Talk:Abigail Thorn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconLGBT studies: Person
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the LGBT Person task force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SilenceIsAcceptance.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Acting

I'm not proposing anything just now but I think we may need to change this article substantially in the near future. Based on a recent tweet it sounds like Thorn's acting career is about to take off even more so than she has previously announced. Assuming this happens, it is very likely that she will become more famous as an actress than for Philosophy Tube very rapidly. At that point we will have to decide what to do. I think our options will be either to convert this article into a BLP about Thorn incorporating, all her work, or to split it into a BLP and a separate article purely about the Philosophy Tube channel. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It already it is a BLP. It already contains some non-Philosophy Tube (the channel) content, but it's about the person known by the pseudonym "Philosophy Tube". I guess the only confusing thing is that you'd see "Reception" more commonly on a topic about a work of art, but if you can think of a better section title then go for it. If "Abigail Thorn" becomes the
WP:COMMONNAME, rather than "Philosophy Tube", then we move to the page to that title. Such a move could even be appropriate now—there are inconsistent naming standards in this area, but some discussions have seen real names preferred to usernames. If there is reliable coverage about some of Thorn's acting activities (beyond the Ladhood mention already given), then we'll cover those. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. It's effectively a BLP because it's the main place where we talk about the living person Abigail Thorn, but the primary topic of the page is the Philosophy Tube channel. The first sentence of the page starts Philosophy Tube is a YouTube channel produced by the British actress Abigail Thorn. Notably it is not Philosophy Tube, also known as Abigail Thorn, or anything of the sort. Thus, at least according to the page right now, "Philosophy Tube" is not a pseudonym of Abigail Thorn, rather it's a work created by her. I think if she acquires a separate source of notability we ought to split out a real BLP for her from this page about the channel. Loki (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot somebody did that. When I first (re-)created the article in 2019, and up until a couple of months ago, it was a BLP. (Something like this opening sentence.) All the MOS:DEADNAME discussion saw us applying the rule for BLPs. I don't really care what the title of the article or the opening sentence is, but I think the article should contain all of the information relevant to Abigail Thorn (the person) and Philosophy Tube (the channel). If a rename to "Abigail Thorn" will help that then go for it and I'll support it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BLP rules apply outside of literal biographies of living persons and extend to all references to living persons on Wikipedia, including talk pages. --Equivamp - talk 16:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which part of my comment this is a reply to (if any), but if it's about
MOS:DEADNAME then the passage in question was A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article ... (emphasis mine), so the point I'm trying to make is that the discussion proceeded under the impression that this article is a biography (not just under the scope of BLP). — Bilorv (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, in that case I'd want to split it even more. As it currently exists, this page feels more like a page about Philosophy Tube than a page about Abigail Thorn. A page about Philosophy Tube would not have to mention its creator's former name at the top. (In fact, this has convinced me to finally vote in that RFC for that reason.) Loki (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Immersive Dracula

I was a bit surprised that my bit on the Immersive Dracula got removed. It used a mix of primary and secondary sources, so it wasn't all primary. Maybe the referencing can be improved but it wasn't complete junk. This was Thorn's main acting project of 2020. It was a lead role in a sold-out show, albeit a non-profit one. I think it merits inclusion in some form. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So The Live Review is a secondary source, maybe, which I read in full and somehow forgot about when writing the edit summary, but it's a blog post possibly sponsored by the show with no meaningful information not parroted from the production itself. The rest are primary, are they not? This is an event that didn't happen and it's not Thorn's main anything with respect to Wikipedia unless reliable secondary sources cover it in more than tangential detail. If you can point me to independent, reliable, in-depth sources which verify that the play was "Thorn's main acting project of 2020" and "a sold-out show" then that would have potential. Otherwise, Thorn has been in lots of plays, based on my understanding. And hundreds to thousands more works of art that we don't mention in the article. How can you know that this one is special? — Bilorv (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that it was to have been a lead role makes it worthy of some mention. I do think we should say a little more about her career as an actress. We describe her as an actress in the intro but we don't provide much about in the body to back that up. If we can cover some of her other acting work then that would be good. If there are other productions that are more notable than this one then obviously we should emphasise those more and we don't want to go overboard with it either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why, though? It has to be a lead role in an important production to be worthy of mention, otherwise every student play someone was in could count. Without secondary sources, and given that the production never happened, it's just not what we document here. I'd be in favour of removing the descriptor "actress" from the lead if that's the problem. She's not primarily notable as an actress (wouldn't be even slightly close to notable for that alone), at least pending potential future projects. — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the deadname

