This is an archive of past discussions about Conchita Wurst. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Edit request "stated that he was born" -> "was born"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The requested edit was made with consensus and explicitly does not impact on the discussions of gender elsewhere on this page. The discussion here has degenerated and continuing it is significantly unlikely to be productive. Thryduulf (talk)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section Biography, I suggest that we amend "stated that he was born" to "was born" - we don't have any reason to disbelieve him, do we?
NB: This article is currently linked from the Main Page, as part of "In The News".
Comment: The important part of that sentence is "stated that he was born", and it can't be changed since Tom Neuwirth refers to himself as "he" and his drag show persona Conchita Wurst as "she". So all references to Tom Neuwirth should use "he". Look further up on the page for a long discussion about whether "he" or "she" should be used in the article. Thomas.W talk14:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the gender of the pronoun used.
My problem is with the word stated. I think that his date of birth is something that Wikipedia can say in it's own voice - we don't need to do it as indirect speech, and it sounds awkward that way.
We don't need to say that he 'states' that he was born on that day, we can just say that he was born on that day.
Saying he 'stated' that he was born on that day sounds like loaded language to me. It implies that there is reason to doubt that he was born on that day.
Example: We say "Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day", we don't say "Isaac Newton said he was born on Christmas Day", "Isaac Newton stated that he was born on Christmas Day" or "Isaac Newton claimed to have been born on Christmas Day".
My issue is one of English usage, not gender politics. It reads awkwardly.
Normally I wouldn't bother with such a small edit-request, but it is wikilinked from the Main Page.
If the point of this awkward construction is to force in a pronoun where one would not normally be used in order to make a point about gender, then I think we'd be better making the point about gender explicitly.
Even "states that he was born" or "once stated that he was born" would be better than what we have (though still pretty awful IMO).
(edit conflict) Stating it more explicitly requires consensus, which isn't always easily reached. Judging by the discussions some editors even seem to not understand that Tom Neuwirth is a man with a female stage persona, originally created for drag show performances, and not a transgender person, even though he apparently explicitly says so on his own website. Thomas.W talk15:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I so love that response, Thomas W, high-5 with much respect and admiration for that. Indeed it is saddening that some do not seem to grasp the basic conceptualization that Tom Neuwrith is a man with a female drag act. If I were to say something in context to Neuwrith I would 100% use the term "he, him, his". However if I were to say something in context to Conchita, then naturally I would use the term "she, her, hers". WesMᴥuse16:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand the problem.
The change I'm suggesting is one of English usage, not gender.
I'm suggesting that we state his place and year of birth as a fact, rather than as something he claims.
I can't see where the gender issue fits into that.
In my proposed version ("Neuwirth was born in Gmunden, Austria, in 1988") there is no pronoun, so what's the gender issue?
I think you may have cross-wires with the conversation here, which is understandable considering we are dealing with written conversation that is toneless and expressionless. We're not disputing that you are suggesting a grammar change and nothing that is gender related. However, (and I'm sure he would correct me if I'm wrong) I think Thomas W was merely advising you that a consensus would need to be reached; and the fact that people are still struggling to find a consensus on a prior dispute concerning gender, then the chances of this consensus being dealt with any sooner looks rather slim, as everyone else is preoccupied with the gender debate at present and may have missed this other issue. WesMᴥuse16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I can add that I fully understand that Balaenoptera musculus' proposed edit is just a correction of grammar, but since the article has been fully protected no edits, not even seemingly uncontentious ones, can be made without a prior discussion, and consensus. Thomas.W talk16:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you for reminding us all about that.
Is the request controversial? Edit requests for fully protected pages must be handled by an administrator. Administrators can only respond to requests which are either uncontroversial improvements (correcting typos or grammar, formatting references, etc. in articles; or improving reliability or efficiency of template code) or are already supported by a consensus of editors, usually on the protected page's talkpage (Wikipedia:Edit_requests)
Does anyone have any actual objections to the proposed change?
