Talk:Gwen Stacy (Spider-Verse)

For posterity
Just in case, here's the last update on sources I considered for this. Soulbust (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * So curious despite the article she's probably just an allegory correct? ShadowSJG (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah most sources that discuss the film from that angle will refer to her arc or story in the film as an allegory for trans identity, while stopping short of asserting her as trans outright. Some sources will take that allegory as a means to interpret the character as trans, from their point of view. Soulbust (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh so according to most articles, she's just an allegory and not trans correct? ShadowSJG (talk) 05:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * oh and what do you mean by stopping short? ShadowSJG (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * hello did you see my replies? ShadowSJG (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey sorry, I must have glossed over them unintentionally. Yes, according to most sourcing on the topic, many media writers or critics view Gwen's arc in the film as an allegory for the trans experience. I said "stopping short" because some writer do view her as trans but will do everything but outright explicitly call her trans in the actual film.
 * That being said, these sources do quote or cite fans/viewers who do outright call her trans, but we obviously couldn't source that and say that she is in fact trans. Most we could do is say that there is a segment of audience that has responded to the character in that way. And with all that in mind, the most concrete statement that could be said is Gwen is a "trans icon" (which is cited in the PinkNews source: "Across the Spider-Verse, the struggles she faces in her life have resonated with the trans community and cemented her as a trans icon, whether she's cisgender or not.") Soulbust (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * hello again
 * so do most stop short or just some sources?
 * and most agree she's just an allegory right? ShadowSJG (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anything that isn't explicitly presented in the film or confirmed by the filmmakers will always be interpretation from the audience/critics/writers. This is true for any film. An example of this (and sorry if this is spoiling anything for you) is that some audiences see the title character of Donnie Darko as an allegory for Christ because of religious imagery and interpreted subtext. Because the film itself doesn't actually explicitly say Donnie is a Christ-like figure, this has to in the context of Wikipedia, be called an interpretation. But it doesn't mean the allegory isn't valid. Same thing with Gwen. There is filmic imagery and subtext (the fact that Gwen has to hide who she really is from her dad because her world's society and her dad do not like Spider-Woman, or the "Protect Trans Kids" flag, or the pink/blue/white palette used specifically for her and in her world). So sources pick up on that, and make the argument Gwen is trans or her arc in the film, her story, is an allegory for the trans experience. But because the film itself doesn't outright say she is trans, most sources will follow that lead and just leave it at "this is an interpretation". There are of course some audience members who will argue that she is indeed trans because of the imagery and subtext, but ultimately Wikipedia can only present information as per the sourcing because anything other than that will be considered original research.   Soulbust (talk) 07:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again so most sources agree its canon she's an allegory?
 * Also here is what lord said
 * https://twitter.com/sillyabtspiders/status/1665799359659687945?s=46
 * so this says she's an allegory ShadowSJG (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but most sources agree with this view right:
 * her arc in the film, her story, is an allegory for the trans experience ShadowSJG (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also btw her dadd didn't have the trans flag it was badges
 * https://twitter.com/RawbertBeef/status/1665554095581675522 ShadowSJG (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The tweet you linked to starts with "I think it might've just been his badges". We wouldn't be able to cite that tweet or anything like it, unless it's specifically mentioned by a reliable source, and we'd also have to clarify that it just the view of a single audience member (or multiple if an RS were to cite it as the view of multiple people). And if we were to cite it, the unsure nature ("I think it might've") would be really important to mention.
 * And yes, I would say most sources, or at least a good amount of them, would agree with the viewpoint that her arc in the film is an allegory for the trans experience. Soulbust (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Actually its not a trans flag. its badges as shown here
 * https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2nq5wyk1dqgb1.png
 * a clearer pic now.
 * Seems it was the lighting in that scene.
 * 2. Also since most sources agree she's an allegory do they agree she is trans or herself or only allegory ShadowSJG (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, wouldn't be able to source something like that. That's just an image posted on Reddit by an anonymous user and hasn't been cited by third-party reliable sources. I want to be clear I'm not making a statement on the veracity of that Reddit link or the Twitter link you previously shared, just why we wouldn't be able to source them. And I feel like I've already explained this a few times, the sourcing present in the article describes her story arc in the film as an allegory for the trans experience. They, again, stop short of calling her a trans female character, so on Wikipedia we'd have to convey that distinction. There are some segments of the general audience that third-party reliable sources have cited as interpreting the character as trans, but that's again, a distinction we'd have to convey in the prose. Feel free to peruse through the sourcing, they do a better job at explaining themselves than I could here on the talk page. Soulbust (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello sorry for being late
 * but one last question when you say stop short of calling her trans, does it mean they consider her implied or almost do call her trans or that's not the case and they just mean allegory? ShadowSJG (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * actually earlier you said this:
 * "I said "stopping short" because some writer do view her as trans but will do everything but outright explicitly call her trans in the actual film."
 * and I wanted to clarify: do most articles do this or is it just some? ShadowSJG (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like I have already exhausted all I can say about this. I would suggest reviewing sources #49 through #57 in the article, as they are the ones discussing the concept of her being interpreted as a trans character. The actual sources can better explain themselves than I could. Soulbust (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Gwen vs Gwendolyn vs Gwendolyne
This article's info box states that Gwen's full name is "Gwendolyne" with the "e" kept. Has anyone seen a reliable source for that? I cannot find a reliable source for this Gwen being called either "Gwendolyn" or "Gwendolyne"--as such I feel like the veracity of either is questionable. I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to use "Gwen." YanA (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It was likely inferred from the comics version. It can, and should, be removed as there are no sources in the article to verify it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I've removed it. YanA (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Trans discussion
''Note: I was going to post this as a response on 's talk page but because this comment is totally in-scope of this article's content, I'm going to instead post it here. Also pinging and  as you were both present in that talk page discussion.''

