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 sourced must 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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 LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
![]() | This biographical article uses the pronouns they/them. See The Guardian. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lindsaympatton.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Malik Shabazz: The article says that, "Soloway uses gender-neutral pronouns." I don't know whether Wikipedia honors that, but an anonymous IP corrected my last edit to use gender-neutral pronouns, and I don't care much, so I preserved it. Franzboas ( talk) 17:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not "Jill also known for Jill's work..."? 31.154.8.98 ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In the lead, who is 'they'? American In Brazil ( talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that 'they' is distracting and reads as an error. 'They' - when used in this context - is very clearly established as a plural. The reader wonders who is the other person being talked about. Perhaps someone should ask Jill what gender they would prefer Wikipedia to use in cases like this? Axcelis555 ( talk) 15:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to incorporate some more information about Soloway's show, Transparent, and the accolades it and Soloway have received along with some scholarly discussion of the show that I have found in some articles and peer-reviewed journals that I have posted below.
Also, I would like to add to the paragraphs about Soloway's film career and give descriptions of the films and criticism or praise the films and Soloway received.
Lastly, I would like to write more on the themes in Soloway's work as this is the focus of some journal articles about them. Also, Soloway gave a talk on the female gaze that gives some insight into their work and views on film, television and representation.
Here are the articles that I'd like to incorporate: Villarejo, A. (2016). Jewish, Queer-ish, Trans, and Completely Revolutionary: Jill Soloways Transparent and the New Television. Film Quarterly, 69(4), 10-22. doi:10.1525/fq.2016.69.4.10
Rosenberg, R. (2017). The Importance of Jewish Ritual in the Secular, Postmodern World of Transparent. Jewish Film & New Media: An International Journal 5(1), 75-101. Wayne State University Press. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from Project MUSE database.
Benson-Allott, C. (2017). On Platforms No Such Thing Not Yet: Questioning Television's Female Gaze. Film Quarterly, 71(2), 65-71. doi:10.1525/fq.2017.71.2.65
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/afternoon-delight-2013
https://dobmovies.com/watch/jill-soloway-on-the-female-gaze-master-class-tiff-2016/pnBvppooD9I.html
( Lindsaympatton ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC))
Regarding this move by Rab V, I just want to inform editors that MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. It is not about that. The policy to look at is WP:Article titles, specifically WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES in this case. That is why the beginning of MOS:IDENTITY, which MOS:GENDERID is a subsection of, states "and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article." Now if one wants to cite WP:Ignore all rules, then cite that. But "Jill Soloway" is Soloway's common name. Because of this and what MOS:MULTIPLENAMES states, I added "Jill Soloway" to the lead. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.The sources you are looking at are from before the name change and therefore have little weight; sources written since the name change use the new name, which makes it the WP:COMMONNAME per our standard for accepting name changes if reliable sources do so. I also disagree with your assertion that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to titles, which would produce inconsistent and often bizarre situations; plainly it applies to all article content, including titles, categories, infoboxes, and so on. But the reason why that has rarely come up with titles specifically is because the bit of WP:NAMECHANGES I quoted means that we almost always reflect changed names unless reliable sources completely ignore the change (and in the case of name changes due to transitions, this simply does not happen with high-quality reliable sources today, making the question moot; we always end up respecting self-identity because that is always what the sources do.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. It flatly does. That's what the part of the policy I cited means; coverage after a name change is given more weight than coverage before it, so a name change that is accepted by the sources is immediately reflected in Wikipedia. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. This is in almost perfect contradiction with the passage of WP:COMMONNAME applicable to this case, which states,
If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. The only difference I can see between what policy states, and what you deny, is the word
routinely. Are you suggesting that the use of the new name by the RS is not (yet) "routine"? Because that is the only policy-compliant thing I imagine you could be saying about the article title (the inclusion of the former name in the lede is of course an entirely different matter). Newimpartial ( talk) 22:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
For what reason are you suggesting that NAMECHANGES was not adhered to? Are you claiming that reliable sources have not been using the new name "routinely" since the change?