In all fairness I too must agree that the suggested grammar change does not feel uncontentious at all. It's not as if we're saying the change should read "he was born" or "she was born". If we were to include a gender context, then that would still require the prior debate to be resolved first. However, as it is being suggested to say "was born", without any gender reference, then I see no problems with making that change and would fully support it. WesMᴥuse16:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact, upon looking at other BLP articles (for example Emmelie de Forest) anything about where they were born tends to be in the "Personal life" section, and not "biography". This would probably make perfect sense to follow suit here. That way we'd be able to write... "Neuwirth was born in [place], [country], to a [nationality] mother and [nationality] father.. etc etc". WesMᴥuse16:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Balaenoptera musculus: Administrator's (and in this case a "template editor") have a tendency to be more cautious on articles relating to areas that are more contentious than most, including articles where even the gender of the subject of the article seems to be up for discussion, and the slightest wrong move will land someone at WP:ANI or ArbCom. Like this one. Technical13 said "no, not without consensus", so learn to live with it. Thomas.W talk16:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Balaenoptera musculus: I have no objections to making the edit once a consensus has been reached in the bigger gender debate further up. But until then I prefer having it as it is, as a reminder to new "gender warriors" that Tom Neuwirth considers himself to be a man. And, after all, who would know that better than him? Thomas.W talk16:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for making that clear.
I think that the point about gender would be better made by saying it explicitly, rather than shoe-horning in a pronoun.
So how about "Neuwirth, who is male, was born ..." or something like that?
I'm not in favour of that suggestion at the moment. Purely because you'd be using a gender reference, and the gender dispute is the reason this article is fully protected. Like Thomas W pointed out, admins would not want to make such edits lie that in order to avoid themselves being dragged to ANI or ArbCom. It wouldn't be fair on your part if you instructed them to make such an edit, and then they get punished with sanctions for it because they have not followed the rules. The best step forward here would be to get the gender debate resolved as quickly as possible, and then we'd all know how to handle any other content thereafter. WesMᴥuse17:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not just a grammar change, it's an attribution change. And it seems uncontentious, I don't see anyone arguing against. I am in favor of this change for all the reasons given by Balaenoptera musculus. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB it's entirely appropriate unless there is some reason to think the information is not true. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Support (as proposer) per WP:BLPSELFPUB and discussion above.
It would be a pity for the existing dispute to block unrelated article improvements by other editors, especially as this article is currently linked on the Main Page (In The News).
Tentative support: I have read the discussion above, but I can't see how this proposed change would make Neuwirth appear to be transgender, because he has a male name, Tom Neuwirth, and a female drag name, Conchita Wurst. Therefore "Neuwirth was born" still imports the masculine gender. Besides, for an article about an actual transgender person, such as Chelsea Manning, female pronouns are used throughout, whereas in this article male or female pronouns are used depending on the persona being referred to - so this does not appear to be about a transgender person. BethNaught (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment:: Nobody has disputed the fact that the change would make it appear to be transgender related. From the way I interpreted other comments made, the proposer was being informed of a possible reason as to why Technical 13 has declined making the alterations on the basis that a consensus has not been reach on one issue (which is still in a deadlock situation), and therefore editors may not be aware that a second debate is also taking place, due to attentions being preoccupied elsewhere. I had also pointed out that the change should not be seen as uncontentious edit, and welcome the fact that the proposed re-wording would not have any consequential affect on the on-going gender debate. Also I find the creation of this RfC to be an attempt to illustrate a point, when the discussion regarding this change was progressing amicably, as well as peacefully. It would seem that editor's may be getting cross-wires with what is being said, purely because there is no facial or verbal expression in written dialogue, and assuming that this change is being rejected on the basis of a gender issue when in actual fact it has been noted that the gender debate is not an issue here. I would recommend allowing the peaceful debate to continue its course, as it already shows that editors are in support of the alteration even before this RfC was opened, and following the advice that Technical 13 gave by reactivating the edit request so that the editor can see a consensus has been reached. WesMᴥuse19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I do dispute that the change would make it appear to be transgender related. The proposed change has nothing to do with gender.
