Talk:Conchita Wurst/Archive 1

Personal pronoun
As I stated in my edit a few moments ago: "Corrected the personal pronouns from "she" to "he", as he actually is a man. It is still stated with respect that he refers to himself as a female, but this does not change the fact that he is a man, and Wikipedia is about facts." I find it silly and against reality to refer to him as "she". There might be a movement in people's fantasies about him being a woman or female, but that is a fantasy, something imagined, and Wikipedia is not about imagination. It is about facts, and about staying firmly on the ground of reality, even when strong social forces try to bend reality and replace it with imagination. And the reality is, clearly and without any doubt, that Thomas Neuwirth is a man.

We can refer to the imagined persona Conchita Wurst with "she", but not to the man Thomas Neuwirth, which is beyond any doubt a man. And this article starts with the name Thomas Neuwirth, thereby showing that the article is about the man acting with the persona "Conchita Wurst".

Showing Thomas Neuwirth "respect" by conforming to his personal fantasy and making it the whole world's fantasy is not the task of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about stating facts. It is all about not buying into fantasies.

Thomas Neuwirth is a man, playing a role as a woman. And that should just be plainly and simply reflected in this article.

By the way, when I was editing the article, there was no indication whatsoever that there was a deliberate choice of the female pronouns. I was using the new WYSIWYG editor, and it did not show the comment in the wikitext. Also, the comment in the wikitext does not refer to any authority or explanation, so it doesn't have much weight – anyone could have postulated what it says. Again, Wikipedia is about either stating the completely obvious (as I am also proposing here, by referring to a man as a man) or about documenting the non-obvious with references.

My edit was reversed without any good reason, and I hereby propose changing it back again to state reality instead of fantasy, which I will of course do if there is no reasonable, well-founded and well-documented objections to this within a short time.

Again, Wikipedia is about stating the facts and not about silly social games and fantasy.

--Jhertel (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And by the way, I did check the Talk page before changing anything, but nothing about the pronouns was mentioned, so I went ahead and changed it. --Jhertel (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see MOS:IDENTITY. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Be careful not to use too many words, you might run out of letters... But okay, finally a link to a source. That is a really silly rule on Wikipedia – to prefer one single person's fantasy over reality. But, I will have to let the rule talk, no matter how silly and far-fetched it is. I guess I was wrong about Wikipedia; it is not all about reality and facts. It seems to also be a social phenomenon, buying in to widespread social microphycoses as they appear. In an imagined Wikipedia in ancient times, the editors would probably also have fought hard to keep the fact that the Earth was flat, as that was probably the prevalent fantasy at that time, and reverted all edits by any Galilei types, no matter what logic, proof and common sense he was referring to. Oh well... --Jhertel (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is only a problem if you make it a problem. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything is only a problem if you make it one, so that statement is rather meaningless. I just thought that Wikipedia was about stating facts and only facts, and I stand absolutely corrected: Wikipedia is also about stating pure fantasy as if it were true. My bad! And that is of course, as applies to everything, only a problem if you make it one. :-) --Jhertel (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You could have a future in comedy :) Just saying..--BabbaQ (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about stating facts, you are correct. And the fact here is that Tom/Conchita has openly stipulated that he see's him/her-self as gender neutral. So we have to adhere to that, as Wikipedia also prides itself on promoting Equal Opportunity - and at the end of the day it is the right of the artist how s/he wishes to be referred to as. If the femal e gender is their request and that can be verified with sources too, then we must be seen to respect their choice. After all we are dealing with an article that is relating to a living person. Now time to drop this charade and move on to new business. Wes    Mᴥuse   21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 173.22.39.53 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to cite a source for the statement that Tom is gender neutral. The Wikipedia article states that Tom is gender neutral in the first paragraph, but the cited source [] given to verify that fact actually states that Tom describes himself as a man. The cited source makes no mention of a gender neutral identification. The statement that Tom/Conchita is gender neutral DOES NOT belong in the article when the evidence used for this statement states otherwise. Either a reliable source that supports this statement needs to be found, or the article needs to be corrected and the incorrect information removed. Either way, that citation cannot be used for that statement. Another important issue is that the Wikipedia article states that "The singer, ..., uses female pronouns for herself (her/she rather than him/he)." This statement is again proven incorrect by the same cited source which states, "Behind the makeup is gay singer, Tom Neuwirth, who describes himself as a man and Wurst as a character he plays." Using female pronouns to describe themself playing the role of Conchita is not the same as Tom as a person using female pronouns for to describe himself out of character and this distinction must be made.74.107.127.163 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this might shed some additional light onto the matter. In the UK we have parliament act called the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which allows transsexual people the right to change their legal gender. The Act itself was drafted in following a response to court rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, for which Austria and other EU members would also come under similar acts - one would presume. Wes    Mᴥuse   21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, gender and sex are not the same thing. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

