Talk:Asia Kate Dillon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Asking for advice

I've asked for advice on how to expand this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Asia_Kate_Dillon

--Cassolotl (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

How is Dillon not notable?

@SwisterTwister: You said "Listed works are not significant to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER and notability cannot be inherited from others." I'm not 100% familiar with all of the rules and guidelines so I'd like some clarification, if you're willing?

I feel that Dillon is a notable person for playing the first nonbinary character on US TV and being nonbinary themself. When you say that notability cannot be inherited from others, does that mean that the TV show in which they play the first nonbinary character (Billions) should talk about this instead? Or that the character, Taylor Mason, should have a page of their own for being the first nonbinary character on US TV? Or do you think that despite the sources, the first nonbinary character on TV isn't notable in itself?

Thank you in advance! --Cassolotl (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate

Someone has made an article for Asia Kate Dillon, and I said on the talk page that this draft had been rejected for lack of notability and would they like to merge their content with ours. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 14:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Article merge problems

The article was created in mainspace. A draft version at AFC was rejected for notability problems. Please someone look this over, because the creator of the mainspace article, and its history somehow got left out in the merging and redirect. The creator at main space needs to receive attribution as the article creator. I have no objection for additions from the failed AFC draft to be added to the article. Please @AnthonyAppleyard look this over just once more. Thank you. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Antonioatrylia: I feel it should be mentioned that the draft was created long before the mainspace article was started! Is that relevant? I'm not 100% sure how that works around here! Also, tagging @Anthony Appleyard: because I don't think @s do things here possibly? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 14:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the way it works around here is that a draft article at AFC is just that. The particular draft about dillon was failed for lack of notability. Another editor created the present article as a stub in mainspace. That article for Dillon is the mainspace article for Dillon. You are certainly welcome to join in and improve the article in mainspace. It looks that you have done a good job on research. I am sorry if you are disappointed, but there is an article in mainspace, and I would invite you to join in and help expand the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Antonioatrylia:I think probably because the draft has all the same content as the mainspace article, plus more stuff, if it was my wiki and I could do what I want I'd just copy-paste the content over entirely! But that could also be pretty rude, so I don't want to do that unless at least one other person says that's a good idea. I definitely don't want to cause upset.

I guess it bothered me that my draft was turned down for being not notable, and then someone went and set it up in mainspace anyway, with less information in it, and it just made me go o.O. And I don't really know where to go from here, because the plan was to move it to mainspace when it was notable and approved, but someone just went ahead and set it up with even less info. So I'm not really sure what the etiquette is in this situation! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 19:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I hope you are aware that any editor can make a one or two sentence stub article about a subject with two or three good references to reliable sources and it is immediately an article. Patrollers check the articles just like reviewers check articles for notability and other things at AFC. Maybe you could pick two or three good subjects and make three stub articles with each 2 or 3 references. Then you can expand as you go. It is not required to use AFC. There is a thing called the Article Wizard. Have you seen that? Antonioatrylia (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• See long discussion at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Asia Kate Dillon problem with merger/redirect - please help to give proper atribution to mainspace article creator. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Notability and verifiability tags

@Antonioatrylia: Per your recent edit, what are your specific remaining concerns regarding the notability and verifiability of this BLP? I find it somewhat odd that you have added these considering the amount of work you put into the parallel article that was merged with this page, which had no such templates before the merger, even though that article featured less information and fewer references than this one at that time. Funcrunch (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I did work on the original mainspace article before the failed AFC draft was used to overwrite the article. Nevertheless, I was building the article to try and gain enough references from reliable sources to show notability. This current article has little about the subject and their life. Basically they have had two great parts in two shows, plus some other work as well. There currently is a emmy nomination. The other main information is about the subject and them dealing and coping with society. (trying to phrase that respectfully) The article has begun to have too much info and copy about one main aspect of their life to the point of becoming WP:UNDUE. I do not appreciate your insinuations. Please do assume good faith from this point on. WP:AGF Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's frankly difficult for me to assume good faith here considering your strongly stated disappointment and disagreement with the article merger, both in the discussion linked above by Anthony Appleyard and on your own talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Funcrunch Disappointment is a word you have chosen, and for your information I was not. You are continuing to not show good faith. I will not template your talk page with a warning since you are apparently a regular around here. I read over your user page, and I can see that you are doing work in some very important areas. I respect that. I saw there some red linked names for articles needed. I am going to work on three of the names to start articles for them. In summary, please consider yourself warned about failing to show good faith. Please comment on content and not editors in the future. I think you are doing fantastic work within the projects you are involved in. Thanks for your work on the encyclopedia, and have a good rest of the week. Antonioatrylia (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The "undue weight" issue

