Talk:Hannah Gadsby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWomen in Red: Art+Activism (2022)
WikiProject iconThis article was created or improved during the Art+Activism edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project in March 2022. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Subheadings needed: Education, Career, Festival Acts, influences, subject matter, (see infobox)[edit]

The above areas of info would be great to add.
Also please see the infobox & fill in any areas you have reliable information on.
And please include any citations or references at the bottom.
Thanks very much.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hannah Gadsby. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic[edit]

I removed some information because it was offtopic.[1] Since it was not about a standup show, it did not belong in the Standup section. Perhaps it could be salvaged if it was put in a more appropriate section but I could not think of a suitable way to reorganise that information at this time.

Maybe her dissatisfaction with Netflix is worth mentioning in a different way. Or maybe, since the point of her statement was that she objected to Ted Sarandos dragging her into the discussion and using her a shield, and as this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article about her life, the biography of a living person, maybe it would be better not to mention it at all.
Similarly, maybe it is worth mentioning that Dave Chapelle made a joke that "Gadsby is not funny" or maybe it is not appropriate to present a joke in that way in her biography when that issue has already been addressed in a neutral way by the text: some critics said Nanette was "not comedy but a lecture". (Not being funny does not make her show any less a significant piece of work.)

Out of an abundance of caution and to show respect for this as an encyclopaedic article about a real person, I removed the information. If other editors want to add it back I urge them to do so respectfully and to also try to present it in an appropriate way under a relevant section. -- 109.78.209.61 (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note WP:NYPOST reference should not be restored and there are plenty of other sources available if editors believe it is appropriate to include the Chappelle joke.[2][3][4] -- 109.78.209.61 (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, Chappelle never directly said she wasn't funny. He listed as a demand that anyone who speaks with him has to "admit that Hannah Gadsby is not funny". So it's a bit indirect. And whether or not he was doing a bit or not is up to interpretation. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't say if you thought it should be included or not (either her complaints about Sarndos/Netlfix or Chapelle's joke). Gadsby didn't "directly" insult Chappelle either, she indirectly referred to his "his emotionally stunted partial world view"[5] she had to know her statement was likely to provoke a response. Chappelle was on stage performing a comedy show, so of course he was doing a bit. I'm sure he said it primarily because it was funny, it is also possible that he may have seen Gadsby's lectures and found parts to be funny, clever, or interesting, we may never know, but it was clearly a joke. More importantly if people can take this seriously and remember this is a biographical article about a real person, and also that there are already ways to reasonably highlight that various critics (not just Chappelle) thought she was not funny, then we can stay on topic and try to make this a better encyclopedia. So while I did not think the joke should have been included in the article the way it was presented, or at all probably, there may yet be a way for a serious editor to include it if presented carefully and in an appropriately neutral way. -- 109.78.208.59 (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that from an encyclopedic standpoint that the great deal of people who have said Hannah Gadsby is not funny shouldn't be included because they were not newsworthy. As the Chappelle commentary back and forth between the two are newsworthy, wikipedia is also WP:NOTNEWS and shouldn't be treated as such. The fact that the mainstream media is also recording the comments Chappelle most recently made out of context as "CHAPPELLE SAYS GADSBY IS NOT FUNNY" speaks to how in general the entire controversy surrounding this and that and especially The Closer goes to show how much of this is not entirely encyclopedic. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of casting aspersions by questioning other editors "good judgment" how would you improve the article? In what way do you think it could be included appropriately? (As CaffeinAddictit rightly said Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTNEWS. It can be newsworthy but be offtopic for a biography article in an encyclopedia.) As I said above it was in entirely the wrong section and it was using a source that was not recommended when so many other sources were readily available. We also have to be careful to avoid WP:UNDUE emphasis even if we do include it. On balance I could not think of a good way to fix it and I thought the fair thing was to leave it out but I also made sure to clearly explain my decision on the Talk page so if other editors could think of a better way to do things it could be added again. So WP:GOFORIT, but be WP:CAREFUL too. -- 109.78.208.59 (talk) 02:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think without more in-depth secondary context and commentary, it seems better to keep the focus on Gadsby and her work, not what Chappelle said about her. And the context appears to focus more on this: At Netflix, a star and employees pressure a top executive over Dave Chappelle’s special. (NYT, 2021), so it seems more WP:DUE to add to the Criticism of Netflix and The Closer (2021 film) articles. Beccaynr (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material in need of citations[edit]

I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the removed awards were easy to source, or already sourced in the article. Per WP:UNSOURCED, When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. Thanks, Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Career[edit]

Stand-up comedy[edit]

From that point on, she performed stand-up shows at festivals around Australia, such as the Adelaide Fringe, Melbourne International Comedy Festival, and Sydney Comedy Festival.

Personal life[edit]

She has performed on The Breast Darn Show in Town twice.[citation needed]

Live shows[edit]

Awards[edit]

guardian article[edit]

[6] This is worth citing. Leaving it here since I had not heard of Hannah Gadsby before. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IP - I added it to the External Links section. Beccaynr (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with Barry Humphries[edit]

Gadsby is arguably little known in Australia other than for her dispute with Barry Humphries, which has been the subject of very extensive reporting since his recent death. Yet this article makes no mention of the topic. This will need to be remedied. Observoz (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the content and sources in the article, Gadsby appears to be well-known in Australia as a comedian, writer, and actor. The content you recently added appears to conflict with WP:NPOV policy [7], to include original research and content unsupported by the source [8], and what remained after editing appears to be WP:UNDUE, based on the references and in the context of the article [9].
Per WP:BLPBALANCE, we should not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. What appears to be limited 2023 coverage of Gadsby being e.g. in 2019 "among a number of former winners who campaigned for the award to be renamed after Humphries made multiple contentious comments about transgender people" (and writing a 2018 tweet reported in 2023 by an entertainment reporter) does not seem WP:DUE in this article, and neither the 2019 campaign nor the 2018 tweet appear to be mentioned in the Barry Humphries article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronouns[edit]

I am still seeing a majority of sources using she/her pronouns. If someone can prove otherwise, or provide a source for an explicit statement about pronouns, then we can adjust accordingly.

