Talk:Charice Pempengco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Charice was also confronted y Showbiz News Inside report which said her rumored girlfriend was a girl from X Factor Philippines which she had met as a friend in a young age she stated "she's my everything" but it is not confirmed they are in a relationship Huklpop15 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs a new profile picture.[edit]

Charice has changed drastically since 2010. I don't think its right to keep on using those images of herself 2-3 years ago. Page should be accurate. Masterpeace3 (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as there are no free images available, this one is here to stay. If you do have a free image (meaning, not copyrighted and it can uploaded under the Creative Commons license i.e. taken by you or taken by someone else and you have permission), feel free to upload it to Commons. Thank you. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2 (2 December 2013)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. To address some of the discussion below, previous discussions at WT:RM have loosely decided that anyone can relist. Personally, I think it's best left to neutral editors, however (admins or otherwise). --BDD (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Charice PempengcoCharice – Stage name --Relisted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


Any additional comments:
  • I added back the "Pempengco" because the prior consensus in 2009 discussion opposed scrapping out "Pempengco". No one noticed that the consensus was violated twice. So move-protection was enabled. --George Ho (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment I was not aware of that discussion, which is why I just moved it. Instead of immediately requesting indefinite move protection you should have posted a message on my talk page pointing to the previous consensus. Anyways, "Charice" is pasted in freaking huge letters on her official website, she uses twitter as Charice, she releases music as Charice, her fansite, more, more, more, more and more. Furthermore, the links given in the previous rm like imdb and MySpace now all use the name "Charice". Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure that whether you will or will not do it again. Still, protection is the best bet, and unawareness of the prior discussion is no excuse for moving it deliberately. --George Ho (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Being bold and just moving the article is actually quite common on Wikipedia. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Umm... what do you mean? I don't get your general comment about "being bold" and your omitting the "be careful" part, which is what the guideline says. Oh, protection is needed to also prevent other people from moving it again and violating the consensus. It was moved a year ago by a different person without notice or discussion, so it was recently moved back. --George Ho (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Being bold as in it would have been perfectly fine to just move the article without discussion if there was lack of a previous one. I did not know about that rm discussion prior to the move, which is why I just moved it. Now, we are not here to discuss each other's behavior so please just drop it.Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the sources you provided, why user-generated and fan-generated websites? ITunes,, and Discogs use Pempengco, though one used it in prose, while the rest use it as birth name. There are sources using her full name: PhilStar, Manila Standard Today, Inquirer, Asianweek, CanIndia. And there are books, like this one. George Ho (talk) 06:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the biography states her last name but everything is listed as "Charice" (how is itunes user-generated btw). Madonna also says Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone but should her article be at Madonna Ciccone? As for your first three sources, that's in the Philippines. She was initially known there with her last name. But as she starred on Oprah and started releasing more music, she started using Charice as her stage name. Billboard magazine states her last name separately in brackets. Also here, here and here Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
There is Charice, but the book is referring to the "security guard" in Harlem, New York. In other words, probably African-American. I can't find Pempengco, but I can't find the girl's surname either. Nevertheless, when reading it, there's no mention about Charice the singer, nor is there a "singer". Another book doesn't mention the Filipina singer. If you can skip Billboard mags, I guess that Charice is ambiguous name when searching in Google Books. Here's the 2009 book referring to Pempengco, but that's old. More recent ones: [1][2][3][4], and 2013 books: [5][6]. George Ho (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What is link 2 supposed to be? A diary? "Charice" might be ambigious, but there is nobody else of that specific name covered on wikipedia so she is the primary and only topic here. If you just take a look at all her releases, she uses "Charice" as her stage name everywhere. Why are you ignoring all the major sources I gave stating her use of "Charice" as a stage name and bombarding me with Google Books? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ray, Oprah and Billboard that you gave me are reliable. Unsure about Last.Fm and Discogs, but the rest you gave me are unreliable, like IMDB. Of course, "Charice" is used. Official releases are not the only ones. Is either name more commonly used by reliable sources? George Ho (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
