Talk:Kae Tempest

Support for BDS
It is weird not to include Kae's support for the BDS movement in the Politics section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:5D40:B400:819:E32A:994:2A85 (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Name and pronouns
I have moved the page to this new title of 'Kae Tempest' instead of 'Kate Tempest' to reflect the artist's recent announcement that they are now using they/them pronouns and the name 'Kae' instead of 'Kate'. 'Kate Tempest' now redirects to this page. Just making a note here so that editors can see that update.Boredintheevening (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this work. I've noticed that at least in one occasion a blanket replacement of pronouns can lead to confusion (e.g. if the previous sentence ended with a plural complement such as 'her siblings' and the modified sentence following this one starts with 'they' one may think it refers to the siblings when it refers to Tempest). I think in that case it would be better to use 'Tempest' rather than 'they'. I've made one such change but there may be others. Askateth (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's very strange the first name "Kate" isn't even present on this page.
 * Years ago I've heard about an artist named "Kate Tempest", didn't know they change their name, and then I was like "that must be a different person". Had to make a Google Search to know it was the same person.

It should be written "formely know as Kate Tempest" somewhere, and/or "born as Kate Calvert" in the biography section Puddingstud (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As they were notable under their former name and it is ripe for confusion, WP:DEADNAME states the former name should be stated, so I've re-implemented the change per above. --SgtLion (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Real name?
According to Loose Ends on 13.09.2014, 'Tempest' was her rap name (she was obsessed with tumult, and drama, and the sea) and she also fancied being known as Kate. After a while, the two commingled into 'Kate Tempest'. So on that evidence, no: she wasn't "Born Kate Esther Tempest". 86.29.164.82 (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is entirely contradicted by the Electoral Register which lists her as "Kate E Calvert". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minor7Flat5 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The electoral register doesn't qualify as a reliable source for Wikipedia and its use constitutes original research. What's more, as you'll understand from the warning at the top of this page; Wikipedia has particularly strict rules about biographies of living persons and the inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced material about them. Also, the Neutral Point of View policy applies to all articles on Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

-

Thank you for your help and guidance. A Guardian article from 04 October 2014 may qualify as a reliable source in at least confirming her birth name as Kate Calvert.

"She was born Kate Calvert in 1985" http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/04/kate-tempest-rapping-changed-my-life

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minor7Flat5 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Birth year?
Wikidata has Kae's birthdate as 22 December 1986, while the Wikipedia article has it as 22 December 1985. Which is correct?-- User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Censure
Stop removing my questiom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.22.167.199 (talk • contribs)


 * You don't have a questiom or even a question. All you are doing is deliberately trolling and misgendering. You are on final warning for that. You have to stop now. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Who are you to decide that? --31.22.167.199 (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * how is their gender identity irrelevant? WP:DEADNAME says:  •Melecie!•  ~talk~ 11:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Her gender self identity is not irrelevant and should be stated. But the article should not be written using her self identification- --31.22.167.199 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * How would you like it if somebody wrote about you getting your name wrong, getting your gender wrong and then tried to argue that their writing being flat out wrong was "irrelevant"? Who died and made you the god of other peoples' genders? --DanielRigal (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