On 3 April, an IP editor from Tanzania changed pronouns to they/them, without supporting sources.[10] Following that, Beccaynr added two insufficient sources to support the pronoun changes.[11] The two sources do not contain an explicit statement from Gadsby or her management about pronouns.

The pronoun swapping activity included changing this Stylist article title from "her" to "their", which is wrong. Many other media sources were wrongly altered. We should never change the quoted sources. Binksternet (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Binksternet, while I agree that quoted sources and headlines should not be changed without clearly indicating a change was made (e.g. with brackets) and I appreciate you noticing this happened, I also quickly reverted the more extensive pronoun changes you made throughout the article according to WP:BLP policy and MOS:GENDERID; this is a contentious topic. I think we can review the sources and make adjustments as needed to ones that have been changed without clear indications of change. However, according to MOS:GENDERID, we should Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words [...] that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. These most recent sources include:
  • Gadsby's publisher, Penguin Random House: "Multi-award-winning Hannah Gadsby broke comedy with their show Nanette when they declared that they was quitting stand-up. Now, they take us through the defining moments in their life..."
  • From their website, Gadsby's Global and Australia managment, Token: "Hannah has managed to stay pretty busy. They have done two more solo stand up shows which toured the world [...] They also squeezed in hosting a gala at the Montreal Just For Laughs comedy festival, launched a New York Times Best Selling Memoir..."
  • Variety Sept 26, 2022 e.g. "...they will tape their a new stand-up special for the streamer..."
  • Vulture Sept 26, 2022: e.g. "One of the complaints Gadsby made in their response to Sarandos's 2021 comments was that Netflix didn't pay them "nearly enough to deal with the real world consequences of the hate speech dog whistling.""
  • Netflix Apr 26 2023: "comedy — has changed a lot since Hannah Gadsby released their genre-pushing special Nanette [...] but delightfully, their dauntless, cutting approach to comedy has not. [...] what they call their first feel-good romantic comedy show..."
  • AP May 8 2023: "Gadsby, who uses the pronoun they"
  • NBC News May 15 2023: "the Australian comedian, who uses they/them pronouns"
  • ABC AU May 16 2023: "they're back with a new Netflix stand-up special [...] Gadsby is in a fresh stage of their comedy career"

I will see what I can do to review and adjust sources and quotes that may have been changed in the various back-and-forths that have happened on this article between various editors. In the meantime, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only explicit statement is from NBC News. You must cite NBC News for the statement about pronouns. Inferring is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Binksternet, we have two sources (AP and NBC News) that make the explicit statement you requested, as well as sources controlled by Gadsby (management and publisher), and a variety of reliable sources since September 2022 using they/them pronouns. I had been about to add a note to this talk page to mention I had reviewed all of the sources in the article for changes and made adjustments to quotes to help ensure that any changes made were clearly identified - I had not made those changes previously and agree with you that they should not have been made without some kind of clear indication. I also noticed that headlines do not appear to be changed in the current sources, and 'her' pronouns appear to be retained in the original headlines - this may be a question for the BLP Noticeboard for what to do, but I do not plan to change the headlines without further guidance on that detail. In the meantime, please do not continue to revert the pronouns - I think it is clear based on multiple reliable sources that Gadsby uses they/them pronouns and WP:BLP policy as well as MOS:GENDERID supports inclusion of these pronouns. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again pronouns[edit]

We have an issue with this article. They is quoted as referring to themselve as "myself". What is going on here? Plus, this doesn't rise to the level of protective editing. The definition of "they" as used is now in the Webster dictionary with no way to recall all previous editions. Obviously, the current edition trumps so what is the problem,? That is just our opinion. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The re-addition [12] of disputed content [13] to add a dictionary definition source in the lead of this article for the word they [14] does not appear necessary or appropriate according to the MOS:NEOPRONOUN section of MOS:GENDERID; this disputed content was initially added with the edit summary "First use of singular pronoun "they" linked to Webster Dictionary to support it's use as valid. I would have linked to the actual definition in Webster but is way down in paragraph D.".
According to MOS:NEOPRONOUN, "Singular they pronouns are appropriate to use in reference to a person who goes by them." Therefore, I think the dictionary definition should be removed as unnecessary and contrary to WP:GENDERBLP; as noted in the talk page section above, the use of the singular they pronoun in this article is well-sourced and supported by the MOS. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added the comment above shortly after the disputed addition was removed by Stjoan1 (thank you). To expand on my general thinking: from my view, this seems more broadly related to the MOS:NEOPRONOUN guideline, and a discussion better suited for the Biography Manual of Style talk page. There was a November 2022 Neopronouns RfC which does not suggest a need for defining the use of a singular they with a dictionary. There seems to be a broad acceptance for the use of the singular they in biographical articles, without presenting the use as a potentially invalid term and in need of a dictionary reference to support the use. Consenus can change, and a forum to broadly address the validity of the singular they in biographical articles could be the Biography Manual of Style talk page. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024[edit]

Correct the Alok link in the Hannah Gadsby's Gender Agenda section to Alok Vaid-Menon. 203.211.79.73 (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks IP, the Alok link has been fixed per existing article reference. JennyOz (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hannah_Gadsby&oldid=1212346566"