing, you really should read through our article on singular they as multiple people have recommended. It specifically covers your objection: They with a singular antecedent goes back to the Middle English of the 14th century (slightly younger than they with a plural antecedent, which was borrowed from Old Norse in the 13th century), and has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians beginning in the mid 18th century. Singular they is grammatically correct, and it has been grammatically correct for centuries. It actually developed in the same general timeframe as the singular you—another usage that grammarians complained about. Woodroar (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