On to sources then! In accordance to MOS:IDENTITY we should stick to the person's preferences. On [], Tom is refered to with a male pronoun, Conchita with a female pronoun, which fits the respective genders. Let's follow the lead of the person, please! 129.27.152.126 (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IP, please specify what your opinion is because it is hard to tell from your comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK then IP, if you are so bothered about this, then go challenge the European Courts of Human Rights, and tell them they have got their ruling all wrong. And then perhaps we'd be able to change the text in here.  The burden is in your hands.    Wes     Mᴥuse   16:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not the person you were talking with earlier, however I challenge YOU to prove that Tom identifies as gender neutral as opposed to identifying as a man. I have no issue with people who are gender neutral, nor do I have any issue with transgender people of any variety, however what I see in the article and in this talk page right now is a claim that is in conflict with the cited source that is used to back up said claim. That is a big problem.74.107.127.163 (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the source text has changed, perhaps as a result of all the focussed attention? I can't be 100% certain—I didn't take a screenshot of the page when it was first used as a source—but the text that's there now isn't what I remember from when I first read it. It seems the article text will have to be changed, though a supplementary source might be desirable. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that I have so far seen no evidence for the opening statement that Tom considers himself gender neutral and prefers female pronouns. The evidence from his own site seems to back up the gaystarnews link that Tom considers himself a gay man and uses female pronouns only when potraying the character of Concita, which is pretty standard for gay men who are drag performers. On the other hand I object to the comments of the original poster above about pandering to people's fantasies. It is increasingly accepted that gender identity and physical sex are different things, and that it's respectful and does no harm to anyone, to accept people's own preferred pronouns, which can include the usual he and she as well as non-binary ones like singular they or sie/hir etc Orlando098 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is simply ridiculous Palecloudedwhite, either we use he or she all the way. The intro can not use she and the rest of the article he. How easy some users gives in under pressure..--BabbaQ (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with "giving in"; Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources, and the source now states (I believe this is different to what it stated before) that Neuwirth "describes himself as a man and Wurst as a character he plays. He does, however, use female pronouns to describe himself when he plays as Wurst". Seeing as Neuwirth identifies as a man and is only playing a role as Wurst, the article should probably use "he" all the way through, though using "he" for Neuwirth and "she" for Wurst does at least attempt to honour the source, whereas using "she" all the way through doesn't - not now. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, however the article still should not state, "The singer, who identifies as gender neutral," since the source used does not back up the claim that Thomas identifies as gender neutral and instead states that he identifies as a male while out of character. The article simply cannot include that "gender neutral" bit without an actual source reflecting that fact.74.107.127.163 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. In my view the article needs further changes, as currently it refers to Neuwirth as "she" in 2006 and 2007—before Wurst ever appeared. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the main issue is whether or not this is a Wikipedia article about a person or about a character. The two are obviously not the same thing. I am not terribly familiar with Wikipedia policies when it comes to this sort of issue, but to me it would make sense that the article use the pronouns belonging to the person if the article is about the person while if the article is about the character then they should reflect the character. The article currently talks about both the person and the character yet does not make much of a distinction between the two. Would it not make more sense to talk about the person separately from the character?74.107.127.163 (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not familiar with policies on this issue—character vs. person—though it is usually the case that an article title is the name by which the subject is most commonly known - which in this case is Wurst. A quick glance at some articles about drag queens suggests that treatment of the subject varies: I don't know whether that helps. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Lady Bunny - wholly about the character and uses "she"
 * Lily Savage - redirects to the person Paul O'Grady and is just a section of his life
 * RuPaul - character name is a shortened version of his real name; describes the person and uses "he"
 * Regina Fong - redirects to Reg Bundy and describes the person, using "he"
 * Bette Bourne - titled at character name but describes life of person and uses "he".


