Jump to content

Talk:Conchita Wurst

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Masculine/Feminine Pronouns - not male/female

[edit]

He and She are masculine and feminine pronouns according to their articles, respectively. They are not "male" or "female". This is an issue of distinguishing between sex and gender, but also consistency in language between articles. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support changing it to "masculine" and "feminine". It sounds childish and unprofessional to use "He/him" and "She/her" to describe them in my opinion but I'd definitely support masculine and feminine. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. Is this about a fictional female character? Or about an actual bloke who goes round like a woman? In the case of the former, use "she", in the case of the latter, use "he". If it is a "she" then "she" can't be LGBT because "she" likes "men". Max Browser (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Max Browser: Conchita Wurst is a character. Specifically a drag queen. She can be lgbt and still be attracted to men (can be bi, pan, trans, queer, etc. and still be lgbt). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right in that case, it is a "man" in both senses of the word. The real life person is male and the character is male in that it "admits" to being a drag queen. In this sense, LGBT is correct, and "he" is obviously the correct term all round. Max Browser (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not notable or remarkable enough to belong in the article anyway, especially not in the header. Nearly every drag queen use she/her to refer to their drag character/persona and he/him to refer to themselves. Arguably this is definitional: drag queens generally speaking are men who perform a female character/persona. Whoever wrote the sentence seems to be under the misapprehension that drag queens are somehow equivalent to trans women when they are in character. They generally aren't, they are generally speaking male performers who are playing a character, inhabiting a female persona in a way that is generally speaking quite different from how a trans woman occupies her female identity. Of course, there is a philosophical discussion to be had about to what degree a character being performed can be separated from the performer, but that's irrelevant. Pointing out that Wurst is a "she" and Neuwirth is a "he" is completely unnecessary unless we are going to go to every cis person's bio page and point out that they use the pronouns that traditionally correspond to their gender: Neuwirth is not divirging in any way with his pronoun usage or preferences from the prevailing and traditional use, it's not worth noting in any way that he, like essentially every other drag queen, is a "he" while his character is a "she".MarcelB612 (talk) 04:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Austria redirect

[edit]

Why does "queen of Austria" redirect here? This person has never held such title. This person was never a part of royalty or a member of any royal household. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.169.241 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conchita Wurst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Conchita Wurst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conchita Wurst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conchita Wurst. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

I’m looking at a photo of Tom’s parents. I’m noticing that his mother has darker skin. I’m curious about his ethnicity. Skysong263 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

[edit]

I wonder if anyone has a thought on the title of this article? In its entirety, it's an article about Tom Neuwirth but its entitled Conchita Wurst. I don't deny an article about a persona could be legitimate (for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Partridge), but in this case it seems to follow the confusion in the media when Tom first became famous. The Alan Partridge article attached is clearly not about Steve Coogan, whose persona he is; and perhaps more importantly, Steve Coogan has his own article. It does seem odd that as successful and famous, and actually important for diversity a person as Tom should have an article titled not with his name but a persona he uses sometimes. Rather than start a new article, it would seem best just to change the title of this one. A Conchita article could still be created, but it would have to not be all about Tom. Any thoughts, others? @Yug — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 07:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having made the suggestion just over a month ago and waited to see if there are any comments, I'm now proposing a move to 'Tom Neuwirth' by the correct means. Emmentalist (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Neuwirth is a redirect to Conchita Wurst at the moment; this prevents the "easy" move. A request at WP:RM would be the way to go me suggests. Lectonar (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could split the articles - one on Neuwirth, one on the "Wurst" persona? DS (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, @DragonflySixtysevenDS. Yes it I think that would be best. That would require the present re-direct from Tom Neuwirth to be cancelled. I'll have a go at that. Emmentalist (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that. Thanks so much, @Lectonar Emmentalist (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

result:
Moved to Thomas Neuwirth. The suggestion to split into two articles was met with some resistance. That is a different discussion. There is sufficient consensus below to rename this article. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; good health to all! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 12:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disclaimer: this closure is neutral; whether or not there is consensus, only the arguments in the request below are reflected, nothing else.