Also, since COMMONNAME says that article titles should use the common name, and NAMECHANGES says that the article titles should be changed to reflect the new name once the RS do so "routinely", then the policy is actually saying that the new name is then considered by policy to be the common name. That's Aristotelian logic, folks, to which much of our policy (rightly or wrongly) adheres. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
person was known under the established name for yearsis not a policy-relevant consideration. This isn't a GENDERID thing, but is true for all NAMECHANGES. And your citation of MEDTITLE as if it extended to the names of BLP subjects is quite strictly a red herring. You yourself seem to recognize this in your conclusion, and you have stated that you are not trying to change the article name back, so I'm not able to understand the motivation for continued discussion of this. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
the article title aspect, maybe you shouldn't carry out the discussion in a section titled
MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titlesin which your entire opening paragraph is focused on the article title, and in which your second most-recent comment is still an argument about article titles. So concerning the article title, as I stated in that other discussion,
I don't see why it matters whether an article is correctly titled per GENDERID or per COMMONNAME, so long as it is correctly titled. WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we are to change the article title when the reliable sources routinely use the changed name, and you have not presented any evidence that any sources are still using the deadname, so I don't see any need to discuss that topic further.
focusing on whether or not "Jill Soloway" should be in the lead, then I would suggest creating a new section with an appropriate title addressing that topic, and refrain from citing policies such as COMMONNAME that have no bearing on what text is appropriate for the lead. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Where do you think WP:NAMECHANGES is clear that we are to wait
? It tells us to make a determination based on the sources since the name change, period.
And to rephrase my last point, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES doesn't give any guidance for situations of gender-altering name changes that isn't already reflected in MOS:GENDERID. That might be easier to understand than my statement last time. Newimpartial ( talk) 05:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
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 sourced must 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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 LGBT WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard. |
![]() | This biographical article uses the pronouns they/them. See The Guardian. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lindsaympatton.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 01:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Malik Shabazz: The article says that, "Soloway uses gender-neutral pronouns." I don't know whether Wikipedia honors that, but an anonymous IP corrected my last edit to use gender-neutral pronouns, and I don't care much, so I preserved it. Franzboas ( talk) 17:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Why not "Jill also known for Jill's work..."? 31.154.8.98 ( talk) 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
In the lead, who is 'they'? American In Brazil ( talk) 22:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that 'they' is distracting and reads as an error. 'They' - when used in this context - is very clearly established as a plural. The reader wonders who is the other person being talked about. Perhaps someone should ask Jill what gender they would prefer Wikipedia to use in cases like this? Axcelis555 ( talk) 15:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I would like to incorporate some more information about Soloway's show, Transparent, and the accolades it and Soloway have received along with some scholarly discussion of the show that I have found in some articles and peer-reviewed journals that I have posted below.
Also, I would like to add to the paragraphs about Soloway's film career and give descriptions of the films and criticism or praise the films and Soloway received.
Lastly, I would like to write more on the themes in Soloway's work as this is the focus of some journal articles about them. Also, Soloway gave a talk on the female gaze that gives some insight into their work and views on film, television and representation.
Here are the articles that I'd like to incorporate: Villarejo, A. (2016). Jewish, Queer-ish, Trans, and Completely Revolutionary: Jill Soloways Transparent and the New Television. Film Quarterly, 69(4), 10-22. doi:10.1525/fq.2016.69.4.10
Rosenberg, R. (2017). The Importance of Jewish Ritual in the Secular, Postmodern World of Transparent. Jewish Film & New Media: An International Journal 5(1), 75-101. Wayne State University Press. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from Project MUSE database.
