Talk:Jake Zyrus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


Photo

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

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
Gentlebeings, I just noticed that there is already a
Jake is closed. That will be soon.  — Myk Streja (who?) 05:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The image that was added, was an obvious copyright infringement. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.[1] Newimpartial (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros link

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]
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)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 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.

checkY 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Zyrus: Name and pronouns

Name and pronoun use seems to be a bit all over the place in this article. I see that a previous RFC on the topic didn't resolve, instead was deactivated due to a couple issues. I can start a new one but first I just want to check and see if anyone is now opposed to using

MOS:GENDERID guidelines, which would mean primarily using the name Jake Zyrus with he/him pronouns. If we mostly agree, we can resolve this faster than an RFC. Rab V (talk) 23:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I've fixed some errant pronouns that snuck in, so it's now no-pronouns in the Charice period and masculine pronouns in the Jake period, as it was earlier. There are certainly other GENDERID articles that use no pronouns pre-transition/pre-identification.
Personally I have no problems with the article being retconned to "Jake", but I expect that others will in this particular case because of the strength of the brand, "Charice". There was a lot of denial here at the time the transition was being announced, and I suspect there is still a strong (regional?) fanbase that wants to remember the successes of "Charice" more than they are invested in Jake's ongoing life and career. But I could be wrong. Newimpartial (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding! I see a couple pronouns that were probably missed in the editing process, but I'll wait to change them to see where people's opinions are. I agree the debate earlier seemed unlikely to have resolved itself by now, but I also could be wrong. Just to be clear, is your preference for no pronouns to be used pre-transition? Rab V (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Caught a couple more of the pesky things (pronouns); I really think that's all except quotations (not to be changed under GENDERID).
It's not really that I have a preference, it's more that I'd rather not see edit wars erupt for no good reason...Newimpartial (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, we should follow

MOS:GENDERID. But I agree that trying to implement that change, even if we achieve consensus on the talk page first, could prove contentious. David in DC (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll try changing the article soon to follow

MOS:GENDERID since there seems to be no disagreement, but if it comes up can always start an RFC to settle this formally. Rab V (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]



Commentaery/opinion. The article as it stands does not make sense. The Guideline states both names may be used when substantial achievements have occurs under previous well known names. Prior to 2017, all refernces shoul;d be to Charice Pempengco (later Jake Zyrus). It's notable Charice/Zyrus was awarded a number of awards, expressly for Female Performers or Empowering Women. It defies logic to say "He was awarded Best Female Performer", the same for Zyrus. Zyrus never appeared on Ellen, or Oprah, three is no record of any guest of that name, just the same as when someone becomes married. Have respect for the changed status and name, but apply commonsense, no one would know who you mean saying Zyrus. Further, nothing has been achieved under the name Zyrus or as a TransMan, no EP's Singles or Albums, no concerts or movies. Only 2 appearance on TV talking about having stopped using the Charice name. He has not even changed his name, and has stated he will NOT change it to Jake Zyrus if he ever makes an official change, so Zyrus is an unused (so far) stage name, nothing more. Lets have the article rewritten to recognise name and gender at the time of occurence please.

Requested move 26 August 2017

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. There is no support for the move aside from the nominator, and the current title is consistent with

Chase (talk | contributions) 16:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Jake Zyrus → Charice Pempengco – No consensus for moving –Davey2010Talk 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anthony Appleyard - Hate to be the dick here but you shouldn't of moved it in the first place[2] .... It would've made sense to move it back to its original title and then start an RFC. –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion of what the subject should be referred to above in the section Jake Zyrus RFC and everyone there was in favor of going by