 * Now, now IP 74.107.127.163, no need to be dishing out challenges. The issue I had was IP 129.27.152.126 kept getting all pointy and pushing their point of view down everyone else's throats without given a toss about keeping the debate civil.  That is why I said if they were so bothered about their point of view being of such importance, then in accordance to policy the burden would ultimately be in their hands to provide 100% solid evidence to validate their point of view.  And unfortunately they have not provided such.


 * However back to the main topic of debate here, perhaps we're going to have to find a mutual compromise that covers every aspect of this matter. Obviously the artists birth name is Thomas, so in all reality this article's title should show that name, with Conchita Wurst being redirected to here; just like we have for Lily Savage/Paul O'Grady.  To me that would be the logical thing to do.  And then have a section on his life as Thomas (in which we'd use male pronouns he/him), and a section on his alter-ego 'Conchita Wusrt' (in which we'd be able to use female pronouns she/her).    Wes     Mᴥuse   12:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think male pronouns is the way to go for this article. Conchita is just a persona created by Tom Neuwirth the man. In a section of this page where Conchita Wurst is discussed, it should be enough to just note that when he assumes this identity, he prefers to be referred to with female pronouns. Otherwise, I think separate Tom Neuwirth and Conchita Wurst pages could be made where the Conchita Wurst page can explicitly discuss the character and use female pronouns. Pickette (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Two separate article's would work, Pickette, fantastic idea my friend. What would the chances be that someone would nominate them to be merged though in the future?  If taht did happen, wouldn't we be back to square one?    Wes     Mᴥuse   13:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure to be honest. I guess the question is whether the Tom Neuwirth article can stand on its own considering Conchita Wurst is a rather large part of his career. Although the Conchita Wurst character seems to have her own made-up back history: . I think they could both possibly remain as one article but there definitely should be some restructuring. Pickette (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I also think that he should be referred to by a male pronoun. I know that wikipedia is a social phenomenon which will invariably become tainted with certain political opinions of its editors, but I think here is where we should make a point about objectivity. "Conchita Wurst", if accurately described as a fantasy persona, can be female or whatever other gender, but the person who plays that persona is invariably male. Chymæra (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The talk page of a pop singer is not the place to discuss fundamental notions of gender. Please keep to the sources --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then don't make it a discussion about fundamental gender notions. Thomas Neuwirth is legally male, and unless you have sources which claim the contrary, any article about him should use the male pronoun. I endorse splitting the article with the explicit notion that Conchita Wurst is a fictional female identity.Chymæra (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Conchita Wurst. Wurst prefers the use of feminine pronouns. This article is not about Thomas Neuwirth. Neuwirth's gender is irrelevant to the discussion. Why is this an issue? TechBear &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 00:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an issue because, , and have made it as such.  The only way to cease this headache is to reach a compromise and quickly, for the fact that Ms. Conchita Wurst is the winner of Eurovision 2014 - and so this article is going to be under a lot of spotlight.  Two solutions around this have already been suggested above.  It's time we grabbed this bull by the horns and made a decision pronto.    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the article is about Thomas Neuwirth. If it is only about Conchita Wurst, the article timeline should begin in 2011. I suggest most readers might find that strange. It appears to be the case that Neuwirth isn't trans, and Conchita Wurst is a drag persona. It therefore makes most sense to describe Neuwirth's life, with Wurst as part of it. There is a separate question of what title the article should have; considering Conchita Wurst is the name which everyone knows, there is an argument for leaving it unchanged. If at some point in the future Neuwirth becomes more generally known outside of the Conchita Wurst persona, there would be a stronger argument for retitling to Thomas Neuwirth. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As it stands, the article is about both Neuwirth and Wurst, a persona or role. In the role of Wurst, Neuwirth identifies as female, or rather, Wurst identifies as female, hence should be referred to as she, while when out of character, Neuwirth identifies as male, hence should be referred to as he, since Neuwirth is not trans. So I would write he initially, and "As Conchita Wurst, he (= Neuwirth) participated ...", but "she (= Wurst) won the competition". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I would write: "The singer (= Neuwirth) uses female pronouns for himself when in the role of Wurst" (since Wurst logically cannot be in the role of Wurst), and "Neuwirth (a cis-man) states that he was born in ...". