Talk:Justin Vivian Bond

Kiki and Herb
I would think it would make more sense for this to be a redirect to Kiki and Herb, where the few paragraphs on Bond outside of that act could easily be merged. - Jmabel | Talk 03:26, 25 Decembjer 2006 (UTC)

I believe this whole section is biased. Obviously written by someone who wants to emphasis mr. Bond's contributions to kiki and herb, whilst downplaying Mr. Mellman's. I believe that this is not held up by the majority of press on Kiki and Herb before it was disbanded...

deleted
The above was deleted but I think may add to this article. -- Banj e b oi   09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the quoted text from your comment due to copyright concerns; I'm sorry to be so forward, but, you know, copyright means fun legal issues to dance around. The editor who added it originally referred to it as Bond's "official bio", which implies copyright infringement. Unless we can find the copyright holder and get permission to host it here, we can't have it even on the talk page, if I understand policy correctly. And without knowing the actual source, we can't use it as a reference. So I guess the thing to do would be to track down the source of that text. --Gimme danger (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be more useful if you simply stated removed per COPYVIO. Not seeing the original text anywhere in particular I did find a copy at which likely would have also been lifted from somewhere. I'm also not sure if COPYVIO means the text can't be posted to the talkpage for reworking. In any case my point is that there was good content there and leads to sourcing which we can use and that should be encouraged.  -- Banj e  b oi   03:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my verbosity; I felt bad editing your message and wanted to explain myself. I definitely agree that, if backed up, the material would be good content. --Gimme danger (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, good faith yada yada yada kumbaya. Lol! -- Banj e  b oi   11:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Official bio"
Here an "official bio" was added but it has since been removed. Decent content to work with that may, in turn lead to sourcing. -- Banj e b oi   17:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"third gender"
Who considers Justin Bond to belong to the third gender? Does Justin? Or someone else? The reference to the third gender isn't in the article cited, as far as I can see. Totorotroll (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Justin doesn't consider vself male or female (this is evident from v's website, and has been stated very clearly on v's website); surely, the only other option that is available is third gender, which is a category that covers those who don't see themselves as being either male/female ? By simply having the term "transgendered", readers might imply that Bond sees vself as female, which is certainly not true. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Though it should be researched, it appears that the subject of the article is biologically male, and so the convention should be followed to refer to him as such. New language that is proposed and advanced by individual subjects should not be adopted in encyclopedic writing—apart from the factual reporting that a form of novel self-referencing is how the individual refers to themselves in their own writing, and prefers to be described. See also next comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.245.235 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To refer to a transgendered person with the pronouns connected to their sexual biology is deemed hugely offensive to transpeople (and their allies). With language like that, you're probably going to get yourself in some hot water for transphobia there, unregistered user... (just a friendly warning). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

use of nonstandard language confuses, is unjustified as general encyclopedic language
Because the subject of the article refers to himself in a particular way does not justify encyclopedic description removing gender-specific language and substituting it with unique, subject-specific "v" language (inserting "v" for "he", "vs" for "his", etc.).

If another transgender takes on a stage name of "Adolphus" and starts using newly constructed language to refer to herself, will we then also insert "a" for "she" and "ar" for "her", etc.? This development is simply nonsense as editorial practice, and the text should be standardized.

Use of "vs", which has as an independent meaning, confuses reading, just as any number of other confusions might be imagined if subject-defined, subject-specific prose is generally adopted ("a" for "she", above hypothetical.).

The following sample of the opening of the article gives the types of prose that requires standardization with respect to English and encyclopedic description:

Opening "It was here that v met"  [P2] "starring in ... Shortbus (2006) as vself"  [P2] "before releasing vs first EP, Pink Slip"  [P2] "Bond self describes vs voice as being"