What about her official website? Her twitter account is a confirmed account. iTunes certainly is reliable. iMDB can be partially reliable as it is not like Wikipedia where a user just edits the page, the edit has to be confirmed by staff first. Discogs works similar. She is commonly credited as simply Charice like for example on Glee, where she guest-starred for three episodes, only "Charice" appears during the opening credits. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For now they are active. But they won't last that long; I might give them 40 years for activity. As for credits, that's Glee for you. Here's the broken imdb link: [7]. Checking the credits, they omit Pempengco recently. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
40 years of activity for what? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 04:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I meant to say that official sources may last for 10 or 40 years, depending on how active a source is. George Ho (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The internet hasn't existed for 40 years yet. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED redirects to WP:administrators, and there is WP:RMCI#Relisting. Try contacting WP:WPBIO first. George Ho (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason in particular why relisting is limited to admins? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Found WP:RMCI#Conflicts of interest. George Ho (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What does that have to do with relisting? As far as I know relisting≠closing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The instruction says that relisting "is optional and up to the closer." Well, since you are not qualified a "closer" for this discussion, you can ask an administrator in WT:RM about whether a nominator can relist own discussion. George Ho (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but I don't get it though. Why would relisting be up to the closer and the closer alone?Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The closer has to decide whether the consensus is adequate or insufficient. If insufficient, the closer can relist it. If adequate, the discussion can be closed by the closer. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean, why can't anyone just relist? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
As usual, I don't see nominators relisting their own requests right now. And relisting own discussion without determining the consensus is a bad idea and probably discouraged. Since you probably disagree with opposers (or rebutted or attempted to rebut our arguments), I can't let you relist without discussing in WT:RM first. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but I still don't see the point. I mean relisting it just puts it back to the top of the list at WP:RM Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ...I prefer leaving the backlog to someone else not involved. Yes, the backlog is cloggy, but I prefer leaving this duty to uninvolved. George Ho (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 9 August 2015[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The first three votes are really just assertions, so George Ho's argument, where he actually details his rationale with sources, carries the day. Jenks24 (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Charice PempengcoChariceWP:CONCISE. WP:COMMONNAME. Same as Amapola, Jaya, Jopay, Kyla, Karylle, and Lilet. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate. WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It is her artist's name. We have articles using only the name, e.g. Napoleon.

Barjimoa (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The WP:COMMONNAME is misinterpreted. In actuality, it does encourage commonly used name only if it's neither ambiguous nor inaccurate. There is Charisse, now a dabpage. Also, WP:NCP normally discourages using just a first name as a title. "Charice" itself is stage name... but it's not a nickname, like Fergie. Also, I might knew who Charice is, but I wouldn't know which Charice or Charisse, especially when they are homonymous. I did oppose in the past RM only because I assumed the surname is "fairly often used" per sources. This year, the surname is still "fairly often used". Speaking of Charice, there is a Barbados jeweler Charise/Charice. --George Ho (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charice Pempengco. 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.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Jake Zyrus[edit]

It has been pointed out that this is not the way to properly get a consensus, that a Request for Comment should be done.