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So basically, Florian, it's the same suggestion that I made earlier on? Which if we have both come out with the same suggestion, then I agree it does make more sense to handle this article in both gender context, depending on whether we are writing content about Neuwirth or Wurst.    Wes     Mᴥuse   02:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are in agreement. However, since the drag persona Wurst appears to be far better known than Neuwirth, I wonder if it may not make more sense to name the article after the persona rather than the artist. One should look at precedents as has been done before in this discussion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Conchita Wurst, as the name of a stage persona, could be treated like a stage name. Compare how Dana International is titled this rather than Sharon Cohen. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree this currently seems to be the best option. However, twice I have edited the article in a way which separated the genders of Neuwirth and Wurst, and each time it has subsequently been rewritten (the first time being told my changes were ridiculous). Currently the article describes Neuwirth as "she", which is contrary to how he is referred to at conchitawurst.com, which is absurd. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly, some people have trouble distinguishing the concepts of transgender and drag. Unlike trans people, people who do drag do not have a single identity. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the article itself is only semi-protected for a couple of days. As we all know, semi-protect prevents IP's from editing them. However, I have noticed from other articles over the last few months that IP's are getting too clever at getting around editing of semi-protected articles just to get things written their way. They are now creating "temporary" registered accounts just to get their edits put through. Maybe we need to look at increasing the protection level? Perhaps to "pending changes"? I do have reviewer rights so I don't mind monitoring such changes and acting on them accordingly. Wes    Mᴥuse   03:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pending changes may be a helpful option, but some kind of consensus still needs to be reached, otherwise we don't know what version we're protecting. I favour a title of Conchita Wurst, a sourced section about identity, and descriptions of Neuwirth as "he" and Wurst as "she" - but done in a way which doesn't jar the natural flow of reading. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just checked the requests page, and BabbaQ had asked for temporary full-protection until this dispute was resolved. However the administrator only semi-protected it for 2 days.  If they had checked this very thread, they may have come to realise that semi-protection would not work.  But hey ho!  I'll see if I can get another admin to come take a look and hopefully increase the protection level.    Wes     Mᴥuse   03:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page for the next 72 hours pursuant to the discussion above. Please ping me or any other available admin when a consensus is determined, so the page can be updated and (ideally) the protection lowered back to semi. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC) As I see it, the entire conflict can be resolved by rephrasing the initial sentence Thomas Neuwirth (born 6 November 1988), better known as the drag persona Conchita Wurst, is an Austrian singer. to Conchita Wurst, a drag persona of Thomas Neuwirth and removing personal biographic details of Neuwirth from the article. Neuwirth can then have his own stub article and Conchita can stay female.Chymæra (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * But it's a man! Common sense 58.161.85.116 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Language and readability
As it stands now, there are a few sentences which sound unnecessarily stilted just because they're written in such a way as to avoid the use of a pronoun altogether: "In a 2013 interview, the performer cited frequent fear of school bullying..."; "In the same interview the performer stated that the first name was from..."; etc. This is embarrassingly bad, and a consensus should be determined stat, especially since this article will have high readership over the next few weeks (and again next around next year's ESC). &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with you, Darkwind. And I apologise if what I am about to say offends some people, but it does start to make people look very narrow-minded and bigoted towards people like Tom/Conchita and other drag artists.  However, as this isn't the first drag queen "celebrity", then perhaps we should be turning to similar articles out there and take a leaf out of their book on how to handle this article.  For example, Paul O'Grady's drag persona Lily Savage.  Ms. Savage was a household name in the UK and Ireland, until the persona's creator Mr O'Grady decided to retire the act and has now become more famous as O'Grady.  But people still remember his alter-ego Savage.  In order to things back on track, we need to start using some commonlogic and research other similar articles for inspiration on how to write this very one.    Wes     Mᴥuse   15:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we need to recognise the distinction between transsexuals and drag acts. As far as I understand wikipedia's policy,  it is that when dealing with a transsexual - ie, someone who (for example) is biologically male yet identifies as a female - we go with their wishes rather than their biological sex.