Someone with ill intention could look up Abby on Wikipedia, see her deadname, and harass her with it. If none of the Wikipedia admins who allowed the deadname's inclusion are trans, then they wouldn't know what it's like to have that info so accessible and thus shouldn't be calling the shots on its inclusion. Another discussion featured an admin calling her, "them", which suggests the admin doesn't know much about trans people as you shouldn't use 'them' unless you don't known pronouns or that's someone's preferred pronouns. I beg for the name to be removed as it's making a probably uncomfortable part of Abby's life easier to find and use against her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheeln4444 (talk • contribs)

Please see
MOS:DEADNAME and the discussions above. In short: if someone was notable under a deadname, we include it here for encyclopedic reasons. — Czello 16:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd like to expand a little on the answer and try to ease the OP's concerns. This is necessary as people might look somebody up under their former name and we need them to find the right article. Also, some of the source material we use uses that name and we need people to know that it is about the correct person. In Thorn's case, she was notable under the former name, and some of the source material uses it, so we include it once, and only once, in the article. Also, the former name isn't actually her real deadname anyway. It was only ever a stage name. Her real deadname used to be in the article but that was removed. Thorn has chosen to leave all her old videos up, which include her old name, so clearly she is OK with people knowing what that name was and seeing her as she used to be. Obviously we don't want to include anything that puts her at any risk of harassment or distress but I don't believe that having the old name in the article exposes her to any risk of harassment over and above its existence in the source material itself. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to address both points above in tandem. First of all, if the Wikipedia notability guidelines legitimize & justify Wikipedia editors deadnaming a trans person, then the Wikipedia notability guidelines are transphobic and should be amended if respecting the identities of trans people is at all a concern. To the point that her deadname is necessary because people might use it to look her up: In my opinion, that (potential, entirely hypothetical) period of confusion on the part of the person searching for the 'Philosophy Tube' page using Abigail's deadname doesn't justify deadnaming a trans person. I think it's important to acknowledge that this is an excuse explicitly made to make life easier for cisgender people and simultaneously marginalizes non-cisgender people. To the point that including it "only once" is a valid argument: Come on. It's either okay or it's not okay. "We'll do it once and that'll be it" isn't a real thing.
Following on from there, we have this idea that Abigail's deadname is a stage name and thus isn't "really" deadnaming. So we're on the same page, I'll point this out: Abigail's stage name both pre-transition and post-transition has corresponded with her real first name. The only part of her name that is a pseudonym is her surname, which has remained consistent. With that in mind, realize that the portion of her name that "died" when she transitioned is what remains on the article. That, in my eyes, is still an act of deadnaming and should be removed.
Finally, the bit where we assume that "... clearly she is OK with people knowing what that name was..." This is an assumption. We do not know that for a fact, because to my knowledge Abigail has never directly addressed this. Assuming what a trans person is and isn't okay with on the matter of her identity is a transphobic act.
Her deadname should be removed. --Transfixedonwhy (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll probably have to agree to disagree on it being transphobic. Ultimately, however, as I say this is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. If you want to contest that rule the place to do it is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, which is the talk page for this particular rule. This article just follows the guidelines laid out there. — Czello 06:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... I think it's important to acknowledge that this is an excuse explicitly made to make life easier for cisgender people ... – Why is this not a (wrong) assumption that our readers are all cisgender? We do not know that for a fact, because to my knowledge Abigail has never directly addressed this. – As I've said before, Thorn told me by email communication, "Ideally I'd like my old name and pictures not to be on there, but I realise that may not be possible" and later, after I said that we may not end up removing the old name, "I do see the logic of keeping the old name there, that is fair enough". You can interpret these comments as you wish. — Bilorv (talk) 08:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret those comments as her being uncomfortable with it there. I think that's pretty clear, actually. She explicitly stated she doesn't want it there. MickRide808 (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- So, in addition to Abigail herself viewing this as an inappropriate deadname, this is not-being-transphobic 101: don't deadname people! It's that simple. Don't do it. Wikipedia policy or not, there is no reason to encourage this harmful behavior. Be better than some mutable list of guidelines. Trans rights are not negotiable, and every single one of us deserves to be treated with dignity. 50.90.252.46 (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is again not actually her deadname, but her former stage name. Second, the reason it's
Wikipedia policy to include notable former names of trans people is so that people who knew them by the previous name aren't confused. (Third, I think this case is much clearer than normal, because Abigail Thorn has loads of videos with her former name up on her channel.) Loki (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

