Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale

Tree asked politely to be referred to by the pronoun "Tree".

“I don’t want to go by ‘he’ anymore, I just want to go by ‘tree.’" Shouldn't that be enough to go through and edit the article to change all the pronouns from he/his to tree? I don't know how wikipedia is regarding these kinds of things, but tree seems to have been fairly clear in what tree said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northerner1073 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Please see this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#When_the_preferred_pronoun_is_not_a_pronoun. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion has been archived. Anyone wishing to read it can find it here › Mortee _talk 22:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

This is blatantly transphobic imo, there is absolutely no reason for the article to avoid using "tree" pronouns for Lonsdale, especially considering the linked MOS discussion did not come to a clear conclusion, and contained multiple insults towards people who use pronouns like "tree", which makes it rather biased. If confusion is the issue, the article could clarify that "tree" is tree's preferred pronoun, which should clear things up for anybody confused. 73.142.199.151 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously. I may want to be referenced by the pronoun Lordthygod but if people don't do that it's not transphobia or any other kind of phobia. I keep returning to the idea that this may be a grand hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair, designed to test how credulous Wikipedia editors can be. EEng 00:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

hi so tree uses tree/treeself pronouns and transphobes were changing it to he/him could we officially get it changed to trees correct pronouns thanks 2603:6011:780E:D455:A1AE:D677:2992:C503 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the previous discussion on this matter here. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

change Lonsdale’s pronouns to trees new tree/trees/treeself pronouns 71.176.161.70 (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See request immediately above yours. Schazjmd (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article yesterday, such that it now mentions in "Personal life" that Lonsdale uses the "tree" pronoun, but does not use any pronouns to refer to Lonsdale throughout. As a note to other editors—"they" is an incorrect pronoun in this case. While it's a reasonable choice when a subject's pronouns are unknown or when a subject has said they use they/them pronouns, it is not a usable option for those who have specified different pronouns.

I am hoping this can strike a workable balance between not using incorrect pronouns for Lonsdale, but also satisfying those who do not think neopronouns ought to be used in Wikipedia articlespace. I know the article on the musician and producer SOPHIE takes a similar approach, as SOPHIE did not use pronouns at all. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No, they is perfectly correct. There's no evidence whatsoever that the subject has "specified different pronouns", nor that what they said was anything other than some goofy joke; Lonsdale and his PR people uniformly refer to him as he -- see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221, and if they wasn't available I'd be arguing for he. The idea that tree is a pronoun is, bluntly, idiocy. The straightforward quote of what he said, as you have it in the article now, is fine, but that's different from twisting the article into a pretzel because of some whimsical ha-ha the subject tossed off one day. EEng 22:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That Lonsdale's PR firm uses different pronouns is an interesting point. Where does Lonsdale use the different pronouns? I'm not seeing it linked in that discussion. I wonder if there have been more recent interviews where Lonsdale has mentioned a preference. That said, I disagree that the article has been "twisted into a pretzel", or that we should use pronouns that differ from Lonsdale's stated preference when there is no RS indication that Lonsdale was joking. The WT:MOS discussion consensus to me appears to be that we should not use "tree" pronouns—not that we should use some specific other pronoun—and I am respecting that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• That Lonsdale's PR firm uses different pronouns is an interesting point – It sure is, and in a sane world it'd be dispositive.
• I disagree that the article has been "twisted into a pretzel" – I didn't say it had. I was trying to say (but didn't say very clearly) that it should not be, and in particular it should not affect the Sophie-like tin-eared pretension of avoiding all pronouns on the subject's whim.
• Lonsdale's stated preference – All the evidence is that he was joking, or talking out of his ass, or whatever you want to call it. I submit that the idea that someone wants people to pretend tree is a pronoun is an exceptional claim under WP:ABOUTSELF and that we need a serious, reliable source (i.e. not Billboard) to tell us that's really the case before we rework the article in the image of all this silliness.

