Talk:Emma D'Arcy

Don’t be transphobic
I see the pronoun war happening in the edit history. Find something better to do with your life and leave them alone. Trans rights are human rights<3 2601:249:8280:9A40:8574:B7BC:75CB:9696 (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The prevalence of United States politics/sociopolitical opinions is not a priority for Wikipedia editing, because Wikipedia is a global project.
 * "The process of creating content on Wikipedia is regulated by Wikipedia's most fundamental rules, the five pillars. One of these pillars is the requirement of a neutral point of view. This requirement means that if some opinion dominates in some geographical, religious, national or other scope, it is not a reason to state this opinion as the sole truth. Moreover, if the support for this opinion is internationally uncommon, then it should not be presented as primary in Wikipedia articles." DraconicLegacy (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia style is to use the preferred gender of the subject. WP:GENDERID. Ashmoo (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for everyone's reference, the guideline is located at MOS:GENDERID. Some documentation relating to the origins and history of this community consensus is found at MOS:GIDINFO. Newimpartial (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Man or woman?
The article isn't clear. 88.142.151.11 (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The article clearly states D'Arcy is non-binary. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 02:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * She's a woman who identifies as non-binary. That means that she's a female human being but she doesn't identify as a woman (whatever that means) so she doesn't think of herself as a woman but as "not a woman but not a man either". It has nothing to do with the biological body, it's about how she sees herself. 95.17.206.62 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's seriously worth reconsidering the exemption (in WP:GENDERID) to the treatment of the way people see themselves in Wikipedia's BLP policy.
 * Consider this: if there was an article serving as a biography for somebody with other views about their self-image (e.g. let's say they believe that they look exactly like Leonardo DiCaprio) we may often include information about these beliefs, but never in the article in a way that states those self-perceptions as if they were fact from narrator POV. That is, we wouldn't literally write "[person]'s appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio". We would instead write "[person] has publicly stated to multiple media outlets that their appearance resembles that of Leonardo DiCaprio."
 * Following that same logic, to preserve as much information as possible and ensure the article will be understood across cultures, it would make more sense for biographies of homosexual people, transvestites, etc. to include and use the pronouns for their real sex, then respectfully explain that they identify differently in the opening paragraph by citing where they made the statement.
 * Edit: I have raised the issue on the talk page of WP:GENDERID. MisleadingAccountName (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As noted above, the site-wide consensus on this issue is documented at MOS:GENDERID; links documenting the history of this consensus (in the formation of which hundreds of editors have actively participated) is found at MOS:GIDINFO. The basis of this consensus is the indisputable fact that high-quality, recent, reliable sources for the biographies of trans and nonbinary people use the names and pronouns those people have most recently declared, with almost no exceptions, and Wikipedia follows the reliable sources rather than holding out against them (e.g. for culture war purposes as MisleadingAccountName is proposing here). Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It sure seems to be disputed a lot for a "consensus". Are any of the reliable sources non-western? Somarain (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of biographies written in non-western cultural contexts that reflect contemporary usage with respect to gender identity. And the behaviour of culture warriors on-wiki doesn't mitigate against there being an actual community consensus on-wiki. Newimpartial (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How many biographies? You're talking about nearly 7 billion people who don't live in the West after all. Cherry-picking a few of them who agree with you may be enough for Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be. If you have to exclude people who disagree with you by calling them names to achieve a consensus, you don't have a consensus. Somarain (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of en-wiki's fundamental principles are WP:NPOV and WP:V. When followed, they produce the general outcome that Wikipedia follows the sources - particularly the highest quality, recent WP:RS that reflect the most up-to-date knowledge of any topic. Within such sources, gender identity is not especially controversial, and it is also not controversial among the vast majority of editors who participate in related discussions on-wiki. This is quite clear in the threads compiled and linked at MOS:GIDINFO. When I characterize some of the editors who have crusaded against this consensus in their editing and Talk page participation as "culture warriors", I am calling the situation as I see it (and am also following the analysis of high-quality sources off-wiki). Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and people who insist that they must agree with consensus for it to be valid are not suited to participating in topics where their views are shared only by a small minority of editors. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be wrong assumption here that non-Western cultures themselves only have two gender identities that are identical to the sex assigned at birth. However, that is false, as many non-Western cultures have culturally recognized gender systems that are more complex. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This should not be a place to promote political agenda
Calling people who disagree with the use of certain pronounces a “small minority” is wrong and downright dishonest. It is not a small minority in the US, and certainly not in the world. I suggest keeping the use of the pronouns They/Them as Emma prefers, but instead of saying “Emma is a non-binary”, phrasing it in a neutral, fact-based way- “Emma identifies as a non-binary”. 84.94.189.34 (talk) 10:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, saying that ED'A "identifies as non-binary" is the least the article must do.
 * Also, hasn't anyone noticed that "uses they/them pronouns" is quite a nonsensical way of putting it. I take it that most English speakers (native or second language) regularly use they/them pronouns, among others. Str1977 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand the phrase "uses they/them pronouns", as used in standard 21st-century English, that isn't a problem with the phrase. And the "identifies as" language cases doubt on a living person's expressed gender identity and thereby violates the site-wide consensus embodied in MOS:GENDERID. Please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. In matters of identity, we take a person's self-identification at face value. We don't say that a subject "identifies as Catholic" on the basis that some people might not consider them a true believer, or "identifies as gay" to appease people who don't acknowledge the existence of same-sex attraction. Issues with the governing guidelines and policies should be challenged on those talk pages, not here.--Trystan (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently, WP:NPOV no longer applies.