I would like to know more about what exactly is considered unduly weighty in this article, and why. I'm looking at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight, which mostly talks about how to avoid giving undue weight to views held by a minority (such as Flat Earth Theory on a page about the Earth), but doesn't discuss how to judge this on biography pages of individuals.

My plan is to make some edits (when I am able) to cover their budding career in trans visibility and advocacy; they're taking part in many interviews on talk shows and news programmes about being openly nonbinary, pronouns, etc, and it's making waves and contributing to nonbinary genders being more well-known.

Pinging @Antonioatrylia and Funcrunch: I know you two have discussed this recently and I wanted to get some more specific information so I can improve the article enough to get that template removed! (I'll be honest, I am struggling to assume good faith here too.) --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit: Looking at this:

This current article has little about the subject and their life. Basically they have had two great parts in two shows, plus some other work as well. There currently is a emmy nomination. The other main information is about the subject and them dealing and coping with society. (trying to phrase that respectfully) The article has begun to have too much info and copy about one main aspect of their life to the point of becoming WP:UNDUE.

Looking for clarification, here: do you mean that the article is imbalanced because there is more information about their career in the article and not so much about their personal life? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that WP:UNDUE applies to this article as it currently stands, but after my previous discussion with Antonioatrylia I leave it to other editors to decide if and when to remove the template. Funcrunch (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with that, Funcrunch. The template also says the article needs citations, when there are plenty - I have been careful to find citations for everything I've added, though I wasn't sure what would be an acceptable citation for the TV shows they've been in - I took the information from IMDb. I will look at some other articles and see if I can come up with something, and I will remove the templates afterwards. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source since the content is user-created, though in practice many editors do copy film and TV entries from there. I added a couple of non-IMDb references to that section FWIW. Funcrunch (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Thanks! Yes, I can definitely see that IMDb is not a reliable source. When I originally copied it over I did so with the intent to later research the films, find out how to attribute them, and add proper citations. Today I managed to find some non-IMDb links while digging around so I've added those in, but a lot of the smaller things like short films don't have any online information so I have to cite the film itself directly with as much information as I can find, even though we have no way of watching the film to verify that Dillon was in it! I'm not sure how else to go ahead, so hopefully someone else can improve the citations based on what I've included. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 16:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The undue weight and POV problems in this article are still present, and I will be restoring the undue template because the issue has not been fully addressed. There is a definite slant in the article to the fact that the actor is non-binary. That is one aspect about the actor. That does not mean it needs to be mentioned over and over. Undue weight is being given to that one aspect of the actor's life. Also, yes there are several citations about shows the actor was in, but not so much about their life in general. I will leave off the blp needs more citations tag for now, but only because another editor has tagged the personal life section as needing expansion. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue here is related to pronouns. It may very well be the wish of Asia to be referred to as 'they/them', but it adds confusion to the article. Currently, the line "Dillon enrolled in and completed the Meisner training program at The Actor’s Workshop of Ithaca, beginning during their junior year of high school at age sixteen." - just as an example - indicates that the Actor's Workshop began Meisner traning during its junior year of high school, which is just nonsense. To remedy the situation you must either: 1. Replace "their" with her name; "... beginning during Dillon's junior year...", or 2: Use 'she' - to properly distinct between Dillon and the Actor's Workshop. I realize this may be a sensitive subject to some people, and that these people may have a special interest in keeping this article gender-neutral, but keep in mind this is not a personal biography for her, nor a page advocating non-binary rights.52.29.147.205 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sentences can be rewritten for clarification, but it is not acceptable to refer to Dillon as "she" or "her". This is not a matter of advocacy, it's a matter of respecting gender identity and chosen pronouns, per existing and established WP:BLP policy. See MOS:GENDERID Funcrunch (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please also note that edits to this article and talk page are subject to discretionary sanctions. Funcrunch (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Then rewrite the sentences so they don't sound like nonsense, as they currently do. It seems like you have forced "they/their/them" into use in places where it could easily have been avoided or where a pronoun such as "she" or "her" is necessary - at the sacrifice of readability. 52.29.147.205 (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, using "she" or "her" to refer to Dillon is unacceptable. As far as the use of singular they, it is neither prohibited nor required on Wikipedia at this time. There is a current RfC regarding this issue which you are welcome to weigh in on. Funcrunch (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to add that every source on this page, and there are many, successfully and clearly uses singular they to describe Dillon. Dillon is not known as "she/her" in any news or media as far as I'm aware. (Though they do play a woman in Orange is the New Black, but since cis actors play trans characters all the time and no one misgenders the actors this should not be an issue.) As such, it would probably be *more* confusing to call Dillon "she" in this article when no one else does. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 15:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References in filmography section