Okay, it's done.20:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the RfC. David in DC (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Myk meant for it to be here, but currently the section is full of the !voting nonsense below. If I knew how to do it, I would "hat" the following discussion so that a clean RfC discussion could take place here, based on the context statement I put in rfcbio. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That was an incredibly biased statement that was put in the RfC. But it's gone now, so my point is moot. I tried to mediate what was starting to become a strangely diffuse edit war. No one person was doing the reverts. That stopped while the discussion was going on. Well, several editors have stepped in waving their flags, and I'm irrelevant. I was told I was doing it wrong, so I tried to do it right. See where that went. I expect this article to be deleted in a year for being overworked by opposing editors. Good luck.  — Myk Streja (what?) 09:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
This is backwards to how this is usually done, but it's become obvious we need a consensus of the proper use of male/female pronouns in reference to Jake Zyrus/Charice. At this point, we need to voice our opinion for Male: or Female: concerning changing all of the pronouns in this article. Please indicate your choice in the Survey subsection by starting your entry with a bullet (* followed by a space) then your choice in bold. Follow that with a brief explanation for the way you vote. If you feel the need for a longer explanation, please put that in the Discussion subsection. I'll vote first as an example. The final consensus will decide which way to go and we will abide by that. Thank you for your consideration. — Myk Streja (who?) 03:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


  • Female: Jake only recently declared for male, and his past was lived as the female Charice. Only recently has Zyrus lived as a male and none of the notable events were as a male. — Myk Streja (who?) 03:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

* Male: The singer has declared to be a transgender male, and not a "female with a stage name". Regardless of past declarations and presentation at the time of events, the trans community is vocal that a trans person should always be referred to by their chosen pronouns. This makes sense there's still stigma regarding 'coming out of the closet' as trans, and more likely as not the person has felt like a given gender for longer than they have been publicly trans. Considering the numerous declarations Jake has given about his gender identity through the years, this is likely true for him as well. Tl;DR: Jake has always been male, even if he declared himself publicly as such only recently, so should always be referred to as such. (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem with this vote: it's not signed by a registered user.  — Myk Streja (who?) 02:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, why would that be a problem. There's no requirement that one must be a registered user to participate in this discussion. David in DC (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, all of this silly !voting happened before the most recent sources became available, so it is now all irrelevant. Newimpartial (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Female: Born female, the vast majority of the article is related to times when Charice identified as female. After the announcement of the name Jake, there should be gender neutral language for events after the announcement, as it hasn't been confirmed by Jake if they now identify as male and wish to use male pronouns, or if this is just a stage name/publicity stunt to fix a failing career. Events after the name change should change to male, if (and only if) it is confirmed by Jake that they wish to use male pronouns and this is not just a short term publicity stunt. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Male First off, 'tho, !voting is evil. Policy-based analysis is how we decide things here. And this "survey" should not be closed by a participant in the discussion. There's no deadline.
    As is always the case, we should follow the sources. Jake posted to social media about this and deleted all his previous tweets. All of our sources reporting on this change use male pronouns. One of them even includes a direct quotation from one of Jake's representatives, using male pronouns. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Male, though this isn't a matter to vote on but a matter of policy and respect. The current gender of the subject is indisputably self-declared male, according to reliable sources, and any discussion of the subject in the present tense (or concerning the recent past) must reflect this.
What I don't know, is what WP policy is concerning pronouns in biographies of subjects who are broadly transgender. The Caitlyn Jenner article, for example, simply doesn't use pronouns at all for the whole period before ex-Bruce announced himself as Caitlyn. But is this a policy or a local consensus? Newimpartial (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The relevant policy is at MOS:GENDERID: "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources." As this subject has publicly declared a name and gender change to male then the current name and he/his pronouns should be used throughout this article, unless the subject has clearly stated a preference for a different pronoun set. Funcrunch (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Male. There is a reasonable presumption that someone coming out as trans is expressing a part of their identity that extends back well before the announcement. I wouldn't object to avoiding gendered pronouns prior to the coming out, since different trans people approach that issue differently, and sourcing on the details of self-identification is a bit thin.--Trystan (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


This article really needs a segment where the actual conversion from Charice to Jake occurs and a discussion of what led him to this point. Keep in mind that until he declared himself male, all of his past is as a female. This has made the article quite controversial, even more so than the brouhaha over his going by the mononym Charice. There is going to be gender-tense confusion during those years from declaring his soul male until he finally proclaimed his identity. Prior to that, he identified himself as a lesbian, thereby earning the female pronoun. Extra care needs to be taken with the pronouns: referring to his past requires she be identified as female. Referring to the here-and-now, he is a male. — Myk Streja (who?) 02:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

We should need to have a discussion at WP:RM. ApprenticeFan work 12:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
No. This topic is not about moving the article. You can start another topic about that, but it is just as likely to fail as the last two attempts. — Myk Streja (who?) 02:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Do you suggest that all pronouns from when Charice was Charice be changed to "he" ? Do they only get changed after the change of identity? Is this just an attempt to gain media attention? With quotes like "Not exactly transitioning into a male" it is hard to justify the use of "he" in this article. I'd say using the term "Transvestite" or "cross-dresser" is more accurate than "Transgender" in this situation, where they don't want to be male, but they do want to wear male clothes. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Please review Chelsea Manning. It's in full compliance with our rules for articles about transgender people. It uses "she" throughout, whether talking about events pre-transition or post-transition. That's how this article should read, too.