 Comment: As a trans person myself to watches this article closely, I understand the frustration @

right the great injustices of society. Now if you believe the policy is wrong, any user can attempt to bring the policy before the community and see if community consensus agrees on the change. However, these policies have been recently re-evaluated and not changed significantly. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"Formerly known as"

A few recent edits have been over whether to introduce Thorn's former stage name as (formerly Oliver Thorn) or as (formerly known as Oliver Thorn). I find the longer version better and clearer. The argument against it appears to be that

MOS:DEADNAME intends to specify the exact wording. Especially since this particular case is exceptional, because Abigail Thorn wasn't "born" Oliver Thorn at all. Even saying she was "formerly" Oliver Thorn is a bit misleading: Oliver Thorn is a pseudonym she's since discarded and which was never her real name, while Abigail Thorn is her current real name, meaning she never actually changed her name from one to the other. Loki (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

This makes sense to me. I don't think it is a particularly big deal either way but, in this case, "formerly known as" seems preferable. It deviates from the example wording in
MOS:DEADNAME but not excessively or without reason, and not at all from the principle behind it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Sounds reasonable to me, too. The deviation from the example wording is sensible, well-motivated, and in keeping with the basic principles of the style manual.
talk) 00:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep, a reasonable change. I hadn't considered this potential implication of just "formerly", but someone else was moved to change it so it matters to somebody, and spending two extra words doesn't matter (it would be very overbearing for
MOS:DEADNAME to mandate the exact wording). — Bilorv (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"What is this page about?"

Why is this article written in a way that makes it unclear if it's supposed to be about the youtube channel, Philosophy Tube, or the person, Abigail Thorn? Since Abigail Thorn is an actress who is soon going to be in at least one notable TV project, Django_(TV_series), which is completely unrelated to the youtube channel, it should be made more clear what this article is actually about, it has to be either about the channel or the person, the current mix of the two makes no sense. Mystic Maya (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is pretty clearly about Abigail Thorne, an actress with a YouTube channel. MickRide808 (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in review, I agree with you. The page should be called Abigail Thorne, just like ContraPoints' is called Natalie Wynn. MickRide808 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's "Thorn" without the "e" (despite a typo in a recent Insider profile if that's the source of confusion). Check out some of Category:YouTubers and you can find pages named both ways; however, ContraPoints is called "ContraPoints" (not Natalie Wynn). If you want, we can start a requested move, because I think from past comments the tide may be in favour of the title "Abigail Thorn". But the intention of the current name is that she is called "Philosophy Tube", as in the sentence "Philosophy Tube made a video about cake recently and it was her best one". Her acting career could change her primary name, or it might not do so, or you could argue she is already primarily known under her actual name. — Bilorv (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Insider profile

A recent profile in Insider covers Kill James Bond, Thorn's position on trans issues, some details about the YouTube channel and some mentions of acting. I'm inclined to include at least stuff about KJB as we've had a few editors advocating more coverage of that. However, the source is of mixed/medium reliability (RSP entry) and based on the misspelling of Thorn's name in the opening sentence (which I've emailed to request correction of), it's not the type of source I normally like to use. — Bilorv (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KJB should certainly be mentioned but we don't want to overdo it. If we can improve/expand it a little using this then that sounds good. I think that some of the other elements in the interview could be used too. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well I've got quite a lot out of the source in this diff. It's fine by me if anyone wants to remove any of the additions as excessive. — Bilorv (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 September 2021

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.

