Talk:Ruby Rose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gender pronouns

I mentioned the following at WP:LGBT: Starting today, as seen here, there has been back and forth on what gender pronouns to use for Ruby Rose; in that WP:Diff link, an IP states that Rose is genderfluid. With this edit, Platypus222 states that "Rose said in interview that she prefers fem[i]nine pronouns." I am aware that Rose is fluid with gender, but this might be similar to the Judith/Jack Halberstam matter, where he has stated that he doesn't mind being referred to by male or female pronouns, or being called Judith, but prefers male pronouns and being called Jack. Flyer22 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't sure, but the Genderqueer page links to an article that says "The popular entertainer, who rose to fame for her stint on Australian MTV and highly recognizable tattoos, discussed identifying as both male and female (though she prefers to continue using female pronouns) recently with the Guardian." I suppose it's only one source and it may or may not be reputable, but I see it as pretty clear. I won't fight it either way, I just wanted to show what I was referring to. —Platypus Man | Talk 03:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Platypus222, thanks for that. And, yes, The Advocate is a WP:Reliable source. And, being from 2014, that's a recent article on the matter; so it suffices for this content. Use of singular they throughout the article the way that it is currently used confuses our readers. And, in this case, there is no need for that confusion. I suggest that you or someone else re-apply the female (feminine) pronouns, that you add a WP:Hidden note on the matter for the first instance of a female pronoun, and that you use the The Advocate source to note in the article Rose's preference for female pronouns; it should be placed in the Personal life section beside the genderfluid commentary.

On a side note: I'm not sure if you have the Ruby Rose article/talk page on your WP:Watchlist; so that's why I've WP:Pinged you twice now to this discussion. If you have this article/talk page WP:Watchlisted, I'll stop WP:Pinging you to this talk page. I'll go ahead and stop WP:Pinging you to this talk page regardless since I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies. Flyer22 (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Done and done. —Platypus Man | Talk 04:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit that I reverted is the first WP:BLP/MOS:IDENTITY violation regarding the gender pronouns since you made the change. If it continues, I will get this article WP:Semi-protected. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Strike two is here. Followup note here. I'm sure everyone can guess what happens when strike three happens. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Strike three here and here. WP:Semi-protection time. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I requested WP:Semi-protection, and the request was granted. I will keep getting this article WP:Semi-protected as long as it needs it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey! How about a trigger warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.143.253 (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Cornonthefrakingcob (talk · contribs), regarding this (followup note here), see the above. Rose goes by feminine pronouns, and this is made clear in the Personal life section. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we should respect that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Use of the Daily Mail as a source in the article

Erpert, regarding this, this and this edit you made to the article, the Daily Mail is not a better source; it is routinely discouraged and rejected as a WP:Reliable source on Wikipedia. For what I mean, see this archive on it at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and this archive on it at the WP:BLP noticeboard. The few times that very experienced Wikipedia editors accept it as source for use on Wikipedia is when it's for non-contentious popular culture matters or similar, or exclusive interviews. That is why, as seen here, here, here and here, I was careful when I added a Daily Mail source to the article; I made it clear that it's an exclusive interview matter. But you added the Daily Mail for contentious content that is not exclusive to that source; you should use a different source for that material. Flyer22 (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Both of those links are to lists of search results; would you please link to an actual discussion? (BTW, the source was that was there before was to a user comment section, which definitely isn't reliable.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Erpert (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or that this page is on your WP:Watchlist), I linked you to the archives because you can click on any one of those archived discussions and see what I mean; for example, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 192#Daily Mail and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#John Barrowman and the Daily Mail. To me, it was better to point you to various discussions to show how the Wikipedia community generally feels about the Daily Mail instead of to a couple or a few discussions and assert what I was asserting. As for this source that was there before you replaced it, it's a WP:Dead link; I know that it has "/comments/" in its URL, but perhaps it was pointing to a comment by Ruby Rose? After all, she is very active on social media. Anyway, Internet Archive doesn't show what the source used to look like, and a better source should be used in either case (before or after your edits). Flyer22 (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact, because of the two archived Daily Mail discussions I linked to above, I went ahead and replaced the Daily Mail source I used (followup edits here and here). And while that first replacement is a blog, it passes as WP:News blog. Editors can obviously debate if they think that the Daily Mail fabricated that Ruby Rose interview (the content I added), but WP:Reliable sources seem to believe that the interview was legit. And it includes things Rose has stated before in other interviews. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Extra tweak and addition here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

With this edit (followup edit here, here, and here), I replaced your Daily Mail source. Flyer22 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Format of article

Neuroscout (talk · contribs), I reverted your setup of the article per the usual way that Wikipedia biographies are set up. See the Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie articles for examples. There is no need to highlight the gender identity/expression, sexual and romantic relationships, and health aspects by giving them their own sections. That material should be in a Personal life section. When the Personal life section needs subsections, then we add those. Furthermore, we don't know for certain who Rose had sex with unless she states so. I also reverted per MOS:Paragraphs, which states, in part, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." There is usually no need for one-sentence sections or sections with otherwise very little material in them. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I made some more changes to the format, including changing the the vague "Other" title. Flyer22 (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