The following references are listed in filmography section.

• Jamie Sisley. We're All Gonna Die (in production) (Short film). USA: Jamie Sisley.
• Andy Zou, Ronnie Rios, Ramon O. Torres (directors) (2015-06-07). Opus for All (Opus 4 - Our Better Angels) (Short). USA.

Jack Skyyler, Joel Brook (directors)

• Daniel Slottje (director, writer) (2009). My Popcorn Nights (Short film). USA: Daniel Slottje.

These references as listed do not seem verifiable. There needs to be some publication or website, newspaper or book to be able to verfy what is posted. They need to be corrected or they will be removed for non-verifiability. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Antonioatrylia: You have removed one film citation that includes a link to the film in full, because it is a primary source - even though primary sources are permitted. And now you are proposing that these are removed because they are not verifiable? If a citation with a URL to the source is not acceptable because there is a URL to the source, and a citation stating the publication details of the film is not acceptable because it cannot be verified, I don't understand what *is* acceptable for short films that received very little press attention but which nevertheless should be included in a filmography of Asia Kate Dillon. We have Template:Cite_AV_media because it is acceptable to use audio and visual media as a reference.

I really do doubt your good faith. Is there a knowledgable third party we can contact to resolve this issue? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cassolotl: If things can't be worked out amicably on this talk page, you can try the dispute resolution noticeboard. Funcrunch (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cassolot You freely admit you are not showing good faith. Consider your self warned for not showing good faith. I won't bother to template your page with a notice for failure to good faith. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: Thank you, I'll try that! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cassolotl: Note that if you want to discuss user conduct specifically, they won't do that at DRN, so ANI is a better choice. Funcrunch (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I'm very new to this situation - I've never been in a position to ask for conflict resolution on Wikipedia before. I'm not sure if ANI is appropriate in this case. I feel like Antonioatrylia is being very confrontational and aggressive but I am struggling to judge whether that's an accurate assessment and if ANI is therefore the right thing to do! You're right though, they're clearly upset about the decision to use the draft instead of the existing mainspace article. I've started a conflict resolution here, but I welcome any thoughts you have about whether this is better suited to ANI. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 18:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Funcrunch: I just wanted to tell you that I was still feeling pretty uncomfortable about how this was going so I started a section on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon. Thank you for telling me about that option! --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 21:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are being removed that should not be

I note that Dillon's birthday was removed because it is a primary source (Dillon's own Twitter post) and therefore is unreliable. I also note that a reference was removed due to it being a primary source, which included a link to the film itself on Vimeo. Both of these edits were made by User:Antonioatrylia (tagging you for FYI purposes!)

These should not have been removed. This is because primary sources are permitted:

to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does.