She is a single person
This is an encyclopedia not a journal. It is irrelevant what she calls herself.
 * again, WP:DEADNAME says otherwise. this is about the identity of a person, which I think is necessary for a wikipedia page •Melecie!•  ~talk~ 11:16, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2021
Please amend Kae's pronouns to they/them. 90.254.64.126 (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth name in infobox / former name in lead
Following the guidance at MOS:NON-BINARY and similar case at Talk:Elliot Page, I've removed the birthname from the infobx (as from what I can tell they never used their birth surname, only "Tempest"), but have added the previous notable name to the lead. If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page....A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with "born" or "formerly" Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. They have been known as both Kate Tempest, along with articles with full birth name given explaining their background biography – as Kate Esther Calvert, or a variation of (e.g. Kate Calvert). Hence no dead-naming involved, and having to re-reinstate yet again according to WP policy. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They were only notable under the former name of "Kate Tempest". The fact that reliable sources mentioned their birthname in passing before their transition is no justification for deadnaming them now. The deadnaming seems entirely gratuitous and completely unnecessary. Readers need to know that "Kate Tempest" and Kae Tempest are the same person as they might know them under either name. Readers do not need to know their birthname. It adds nothing of value to the reader. I will revert it again pending outcome of this discussion. DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your view that these were "in passing" – I disagree. Many articles state this information clearly and openly as it was a name they was known as under their former career name. WP rules clearly state A living transgender or non-binary person's former name should be included in the lead sentence of their main biographical article only if they were notable under it; introduce the name with "born" or "formerly" – that's precisely as done ("born 22 December 1985 as Kate Esther Calvert"). So this is not a case of deadnaming and certainly not "entirely gratuitous and completely unnecessary" which inferrers nefariousness by mind-reading the intentions of other users' edits. Furthermore, you should NOT revert other edits done at the same time; so I have reverted it accordingly until discussions end here, and those separate names can be removed on their own at that stage depending on the outcome here should they need to be. Jimthing (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They were not notable under that name! They did not publish under it. They did not use it professionally at all as far as I am aware. It appears in the sources as background info, harmless at the time but clearly falling under MOS:DEADNAME now. Why are you so concerned to include this? While it may not be your actual intention, it certainly gives the impression of being cruel and gratuitous. More the point, it is counter to very policy you are quoting from. I don't get it. Why are you doing this? Please stop until we can get a consensus on this. We can make this into an RfC if you like.
 * Also, I reject your claim that I am undoing other edits. I am reverting a single edit of yours that is blatantly contrary to policy and which also had an incorrect edit summary too, in that it claims to be undoing the previous edit by but actually does rather more than that. I don't want to accuse you of doing that deliberately. Maybe that was a mistake or you are misreading the diffs here? Whatever it is, you are mistaken in saying that I am undoing other edits.
 * Finally, I checked those references more carefully. While I think I have seen sources with the deadname in it in the past, neither of the references currently purporting to support the deadname actually include it in their current versions. The Guardian source gives the middle name but not the surname. The NYT source provides nothing in this respect. Quite possibly the deadname was originally included and subsequently removed. I don't know. I am going to remove the unreferenced deadname manually. As the other changes seem to be of neutral value I'll leave those. If I understand correctly, I think that addresses your concern here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * On a separate issue, I now see that we have no valid reference for their birth date either. The Guardian says 1986 and NYT says nothing about it. I can't see a reliable source for the claimed date when searching. The National Portrait Gallery and Worldcat do both say 1985 but nothing about the specific date. I see a lot of non-RS repeating the date we have but they probably got it from us in the first place so that's no help. I'll tag it as CN, rather than remove it. If anybody can find a valid reference for it then it's fine. If not then we might have to be vague and just say "1985 or 1986". DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of attempts to remove their former name from the article. This seems to be being done in good faith, saying that it is a deadname, but I think this is mistaken. First up, it is not Tempest's actual deadname, although it is closely related to it. It is a stage name that they used and were notable under. (The actual full deadname was already removed and there is no valid case to include that as they were never notable under that name.) I think we have to keep the former name in the article somewhere and MOS:GENDERID suggests this should be included just once, in the opening sentence, which is exactly what we are doing here.

Do we have any reason to suspect that Tempest wants us to de-emphasise the old name any more than that? The fact that they chose a name so similar to the old one seems to suggest that they see the new name as an evolution rather than a rejection of the old one. If they did want it de-emphasised then I'd be amenable to moving it a bit further down the article but, even then, I don't think we can remove it entirely. We have the name in several of the references and we need readers to understand that this refers to the same person. We also need for anybody who searches for the old name, maybe because they came across one of their older publications (books, CDs etc), to get to this article and not be confused by the difference in the names. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)