As for the issue of whether he's had, or will have, surgery as part of his transition, that's irrelevant. We follow a transgender person's pronoun preferences once they come out as transgender. If you review our sources on this, they do say he's come out as trans. David in DC (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
It's not as clear as that. She is a lesbian who wears masculine clothes. She has already stated that she is "Not exactly transitioning into a male". In Philippines culture, she is a tomboy, ie. a butch lesbian. Are butch lesbians considered to be transgender now?
Quote:"At that point, Winfrey asked whether the singer had ever considered himself transgender. "Were you thinking about, like, transitioning to become a male?" the talk show host asked. "Not exactly transitioning to, like, a male-male," Zyrus said at the time. "Basically, my soul is male, but I'm not going to go through that stage where I'm going to change everything. I'll cut my hair and wear boy clothes and everything, but that's all."
So it seems to me as if the media is tagging her with a transgender identity, due to a lack of familiarity with Philippine LGBT culture, but in the Philippines, she is just a tomboy (butch lesbian)
I agree, that it's nothing to do with surgery, it's everything to do with self-identity - and with comments like "my soul is male" clashing with "Not exactly transitioning to, like, a male-male" and "I'll cut my hair and wear boy clothes and everything, but that's all." - there is no clear male identification. Right now, Charice is as much of a transgender as Ellen DeGeneres and Wikipedia certainly doesn't use male pronouns for her. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I get what you're saying. I'm not so sure, though, that the sources agree.
Charice, live-in partner break up after 4 years Not only uses male pronouns, but also includes a quote from "Carl Cabral, the singer's handler" referring to Charice with male pronouns.
Former Glee Star Comes Out as Trans and Reveals New Name. Uses male pronouns
“Glee” Star Comes Out As Trans And Shares His New Name Uses male pronouns.
Charice changes name to Jake Zyrus Uses male pronouns. David in DC (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
The first two articles were written in June of this year, the third in April, long after Jake declared for male. Goes back to my contention that Jake should be referred to as female while he was still Charice. — Myk Streja (who?) 02:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Self identity should be the priority. A news article can use whichever pronoun it wants to in an article, that certainly doesn't mean that Jake identifies with that gender. Content referring to before becoming Jake, should use the female pronouns, of course. Content after should use neutral pronouns until there is confirmation from Jake as to which pronoun is preferred. It's a bit rude (as well as a huge BLP issue) to decide someone's identity without having the decency to wait for them to confirm it themself. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Transitioning "in steps" is not at all unusual, and does not negate the persons "transgenderness". His twitter is filled with him sharing newsstories that call him transgender without correction. In fact, there's a retraction article by esquire magazine regarding this mistake (thinking is was just a stage name/tomboy issue, and not a transgender one). So, yes, there's no doubt he is, at this point, identifying as transgender. Lastly, regardless of past declarations, the desided and accepted way of going about things is always refering to the individual in their prefered pronouns, regardless of past presentation. So the article should be fully changed to masculine articles. the Esquire retraction

Jake's comment "Not exactly transitioning to, like, a male-male" & "I'll cut my hair and wear boy clothes and everything, but that's all." "I'm not going to go through that stage where I'm going to change everything" seem to contradict claims that Jake is transgender. So, yes, there is doubt that Jake is transgender. If there is doubt, then use neutral terms as to avoid a huge BLP issue.