Additionally,

An article about a film: The film itself is an acceptable primary source for information about the plot and the names of the characters. A Wikipedian cannot use the film as a source for claims about the film's themes, importance to the film genre, or other matters that require critical analysis or interpretation.

Clearly the film itself is a reliable source of information about the actors who were in it, and Dillon themself is a reliable source for their own date of birth. So I will edit to reinclude these. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The references to twitter and vimeo are considered unreliable and will be removed. Do not edit war to try to get your incorrect preferred version into the article. Antonioatrylia (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have provided links to very clear policy on this matter from within Wikipedia. I would like to bring in a third party who has the authority and experience to make this decision. How do we do that? --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cassolotl: I mentioned the dispute resolution noticeboard in the above section, but if you want an admin specifically, you can try the incident noticeboard. Funcrunch (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: There is a dispute raised here: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Asia_Kate_Dillon.23Primary_sources_are_being_removed_that_should_not_be --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Update 2: There is also a discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents taking place. Slasher405 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Haven't really looked into the issue but I'd assumed the issue with primary sources was people quoting themselves and similar tricks to appear scholarly, the date of birth example is just an accessible location to reference Czarnibog (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

'She' not 'they'

Misgendering and off-topic

Referring to a single person as 'they' is simply nonsense, and as this person is sexually (that is biologically) defined as a woman, 'they' should become 'she'. What a person decides to 'identify themselves as' does not justify either a desecration of the English language, nor sacrificing a standard of objectivity that befits an encyclopedia entry. 83.54.134.209 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Sirin Singular they has an established history of use and is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Dillon is nonbinary, not a woman, and prefers singular they pronouns. This article is subject to discretionary sanctions; do not continue to misgender Dillon on this talk page or anywhere else on this encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC) A history of use perhaps, certainly not established. What she prefers and what is the case are two entirely different things. Insisting that other people indulge one's preferences to the point of colluding in nonsense simply isn't reasonable, is it? 83.54.134.209 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC) Dillon has chosen to identify as "they." Therefore, we are obligated to oblige to this request. Just as it is impolite to purposefully call someone the wrong name, it is, in today's society, impolite to purposefully address someone as the wrong gender. Wikipedia is not here to make an ethical statement, just to inform people on whatever article they happen to come upon. By using "they" instead of "she," you are not only protecting yourself from further scorn, but also protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits and attacks from those who believe that Dillon should be referred to as "they." So, for the good of yourself and the Wikipedia community, I urge you to show the proper respect to Dillon as you would any other human being.SeabassTheFish (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC) All the sources listed on this page re: Dillon describe Dillon as "they/them". All online articles use "they". All interviewees referring to Dillon use "they". The media in general have been very consistently calling Dillon "they". It would be more confusing to break from that and misgender them by calling them "she". --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 15:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Therefore, we are obligated to oblige to this request." No, no you are not. Obliged by whom? In what way? "Just as it is impolite to purposefully call someone the wrong name, it is, in today's society, impolite to purposefully address someone as the wrong gender." Not an analogy. She has deliberately chosen to demand that others address her in a way that is contrary to the rules of English diction. A sensible person is required to refuse, and it is arguably she who is being rude by demanding that others do so. "Wikipedia is not here to make an ethical statement, just to inform people on whatever article they happen to come upon." Not a question of ethics, it's a question of what is, and what isn't, true. "By using "they" instead of "she," you are not only protecting yourself from further scorn, but also protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits and attacks from those who believe that Dillon should be referred to as "they."" I don't care about being scorned by morons. And again, the truth is more important. "All the sources listed on this page re: Dillon describe Dillon as "they/them"." Again, the truth is more important. "It would be more confusing to break from that and misgender them by calling them "she"." 'Misgender' is a non-word. 31.48.230.152 (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Obliged by our rules, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, arguably the most important rule we have, certainly one of our top three. We report what Wikipedia:Reliable sources write, not what we volunteer editors think. That's what makes us an encyclopedia and not a blog. --GRuban (talk) 01:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC) This cannot be so if the available sources are not neutral, which is clearly the case. If Wikipedia articles are meant to be neutral, then the editors are required to decide for themselves what constitutes a neutral point of view. Evidently the best course to pursue would be a use of English which is grammatical expressing content which is reasonable. That's as neutral as it's ever going to get. 31.48.230.152 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC) We don't need to relitigate this on every talk page. If you really believe the rule should be changed, take it to the talk page for MOS:GENDERID. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC) For those trying to talk common sense about gender, and the English language, you may as well just give up and move on. This is a losing battle. We now live in an era where hurt feelings are more important than science, and this is very evident within Wikipedia. There is no point arguing about it, it is basically the equivalency of pointing out a person's eyes are brown, but if they say they are blue, and someone says you are not respecting their wishes in the matter, science is out the window. This is the current flavor of the month for some people, gender'ism if you will, as though what you see with your own eyes doesn't matter, if you comment on something that is so totally common sense, you will be labeled a "bigot". It is best just to smile, shake your head, and move on. Wikipedia will remain more concerned with protecting the fragile egos of some users than they will with reality.RTShadow (talk) 18:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC) I stumbled on that page after viewing Jonh wick 3 ("consequences...") and I must admit that you are definitely right. Seeing Wikipedia comply with a so-called star wishes to be called "they" instead of "she" just proves how far Wikipedia has come from its original purpose. And this marks the end of my annual financial contribution to the project. Yeah, I know, it was merely a drop in the ocean but still, that's my way of fighting for science. Málåsgløbdük (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC) " Dillon has chosen to identify as "they." Therefore, we are obligated to oblige to this request. Just as it is impolite to purposefully call someone the wrong name, it is, in today's society, impolite to purposefully address someone as the wrong gender. Wikipedia is not here to make an ethical statement, just to inform people on whatever article they happen to come upon. By using "they" instead of "she," you are not only protecting yourself from further scorn, but also protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits and attacks from those who believe that Dillon should be referred to as "they." So, for the good of yourself and the Wikipedia community, I urge you to show the proper respect to Dillon as you would any other human being." I just want to point out that claiming that this is an not an "ethical statement" and just an an effort to "inform people" is itself a political and ethical statement. The policy is quite clearly political and non-neutral.