EEng 22:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding you–are you okay with the article's current form? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am. But if the article grows larger it's going to become increasingly awkward to avoid pronouns entirely, and I'm saying we shouldn't do that. EEng 23:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I've got to say, I'm wholly perplexed by this discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should follow, not lead. "All reliable sources say x, but we should say y" seems like a baffling position to ever find yourself arguing from. Reliable sources use "he", but at the very least the singular "they" is never wrong – unless we have specific reason to think that using it would be offensive like we did for SOPHIE, I see no reason why the mess a lack of pronouns introduces shouldn't just be avoided with the use of the singular they. Volteer1 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID: Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources. As far as I'm aware, the Billboard interview is the most recent self-designation, unless you know of something I don't. As for "they", using "they" for someone who has specified a different pronoun is misgendering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

GENDERID, like all of MOS, is to be applied with common sense, and common sense applied to the interview and all that followed it is that he was joking or being fey. He himself uses he, and his PR people use he -- what more do you want??? And even if not, let's get real: tree is now a pronoun? WTF? Are there no limits to this nonsense? EEng 17:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I asked this above but maybe it was lost in other discussion. Where does Lonsdale use "he"? As for deciding what's a "real" pronoun, I have no interest in that. I'm not arguing that we need to use "tree" in the article outside of the quote, but I am saying that we should not be using pronouns that differ from the ones Lonsdale has specified without a solid confirmation that Lonsdale was joking. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That is upside down: We need a solid confirmation that Lonsdale wasn't joking. The 'tree'-pronouns claim is based on one single interview from several years ago. Without any more recent or confirming comments from the person, we really should just use the same pronouns as most other sources do. St.nerol (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID says to use a person's self-designation, not to assume they're joking unless they give some other interview saying "no, really". So far I've seen no RS suggestion that Lonsdale was joking, only editors' personal opinions. That RS don't use the specified pronouns isn't that surprising to me, nor do I take it as indication Lonsdale was joking--the whole reason MOS:GENDERID includes the clause "even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources" is because a lot of publicationss are notoriously bad with pronouns, especially neopronouns.

Look at it this way:

• Scenario 1: Lonsdale was joking, and actually uses he/him pronouns. If the article uses he/him pronouns, then it is accurate and it reads slightly easier. If the article uses they/them pronouns, we've got the pronouns wrong, because Lonsdale doesn't use them. If the article avoids pronouns it reads slightly more awkwardly but is still correct.
• Scenario 2: Lonsdale was joking, and actually uses they/them pronouns. If the article uses he/him pronouns, then we've got the pronouns wrong. If the article uses they/them pronouns, then it is accurate and it reads slightly easier. If the article avoids pronouns it reads slightly more awkwardly but is still correct.
• Scenario 3: Lonsdale was being quite sincere. If the article uses he/him pronouns, then we've got the pronouns wrong. If the article uses they/them pronouns, then we've got the pronouns wrong. To make it worse, we've contributed to the ridicule often faced by people who use neopronouns. If the article avoids pronouns it reads slightly more awkwardly but is still correct.

The benefits of avoiding slightly awkward wording to me do not come near outweighing the risks here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

And then there's Scenario 4: Wikipedia makes itself look like a confederacy of dunces, and exposes itself to well-deserved ridicule, by giving serious consideration either to the possibility of actually using tree as a pronoun, or to idea that they should be eschewed in favor of numbingly repeating Lonsdale over and over and over and over because, well, asking to be called tree really might make sense and so using they really might therefore be offensive.

To be honest, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I said He himself uses he, since that would mean he's talking about himself in the third person. But here's his PR firm's website [1]; the Billboard interview was 9/2018 and every release since (not to mention before) refers to the subject as he. All this gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair is just unbelievable. What -- his own PR firm is misgendering him (or, you might say, mistergendering him)? EEng 21:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No one is going to look like a confederacy of dunces for wishing to respect a person's pronouns, and given that there are other, longer bios where we've avoided pronouns I don't see why that's not an option here—though my understanding was that you were okay with the current wording (though I take it St.nerol is not). As for going by Lonsdale's PR firm, I'm not really sure what the best path is there. The MOS is pretty specific about going by the subject's self-ID, but I suppose I could start a discussion there. As for gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair, I feel like I've been pretty calm and polite in this conversation and so I'm unsure why you're seeing fit to use such hyperbole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• No one is going to look like a confederacy of dunces for wishing to respect a person's pronouns – They will if the "pronoun" is tree.
• my understanding was that you were okay with the current wording – Yes I am but, as already mentioned, that's only because the article's relatively short – short enough that the avoidance of pronouns isn't excessively awkward.
• As for going by Lonsdale's PR firm... MOS is pretty specific about going by the subject's self-ID – Oh come on! A PR apparatus projects, by definition, what the client wants projected. If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope. What his PR firm does is his self-ID.
• unsure why you're seeing fit to use such hyperbole – Because hyperbole is fun, and anyway I wasn't talking about you. Probably I should have said handwringing (also not about you, at least not in particular).

EEng 04:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Great, it sounds like we've got a workable solution then. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)