Biography / Early life: 1963-1988 "v first became aware that v was unlike"  [P1] "causing some concern from vs teachers"  [P1] Etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.245.235 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See MOS:IDENTITY on this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The subject is currently being discussed at talk:MOS#Other_pronouns. – Smyth\talk 10:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed some concern over how to refer to Mx Justin Vivian Bond. From what I've seen of their website, they can be referred to as "Mx Justin Vivian Bond", "Justin Vivian Bond", "Mx Bond", "Bond", and they/them/their/theirs/themself pronouns. It's true that v also goes by v/v's/vself and Viv, but if you object to referring to Bond in that way, there are various other options. 2602:3F:E6A5:8F00:69A5:B242:D065:1E96 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY versus common sense
I'm well aware of Bond's preference on this matter, but the state of the article right now is untenable. The prose here is beyond tortured, to the point where it's borderline unreadable through much of the article. To paraphrase someone else, writing which calls attention to itself is bad writing; this article doesn't so much call attention to itself as beat in the readers' faces with a sledgehammer. MOS:IDENTITY is not a suicide pact, and says nothing about abandoning the English language in an effort to adhere to neologisms created on one individual's whim. I'd like to get a few opinions on this, and if it seems like people are willing to discuss this an RfC would be good. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 19:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is your reference to the article "adher[ing] to neologisms" a reference to the pronoun "v"? The article doesn't use that pronoun, as far as I can see: the lead mentions Bond's preference for "v", but I don't see that pronoun anywhere else in the article until, at the very end, Bond is credited as having played "Principal Agnes" in one TV show and "Vself" in another — but is the article just repeating the titles the shows' credits used for those roles? If so, the role titles could be put in quotation marks and/or sourced, to make clear that the article doesn't actually use "v". I can find no place that the article "abandon[s] the English language". I find only a few sentences which repeat Bond's last name enough times that I imagine they could be improved by rewriting. But on the whole, I don't see anything objectionable. Certainly, if the writing were changed to describe a wikt:genderqueer person using "her" or "him", that writing would call attention to itself and (to use your imagery) would beat readers in the face with the sledgehammer of its notions of Bond's gender, and so would not be better than the current writing. (Such writing would also introduce a violation of MOS:IDENTITY which the current state of the article makes it clear it is easily avoidable / unnecessary to introduce. Why should the article go out of its way to violate MOS:IDENTITY?) -sche (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can rewrite it to remove constructions like "Bond realized that Bond was not like other children" (which is clearly not an encyclopedic style of writing) without using pronouns, I'd be interested in seeing how that looks; you'd be a better writer than me (which admittedly doesn't say a whole lot). While we are supposed to take a subject's preference into account, there's nothing which actually says we have to adhere to it. Regardless of whether using the pronoun "he" would be objectionable or not, it would certainly be easier to follow the writing; as far as I'm concerned, given that this is an encyclopedia we should to put readability first. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 20:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * re Bond realized that Bond was not like other children: that sentence has bigger issues than its repetition of the surname; a statement that Bond "realized" something should be a quotation, IMO, preferably of Bond (so the statement would be In [year], Bond noted that "I realized even as a child that I was different from other children") or at least of someone else ([Other person] noted that "Bond realized [whatever pronoun the source being quoted uses, probably followed with 'sic' regardless of whether it is 'he', 'she' or 'v'] was different from other children"). Until I find a source with such a quotation, I've reworded the article to simply observe that Bond preferred to play with girls rather than boys.
 * re "it would certainly be easier to follow": that's a subjective judgement made from one point of view. But the "ease" of surnames vs masculine pronouns vs feminine pronouns vs other pronouns depends on the gender identity and experiences of the reader. In the discussions about moving the Manning article (q.v.), there was discussion about how it can be harder (even traumatic) for readers who are transgender or genderqueer, or merely know enough transgender / genderqueer people to relate to their experiences, to read an article in which someone is misgendered. (If someone misgenders one person and rejects their gender identity, chances are very good that they'd misgender and reject the identity of other transgender people, including the reader [if the reader is trans] or the reader's friends [if the reader is cis with trans friends]. And being misgendered by nearly all elements of society is what drives people to depression and even suicide.) I find it hard to read articles that misgender people. It would also arguably be inaccurate to refer to someone who doesn't identify as a male with the pronoun "he". In contrast, referring to someone by their surname is not inaccurate or traumatic; at worst, some might argue that it is awkward. Weighing "use 'he': it's inaccurate and possibly traumatic to some readers" vs "use 'Bond': it's possibly awkward for some readers" on a scale, I'd find using 'Bond' to be better.
 * It's worth noting, on the subject of subjectiveness, that even the header of this section is strongly biased; it implies that misgendering someone is "common sense", when there is an equally-strong if not stronger argument to be made that not misgendering someone is what is "common sense".
 * -sche (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Out of mild curiosity, is there a US equivalent to the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004? Tommy Pinball (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I may well be very jaded from my recent article work but I'm having a hard time accepting the idea that we can do much harm to Bond by using a pronoun. "Doing harm" ≠ "the subject doesn't like it". Genie (feral child) contains a lot of detail which most people would find pretty traumatic, and if we're not careful there we can cause real-world harm to someone completely unable to defend herself against it; this article isn't even remotely in that territory. Another thing to consider is that our writing an article to use a certain pronoun doesn't actually prevent Bond (or anyone else) from using any other preferred terminology, all we're doing here is determing the way the Wikipedia article should read. And finally, I'm also not saying that misgendering someone is common sense, that's reading way too far into my statement. The argument I've made is that using Bond's surname over and over and over and over and over and over again isn't a good writing style, that's all. We're not here to revolutionize society, we're here to reflect it; I'm not thrilled with a lot of things about it, but our own personal views are entirely irrelevant. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 18:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dutch Wikipedia uses the pronoun "hij" (he) as in the sentence "In 2006 speelde hij als zichzelf in de film Shortbus." (In 2006 he played himself in the film Shortbus)". 14.200.122.144 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