Should we at least put a box on the edit page to warn “grammar nazis”? Jimw338 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

98.172.31.83 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 02:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

gender at birth/biological gender

i wasn't able to find a source that even answers the question but i think it would be useful to readers and appropriate to have their gender at birth listed in the article. i know some will have the view of 'it doesn't matter'/'they identify as nonbinary we should respect that' but this is an encyclopedia, not their Facebook profile. we record the facts and that's an encyclopedia worthy fact.

anybody have a source with this information? Isenta (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@Isenta: It's not just "some will have the view", deferring to their identity is an established guideline of this project. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: You seem to have misunderstood. I am not proposing they be referred to by their birth gender throughout the article. I am simply saying the birth gender should be noted in the article. As in a one line statement of fact with a citation. Isenta (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Isenta: Well, I'm not concerned about your specific suggestion so much as the general assumption that gender assignment at birth is inherently encyclopedic (it's not, it needs to be discussed in reliable sources just like any other information we would include) and that there's this cloud of "let's maintain this biography like a Facebook profile" amongst Wikipedia editors because that's not actually happening. What is actually happening in this and other biographies if you check out their edit histories is people frequently misgendering individuals because they enjoy being disruptive and combative over gender issues. These are BLP violations, and it's dehumanizing to the subjects of the articles, so these issues are not trivial. That's basically the situation. I think it's fine to include this information in a minimal way as you've said, but let's agree to focus on the real problems and not the imagined ones.