6 editors (including the proposer) support this move with only 1 opposing, so there is consensus to move, for the reason succinctly expressed by Andrewa. (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Philosophy Tube → Abigail Thorn – People have been suggesting this for months, but no-one has taken it to a formal requested move yet, so this is me doing that. The article is about a YouTuber, Abigail Thorn, who is commonly known by her online handle Philosophy Tube. A podcast (Kill James Bond), an audiobook narration and an upcoming role in Django are under her real name; the channel name is attached to the rest of her work (in conjunction with her real name). Take a dive into Category:YouTubers and you can find both YouTubers whose articles are titled under their real name and under their channel's name. I think "Philosophy Tube" is the more recognisable name, but "Abigail Thorn" is compelling because it will continue to be applicable in future, will clear up repeated confusion over what the article is about, and is perhaps more formal/encyclopedic. However, I am neutral on the topic and do not support or oppose moving. — Bilorv (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

*Conditional Support if the same is done for other BreadTuber articles, such as

talk to me 05:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

The problem is that
Contrapoints and Hbomberguy are almost exclusively known for their Youtube channels and do not have an independent acting career like Abigail Thorn does. Loki (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2021 (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.

Deadname - Formatting + Inclusion

The RfC (in archived talk for this page) appears to have reached a consensus of inclusion of Abigail's deadname. I'm making a section here as I have made it so the name is no longer bold, but have left it in place, and given that it appears to be a hotly debated topic I feel an explanation is useful:

The RfC did reach a consensus to include the deadname in the lead, but was not focused on the specifics of formatting of the inclusion. Some articles do have the deadnames of trans people included in the lead in bold (i.e. Elliot Page) but others (i.e. The Wachowskis) have them included but not in bold. Obviously others exclude deadnames. I will expand my thoughts below on how this specific case pans out:

I am of the opinion personally that Abigail is not notable under their deadname, a big counterpoint some people made was a decision over their BLP notability pre name change, I would place the argument this is not proof in itself, rather it is proof that Abigail was notable when they used their deadname, but not proof that they were notable under their deadname. Their deadname was definitely known, but their acting career and notability outside of their channel was relatively lacking, thus their notability was more under their YouTube channel. I think inclusion of their deadname is somewhat silly in this regard.

That said, if we were to include it, I would strongly argue the use of bold is unnecessary. Their notability was definitely primarily under their YouTube channel, and has only recently (post name change) been more significantly growing separately from that (hence the shift in article title, which only occurred a while after their name change), the primary notability being thus a pseudonym, much like The Wachowskis. That page follows the same sort of formatting of pages like

WP:ASTONISH as they had relatively high profile film credits under those individual and collective names and for those who believe Abigail's deadname to be notable, a similar argument could be made here (I disagree on the name's notability, but I am but one voice), but placing the text in bold? That's not merely deadnaming them but shouting it from the rooftop, and "Abigail Thorn" and "Philosophy Tube" are definitely the primary names of notability. 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:14 (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

From my perspective, there was bolding simply because it was a description of the subject (was in past tense) and the page title
MOS:BOLDALTNAMES. However, I don't oppose the unbolding, as that guideline has the requirement that the alternate title be "significant" and this use of bold isn't usually taken as mandatory. — Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm also fine with the de-bolding. Bold text can be a helpful visual guide when the page is a redirect target ("Why am I looking at this page instead of the one I searched for? Oh, OK"), but it's hardly obligatory. And if it matters to those among us who like to feel quantitative, poking around both with Google Trends and with page-view statistics suggests that the redirect from her deadname is not getting nearly as much traffic as the page itself. Generally speaking, we also try to keep the amount of bold text to a minimum for readability purposes, and the name of the YouTube channel is the more important to emphasize.
talk) 17:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The bolding probably made sense when it was first done but events have moved on and I don't see any need for it now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who got the ball rolling for the
☖ 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"British anti-capitalists"

An IP editor added the category "British anti-capitalists" to this page, which was reverted by Bilorv. I reverted that edit, which Bilorv also reverted.