WP:POINT is about disrupting wikipedia to make a point: When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, applying it consistently. I don't agree that I'm doing that; if you still think I am then please provide examples.
I don't agree that a consensus has been reached; I opened this RfC because it hadn't.
Done - I made the change since there is no actual objection to the grammar fix - just a stated desire to fix other problem first and a fear it might be perceived as a gender edit when it isn't. I think it best to concentrate efforts on the actual dispute now instead of wastign time debating the possibility of a dispute over a grammar change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused by BM's first quotation of a comment. You've only picked out part of a sentence to make it look as if someone was suggestion the change would make it transgender related. If put that quote into the entire sentence, you'd see that the context does not stipulate the change would have any transgender issue.
To put it more bluntly...
I and other editor's said that the suggested edit is acceptable.
That the suggested edit would not come into conflict with the current debate over gender recognition.
That people are still arguing the toss over gender recognition, and therefore may have not know that another issue had been raised.
You said: Nobody has disputed the fact that the change would make it appear to be transgender related. That was the entire sentence. I don't agree that I quoted you out of context.
I find your question How difficult was that to grasp? quite unnecessarily patronising and rude.
Cool down, BM, you're the only one who is getting all worked up here. And stop using {{tq|x}}, it only makes your posts harder to read. Write your quotes in italics instead. Thomas.W talk20:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
"The template Example text (for "talk quotation") can be used in talk page discussions to quote, in a visually and CSS-class distinct way, material quoted, e.g. from a guideline or from another editor's previous post." (Template:Tq). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I know what it can be used for, but can be used is not the same as must be used. If you insist on using that template for inline quotations then at least tell it to use sans serif italics instead of the standard serif typeface when quoting something or someone in your posts ( {{tq|i=y|text}} ). Also add quotation marks (as the documentation says: " It does not automatically add quotations marks, which must be appended manually if desired (recommended when inline quotation is used)"). Thomas.W talk12:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
OK BM, yes you have taken my wording out of context... and not just the first time either, but you do appear to take everyone's comments out of context. It is very clear what is meant when someone says "Nobody has disputed the fact that the change would make it appear to be transgender related.". The comment is basically agreeing with the fact that your change would not have had any bearing on the other debate regarding gender, purely for the fact that your edit request was for a grammar change, not a gender change.
A few months ago I was once accused by editors for taking comments out of context and not reading the context properly in order to understand the meaning. Back then I was adamant that I was right and the other's were talking bullshit. But thanks to you, I can now see what they meant. Yes it is very easy to read something and not read it properly, and ultimately get the wrong end of the stick. OK this was a strong topic for you, and I do not dismiss that. But what you seem to have missed is that people were on your side all along. People (including myself) were in support of your change. However, people (including myself) were trying to make you aware of another issue that has taken up everyone's attention, and thus they will not have seen this one taking place.