With all that said, there is this televised interview with Ellen DeGeneres with a transcript where Dillon notes that they were "assigned female at birth". There's also this interview with the LA Times:"Up until that moment I hadn’t understood that I could’ve been assigned female at birth, but that didn’t automatically make me a girl or a woman. And that light-bulb moment was really extraordinary and very freeing." I've added this information to the Personal Life section, but I'm open to other suggestions about how to handle this information. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. I agree with the misgendering. I would have reverted anyone I saw doing that. Your edit looks fine, that's what I was suggesting. Isenta (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks as well. If you do happen to notice any behavior like that on other articles, let me know, and I can take further action as needed. :) I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable and respectful way to include the information without giving it undue weight; thanks I JethroBT. Funcrunch (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why couldn't the article just state Dillon's biological sex as female, as Dillon does explicitly in interviews (youtube.com/watch?v=f97aLkl_kWc)? It's not inherently confusing that someone's gender identity doesn't match their biological sex. Additionally, it's plainly inaccurate to say that Dillon "uses singular they pronouns", if the sentence is to be taken literally. Dillon asks other people to use "they". Dillon uses "I" or "me". Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Question regarding article's presentation of gender identity

Disclaimer: I am not here to discuss Dillon's gender identity itself. I am curious about the article's handling of their gender identity from a literary standpoint; I have no interest in using Wikipedia to be socio-political, nor to express opinions regarding gender matters, non-binary or otherwise.

---

With that said, this sentence, verbatim, is used twice:

"Dillon identifies as non-binary and uses singular they pronouns."

My question is: why is there a need to have this sentence twice in one article? It is in the intro, uncited, and in the "Personal life" section with three citations.

Therefore, I believe that it may possibly be redundant to have the sentence in the intro. I believe that it gives undue weight to Asia Kate Dillon the non-binary person, as opposed to Asia Kate Dillon the actor. As well, both the sentence itself, citations, and further relevant information are presented in "Personal life", in a way that appropriately conveys the needed info regarding Asia's gender identity.

I would have removed it myself from the intro; however, in this case, I do not want to be pesky regarding this sensitive subject. While I maintain that it should be removed because of the further details in "Personal life", I believe other editors' opinions should be expressed before that happens. If my opinion here is not the consensus opinion, the intro sentence should at least be rephrased. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's in the lede because MOS:GENDERID says "When a person's gender self-designation may come as a surprise to readers, explain it without overemphasis on first occurrence in an article." If it's in the lede it also cuts down on people coming to this page and thinking "those personal pronouns are weird, I'll fix them". The citations should probably be moved to the lede and the duplicated sentence in "Personal life" removed. --ChiveFungi (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. That sounds fair. Thanks for the input. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's still weird (and inaccurate) because Dillon doesn't actually use "they", Dillon uses "I" or "me". Dillon wants other people to use "they". Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As a non-binary trans person myself, I prefer to say that a person "goes by" such and such pronouns. But "uses" is generally understood to mean that the person wants other people to refer to them with the pronouns listed. Funcrunch (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Funcrunch that we can say a person "uses" they. One of the perceived difficulties with non-gendered pronouns is that they can make English feel less fluid, but it is worth the temporary discomfort for the queer "wokeness" it promotes. For many years, I lived on a commune where we used "co", "co's" and "coself" as the third-person singular pronoun forms to refer to all people, regardless of their gender identity; it was a bit awkward, but we grew accustomed to it, and eventually fluent. The process of adapting our speech to show our support of non-binary people and their rights may similarly take getting used to, but it is worth it! So, for the sake of making our English usage as uncomplicated as possible (and English is such a complicated language) let's not nitpick about what it means to "use" they. Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of making our English usage as uncomplicated as possible, why not just use it correctly in an encyclopedia? The English language is perfectly capable of saying what we mean (Dillon wants other people to use "they"). Why say what we don't mean, hoping that others will get use to it? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Goes by" doesn't mean that, either. Why not just say what we mean, clearly: Dillon wants other people to use "they". Why misuse the English language in hopes that others will follow suit, when using the English language correctly works just fine? Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I neither understand nor agree with your interpretation of what is "misuse" of the English language. "Goes by" and "uses" are both common and acceptable ways to explain a person's pronouns. I haven't seen any other articles on Wikipedia or elsewhere using a sentence of the sort you propose ("Dillon wants other people to use 'they'".) Funcrunch (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't need to be those exact words, any clear statement would suffice. Wikipedia policy requires the use of standard English in articles. And in this case, it is very easy to use standard English to say that Dillon prefers/wants/requests to be referred to as "they" by other people (speaking in third person). That would clarify to all native English speakers (not just a small group "in the know") why the article uses "they" and who "they" refers to, which is otherwise very confusing to most people. The misuse I was referring to is that the word "uses" simply does not mean "asks/prefers other people to use". "Goes by" does mean that, but normally refers to a proper name, so is unclear at the least (but possibly could be clarified). My main point is that standard English is more than up to the task. Why not use it to alleviate unnecessary confusion? Even using "they" as a gender-neutral third-person pronoun is standard English. But third-person pronouns are never used by the third person themselves. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite a single published example, in either a Wikipedia article or a reliable source, that describes a non-binary person's pronouns using the "standard English" formation you prefer? Funcrunch (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Assuming you mean standard English explaining why "they" would be used to refer to a specific person, sure: Singular_they#Use_for_specific,_known_people. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I think what Funcrunch meant was the specific language dispute you keep raising. Nobody else seems to mind the description of "Dillon uses singular 'they' pronouns", but since you object to it and would prefer it stated another way, do you have examples, on either Wikipedia or an RS, that show it phrased another way? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a generic example is linked in the post above that you just responded to. The same language could be adapted for use in this article, as I have suggested. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Broccoli and Coffee, that is what I meant. And FWIW, the article cited refers to Dillon's pronouns in the same way as this article :