 * however, we're not dealing with that here. Conchita is a performance rather than Tom Neuwirth's actual self-designated identity.  Accordingly, I see no fundamental difference between him and that of an actor playing a part (such as Sacha Baron Cohen's Borat for example.)


 * thus, the focus of the article should primarily be on Tom Neuwirth rather than Conchita Wurst, with the latter being appropriately described as a drag identity created and assumed by Neuwirth at certain times. Accordingly, as a general rule, we should be using the male pronoun; however, I don't see anything wrong with using the feminine pronoun with regard to Conchita, provided that this is strictly limited to acts directly carried out by Neuwirth when in the role of Conchita and which do not stray into more general aspects of his life when he is not in that role.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayaniten (talk • contribs) 15:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Tom Neuwirth is notable out of drag, but I just discovered that Dame Edna Everage and Barry Humphries are separate articles. So a split could be considered. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For travesti artists, Wikipedia is definitely inconsistent: Lilo Wanders is titled after the stage persona, Georg Preuße after the artist, even though his stage persona is more widely known (as far as I'm aware). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Florian, the creation of two separate articles was one of the suggestions that both Pickette and I made above. In theory it would solve this matter.  Does anyone know if Lilly Savage and Paul O'Grady use to be separate article at one point in Wikihistory?  If so, then that could work here.  And if in the near future Tom decided to retire the Wurst persona, then we'd be able to work on merging the two together, just like Savage/O'Grady articles have been done.    Wes     Mᴥuse   17:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I've stated above, I'd favour keeping the article together - Neuwirth isn't very notable outside of the Conchita Wurst persona, and an article just about his life outside of Conchita is going to be rather short - little more than an expanded redirect, in fact. It's possible that Barry Humphries has his own article because he has also publicly achieved a lot outside of the Dame Edna persona - he's even created a second notable character, Sir Les Patterson. I know that BabbaQ doesn't like the idea of both "she" and "he" within the same article, but I don't see this as an issue as long as the article always makes it clear which identity is being referred to at any one time. Bear in mind that at conchitawurst.com, Neuwirth and Wurst are described side by side, using different genders for the different identities. If done properly, it doesn't have to be jarring. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If properly done, yes I agree that it is achievable to maintain one article using both genders depending on which persona we are writing about. However, there are the "not so intellectual" ones out there that would still not grasp this and we'd still be having this debate until hell freezes over.  And even if we added hidden text into the article, we both know that someone will still ignore it, and then we're chasing around in circles again.    Wes     Mᴥuse   22:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If, in the article, the reasons for the creation of the Conchita persona (someone's mentioned earlier bullying etc.) are adequately and clearly described, it may be the case that these anticipated battles will occur less frequently than you fear. Also, consider how certain aspects of a stand-alone Conchita Wurst article would be treated in practice - such an article will inevitably have to keep referring to Neuwirth, because the 2 are so intertwined. However if everyone else wants 2 articles, I'm not going to keep objecting—anything is preferable to paralysis, and my position isn't particularly strongly-held—but editors should think what a split might mean in practice. And I'm not convinced that trying to pander to vandals is the best basis on which to make a decision. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Having a look at this article in other languages: In French it's only one article, with separate Conchita and Tom sections for the career, each section using its own suitable gender pronoun In German it's also one article, titled at Tom Neuwirth (though there's a thread on the talkpage about moving to Conchita Wurst), and it describes Conchita as a fictional character and seems to use the male pronoun In Spanish it's one article, titled at Conchita Wurst, and seems to use the male pronoun even when referring to Conchita, as the article establishes Conchita as a character In Italian it's one article, titled at Conchita Wurst, and seems to avoid using pronouns (though that may just be google translate...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Why are people arguing about this? being a drag queen or even a transvestite does not equate to being a transwomen (In fact you could argue one by definition precludes the other) and using different personal pronouns well PLAYING A PART ON STAGE does not equate to a life long personal choice about identity, end off  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.211.173 (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It might be instructive to separate the issue of gender identity from the one of role playing. For example, we don't say, "Paul Reubens, better known as Pee-wee Herman." That would be silly. We say "Pee-wee Herman is a comic fictional character created and portrayed by American comedian Paul Reubens." This article should say something similar, and use the feminine pronoun. I don't know if Thomas Neuwirth is notable enough to have his own article, but if he is, it would refer to him using the masculine pronoun. If he isn't, then it would be appropriate to include some biographical content about him here. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * well surly He's notable for playing the part? there are lots of actors who only have pages for because they played famous characters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.211.173 (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Going off what PaleCloudedWhite said above, one article does sound plausible, as does two separate ones. And in all fairness, I'm not overly fussed which route we take, as long as we have a clear consensus and it draws closure to this whole headache of debate.  And as Kendall has suggested, I think going down that route would work too.  But then we'd still have some people arguing the toss that "he's a man!" blah-de-blah - and then we're back to this whole chasing in circle again.  Personally, I had never heard of Tom Neuwirth, and when it was announced that Austria were sending Conchita Wurst, I actually thought she was a woman (yes I know, I don't get out very often lol).  So perhaps going on the basis of what Kendall suggests would be the ideal approach for this, purely because the Conchita persona is more well-known at present due to the Eurovision win and ultimately next year's contest in Austria, when she may be one of the hosts too.