WP:NAMECHANGES seems pretty clear in this case either way that Jake Zyrus is the right name for this page. Do you want to have a separate RFC though on how to refer to Jake within this article? I see you have reverted my edits there without participating on the more recent conversations in the talk page first. I'm fine to start an RFC and settle this but if you think we can come to an agreement on how to handle this, that would be faster. Rab V (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Both discussions wasn't set up as actual RFC, RFCs are required for pages like this especially when there's a lot of controversy around it, The only solution to all of this is to revert back to the previous name and then start a proper RFC. –Davey2010Talk 19:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone that witnessed my actions yesterday - I apologise for getting so riled up - The title wasn't an issue for me not in the slightest - The issue for me atleast was the consensus (or lack of) that's pretty much it .... In my eyes there was no consensus (ofcourse I may or may not be wrong on that I'd rather not hash that out) however all that aside I do apologise for going off the deep end over essentially a minor issue, This place is a learning curve for us all and I do admit I could've and should've handled it better but regardless of all that I apologise for yesterday, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 11:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the page moved back, I can't do that without an admin like Anthony Appleyard. You may as well try the move the way they suggest since they probably are more knowledgable about the process than you or me and unlike us can change the title themselves. No reason to start cussing, see
WP:CIVILITY. As for how Jake is referred to within the article, I can make an RFC to cover that later today when I have more time. Is your preference for Jake to be referred to as Charice from before the transition? Please let me know so I can make sure your preference is an option in the RFC discussion.Rab V (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Neutral. No consensus on the singer's gender Identity has been reached. The whole talk page is about the topic. 82.50.226.41 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to IP - almost all of the talk page discussion took place before reliable sources were available for the subject's transition. There has been consensus since then. Newimpartial (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Starting an RM to revert a move just so that it can be followed by another RM to redo the original move is pointless.
    talk, contribs) 21:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A)
GeoffreyT2000 - How do you know consensus would've gone that way ? ... All for you know consensus could've been to not move to Jake Z - None of us can predict future things unfortunately, B) On a technicality I didn't start the RM if you look, C) Are you going to actually provide a valid reason for opposing as as it currently stands complaining about the RM isn't a valid reason. –Davey2010Talk 21:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think his point is it would eventually have to be moved or re-moved to Jake Zyrus, as the singer has clearly changed names and genders. Softlavender (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is true actually and being completely honest I don't really know why it was never moved sooner but there we are, FWIW as you can probably tell I've never really followed all of this but FWIW I've certainly learned alot in this RM alone so it's not all been bad lol, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: See wikt:deadname and deadnaming, for readers who do not know the word. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As stated by others, deadnaming a trans person who has a clearly stated, documented preference for a new name and gendered pronouns violates established Wikipedia policies, including
    MOS:GENDERID. Funcrunch (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Previous opposition, I assume under good faith is the uncertainty over Zyrus' actual gender identity due to quotes such as "Not exactly transitioning into a male". But consensus can change. The recent
biological sex (due to technical limits of transition) but only changed his appearance to reflect his gender identity as a trans-man. It is not for us users to decide his gender identity and RS says he identifies himself as a trans-man.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Jake Zyrus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of comment (before transition)

I believe this comment should stay as without it, it can seems like Oprah has made a derogatory comment calling him a girl when he is now a man and it adds more context to her quote. IP disagrees with me reverting them and has left some

(talk) 05:09, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree, it Oprah at that time was complimenting Zyrus when the latter still didn't come out as a transgender man and prior to his transition. However Oprah is comparing him at that time to all young people who are publicly known as woman due to his more feminine voice at that time (and again he hasn't come up as a transgender man yet). But I suggest, integrating this better rather than a parenthesis-enclosed disclaimer. (e.g. Prior to his gender transition, Zyrus has been called the "most talented girl in the world"). Hariboneagle927 (talk)
Yes I agree the comment can be integrated better, just didn't want to touch until it wasn't decided what we do with the comment overall.
(talk) 06:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I have removed the comment in question. It isn't supported by the article and is therefore original research. I don't think there is any hint of Oprah making a derogatory comment, the fact that she transitioned into a man, shows that she was once female. That much is just common sense.
But, I did think about an easy solution - In (date of comment), Zyrus was dubbed by Oprah Winfrey as "the most talented girl in the world"
However, when I looked at the source to confirm the date of the comment, not only is the date of the comment not mentioned, but the actual quote "the most talented girl in the world" is missing from the source. In light of this, a new source is required otherwise all the content about what Oprah may or may not have said will have to be removed. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't remove until consensus has been gained. It isn't original research to provide context to a quote, see
(talk) 17:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Did find this for the quote as well from 2010. https://www.theurbanwire.com/2010/10/charicesingaporesunfest2010/
Is calling a pre-op transmale a female really OR or considered offensive? It seems to me to be stating the obvious, but for this page adds context. Something like 'Before Jake's transition, Ophrah said.....' if it has a reliable source may be clearer. Apologies if something there is considered transphobic. Red Jay (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