The first non-binary main character on North American television appeared on the Showtime drama series Billions in 2017, with Asia Kate Dillon playing Taylor Mason.[103][104] Both actor and character use singular they.

Funcrunch (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

That article also words it in standard English, as you requested an example of: "Known individuals may be referred to as they if.....the individual is non-binary or genderqueer, regards male or female pronouns as inappropriate, and prefers they instead." and "....designate a pronoun, including they/them, which they wish to be used when referring to them." It's a purely semantic issue, neither is strictly right or wrong, but why expect the average reader to understand something that many in the LGBT+ community don't even understand, when plain English would work perfectly to explain it? Singular they is nothing new, the only thing new is trying to treat it as a proper name instead of a third person pronoun that everyone already understands. Anyone fluent in English understands that third person pronouns are not "used" by the third person themselves, they are used by others to refer to a third person. That's why they're called third person pronouns. This was referred to as "nitpicky" somewhere above, but respectable encyclopedia articles are supposed to be nitpicky about such things. And more importantly, why give ammo to people who don't want to use "they"? It's a perfectly reasonable position that if someone is not explicitly asked to use "they", they won't use "they". And this article never explicitly says that Dillon wants others to use "they". The reader is expected to infer it from language they are not familiar with. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The article you cited specifically states, in regards to Dillon: "Both actor and character use singular they." I am trying to assume good faith, but if you're not able or willing to provide a single example of a published Wikipedia article or reliable source that uses a sentence construction like "[Subject] wants other people to use 'they'", where [Subject] is a specific non-binary person, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. And unless you can convince other editors of your argument, you will not have consensus to change the current wording. Funcrunch (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I will be lazy and link the same interview of Dillon by Ellen DeGeneres that I linked above, where Ellen uses similar language more than once during the interview (she uses the word "prefer" instead of "want"), to clarify exactly what I have suggested should be clarified in this article. Dillon uses language similar to yours, but agrees that Ellen's statements are correct, and does not object to Ellen's "sentence construction": Ellen interview with Dillon. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Offering a talk show host's question, posed in the course of an unscripted conversation, is not the published Wikipedia article or RS I asked for and is, as you admitted, "lazy". I've spent more than enough time on this discussion, and will leave it to other editors to engage further if they wish. Funcrunch (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Great, since I'm not here to meet your ever more unreasonable demands. That interview is a (primary) RS per Wikipedia policy, better than many of the sources already cited in the article, and it alone is obviously a sufficient source for the article to say what was said in the interview. Other sources are easy enough to find, but my laziness is due to the fact that clearly there is no longer any good faith dispute between us. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's less about it being a reliable source and more about spoken English being different than the written language. If we dictated every article based on the way people speak, the encyclopedia would be unreadable. But, for what it's even worth, Dillon, while explaining what non-binary means, even says that "non-binary is a term used by some people, myself included" and then a moment later, "I use the singular 'they', 'them', 'their' pronouns". So, I'm not sure how that video helps prove your case? – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Dillon verbally agreeing that they prefer to be referred to as "they/them" doesn't prove that Dillon prefers to be referred to as "they/them"? And the article should be written the way Dillon speaks instead of standard English because Wikipedia would be unreadable if articles were based on the way people speak? It seems there is no good faith disagreement between us, either. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This is VERY confusing. That sentence, so often used, never seems to include the last part. "So that is how I am able to identify as both non-binary, but also female."