 * So, we could start off with "Conchita Wurst is a drag queen character created by Thomas Neuwirth..." Then in the main body of the article have one section that refers to Tom's biography, and one that refers to Conchita's biography and career.  That way we'd be able to use male context for Tom and female for Conchita.  (If that makes sense).    Wes     Mᴥuse   00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your last suggestion could be workable, and would align the article content with its title (and I think we have to use the current title, as it's the name which readers will be looking for). However I'd drop calling the character "fictional", as Conchita's appearances haven't been just within artistic creations. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The word fictional wasn't suppose to be included in my example text. At the time I was writing it, I had what Kendall suggested in my head and my fingers were typing faster that my brain.  I had realised the error, but thought that people will have spotted it was an typo-error.    Wes     Mᴥuse   15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, drop the "fictional." That just applies to my Pee-Wee example, not to Conchita. Pee-Wee lives in the fictional Playhouse world, Conchita lives in the real world. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Kendall, I'm guessing you didn't read my comment above yours? I did explain that I wrote "fictional" in error, because I still had your example in my head while I was typing my version, and thus the two merged together by accident in a brainfart moment. Wes    Mᴥuse   16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can simply strike through the word "fictional" in your own post above. See WP:REDACT. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wes, yes I read your comment, I was agreeing with you. My fault, sorry for the confusion. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Personal pronouns
This article is about a female drag act created by a male person. Issues have been raised as to what gender context should be used within the article. Should it be entirely written using female gender, male gender, or a combination of the two. Wes    Mᴥuse   13:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * There are also the additional questions of: 1) Whether to have one article for both the man and the character, or split it into two? 2) If just one article, what should be its title - Conchita Wurst or Thomas Neuwirth? Because Neuwirth isn't very notable outside of the Conchita Wurst character, I favour one article, which should be titled at Conchita Wurst (the name most readers will be looking for). This should then have a first sentence that establishes that Conchita Wurst is a character and Thomas Neuwirth is not transgender - something along the lines of "Conchita Wurst is the drag "art figure" creation of Thomas Neuwirth..." Then the article can use the male pronoun when referring to Neuwirth and the female when referring to the character. The reason I would insert "art figure" into the description is because, first, that's how Neuwirth describes the character, and second, the existence of the beard is a little unusual for a straightforward drag queen act. That's my view at the moment - though I'm open to having my mind changed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * One article titled Conchita Wurst. Tom Neuwirth is hardly notable enough as Tom Neuwirth to have his own article under that name. And the single article named Conchita Wurst must clearly state that it is a man, Tom Neuwirth, playing the role of a female, Conchita Wurst, on stage, so that noone tries to turn it into a transgender article. Thomas.W talk 14:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I wonder if this interview might help. Conchita gives an in-depth explanation into the whole he/she debate.    Wes     Mᴥuse   14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "the article can use the male pronoun when referring to Neuwirth and the female when referring to the character". Agree. That is how reliable sources do it, so that should be how we do it. If we veer away from reliable sources, then we are starting to influence readers with our opinion. Some sources:, , , , , . There are a range of sources there, and they are fairly consistent in using she when talking about Conchita and he when talking about Tom Neuwirth. There's also plenty of information that Tom Neuwirth regards himself as a male, and uses the men's toilet. But when in character as Conchita the "persona" is female, and that's how she then wants to be regarded, and will use the female toilet. As the sources tend to use "persona" or "alter ego", I feel that either one of those would be a better choice of descriptor than "art figure": .  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Male for Tom, female for Conchita per SilkTork and WP:IDENTITY ("Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification."). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the comments made on this RfC though, it would appear that the consensus is to use both genders, depending on whether we are referring to Wurst or Neuwirth. The other issue that was disputed above is the article title. Currently it is assigned to Conchita Wurst, yet the infobox uses "Thomas Neuwirth". Should we be considering a change on this too? Wes    Mᴥuse   13:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Male pronouns for Tom, female pronouns for Conchita - This would be consistent with the majority of the sources and is appropriate to MOS:IDENTITY --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure as the biography section largely concerns Neuwirth and is written about himself rather than the act. The issue here is that he is known almost exclusively for this drag persona, but the article itself is a biography of him. In other words, we have an article that almost exclusively concerns Tom, but he is only notable for an article because of Conchita, if you get what I mean --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So in reality, the article title should be "Thomas Neuwirth", with Conchita Wurst being redirected into Thomas' title? And then we'd be writing about Thomas, and a section in the article dedicated to Conchita which would cover the drag persona.    Wes     Mᴥuse   13:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Re "So in reality, the article title should be "Thomas Neuwirth", with Conchita Wurst being redirected into Thomas' title?"
 * Yes, I think that would be appropriate for the moment. When we have more information on both Tom and Conchita, we could consider splitting it into two articles - as we do for (random example of 'persona' and the actor who plays them) Ali G and Sacha Baron Cohen.
 * Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, at least in the traditional sense of how biographies are structured on website. It would also work well if there was a clear Conchita section that covered the drag persona in more detail as it is why the performer is notable --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That is how we seem to handle articles for drag personae. Take Paul O'Grady's drag act, Lily Savage.  Wikipedia has Lily Savage redirecting to the Paul O'Grady biographical article.  And in that it mentions about Paul, with a separate section that refers to his drag persona Lily.    Wes     Mᴥuse   14:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, well as it stands, I think we need to greatly expand the content on Conchita. Maybe even a subsection in music career above "2011–12: Die große Chance & Eurovision 2012"? If the two are separated, the pronoun change would feel more natural --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