In the interests of preventing an edit war, I'm bringing this up on the talk page, but mainly to say: is there really anyone who's seen her work that could honestly say she's *not* a British anti-capitalist? Like, we do have significant sourcing for it, including of course several of her own works, where she just outright says that she's a socialist and endorses the book "Why Marx Was Right". Loki (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for raising this for discussion. Much better than
edit warring (which I'll pre-emptively remind everyone: is any number of reverts without discussion or rationale). ... where she just outright says that she's a socialist — I've not seen a source that says this. If so, she would fit in Category:English socialists (which she's currently also wrongly included in), but not Category:British anti-capitalists (as it's not the most defining, and as some people are commonly categorised as both socialist and pro-capitalism e.g. Jeremy Corbyn). I also don't see an "endorsement" of Why Marx Was Right
mentioned in the article (though her citation of the book was a contributing factor in me creating that article and bringing it to FA).
I have never claimed that Abigail Thorn is pro-capitalism, because such a claim is irrelevant. The question is, "do reliable sources consistently define this to be one of Thorn's defining characteristics?", and I've not seen evidence that the answer is "yes" (which is not even to say that such evidence does not exist, but it's not in the article where it would need to be). — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her own videos show she supports socialism and opposes capitalism. Not sure why we need to dig for third party sources. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on Wikipedia must be
verifiable. No reference to a video "show[ing] she supports socialism and opposes capitalism" has been given. — Bilorv (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Some examples: [1], [2] [3] LittleJerry (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see here where she pretty clearly endorses (thru the framing device) destroying the housing market entirely and putting housing in the hands of the state, and here where she explicitly identifies herself as a leftist in explicitly anti-capitalist terms (10:24): But, even as some truly dark things happen in the world, the left is always holding on, and we're starting to gain ground, especially here on YouTube. LeftTube! We're in our ascendancy and not just LiberalTube, LeftTube. Capitalism-Needs-To-Go-Tube, We-Need-A-Whole-New-Philosophy-Tube. Loki (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook
synthesis. — Bilorv (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
...what?
Citing a source is not
WP:OR, what are you even talking about? Loki (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Placement of deadname

We have previously agreed that Thorn's former name "Oliver Thorn" should be mentioned in the article, most significantly in

MOS:DEADNAME
describes, but unbolded.

I have received an email from Thorn (after previous conversation mostly about donating pictures) that says:

I had a little request - I wonder, given that it’s been over a year since I came out now and people have had quite a bit of time to adjust, would it be possible to move my deadname down the Wikipedia page, perhaps into the ‘Early and Personal Life’ section? I can understand having it on there somewhere, but it makes me feel a little bad that it’s right there in the first line…

What do you think?

So I'm going to suggest that we talk about which of three possible placements of the deadname is best:

  • Lead sentence (status quo)
  • "Early and personal life" (Thorn's suggested option)
  • A footnote in the lead sentence that reads "Thorn previously performed on YouTube under the name Oliver Thorn" (an idea of mine after hearing from Thorn)

