Jump to content

Talk:River Butcher

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:RB Butcher)

Pronoun usage in article

[edit]

We can honor Butcher's wishes for not using "she", "her", "hers" as pronoun referrals without going against standard English grammar which we should be using per our manual of style. It is less awkward and still mostly conformant to the MOS to avoid pronouns completely by rewriting then having awkward reading non-standard grammar in an encyclopedia article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also MOS:GENDERID "Avoid confusing constructions by rewriting". Non-standard grammar is confusing to read and if it can be rewritten to avoid it, it should. If the only issue is pronoun usage we can avoid the issue completely by rewording places where it is an issue. "They are" to refer to a single person is jarring and wrong no matter the reason. "They is" is also jarring and wrong so don't do either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the use of "they" for a known singular antecedent with a non-binary gender is grammatical in the idiolects of many already, and is quickly becoming more and more accepted.
"Avoid grammar issues such as "they is" vs "they are" for singular." What's the issue? In the prestige dialects of US English "they are" would be the unquestionably grammatical choice. (Though I will note that I believe "they is" would be grammatical in some dialects of English such as AAVE where present tense verbs do not conjugate.)
"They are" isn't jarring to me. I'd be curious to see how widespread this "jarring" feeling is among US English speakers. --ChiveFungi (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"They are" is a plural construct in standard English and it has not reached any level of acceptance for singular use that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia written for general English language users. When I first read it referring to a single person I immediately perceived a grammar mistake and it stopped the easy flow of reading that good written prose should facilitate. "They is" is generally considered correct only in non-standard dialects.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style says "The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users. Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." and "If a style or similar debate becomes intractable, see if a rewrite can make the issue moot." My rewrite was to make the issue moot. I honors the wishes of the subject and still conforms to English as generally used by our target readers. I noticed that there was instability in the article with editors changing pronouns back and forth and figured a bit of a rewrite would work to avoid the issue completely and would make the article easier to read for most readers without dishonoring the subjects choices. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before many times because the same complaint has come up from a few users with regard to other articles: there is no consensus to for any systematic removal of pronouns. If a few individual sentences are genuinely unclear, they can be reworded (see e.g. the article on Emma Sulkowicz for a model), but singular they itself is perfectly clear, widespread and of long standing (indeed, singular they is older than singular use of the originally-plural pronoun you). (It is indeed so widely used and understood that I've yet to meet anyone who objected to it who didn't also use it themselves when they weren't thinking about it. My fav is when someone complains that "anyone who brings this kind of language into their writing is [rant, oblivious]".) -sche (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
i skimmed.
i agree with sche that they/them/their may be appropriate for referring to an individual in some circumstances.
i agree with G Perez that their usage (see what i did there?) is confusing in some circumstances.
i think they/them/their are less likely to be mistaken for poor grammar if Butcher's preference is mentioned before it is applied elsewhere in the article. Maybe even a hatnote? like the one on the Fann Wong article that says, "No, we aren't calling Fann by her given name left and right--we're using her family name, like it says in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Subsequent_use."
i think using them to mean one person is grammatically incorrect, but not necessarily incomprehensible, and may have connotations for the speaker/writer/situation. For comparison, consider phrases like "me and you" or "I don't never need no help!"
Sometimes what is grammatically correct or acceptable changes. i remember when, if the boss had a kid, they were the boss' kid, and English teachers would take points off your grade if you wrote "the boss's kid". i remember a time when the rule switched, and suddenly the boss's kid was right and writing "the boss' kid" cost you points. By the time i graduated, either was acceptable.
i like the "see if a rewrite can make the issue moot" strategy G Perez mentioned. sche, i think you think the article is easy to read and understand using the singular they/them/their, but do you think it's easier to understand than Perez's revised version? If both versions are equally easy for you to understand, i think you should allow the version that others (such as Perez and me) find easier to understand. The article can still mention Butcher's pronoun preferences, and use them where necessary, yet also permit editors (because anyone can edit) to seek and employ ways to make them unnecessary.
(little off-topic: "singular they is older than singular use of the originally-plural pronoun you"? Interesting! Citation needed please?)
--71.121.143.188 (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think avoiding pronouns makes the article awkward and stilted, and is bad. As for the last bit: singular they is attested since the 1300s, e.g. in the 1325 Cursor Mundi, within a hundred years of when English first borrowed plural they from Old Norse (displacing the native Old English third-person plural hie, ironically because it had become too similar to the singular he) — and no-one thought to object to it until the 1790s (see the [[Singular they]] article for references for all those dates). By contrast, you only became common as a generic singular in place of thou in the 1600s, in a shift which was immediately controversial. (However, use of ye as an honorific singular in imitation of the French tu-vous distinction began a bit earlier.) Language evolution is neat! :) -sche (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the Wikipedia Manual of Style states that "They/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them." [1] --Intercostal (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Gender_identity#Best_practices