So the article would be titled "Thomas Neuwrith". The lead to be written per WP:LEAD. Then a section on "Early life", which we'd be able to mention about his early life, pre-Conchita. A section on "Career in drag", which we'd be able to mention primarily about the Conchita persona. A section on "Personal life", which we'd be able to write about his biography. And finally a section on "Discography", which is self-explanatory really. I think if we checked other drag act articles for examples, then we'd at least have an idea and better understanding on what we're suppose to be doing. Wes    Mᴥuse   14:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Except instead of saying "Career in drag" I would use the Conchita Wurst name for the section. It is largely what the performer is notable for and what people will be here to read. There is little content regarding pre-Conchita performances and that could be included in Early life. Other than that, I think it could work. What about David Hoyle as an example? The Divine David is sectioned off by date and all the content is appropriate to the persona --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Very good example there with David Hoyle. I am literally jumping with joy here.  I support going off that as an example.    Wes     Mᴥuse   14:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think what we see here is somebody who, very early in their career, has made some quite controversial statements about gender identity. The reason there is confusion is because through the Conchita performance directly challenges gender identity and it is difficult to classify somebody whose act is partly based on this. If we were not part of a project that requires to signify the artists gender identity, I would argue to just forget about it, that it doesn't define a person. However, this is somewhere where we do need to decide. If this fame continues, there may be other performances by Neuwirth that Conchita can be compared to. As it exists now, I still think the female pronouns in the section is important. It still follows WP:IDENTITY. That said, I think it should be sectioned clearly as "Conchita Wurst", with "Die große Chance and Eurovision 2012" and "Eurovision 2014" as subsections of this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)