I am taking no position on which of the three to do. If we think revisiting this topic is a good idea, it may be best to start an RfC (maybe we can start by agreeing if these would be a good three options to propose in that RfC). — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a practical question: is the deadname sufficiently prominent in sources and mindspace that readers will regularly arrive at this page having started out looking for the deadname? If yes, then I believe the current placement is necessary but if not, then other options might be possible. Newimpartial (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Few to no sources say just the deadname without "Philosophy Tube", and most say "Abigail Thorn". Her old videos sometimes mention the deadname, but are of course under the name "Philosophy Tube". You wouldn't arrive here without being familiar with "Philosophy Tube", but could have heard the deadname and not "Abigail Thorn". — Bilorv (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that mentioning it near the beginning of the "YouTube" subsection of "Career" might make the most sense.
talk) 21:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That idea has also crossed my mind in the past. Over time it becomes more and more credible as she becomes increasingly known for her work since transition. As she starts to become increasingly known as an actress, and maybe as a playwright, people are going to start coming to this article who have never even heard of Philosophy Tube. The name she used to use for her early Philosophy Tube videos will be less relevant to the overall article and more specificity relevant to the YouTube section. DanielRigal (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had a query that I hope someone here can resolve: I was under the impression that "Oliver Thorn" wasn't her birthname, but a performing/stage name? If so, I don't think moving it to the Early life section would be appropriate. If that is her actual original name, though, then I'm okay with it (though, if I'm honest, I think it's fine in the lead as it is). I'd oppose it being moved to a footnote. — Czello 13:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello: the first name is her birthname, and the surname is not. — Bilorv (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks! — Czello 14:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial, Czello, XOR'easter, and DanielRigal: do we think it would be worth an RfC on the choice between "status quo" and "mention the deadname once only at the start of the subsection 'YouTube'"? There seems to be no support for any other options. Or, is it likely that the status quo will be preferred and an RfC is not needed? — Bilorv (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I think there doesn't seem to be much desire (or need) to alter the status quo. It does seem to be in line with
MOS:DEADNAME so I don't think an RfC is required. — Czello 15:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The status quo seems suboptimal to me; if there were an RfC as you describe, I'd !vote to change it.
talk) 15:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Both moving it and leaving it would be credible options but the fact that Thorn herself prefers it moved makes me think that we should move it unless policy or other good reasons prevent that. I don't think that we have a
MOS:DEADNAME problem either way. I doubt that anybody searching the former name would be doing so if they are not familiar with Philosophy Tube so the presence of that in the intro should be enough to reassure them that they have found the correct article. My thought is to boldly move it and then, if that doesn't stick, consider an RfC. My only question is how strongly does @Czello feel about this? You prefer the status quo but do you actually object to it being moved or is this just your preference between what you see as two credible options? DanielRigal (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
While my preference is it staying in the lead, I'm not hugely opposed to moving it down. — Czello 16:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since she's requesting it, I'd support moving it down or to a footnote. (Otherwise I don't think there's a huge difference.) Loki (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While
MOS:DEADNAME for reasonable requests like this, but that's another discussion I suppose. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

As there needs to be general support, I've moved the name to what seems like the most appropriate place. That doesn't mean that we have to stop discussing it if there is more to be said. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as a trans woman myself I think the current placement is perfect. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about Category:Bisexual women?

I took Category:Bisexual women off as she now identifies as lesbian but it was reinstated. Should this category still apply in this case? Obviously we should, and do, cover that she has identified as bisexual in the past but I am less clear on the correct application of the category to a BLP. I would assume that this (and similar categories) should reflect the subject's current situation. Is that not correct? --DanielRigal (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that she was actually a lesbian and had come out as that. I reverted your edit as you didn't give an explanation, so I assumed you were vandalising the page. Since she is a lesbian, I think that the bisexual category should be excluded - and that categories saying she's a lesbian should be included. Additionally, I think it would be more appropriate to say she publicly identified as bisexual. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On KJB she said she was one above Lesbian on the Kinsey scale and "basically a Lesbian" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.67.246.36 (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince

The last paragraph in "Other activities" can probably be updated now and made into a sub-section of "Career" titled "The Prince". Some sources for potential expansion, but note that I've not read any yet or checked for reliability/due weight: PinkNews, The Stage, TheReviewsHub, LondonLivingLarge, AllThatDazzles. Just putting it here in case anyone would like to beat me to it; I'll get to it eventually if not. — Bilorv (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got around to this, discounting the last two for reliability reasons but including the others. — Bilorv (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this work is notable enough to merit its own main article. I've started a
draft, do you think the paragraphs about various reviews might fit better in a "Reception" section of a main article? SyntaxZombie (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@
MOS:FILMPLOT) would be sensible. — Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for your advice!
The Prince (Play) is now in mainspace, Abigail Thorn#The Prince should follow summary style. (I would give it a try, but this page's protection prevents me from editing.) SyntaxZombie (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I've had a go at the summary style and also made some changes to
B-class. — Bilorv (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

YouTuber, actress, playwright... and activist or trans advocate?