How is it that she identifies as female AND non-binary, but for some reason, the "female" part is left out. I see no reason why we cannot also use her own words to say she identifies as both? Chaosdruid (talk) 10:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Because Dylan was using the term "female" to refer to biological sex, not gender identity. Just to be precise, the term female means "of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes." I'm not sure why some people consider society's superficial construct of gender so important that they rudely demand that others speak non-standard English to accommodate them, even when not present. It's almost like they don't even realize that most people use terms like "male" and "female", "he" and "she" IOW standard English (Webster's dictionary) to refer to biological sex (not gender identity). Because the term "she" means "a female person" and "female" is defined as a particular biological sex. The crazy thing is people who will "correct" someone for using correct standard English, and demand that they not do so. Why such unnecessary hostility for such frivolous semantic reason? Even if they were right, it seems pretty obnoxious to make such hostile demands of other people. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to adhere to a person's preferred gender pronouns. Sex and gender are different, but despite your assertion that "male" and "female" are are only used to signal a sex, in reality they are used for both. Insistence that people use correct standard English is misleading -- there is no "correct standard". Languages evolve, meanings change. There's certainly been a paradigm shift in the way society discusses sex and gender, so of course adjustments to terminology are difficult. But, it's also important to listen to those who request the use of a specific pronoun. When Dillon and others request we refer to them as "they/them" (I haven't seen someone rudely demand this), it would be rude, insensitive, and wrong to use something else. This has been discussed ad naseum above and elsewhere. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please be civil and refrain from making false statements about other editors. I never made an assertion that ""male" and "female" are only used to signal a sex". I also did not say it was "unreasonable to adhere to a person's preferred gender pronouns" or any of the other stuff you falsely implied above. The strawman tactic of arguing against something nobody has said in order to make false implications about others is far too common on this talk page, and thwarts honest discussion (the obvious goal), but explicitly making a false statement about what someone else said is way over the line. If you wish to delete your above post, you may delete this one as well. Thank you for your consideration and may peace be with you. Blue Eyes Cryin (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2019

Change Filmography to be chronological and add John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum Keocode (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Questions

where is the long hair picture?who is her boyfriend.someone help this article by adding these questions please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.100.185 (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no clue what you mean by "the long hair picture". The picture we have shows them with short hair.

If we had independent reliable sources discussing their romantic life, we would discuss it. We don't so we can't. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please change the picture

Or is there a reason someone picked the most stupid looking picture you can find online? ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.243.102 (talk • contribs) 07:28, June 7, 2019 (UTC)

We cannot use most pictures found on the internet. Please see WP:IUP. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

singular they

If Asia Kate Dillon uses singular they, shouldn't it be "they was assigned" and "they is attracted" in "Personal life"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E56:8CE0:2875:F68C:44F3:11DE (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not the correct usage of singular they. Maybe a weird thing about English but they takes plural subject agreement still, see [1]. This usage is consistent going back a long time. Similar to how singular you acts in the case of 'you are' vs 'you is.' Rab V (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well stated, Rab! Paulmlieberman (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)