(talk) 07:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Firstly, it's a direct quote and doesn't require clarification. Do you really think that readers are that stupid not to work it out?
Secondly, your insistence on retaining that content is not grounds for edit warring. You've just reverted this article 4 times in 25.5 hours. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anything is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of NOR, it's the implication by omission that Oprah referred to Zyrus as a girl after his transition. It is also theoretically impossible for "the problem" with content in the lead being "original research", since the lead is supposed to summarize the body -- if the content did not also appear in the body, the problem would be that, not that it was original research. In this case, the body includes both the 2008 date of the Oprah appearance and a description of his gender transition as taking place much later, so summarizing this content in the lead as we currently do is not unacceptable.
That said, the cited source is definitely less than ideal, as one doesn't get the impression that Oprah herself typed out the promotional text The girl with the voice is back! Then, the most talented girl in the world is here! Watch as her dream comes true. Was there originally an embedded video of Oprah saying those words herself? I believe it is acceptable to cite old talk show episodes as sources when they are directly attributed inline assuming they are still available. But if there is no legal way for members of the general public to access those sources anymore, it is a violation of
WP:V
. And if we can't attribute the quotation to Oprah herself inline, that raises questions of whether In 2008, before his transition, Oprah.com included text calling him "the most talented girl in the world". would be UNDUE.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is a very good point. Does the source support the claim that Oprah actually said those words? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charice In One Half and Jake Zyrus In The Other

I would like for the earlier parts of the page before "she" became "he" to be marked with Charice or Charice Pempengco because you see, Charice was near and dear to me and I feel like by making it all "Jake Zyrus" you're making it as if Charice never existed. So what I am proposing is that all the information and pictures from before Charice's transformation into Jake Zyrus be marked with Charice and/or Charice Pempengco. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianLyons314 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that we may all have cherished feelings on these matters, but the community has determined in the discussions that produced
MOS:DEADNAME that BLP subjects are entitled to the consideration of using the name and pronouns they have most recently chosen, so long as there are reliable sources to this effect and at least for the biographical articles directly about them. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

"Zyrus" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

Zyrus. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 5#Zyrus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Revisit Pronouns: Stick with What He Says, Please

"I am always thankful for the life of Charice that I experienced and the music that I shared, but that obviously belongs to her, it's not for me. I'm letting her go and be free" [emphasis added]. I seriously cannot understand why the article still has the work of Clarice under Jake's gender when he himself credited her work, not "his early work" or even "my early work" but hers.

I make no argument about any person's gender alignment or expression; it's not my place to do so. It's also not our place to regender people when the subjects themselves have clearly stated that they see themselves as a certain gender (or lack thereof) at a certain point in their lives. AZs we as a society come to grips with the divergence between biological, aligned and/or expressed gender and how it can shift during a person's life.

Lastly, this is an encyclopaedic work. It expresses what is known about a certain subject and expresses it in terms that align with the facts at the time. I get it with folks like Charley Parkhurst who lived his entirely life as a man and never, as far as the historical record knows, expressed himself as a woman. The simple fact in this article is that Luke did not appear on Glee. Charice Pempengco appeared. If Luke can acknowledge that, why can’t we? Last1in (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The policy threshold for using historical pronouns for an earlier phase of a BLP's career is much higher than using old-gender pronouns in a single published interview. We need a clearly expressed intention that the subject prefers that others discuss the earlier stages of their life using former pronouns. Do we have a clearly expressed and reliably sourced intention in this case? Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing a load of other articles on post-transition folks, I withdraw my argument in favour of the more concise, "This is barking mad". The greatest I've found is the Caitlyn Jenner one: Somehow, Jenner made her name in men's track and field events and I appear to be the only non-bigot who see this as a linguistic car-crash in the context of an encyclopaedia. In order to avoid the verbal immolation that would come with trying to explain this, I retire from the field with a simple, "live long and prosper." Last1in (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote

The hatnote about his name states, "In this Philippine name, the middle name or maternal family name is Relucio and the surname or paternal family name is Pempengco." However, Jake's full name was deleted from the article to remove emphasis on his deadname, so the 'Relucio' part of the hatnote isn't helpful. Should the hatnote be removed completely? Or should it just be altered to keep 'Pempengco' in, since that part of the deadname is mentioned? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jake_Zyrus&oldid=1220948974"