Conchita Wurst → ? – Tom Neuwirth presently re-directs to Conchita Wurst. The redirect should be cancelled and either this article moved to Tom Neuwirth or the section on Conchita should remain here. WP:Commonname does not apply since that refers to case (e.g. Bono) where someone is better known by another name. In this case, Conchita Wurst is a stage persona but Neuwirth also performs as himself and as another character 'Wurst'. Personas do routinely have their own article at Wikipedia (e.g. Alan Partridge) but this does not redirect all the material about the performer to that character's name (e.g. Steve Coogan). In addition, Neuwirth's pronouns are not respected with the re-direct. Neuwirth is a gay man (he/him) yet the Conchita article is about a persona whose pronouns are not clear This creates much unnecessary and confusing ambiguity around pronouns. Finally, Neuwirth is a highly successful recording artist who lives his daily life not as the persona Conchita. Emmentalist (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support move to Thomas Neuwirth. The article is about the person, not the character. Tevildo (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support or split - while the article uses a mixture of he/she and Neuwirth/Wurst these days, it is seen that the Conchita Wurst persona is not used everyday. And I always thought Alan Partridge is the real name of the person the nominator was referring to. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 08:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    -) Emmentalist (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Conchita Wurst and Thomas Neuwirth, with the latter containing the material about Neuwirth's private life and his career not as Conchita Wurst. JIP | Talk 13:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (but also mostly support). The wording of this nom assumes that the average editor knows more about the background of the subject than I think is reasonable. Is the reasoning for the move that Neuwirth no longer "lives" as Conchita in everyday "notable" life, making it hard to talk about present day activities? I think splitting the article is excessive given the amount of detail. A separate section as Conchita is helpful instead of talking about Neuwirth's middle life as a "different person". Grk1011 (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving to Neuwirth, but also agree with Grk1011 that splitting would be somewhat excessive at this time and that creating a section specific for the Conchita persona would be more helpful for the average reader that has less awareness of who Neuwirth/Conchita is. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see no reason to complicate matters. Overwhelmingly better known by the Conchita Wurst persona than his real name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split/move as proposed. As pointed out above, there is strong precedent for characters and performers who are independently notable having separate articles (like the Good Article Stephen Colbert (character)), and I agree that there is sufficient reason to do so. Toadspike (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Conchita is a stage name and Neuwirth became successful using that name. If Neuwirth's success continues under his own name or some other stage name, then we can discuss about moving the article. Until then, we should keep it under the current stage name like many other articles (eg. Grimes or Bono). Basically, there is no evidence that Neuwirth is independently notable. The article just contains half a paragraph about a new persona called WURST. More than 90% of the article is about Conchita. In comparison Steve Coogan has participated in plenty of films and shows not as Alan Partridge. Vpab15 (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, as the original proposer, make a point of information on this comment. It is simply not the case that "90% of the article is about Conchita". Indeed, that is precisely my point. The introduction, early life, career, personal life sections are all specifically framed as being about Neuwirth and not the character Conchita. Even the sections which understandably refer heavily to Conchita are written through the prism of Neuwirth's personal experience. I hope this is helpful. Emmentalist (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean over 90% of the section about the professional life, which is what matters. Probably in her personal life Lady Gaga uses her real name, but professionally she is known by her stage name, so that is what we use. Vpab15 (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @Vpab15, I don't want to draw this out unnecessarily, but my own view (which guess you disagree with) is that this situation is quite different from others where a performer employs a nickname or stage name (Bono isn't a stage name, by the way. It's what Paul Hewson been known as since he was a child). Conflating Neuwirth and Conchita leads to extraordinarily confusing and misleading reportage. In the world's most read news publication, for example Conchita is presented as a real person blazing a trail for queer people. But she is not a person at all; she is a personna. Of course Neuwirth is complicit in this for commercial reasons, but this does not add any validity whatever to the notion of Conchita as a real person. I am not concerned with Neuwirth's personal interests, but with the avoidance of 'alternative facts' which can crop up when pushed by commercial interests. Clearly, the facts here are that Neuwirth is a gay man quite possibly doing good things for gay men and queer women (although I note that he says Conchita's pronouns are she/her), but this is quite a different thing from presenting Conchita is a real person with agency. When Lady Gaga or Bono talks about their opinions or agency, we know they are referring to the real people, i.e themselves. This is not true of Conchita. In my opinion, it is very important that Wikipedia not be complicit in any media ambiguity about what Conchita is. Emmentalist (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Very similar to the case of George Eliot. We always go with the pseudonym if the person's work is mostly done using that name, regardless of gender discrepancy between real name and alias. Vpab15 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding wikipedia being complicit in ambiguity, it is very clearly explained in the first sentence that Conchita is a stage persona. There is not much more we can do if people are unable to read and understand one simple sentence. Vpab15 (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Vpab15, that's certainly food for thought. We can agree to disagree on this, but it's very constructive and useful, and interesting too, to read your thoughts. The admin who closes this out will no doubt take it all into account. I hope we can chat again about another Wiki issue at some point. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support split - seems fine with that Emmentalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Cadmore254 (talk • contribs) 09:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC) FYI: This appears to be a sock of some sort as Extraordinary Wiki pointed out on Talk:Charlie Savage which is due to be moved to Charlie Savage (author). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 13:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 1 March 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: MOVED. Hadal (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Neuwirth → Conchita Wurst – Neuwirth is primarily known for his drag persona. The general precedent is that WP:STAGENAME applies equally to drag queens; see also, Verka Serduchka (not Andriy Danylko), Jinkx Monsoon (not Jerick Hoffer), Divina de Campo (not Owen Farrow), et al. Sceptre (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. No such user (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conchita_Wurst&oldid=1195420544"