Also if someone politely requests that you do not use the {{tq|x}} (for "talk quotation"), then it would be polite to oblige to their request, rather than rile them up (and potentially piss them off) by quoting why it can be used. It is common-courtesy. WesMᴥuse12:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
OMG Balaenoptera musculus! Nobody is instructing you what to do. There is a very big difference between telling someone what to do, and advising someone that they may wish to do something. The latter still leaves the choice in your hands on how you wish to write things. Eat a Snickers dude! Coz you turn into a right diva when you're hungry. WesMᴥuse12:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Get a grip man and cheer up. It was merely a bit of humour to lighten up the mood, as it is clear the atmosphere in here is getting a little tense. Nobody is telling you what to do. Nobody has disagreed with your suggestions. People have merely advised how you could better handle a situation. People have agreed with your suggestions. People have also tried to make you aware of another issue taking place, so that you would understand why your edit request was being ignored by a lot of other editors. Now come on, calm down, have a cuppa tea, a freshly baked scone with jam and clotted cream. You do take things a little too seriously. There are a lot more scarier people in the world of Wikipedia. I'm just a playful pussy cat really. No hard feelings eh!? WesMᴥuse13:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I also find it an insult that you assume I am some sort of retard and not aware of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and name calling. So one could say that your behaviour is just as bad as the one you say I am portraying. Tit for tat. WesMᴥuse13:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with PCW. I cannot see why BM is continuing with it and finding faults with editors, when this grammar debate has been resolved and the article changed accordingly (which could have been done without opening the RfC anyway, seeing as editors did not object to the change). On the other-hand I wonder if opening up a RfC for the pronouns debate might be worthwhile? WesMᴥuse13:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not June 11th
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Persondata template infos should be changed in this article, from 11 June to 6 November. This is the common problem for many articles on Wikipedias, they are affected due to date format conversions… --Крушевљанин Иван (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
You're right. Seems uncontroversial, adding edit protected template. Change the DATE OF BIRTH field in the Persondata per above. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Support: In fact I support any future edits that are uncontroversial, and do not bear an impact on the current gender debate. WesMᴥuse12:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. This is explicitly not an endorsement (or otherwise) of the content of the see also section, which is being discussed elsewhere on this talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
request to add information
Hi all,
in the "Music Career" section I'd like to add a few sentences to balance out the information about the "Anti-Wurst" facebook page and petitions. (The second and third paragraph under the sub-heading "2013–14: Eurovision Song Contest 2014.")
Perhaps at the end of the third paragraph, or in a new paragraph just after that, someone could add a few sentences referring to the fact that his Eurovision-winning song, "Rise Like a Phoenix," actually became the number-one iTunes download in Russia after the contest, meaning there were thousands of Russian citizens who apparently feel positive about Conchita Wurst's performance, and perhaps don't agree with the "gay propaganda" law.
This edit request to Conchita Wurst has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Biography section, third paragraph, first sentence need punctuation correction: change "While in German, "Wurst" means..." to "While in German "Wurst" means..." (remove comma)
Nyq (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done Actually, the sentence at present starts:
While in German, Wurst means 'sausage,' the performer compares...
and while "Wurst" should definitely be in quotes (either single or double) the comma is a stylistic choice and so there should be agreement to change it in a fully protected article. Additionally, if the article is written in British English the comma after "sausage" should be outside the quote marks not inside (I think it's OK in American English though). There doesn't seem to be an explicit statement of which variety of English this article uses and I haven't got time right now to see if its obvious elsewhere.
I've marked this edit request as not done for now, but feel free to reactivate it when there has been discussion that has reached agreement. Thryduulf (talk) 07:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
MOS:COMMA says to use British style. That kind of surprised me, I thought it would depend on whether the article is written in US or British English. Kendall-K1 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, the request is about a different comma, not the comma after "sausage". However, the comma in "While in German, [...]" is actually correct. In English, commas are used after sentence-initial local or temporal adjuncts, as in this sentence, or in "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", although they are frequently omitted in casual writing. That doesn't mean they are wrong. In fact, my understanding is that omitting them is incorrect, strictly speaking.
However, per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, I would recommend to italicise "Wurst" instead, without quotes.
(Whether this article should follow US, British or other usage is not immediately clear, but for Europe-related topics, British seems most obvious. So the issue is moot.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Getting off topic here, but that doesn't explain why British comma style would be applied to an article that is otherwise written in US English. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It's all moot. Spelling conventions do not dictate punctuation conventions on Wikipedia. Wikipedia uses logical quotes regardless of English variant used. WP:STRONGNAT and other spelling-related guidelines do not apply. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the link to "Drag queen" under "See also" - this is already linked in the introduction to the article, and seems a bit redundant here. I mean, you could in theory add dozens of links under "See also" to "Singer", "Austria", "Eurovision", "Beard" and just about anything else that relates to this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.12.0 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to MOS:SEEALSO. This method is a Wikipedia manual of style. It might seem strange practice, but it is all down to editorial judgement at the end of the day. WesMᴥuse13:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a request for the paragraph about the Lady Gaga concert to be removed.