On the trans-related content in this article: It is not just a fan theory, it is a substantially-documented interpretation of the character, and essentially filmic analysis/interpretation which is completely in-bounds to include on a page. That is especially true when it is so significantly covered by reliable sourcing. I even made the extra effort to explicitly include that these "fan theories" aren't explicitly canon, which is something the sourcing even touches on. And about that sourcing, it isn't just that this information comes from fan theories, it's that media outlet writers have also written about the character in this way (or about this interpretation of the character), so it's not just posts by anonymous fans on blogs or forum threads.

This is not the first time a good chunk (and in this case, all) of the information relating to her being interpreted as a queer coded allegory for the trans experience has been removed. It probably wont be the last, but every time, the assessment is going to be the same (and this is, purely based off what the sourcing says): even if she isn't explicitly trans, or even if anyone from the filmmaking team comes out and says she isn't, it doesn't change the fact that she has been widely interpreted as such, based off tangible themes, events, or elements in the film. And that is completely valid to include, especially when paired with the aforementioned inclusion of the added context that such a viewing of the film/character isn't canon and instead indeed filmic interpretation.

Also for any sort of future reference, my opinion is if in the event of an official party involved with the film's making explicitly stating she isn't trans, this of course should be included in the article. But in conjunction with the audience/media interpretation, not with the intent of just deleting all the existing content and replacing it with that sort of information. Soulbust (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I guess woops on the pings, sorry for any bothering. I was busy drafting this comment and didn't notice the user was blocked for the edits made. I suppose it's still a fair topic to address on the talk page. Soulbust (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What are they doing to the Gwen Stacy page (SpiderVerse)?
Since I left the Gwen Stacy (SpiderVerse) page a month ago, they are adding nonsense and repeating sources that are not part of the directors or empire, there is a user who is pressuring and will not leave that alone. A source, unlike the directors, are not the same, they are purely people's opinions and interpretations that do not back it up. I need them to leave it the way it was before. Claun11342 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You do not have WP:Ownership of the article and other editors are free to edit as they see fit. The other editor appears to be basing their edits off of the provided sources in the article, including Empire. Sources are absolutely relevant and a part of how Wikipedia is built. We cannot solely take the words of those involved (such as the directors) as the upmost and only truth for anything, as we depend on secondary and third-party sources for information and interpretations that are highly covered. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was going to reply on my talk page but decided to take it to talk page. To answer the question you left on my talk page and on Trivalist's talk page, the reason this page was protected was due to constant disruption made by editors, often from IPs, in attempts to blank the trans allegory topic relating to Gwen.
 * I don't seem to see the issue you have with the edits made. I assume you are referring to 's edits as those are the recent major ones made in the last month (aside from the vandalization/reversion of vandalization/page protection added). FilmmakingFanDude's all seem to be made in good faith, and I will assume that anyway; most of them seem quite constructive. There are some that are quite fancrufty, and I'll tweak that. But yeah, I think you should clarify what you mean by "nonsense" or "purely people's opinions and interpretations that do not back it up." I am unsure what you mean by that. Soulbust (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)