 * Also the comparison misses the mark as "being a Catholic" is defined by clear criteria (being baptised and neither excluded from nor having left the Church) and NOT by mere self-identification.
 * Guidelines need to be challenged elsewhere (but good luck with that) but issue relating to this article can be raised here.
 * Finally, "uses they/them pronouns" and "standard 21st-century English" do not go well together. Str1977 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the articles wikilinked from "they/them" and "pronouns" in this article? None of it is complicated.
 * Anyway, an argument that this article ought to ignore the site-wide consensus embodied in MOS:GENDERID is not going to go anywhere, because of the WP:CONLEVEL principle. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What if someone asserts that they are gay but shows absolutely no evidence of same-sex attraction? What if said person demonstrates attraction to the opposite sex, in contradiction to their expressed self-identification? 80.229.22.58 (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Emma's Oxford college
To specify the Oxford college Emma studied at, which is "St. Edmund's Hall" Source: https://issuu.com/stedmundhall/docs/st_edmund_hall_magazine_2011-12 Mavensbriar (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done — Sirdog (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The dates in the reference refer to matriculation year, not graduation year. 2A00:23C8:4286:401:6B37:2774:F4C7:9BF2 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ie. The year they started at uni. 2A00:23C8:4286:401:6B37:2774:F4C7:9BF2 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Pronoun fix
Under personal life it says that Emma uses they/them, but all through the page I see usage of "has". For example, "English actor who has appeared". I think it should be "have" because of the usage of "they". they have, not they has.

so "English actor who has appeared" should be "English actor who have appeared", etc. 62.90.79.174 (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not the way the Singular they works. It takes grammatically plural forms when the pronoun itself is used, but it does not dictate grammatically plural forms when other words are used for the subject, like "person" or "actor". Newimpartial (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * oh okay. i'm not a native english speaker and didn't know that. 62.90.79.174 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Typos on this page
I want to donate to Wikipedia but I can’t yet due to the incorrect grammar. People use Wikipedia for reputable information so saying “they did something” in the singular makes no sense. She’s a woman so why isn’t it the singular she? This is the first year I’m not donating. I usually donate $500/year, even during Covid. Incorrect English like this erodes the quality of information. Can you fix the grammatical errors? 2600:1700:4620:2B30:F156:262D:28AC:85EE (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The use of they/them pronouns in this article is not a grammatical error. D'Arcy is non-binary, and those are the pronouns that they use. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of her sexual orientation/preferences, they/them is a pronoun used to refer to multiple people and the entirety of the article refers to a single individual, that's a fact, not an opinion or a preference. 2600:8804:1382:800:FC37:39F3:2643:E6EF (talk) 04:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly, you're not familiar with English grammar at all. The singular use of they has always been a thing; even Shakespeare himself uses it multiple times in his plays. Also, you have multiple grammar errors in your comments. 177.232.91.217 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Misgendering within the first paragraph.
She/her pronouns are used throughout the entire article, despite clearly stating later that D'Arcy uses they/them pronouns. Nickma22 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have restored they/them, as that seems to be the current consensus here and in line with WP:BLP policy. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * English grammar has no gender. Pronouns always refer to the sex of the entity referred to. The only exception is when the sex is unknown to us, which is demonstrably not the case with Ms D’Arcy. It would therefore appear that the deliberate misuse of plural pronouns is part of an ideologically and financially driven campaign to impose new forms of terminology on the community. The transparent absurdity and awkwardness of the effort will cause it to fail. kscally 18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you mean when you say, "English grammar has no gender"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kscally this article is an unreadable mess. Why do a select few get to dictate language for the rest of us? To protect individuals feelings? Kyle (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jelyk@Kscally This is covered by policy, see MOS:GENDERID and has to be followed here. Talk page behaviour is also covered by the contentious topics alert you have both received. Doug Weller  talk 07:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth
This source, dated 27 September 2022, says "... recently celebrated their 30th birthday on June 27th." Is this a good enough source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You need multiple sources. WP:DOB Doug Weller  talk 09:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Where exactly is that stated in the guideline? Many thanks. But here's another that says "Emma D'Arcy was born on June 27, 1992 in London." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC) (p.s. FreeBMD also has her born in 1992: here)
 * @Martinevans123 missed this. The second sentence of that section  Just an observation, not getting involved with this article unless I have to.  Doug Weller  talk 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The sentence: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."? Do you regard the two I've quoted above as WP:RS? They don't seem to be connected to D'Arcy in any way. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the gender bit above I’m not going to opine, was only here th clarify our policy. RSN? Doug Weller  talk 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure anyone is welcome to offer their views on English grammar. Perhaps it's a question for WP:Reference desk/Language. But I think that's quite a separate topic from her date of birth. I have raised a question at RS/N. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On the basis of the appraisal there, I would be happy to add. Any objections? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)