I agree that we use preferred pronouns, that is the only fair way to do things. Show me where Jake has expressed a desire to be referred to using male pronouns and I will agree with their use. Or are you just relying on synthesis to support the use of male pronouns? There are articles calling Jake "he" - Jake hasn't corrected those articles, therefore Jake must agree with them and wishes to use a male pronoun. That's a pretty big step to take, when the easiest choice is to wait for Jake to mention the preferred pronoun and use it and until that time, make use of gender neutral language. There is no time limit for articles, so why jump into something that has BLP and SYNTH issues, when we are likely to receive an answer at some time in the future, from the subject of the article, that will make all of this discussion irrelevant with a simple confirmation of which pronoun is preferred? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not that he simply "hasn't corrected" articles refering to him as trans - every single article he linked on his Twitter, refers to him as such. The only one which didn't, made a retraction in which there are the GLAAD guidelines for dealing with trans people in media. There is also the fact the he deleted all pre-transition social media, and is using "Jake" in his personal life (negating it is a "stage name"). Re: the quoted past declarations about not transitioning, like I said, transitioning in steps (which is to mean, negating they are really trans from the get go, but eventually getting there) is pretty common, so him saying he wasn't trans a few years ago, doesn't negate him identifying as such today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there any part of the above that isn't synthesis? I'm not suggesting that we stubbornly use female pronouns until there is something clarifying the use of male pronouns from Jake - however until clarification, we should be using gender neutral language. Don't worry, if Jake wishes male pronouns to be used, then I'm sure that preference will be voiced and at such time, the article can be changed, but we should wait until that happens before changing the article. Important things to remember are WP:DEADLINE WP:SYNTHESIS WP:BLP Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The only thing I see with what Jake did is that he is trying to delete his past. He doesn't want to be who he was, which is actually quite futile: we are the sum of who we were. Experience shapes us. He can't change that and he can't erase it. He was Charice, and everything he did as Charice will remain.
Here's an allegory: a young woman is born a Briton. She is raised as a Briton and she identifies with other Britons. But she doesn't feel like a Briton, no, rather she identifies with the Celts. One day she announces she is a Celt and will wear Celtic clothing and act in the manner of the Celts. Can she really go through her life and force others to say she has always been a Celt? Transgender is a hot button for political correctness.  — Myk Streja (who?) 00:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Or something a little more recent. If someone was born white to white parents and has "German and Czech heritage with "faint traces" of Native American ancestry." but felt that she was black, should she be considered black? Rachel Dolezal and should people be forced to refer to her as black? And yes, the past happened and a quick change of stage name won't change that. I'm just wondering how long it is because Charice has another new name, that is used as an attempt to drum up some media attention for a failing career. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not going to point any fingers, but there's at least two editors here who haven't posted in the survey. I'm not pushing for a deadline, but it might draw some more opinions out of the lurkers.  — Myk Streja (who?) 05:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Guilty as charged. I didn't post in the survey. But now I have, thanks for the reminder. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
How about this for an allegory: A man presents as heterosexual and is exclusively romantically involved with women. The man then publicly comes out as gay, and from that point exclusively is involved with men. Do we write the article to suggest that the man was straight and turned gay, or would we accept his claims that he was always gay, public presentation to the contrary notwithstanding?--Trystan (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
At what point does the alleged homosexual male's gender change? What pronouns change to reflect this change? What parts of an article would have to be edited to be accurate?  — Myk Streja (what?) 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, this is a really clear example of where an overall Wikipedia principle, in this case MOS:GENDERID, overrules any local consensus, !vote-based or allegory-based or what have you. If reliable sources document that the subject of this article is now Jake and use male pronouns for him, we have no choice but to do likewise. It's not really a matter of opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style." Those words are at the top of every page that starts out WP:MOS, including the main topic. It is not a principal, it is a guideline. "Local" consensus? This is the Internet! We are global. Should we poll the audience and see how many countries are represented? Reliable sources document that Jake is now Jake. That implies that once he was not Jake. This is why votes are called.  — Myk Streja (what?) 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what is meant here by a guideline, Myk. A wikipedia guideline is a standard for how to treat a certain kind of case. It is not enforceable in the same way as a policy, but it is also not to be abandoned or altered because a particular group of editors, on a page or working on a project, for example, want to do something else. This is what is meant by a "local consensus", by the way. It is inappropriate for a group of editors to vote on a particular talk page on an issue on which a widely-discussed guideline (and there aren't many guidelines more widely discussed than the MOS) applies, and the policy is that subjects of biographies who come into new names and new identities are discussed according to their new, not their former, names and identies.