Benson-Allott, C. (2017). On Platforms No Such Thing Not Yet: Questioning Television's Female Gaze. Film Quarterly, 71(2), 65-71. doi:10.1525/fq.2017.71.2.65
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/afternoon-delight-2013
https://dobmovies.com/watch/jill-soloway-on-the-female-gaze-master-class-tiff-2016/pnBvppooD9I.html
( Lindsaympatton ( talk) 16:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC))
Regarding this move by Rab V, I just want to inform editors that MOS:GENDERID does not apply to article titles. It is not about that. The policy to look at is WP:Article titles, specifically WP:Common name and WP:NAMECHANGES in this case. That is why the beginning of MOS:IDENTITY, which MOS:GENDERID is a subsection of, states "and article titles when the term appears in the title of an article." Now if one wants to cite WP:Ignore all rules, then cite that. But "Jill Soloway" is Soloway's common name. Because of this and what MOS:MULTIPLENAMES states, I added "Jill Soloway" to the lead. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change.The sources you are looking at are from before the name change and therefore have little weight; sources written since the name change use the new name, which makes it the WP:COMMONNAME per our standard for accepting name changes if reliable sources do so. I also disagree with your assertion that MOS:GENDERID doesn't apply to titles, which would produce inconsistent and often bizarre situations; plainly it applies to all article content, including titles, categories, infoboxes, and so on. But the reason why that has rarely come up with titles specifically is because the bit of WP:NAMECHANGES I quoted means that we almost always reflect changed names unless reliable sources completely ignore the change (and in the case of name changes due to transitions, this simply does not happen with high-quality reliable sources today, making the question moot; we always end up respecting self-identity because that is always what the sources do.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. It flatly does. That's what the part of the policy I cited means; coverage after a name change is given more weight than coverage before it, so a name change that is accepted by the sources is immediately reflected in Wikipedia. -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Sources written since the name change using the new name does not automatically make that new name the WP:COMMONNAME. This is in almost perfect contradiction with the passage of WP:COMMONNAME applicable to this case, which states,
If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. The only difference I can see between what policy states, and what you deny, is the word
routinely. Are you suggesting that the use of the new name by the RS is not (yet) "routine"? Because that is the only policy-compliant thing I imagine you could be saying about the article title (the inclusion of the former name in the lede is of course an entirely different matter). Newimpartial ( talk) 22:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
For what reason are you suggesting that NAMECHANGES was not adhered to? Are you claiming that reliable sources have not been using the new name "routinely" since the change?
Also, since COMMONNAME says that article titles should use the common name, and NAMECHANGES says that the article titles should be changed to reflect the new name once the RS do so "routinely", then the policy is actually saying that the new name is then considered by policy to be the common name. That's Aristotelian logic, folks, to which much of our policy (rightly or wrongly) adheres. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
person was known under the established name for yearsis not a policy-relevant consideration. This isn't a GENDERID thing, but is true for all NAMECHANGES. And your citation of MEDTITLE as if it extended to the names of BLP subjects is quite strictly a red herring. You yourself seem to recognize this in your conclusion, and you have stated that you are not trying to change the article name back, so I'm not able to understand the motivation for continued discussion of this. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
the article title aspect, maybe you shouldn't carry out the discussion in a section titled
MOS:GENDERID with regard to article titlesin which your entire opening paragraph is focused on the article title, and in which your second most-recent comment is still an argument about article titles. So concerning the article title, as I stated in that other discussion,
I don't see why it matters whether an article is correctly titled per GENDERID or per COMMONNAME, so long as it is correctly titled. WP:COMMONNAME tells us that we are to change the article title when the reliable sources routinely use the changed name, and you have not presented any evidence that any sources are still using the deadname, so I don't see any need to discuss that topic further.
focusing on whether or not "Jill Soloway" should be in the lead, then I would suggest creating a new section with an appropriate title addressing that topic, and refrain from citing policies such as COMMONNAME that have no bearing on what text is appropriate for the lead. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Where do you think WP:NAMECHANGES is clear that we are to wait
? It tells us to make a determination based on the sources since the name change, period.
And to rephrase my last point, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES doesn't give any guidance for situations of gender-altering name changes that isn't already reflected in MOS:GENDERID. That might be easier to understand than my statement last time. Newimpartial ( talk) 05:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)