Today, in an interview with Graham Norton on BBC Radio 2, Conchita Wurst stated that the rumour about her opening the Lady Gaga concert is false. She has also stated this on Instagram: http://instagram.com/p/oWcHiWoNnC/#
My account has not been autoconfirmed, so I leave this task for anyone who is more experienced at editing Wikipedia.
The source for this is 404, but I traced the rumor to HuffPo, which attributes oe24, which attributes The Sun, which is not a WP:RS. So I think you're right, and I have removed the paragraph. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Birth name
Conchita's birth name is "Thomas Neuwirth", yet when I added that to the infobox, a user reverted it claiming "Rv good faith edit. It's not his "birth name", Conchita Wurst is only a stage name, not Thomas Neuwirth's real name.". I'm not exactly sure what the user was referring to but from what I take of it the user believes that I added "Conchita Wurst" as the birth name, but I didn't. Please just clear up the confusion. { [ ( jjj1238 ) ] }20:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Jjj1238: You seem to have misunderstood what "birth name" means. Conchita Wurst is the stage name of Thomas Neuwirth, not his real, legal, name. He was born Thomas Neuwirth, and is still named Thomas Neuwirth. Which is why the top of the infobox says "Thomas Neuwirth". If Thomas Neuwirth had changed his name to Conchita Wurst, then adding his birth name to the infobox would have been correct, but he hasn't so it isn't. Thomas.W talk20:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The way I read Jjj original post above is that he changed the infobox to show the name as "Thomas Neuwirth", but someone reverted his change stating that "Conchita Wurst" is the birth name. So why are we having a go at him for doing a correct change? WesMᴥuse12:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
@Wesley Mouse: No, Jjj1238changed the name, and Thomas.Wreverted it saying "Rv good faith edit. It's not his "birth name", Conchita Wurst is only a stage name, not Thomas Neuwirth's real name." Jjj reverted, expressing confusion, and Thomas reverted, calling it unconstructive. In this thread, Jjj said (s)he thought Thomas.W thought (s)he meant Conchita was the birth name and acknowledge it is not. Thomas.W and I have stated that the problem is that Conchita is his stage name and as such, there's no need for the "birth name" field to be used. No legal name changes have occurred and Thomas Neuwirth still goes by that name when out of character. However, what we could do is change the header of the infobox to Conchita Wurst and fill in the birth name field with Thomas Neuwirth (I am going to make a bold edit to this effect). This seems to be what {{Infobox musical artist}} intended to be honest. See, for example, Jay-Z, Beyoncé, and Freddie Mercury. I understand that this case is a bit different as those three artists don't use their birth names often. But since this page is primarily about the character, it would make sense to me to square the infobox with the page name. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Comment:: Nobody has disputed the fact that the change would make it appear to be transgender related. From the way I interpreted other comments made, the proposer was being informed of a possible reason as to why Technical 13 has declined making the alterations on the basis that a consensus has not been reach on one issue (which is still in a deadlock situation), and therefore editors may not be aware that a second debate is also taking place, due to attentions being preoccupied elsewhere. I had also pointed out that the change should not be seen as uncontentious edit, and welcome the fact that the proposed re-wording would not have any consequential affect on the on-going gender debate. Also I find the creation of this RfC to be an attempt to illustrate a point, when the discussion regarding this change was progressing amicably, as well as peacefully. It would seem that editor's may be getting cross-wires with what is being said, purely because there is no facial or verbal expression in written dialogue, and assuming that this change is being rejected on the basis of a gender issue when in actual fact it has been noted that the gender debate is not an issue here. I would recommend allowing the peaceful debate to continue its course, as it already shows that editors are in support of the alteration even before this RfC was opened, and following the advice that Technical 13 gave by reactivating the edit request so that the editor can see a consensus has been reached. Wes Mᴥuse 19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Done - I made the change since there is no actual objection to the grammar fix - just a stated desire to fix other problem first and a fear it might be perceived as a gender edit when it isn't. I think it best to concentrate efforts on the actual dispute now instead of wastign time debating the possibility of a dispute over a grammar change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done Actually, the sentence at present starts: 