In this situation, voting is not appropriate; adhering to the guideline is. We can take this to the appropriate noticeboard if you don't believe me, but that is what you will be told there. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Attempting to derail this discussion by proclaiming it to be in violation of policy is what is not appropriate. Attempting to single me out as the bad guy is inappropriate. From the diff report, your edit summary: " (→‎Discussion: The MOS is not a guideline to be ignored by a local consensus, like the one Myk is trying (and failing) to build here.) (undo | thank)" I am not the only voice here, nor am I the loudest. I only started this discussion to channel the issue and to get everyone to either change all the references to male, or accept that it was only after 2013. There was an edit war brewing. I stopped it. I can go away and let the war begin. What do you think?  — Myk Streja (what?) 01:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What I think is that you - and everyone else - should observe the MOS now that it has been pointed out. Building a local consensus, where no site-wide guideline applies, is fine. Building a local consensus about how the MOS applies (for example, whether to use masculine pronouns or no pronouns before Charice became Jake, either of which conforms to the MOS) is fine. Building a local consensus about the sources about the name change to Jake - it is now clear that the name change is unanimous in reliable sources - was positively helpful.
What is not helpful is using a poll to determine whether the MOS should be observed, once the facts are known. It should be, and pointing that out is not "attempting to derail this discussion" - it directing the discussion where it ought to proceed, according to the WP policy against letting local consensus overrule site-wide guidelines for no good reason. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
You know what? You know so much, it's yours. I didn't really want to do this, I'd rather be building content not defending it from critics. This page has been very contentious, and you are a johnny-come-lately with all the answers. Good luck.  — Myk Streja (what?) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you feel that way, Myk, but if you read my contributions on the talk page that isn't what happened. I read the discussion establishing the name change, I asked (above) what WP policy was supposed to be in such cases, I received a very good answer, then read the relevant guidelines, and then proceeded to intervene in the discussion on the basis of the MOS. I don't have all the answers - I am precisely asking here how the guidelines of MOS:GENDERID ought to be applied here - but ignoring them just isn't on. I'm sorry that you feel my intervention on this point has been hamhanded, but I don't see how you are "defending" anything "from critics" except defending the idea of !voting against critics who want to applying WP policy - and if that is what you're defending, that means you're sort of WP:NOTHERE already, doesn't it? Newimpartial (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Newimpartial - but you don't get to define what a policy and what a guideline is. Granted, it's not an essay that can easily be ignored as an opinion piece, but it allows room for common sense and article consensus. If you disagree with that or how this guideline is enforced on this article, I have a few suggestions for you.
1. Gain consensus for the gender pronouns you wish to be used, by using the talk page here - I'm sure all involved will respect consensus.
2. Gain consensus for how wikipedia guidelines are used, because the current consensus makes it very clear that there exceptions may apply, so you can't enforce the MOS:GENDERID guideline as if it were a policy.