River uses he/him pronouns primarily now. Please be sure to reflect this if you are editing the article further. I updated the article already tk make this change in the existing article. Fingerguncowgirl (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RB Butcher → River Butcher – Butcher reported on 11/23/21 on Twitter that they have changed their first name to River. Title of page needs to be changed to reflect that. 2601:204:102:6140:2017:A142:30B:C91C (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need a secondary source in this particular instance? Acting as if our primary source of information,(River themself) is somehow not a reliable source on the subject of changing his own name is ridiculous, but instead of acknowledging this fact, we're all just waiting around, and twiddling our thumbs on this subject, hoping that he'll be featured in an article unrelated to their name-change that references said name change, even though that's going to take a lot longer than you seem to think, this just seems like an attempt to delay the inevitable, which would be to just acknowledge that he's changed his name and following this changing the title to match this information, it seems to me that waiting to do such a thing is a humongous waste of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A212:3B00:6CA5:1BF6:A960:96A0 (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are in a sense intrinsically reliable. That is not the issue here. Our article name polices are designed to get the reader to the information they want. There are good reasons for preferring secondary sources.
But you make a good point about delaying the inevitable. That is why we have WP:NAMECHANGES and WP:ignore all rules. See also wp:the snowball clause and wp:correct. I can't close this as I am involved, but were I to do so I would take arguments based on those pages into account, particularly the policy but the other pages are based on policy. On the other hand, I would be required to discard any !votes and discussion that showed no understanding of the matter of issue. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a news site or a blog and so Wikipedia is not the place to be first to publish new information. Wikipedia is not a leader its a follower of usage in reliable secondary sources. See also "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" when reliable secondary sources start to use the new name then the article can be moved. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Well put. And I would add, it should not be moved before then. You imply this but I think it is best to be explicit. Andrewa (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s an article from the LA Times, where he is mentioned and it’s unrelated to River’s coming out. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2021-12-06/dave-chappelle-netflix-is-a-joke-comedy-festival — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A212:3B00:184E:639E:9913:C1D1 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (with no need to wait longer – note that the RM request is already more than a month old): AFAICT, the Yahoo Life article is a secondary source, not a primary source. It may be based largely on the primary (Twitter) source, but it appears to be a report from someone other than the subject themselves. That at least shows some level of interest from someone other than the source of the information. Since the Twitter account is also WP:ABOUTSELF (a.k.a. WP:TWEET, WP:TWITTER and WP:SOCIALMEDIA), a primary source can be considered reliable in this case. Aside from Twitter, Butcher's website is now at www.riverbutcher.com (and www.rheabutcher.com now redirects there), their (self-authored) IMDb profile now uses "River", and show announcements are now also using that name – e.g., https://improv.com/brea/comic/river+butcher/, and the name is also found elsewhere. Considering WP:ABOUTSELF and the fact that there are not a huge number of independent reliable sources paying attention to this topic, I don't see a good reason to wait for more sources. Based on the overall circumstances here, I highly doubt that future sources will resist the name change. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BarrelProof and as a clear-cut application of MOS:DEADNAME. GreenComputer (talk) 11:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As all the evidence points to his name being River, they should be referred to as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superkid761 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BarrelProof. Contra GreenComputer, this is not a "clear-cut" application of MOS:DEADNAME because (as I explained at the MRV) it is not clear that "RB Butcher" is a deadname (unlike the name they used prior to that, which unambiguously is a deadname). At least at the time of my comment at the MRV (I've not looked since) there was no clear statement about how they now regard the "RB Butcher" name - if it is a deadname then MOS:DEADNAME applies, if it isn't it doesn't, but as it is unclear whether the name is or isn't it is also unclear whether the deadname provisions of the manual of style apply. However, as it's clear that the subject of the article has changed their name to "River Butcher" for all purposes, and all the indications are that other sources will use the name "River Butcher" to refer to them it doesn't matter for our purposes whether they have one or two deadnames - the correct title of the article going forwards is "River Butcher". Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf MOS:DEADNAME means we should always use the subject's current name unless they have made an explicit statement to the contrary. If it is not clear whether a former name is a deadname or not, we should always err on the side of caution (as required by WP:BLP for living people such as Butcher) and use the subject's current name. (It is also worth noting that, in MOS:DEADNAME, the terms former name and deadname are currently used interchangeably.) GreenComputer (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Birth name

[edit]

I have reverted this edit. There seems no reason to remove this information. Andrewa (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DEADNAME supports inclusion since Butler was notable before the name change. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted it back it. It seems every few months an anonymous editor comes along and removes it without knowing wikipedia's style guide. Sviscusi (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone again. I think the subject themselves would not like it to be here, but he was notable pre-transition. Eyebrow123 (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:River_Butcher&oldid=1214431037"