According to MOS:IDENTITY, "When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. If it is unclear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses." Singular they is in Mx Justin Vivian Bond's pronoun set. 2602:3F:E6A5:8F00:69A5:B242:D065:1E96 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin Vivian Bond. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029200012/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/108083-2006-2007-Tony-Nominations-Announced-Spring-Awakening-Garners-11-Noms to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/108083-2006-2007-Tony-Nominations-Announced-Spring-Awakening-Garners-11-Noms

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronoun Usage
From reading this talk section, it is clear that pronoun use for Bond has been brought up time and time again, but no real agreement has been made. From looking at Bond's website, it appears that they use v/vself pronouns and singular they/them/theirs pronouns. I believe that this article could be rewritten to use they/them/theirs pronouns in accordance with MOS:Identity. I also think that quotations could be rewritten or brackets could be included in ALL quotations to affirm Bond's gender identity instead of one measly sic at the beginning of the article. This also follows MOS:Gender neutral langage. From what I understand, talk:MOS#Other_pronouns did not reach a decision on neopronouns, however, singular 'they' seems to be deemed acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Similar measures have been put in place on articles like Elliot Page, Alice Oseman, and Ian Alexander who all use two sets of pronouns, but only one is used for the article for simplicity. Ian Alexander's page uses exclusively they/them/theirs pronouns, and Elliot Page's page has quotations constructed in a way to affirm his gender identity. Let me know what you think because I want to get this done as soon as possible so that we can eliminate the parts of this article that do not affirm Bond's gender identity. Cedar Tree 03:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Quotations
I recently edited this page to include gender neutral language regarding Bond. It was almost immediately reverted and I was told to take my proposed edit to the talk page. So I'm trying again. The reason for the revertion was that the first quote in the article used the "his" pronoun and I used square brackets to change "his" to "their". This is the correct way to structure quotes when dealing with transgender people according to MOS:GENDERID. I would like to edit to article to use gender-neutral they/them pronouns and language because neopronouns are a point of contention on Wikipedia, but gender-neutral language has precedence. (MOS:Gender neutral language) Cedar Tree 07:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored your edit. If Laurier, FMSky, or Adakiko feel that this article should depart from GENDERID's guidance on refactoring quotes and non-notable deadnames, that's their burden to explain, not yours. I find it shocking that three experienced users have edit-warred against a provision of MoS with broad community approval without giving any reason for doing so.@FMSky, this edit, in particular, is borderline sanctionable. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. My restoration was based on the matter of refactoring quotes and removing a non-notable deadname. The other aspect of the edit, using they/them pronouns over "Bond", I have no strong opinion on. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I screwed up. I saw the change to "Don't change; this is a quote.", and reverted. My apology. Adakiko (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I had left this comment on Tamzin's talk page and it disappeared so I left it again... Adakiko (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it my burden to explain why this page should be respectful about gender and gender-neutral language etc.? Why? I only did one edit on this page, this one, which was a revert of a change where an editor removed " [sic] ". I probably didn't check when that was added, although I did see in the history it was removed and put back again several times. Maybe it *should* be removed, I won't interfere. By the way: I'm all for gender-neutral language, neopronouns, removing of deadnames, and respect in general for everyone including non-binary and trans people. If 'this is a quote' is not enough reason to preserve it, and if this is a guideline called 'GENDERID' (which I don't have time enough right now to read, but I will soon) I think we should remove that 'Don't change...' part. Laurier (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, hi Adakiko! I hadn't read your message when I typed mine! I think mine is exactly the same as yours, but yours is much more concise and to the point! :-) Laurier (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)