3. Gain consensus and have MOS:GENDERID made a policy, rather than just a guideline - that will remove our current option of being able to apply exceptions, due to it being a guideline.
to sum up - guidelines =/= policy. Consensus has agreed that there are exceptions to guidelines and consensus will agree on when those exceptions are applied, that consensus is something you are able to contribute towards, but it's not your decision to make. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Spacecowboy, if you want to take this discussion to a noticeboard, than either of us could happily do so. However, you can't simply declare on your own that an exception applies in this case. I am not stating that GENDERID is a policy (in fact, I stated that it cannot be so applied, above), but it also can't be ignored without reason because of an editor's feelings.
AFAICT, there is no case within WP guidelines for using feminine pronouns in the article. Masculine pronouns may be used, or pronouns may be avoided for the pre-rename period. Which would you prefer, Spacecowboy? Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
As I have previously stated, female pronouns should be used for the period prior to the name change and neutral language should be used for the period after the name change, until such time as a preferred pronoun is stated by Jake. If you are basing the use of male pronouns on a few selected sources, then I fear you are being a little too hasty and not looking at enough sources - as there are reliable recent sources that still use female pronouns for Jake, state that "The singer made it clear that ‘Jake Zyrus’ is just her screen name ", and that becoming transgender is something that Jake might consider in the future (ie. it hasn't happened yet, and might never happen). Jake has been active in the media but hasn't stated a preferred male pronoun or that they self identify as male or transgender. MOS:GENDERID is all about self identification, which there hasn't been, well not since Charice self identified as a lesbian. So, I prefer the option that you didn't mention - Female pronouns pre name change and neutral language post name change. Don't worry, the moment Jake identifies as male or expresses a preference for male pronouns, the article can be changed - but to do it now, would be hasty and a major BLP issue. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
BTW - no changes should be made until we have achieved consensus on this talk page. Discussion is better than an edit war. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
First of all, Spacecowboy, nobody has introduced male pronouns into the article up to now. You reverted my edit that removed gendered pronouns from the lede, which is not at all the same thing.
Second, who is your reliable, recent source that still uses female pronouns for Jake? That is absolutely crucial to this discussion, so please provide the source.
Finally, if there is not a balance of reliable, recent sourcing in support of female pronouns for Jake, then they should not be used in the article. You get that, right? Newimpartial (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it at all, do you? You wish to change an article, the burden is yours to provide sources and gain consensus to support that change. You made a change to a stable article, you got reverted - so you need to work on sources and consensus. As I've said numerous times, just wait. If Jake really is transgender, identifying as male and desires male pronouns - then Jake will make a statement and the article can be changed easily. I think your comments on this thread are showing a lack of WP:COMPETENCE - this lack of competence has already been pointed out on at least a couple of ANI threads - [8] [9]. I don't think you're acting in bad faith, and I think that in the end male pronouns will be used if they are required - but that will have to wait to see what Jake says. Don't forget, there is no time limit - it's not like there is some offensive content that needs to be removed ASAP, so please wait and don't turn this into an edit war. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I do get it. I am not notably impatient; I'm not upset about the revert, and I fully recognize that there is WP:NODEADLINE.
Several reliable sources have been presented for the new name, which use masculine pronouns. As above, I am asking what reliable source still uses feminine pronouns for Jake, since you made this extraordinary claim. I can wait.
I am also a bit confused what kind of "sourcing" would be required not to use pronouns in the lede; I was proposing a WP:BOLD compromise which, honestly, I saw as a small step that would be less jarring than introducing masculine pronouns.