Given Thorn's activity and the great deal of debunking and critique she does on societal and institutional transphobia, transphobes, gender categories etc, isn't it correct to define her also an activist, or trans activist, or trans rights advocate? I feel like categorizing her only as an artist is somewhat reductive and a bit misleading. 93.32.211.96 (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the primary reason for her
summary of the content in the body. If we are missing secondary sources (such as news articles) that cover her activism in more detail than we do in the article currently, then you are welcome to add them to the article. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Linking playwright

Soliciting some more opinions on this—I believe that

MOS:OVERLINK ("Common occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor)"), while Sparkle1 believes it should be, as it is "a standard explainer and not an overlink". More discussion to be found here. — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Partially struck per here so as not to misrepresent Sparkle1's position. — Bilorv (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it is probably unnecessary I don't think it is egregious. I looked at about a dozen random articles from List of playwrights and, while it seems more common not to, several of them do link it. I don't think it is worth agonising over either way. DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% storm in a teacup silliness, it is not 'overlinking' that is more applicable to linking the same thing over and over. It is better for people to be able to click on it to understand if they do not know. and as DanielRigal says, don't lose any sleep over it some do it some don't. It is also assumed that a 'playwright' is a 'common occupation', which is a form of POV.

:Also, ignore the user page links nonsense bought up by Bilorv. they are irrelevant to this discussion. Also, Bilorv don't take what I have said on this subject on my talk page and use that here to talk as if you are the person authorised to feed my opinion to this discussion. That is what I expressly said for you not to do, as you are not a gatekeeper or article owner. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Partially struck per agreement with Bilorv.[reply]

Deadname should be included here

I mean they were known to lecture under their dead name, and publish papers, as well. Pale Nabokov (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done She was not notable under her actual deadname at all. Her former stagename, which she was notable under, is already included in the article once, which is sufficient to establish that both names refer to the same person, and there is no need to do any more than that. Please see
WP:DEADNAME for further details. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know that Thorn has lectured or published papers. I haven't read that she's got any further credentials than a Scottish MA (a first undergrad degree), hardly a deep career into academia. — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is worth noting that @
good faith might be becoming a little stretched here… — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I didn't read this before editing, I looked at someone like Elliot Page and thought the standard was to include birth names 108.248.72.73 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category of English lesbian writers/actresses rather than bisexual writers/actresses

In the article it states that Abigail Thorn identifies as bisexual, referenced by both a Youtube video and tweet. However this page is included in both English lesbian writers and English Lesbian actresses. I am confused as to why these categories have been assigned, and hesitate to change any categories of this page as I fear I may be missing something here. Chandelier943 (talk) 03:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chandelier943: from the same paragraph: Thorn identifies as a lesbian, as of February 2022. This interview is the source. — Bilorv (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you very much, I can't believe I missed that. Chandelier943 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank* Chandelier943 (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Other Activities' section requires updating, as Alice Caldwell-Kelly has changed her first name.

Alice Caldwell-Kelly has changed her name from 'Alice' to 'November', as can be seen from her Twitter Accounts updated username. https://twitter.com/postoctobrist

I'm unsure if this is the right place to request this change, but my account does not meet the requirements to edit the page myself, please tell me if this is the wrong place, thanks!

ValiantEar564 (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ValiantEar564: I think we'd need a better source than this. It's not clear to me, a relative outsider, if this is a serious real/persona name change or a Twitter joke ("postoctobrist" as the handle and "November" as the month post-October). Is she called 'November' by the other hosts on the podcast? — Bilorv (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem to be a genuine name change. I thought it was a joke when she changed it on Twitter and, initially, everything else stayed the same but she has started using it on her podcasts now and when she guests on other podcasts. Her other KJB hosts are using it when talking about her. Devon recently used the diminutive form "Vem" in a tweet. I'm pretty sure this is real and not a short term thing. The KJB website has been updated and I think that's the extra sourcing we need to cover this so I've updated the article. I didn't use the tweet as that doesn't seem to add anything and might confuse a reader who didn't already know what was going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect—thanks for this. The website is a good source (primary sources are fine for simple biographical info). — Bilorv (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, I reached out to her and confirmed if November was okay with 'November Kelly' over Twitter and she said it is.
Thanks for the help, people.
ValiantEar564 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abigail_Thorn&oldid=1215693096"