>I disagree with the idea that material related to gender identity & expression, sexual & romantic relationships, or health belong in a separate section. These are normal parts of a person's life; why would they be taken out of chronological order and separated from the person? I actually did not add or remove any material in the article at all; the long paragraphs about Rose's gender and her romantic liasons were already there, comprising over half the article length. In the case of someone who has made her living using androgyny in her modeling and her video art, it's reasonable to acknowledge her views about gender in a labeled section, rather than using the "personal life" euphemism. It makes it sound either shameful or like something of an afterthought, when, in the case of Rose, clearly the opposite is true. Neuroscout (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Neuroscout (talk · contribs) (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I didn't state that "material related to gender identity & expression, sexual & romantic relationships, or health belong in a separate section." I stated that they all belong in the same section -- the Personal life section. You removed the "Personal life" heading and split its content into separate sections and I restored the Personal life section, along with that content (see the first WP:Diff-link I listed above in this section). And I did so per what I stated above. There is no need to highlight these aspects by giving them separate sections. We normally put all of this material in a Personal life section and only split that content into subsections (of the Personal life section) when needed. Splitting the content in this case, in any way, is not needed. As for chronological order, we try to have the content follow a chronological format as much as possible, which is why we begin with an Early life section in our biography articles. But chronological order is usually not completely possible when there exists different sections for specific content. The Modelling and fashion section, for example, has 2014 material, and the VJ career and television personality section, which comes after it, has 2009 material. This is because these are different aspects of her career, and we are essentially recounting her life from beginning to end which each section. Even with your setup, the content was not completely in chronological order. The content in each section is mostly in chronological order, though. And even when the personal life material overlaps with a person's early life (such as growing up with a drug problem), we commonly put that material in the Personal life section. Other times, we put it in the Early life section. I wouldn't be very opposed to putting the "Rose came out as a lesbian at the age of 12 [...] Due to her sexuality, she suffered from verbal taunts and physical abuse [...] She was also sexually abused as a child by a relative [...] she wanted to be a boy while growing up" material in the Early life section, but, in my opinion, it fits better in the Personal life section. For example, I think that the childhood gender nonconformity part fits best with the genderfluid part; it helps give insight into the gender aspects.

As for your issue with the Personal life heading, I think that your statement of "comprising over half the article length" is a stretch. And I don't understand your opinion on the "Personal life" heading (and including the personal material there) being similar to considering the matters shameful. Again, I suggest that you look at the Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie articles for examples, if you haven't already. I can point to various other examples, such as the Jennifer Aniston or Beyoncé articles. With the Gwyneth Paltrow and Jennifer Aniston's articles, you can see that the medical aspects are in the Personal life section. With the Angelina Jolie article, the medical aspects are in the Early life and family section and Personal life section, respectively. As for Rose making "her living using androgyny in her modeling and her video art," that can be elaborated on in the Modelling and fashion section...with WP:Reliable sources to support it.

On a side note: Consider WP:Indenting your posts; I WP:Indented your post above. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2015

Please change to the following under the heading Music and charity work:

Rose has performed at some of the biggest music festivals: Future Music, Future Music Asia, Summadayze & GoodLife.

In March 2012, Rose was the opening act for Jessie J on her national "Heartbeat Tour" across Australia. In November 2012, Rose released her first single "Guilty Pleasure" with Gary Go.[23] She was the House DJ for 26th Annual Aria Awards. In November/December 2012, Rose opened up for Nicki Minaj on the "Pink Friday: Reloaded Tour" across Australia.

A well known figure in the LGBT community, Rose has performed at several pride events around the world. Recently at the Pride Music Festival in San Diego, a record crowd of 15,000 people were in attendance, making it the biggest turn out in history.

Following success from OITNB, Rose got her big break in the US. In July 2015, Rose became the latest addition to Connected Artists booking agency, home to Avicii, Erick Morillo and Axwell, Ingrosso, among others. It was announced soon after that Rose will make her debut performance in Ibiza, opening up for Avicii at Ushuaia the #1 Open Air Club in Ibiza. Rose has also performed at some of US's well known clubs: Pacha NYC & Exchange LA (selling out). It was announced by Wynn Social, Rose will take up residency in Las Vegas for her upcoming shows in August/September 2015.

Rose is a generous supporter of many charities, won a charity boxing match,[24] and has travelled to Laos, Nepal and Africa to volunteer each year. Issues of concern to her include animal welfare, campaigns for anti-bullying and youth mental health, where she works as an ambassador for Headspace. Known for being extensively tattooed, she showed off her tattoos in a photo spread for Maxim Australia and PETA, as part of the campaign "I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur".[25][26] Rubyrosedaily (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Italicize "Jezebel"?

Roisterer, regarding this, I would have italicized "Jezebel," but it currently is not italicized at the Jezebel (website) article. It seems this is a case where italicization is not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be held at the website's article and that this article should follow whatever is the case over there. I do think that it should be italicized, though... It often depends on use: whether you're talking about it as a website or company, or whether you're talking about it as a creative work or blog. ~Mable (chat) 08:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm an old Luddite that considers websites as the same as books and therefore should be italicized but happy to abide by any rules put in place. --Roisterer (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think last time I saw a large discussion on this topic was on the video game WikiProject talk page, though you'd have to dig through its archives to find it. Obviously, that isn't really the right place to form any kind of consensus on the topic, but the concensus seemed to be that, if something constituted as a work, such as a journal or blog, it should be italicized, while if it's a service like a webshop or social medium, it shouldn't be. Either way, it isn't too big of a worry. ~Mable (chat) 10:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Single mother? what about her dad?

It says she is the daughter of a single mother, but also the article shows that she has a relationship with her father (the anecdote she mentioned about her being asked if she was a handsome boy or beautiful girl), so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.168.17.3 (talk) 07:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)