By the way, my alleged competence issues had to do with Miscellany for Deletion, so they are not really germane here. :) Newimpartial (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
The problem is, that unlike most content - we are not looking for sources that use male pronouns, we are looking for sources that confirm that Jake self identifies as male and state that male pronouns are preferred by Jake. That is something that we are still lacking. Here is one source using female pronouns [10] and it's not really an extraordinary claim for someone born female to be using female pronouns, when they have confirmed that they haven't transitioned to male and are only considering it, it seems like a very regular and normal claim. And yeah, I know that your competence issues and warning were not related to article content, but it concerns me a little and makes me consider that if you have competence issues with one part of Wikipedia, then there might be issues on other parts of Wikipedia. It's nice that you make WP:BOLD edits, they are an important part of WP:BRD Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of competence issues, it doesn't fill me with confidence in your competence (or lack of) when I see you reverting edits that removed a picture of the incorrect person with a summary of "Picture is the correct person" when the person you had reverted had already stated "Removed photo of a different person" - it took me 30 seconds to confirm that picture was not Jake. This stuff isn't hard, it's not rocket science, but if you can't confirm the identity of a photo of the subject of this article, maybe you should be working on articles that you have a little more knowledge of? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree re: WP:BRD, and we are now fully in the discussion mode. You are right, that I should not have reverted the photo edit without investigation; that was a new mistake for me, and one I won't make again. After the article you linked above, I do now understand how the poster found the image, since the two singers are referenced in the same media sources.
Speaking of the source you provided, though, isn't this source [11] both more recent and more relevant? Also, it seems that Zake had both breasts removed in March, and has been on testosterone since, so can't we put an end to the question of whether Zake is "transitioning"? It is also clear from the interview that Zake no longer identifies with female pronouns ... Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Problem solved - we now have the reliable source for self identification that was lacking. I'd suggest, changing all post name change pronouns to male and using neutral language for events prior to the name change. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Should we still refer to Jake as "Pempengco" ? I guess it's still his official name (birth certificates etc) and it's the easy gender neutral solution for sections that require gender neutral language.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
For now, I have left "Charice" as a stage name, with no pronouns, which I think may satisfy the letter (though not the intent) of [MOS:GENDERID]]. I am certainly open to suggestions - besides inserting feminine pronouns, which is not on, as previously discussed.
Also, unless someone has something important to add, here, I think this section should be closed after this week's news, and another section possibly be opened about how to most cleanly edit the article in the Jake Zyrus era. Newimpartial (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have deactivated this, because it is not a comprehensible Request for Comment. Have a look at how it was showing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies (permalink); and if a fresh RfC is to be started, please consider WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief, also WP:WRFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


Are there any more recent photos that reflect her very different look now? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I think until we get the issue of whether Charice is a true transgender or really a butch lesbian, we should leave the picture alone. — Myk Streja (who?) 02:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Myk Streja: Uhm, no. The picture clearly needs to be updated. Charice/Jake hasn't looked like that since Glee. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 18:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Raykyogrou0 and Spacecowboy420: Okay, let me put it this way: Please can we wait until the transgender issue is settled? If we change it now, that will send the message that the issue is settled and the pronoun war will flare up again. I'm asking nicely here.  — Myk Streja (who?) 18:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Gentlebeings, I just noticed that there is already a message about the photo being updated. If a new unencumbered photo is available, say so here and we'll look into updating after the discussion in Jake is closed. That will be soon.  — Myk Streja (who?) 05:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
The image that was added, was an obvious copyright infringement. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
For now I have removed any photo from the infobox, until someone finds a picture of Jake with a fair use rationale. The picture that appears there should be of the current identity, which has now been definitely established.[12] Newimpartial (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Warner Bros link[edit]

Is there any point in directing people to the WB page, not updated since 2012? -- Zanimum (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It has no useful information. I deleted it but was reverted. Apparantly there's a difference of opinion about the application of WP:ELNO here. Not really surprising. There's been a lot of out-of-policy editing to this page lately. David in DC (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
WP:ELNO has an exception for a subject's official page but this doesn't qualify, per WP:ELOFFICIAL because it's controlled by Warner Brothers, not Jake. And the first two prohibitions in ELNO apply: 1) Nothing useful beyond what should be in the article itself and 2) Factually inaccurate. David in DC (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)