Talk:Nico Tortorella

Pronouns
Can we get a definitive answer on whether the subject prefers gender-neutral pronouns, please? I have no objection to the article using them, IF that is the actual case. I'm not convinced it is. Many recent edits have gone back and forth (none with source), creating grammatical travesties like "them self." Any insight on this would be great. Jessicapierce (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Genderqueer is ridiculous. The types of sexuality like heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality are understandable. The types of gender like male, female, transgender male-female, multigender are understandable. Even combination of sex and gender are understandable but genderqueer? Never. It is just made up to catch public eye. Nico is male and bisexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.229.121 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Please disregard the IP's comment above. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to decide, on wikipedia, what is "ridiculous". Genderqueer identities exist, there is a Wikipedia article on the matter, and the debate ends there, as far as Wikipedia is concerned ; keep your opinions for your preferred social media feed. Odusseys (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The answer is: yes, Tortorella prefers they/them/their. See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5861235/Younger-star-Nico-Tortorella-discusses-gender-fluidity-Playboy.html tooki (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because Tortorella prefers they/them pronouns doesn’t mean he isn’t male and shouldn’t be referred to as such😭 Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to represent the objective reality?--FollowTheSigns (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Just because Tortorella prefers "they/them/their" doesn't mean it is grammatically correct. Equality is one thing, but incorrect Grammar leads to confusion and misunderstandings. Identify as whatever you want - but use neutral language. They and them in these contexts sounds Plural - not singular. Sheesh.
 * If you want to talk about grammar, perhaps you should look at the Singular They article. It is a correct grammatical construct. Sheesh. Odusseys (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because Tortorella prefers they/them pronouns doesn’t mean he isn’t male and shouldn’t be referred to as such😭 Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to represent the objective reality?--FollowTheSigns (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID violations by Red Echidna
Just wanting to be extremely thorough in terms of having given ample warning and opportunity to read MOS:GENDERID and understand that they are making disruptive edits and edit warring against that guideline. As per the warning on this page, they are at risk of discretionary sanctions if they do not self-revert. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that there is no agreement between Red Echidna and me on the use of pronouns in this article, despite what they attempt to insinuate in this edit's summary. This article should clearly use they/them to refer to Tortorella, as per the subject's stated preference. In the interest of avoiding further edit warring, I've reported the matter to the BLP noticeboard. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID violations by JoeyConnick
Others and I have tried to explain to JoeyConnick what the errors are, but he persists in antecedent-pronoun disagreement. We have again tried to explain that for an encyclopedic entry such an error is not appropriate, that impartiality is the priority, and that his grammar and mechanics have made the article appear informal, elementary, and riddled with errors. I have reported the issue to the board on BLP and also the RfC board. RedEchidna (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "antecedent-pronoun disagreemnt", RedEchidna? You say at that 'They' is not singular. 'It' is singular. 'He or she' is singular. [...] I understand you're not a native English speaker and this can be confusing, which is why I thought those links might help you. This is not a 'view.' These are rules of grammar. Well I am a native English speaker and you are wrong. You have already been pointed to singular they and MOS:GENDERID has been explained to you. You are applying a prescriptivist viewpoint as if it is the viewpoint of all English speakers, which it is not. It contradicts most modern style guides and our policies. The article must use singular "they" rather than "he or she" (Tortorella is neither) or (the dehumanising) "it". You must also stop changing "polyamorous" to "polygamous". Please learn the difference between the two words and you will then see why the latter is incorrect here. If you research further and are still confused then I'll be happy to explain it to you. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but that comment was not directed at you. If you thought I was addressing you, that would be my mistake. Antecedent-pronoun disagreement means the pronouns that are currently used in the artcle (third-person plural) do not agree with their antecedents (the subject preceding the noun or pronoun). Tortorella is one (1) person. He is also male. However, because there is a preference for neutrality, we would use either 'he or she' or 'it.' Isn't saying something is 'dehumanising' subjective? Who decides what is dehumanising and what isn't? By this regard, we could have all sorts of inclusions or exclusions that contradict each other. If there were an article on a famous Hollywood actor, and this actor wanted to be addressed as 'His Grace,' would an encyclopedic entry have to placate him? By this standard, we must request permission from all living persons how they prefer to be regarded. The aim is to be neutral. The difference between those two words is that one is fabricated and superfluous. 'Polygamous' is the word for more than one mate. What you are trying to argue for is a very romanticized, aggrandised tone of article rather than neutral. Is this what Wikipedia is for? If it is, then I must have been mistaken. Red Echidna (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, being neutral means that we summarize what sources say without adding our own interpretations. In this case, sources consistently use the word "polyamorous", so should we. And after reading through our articles on polyamory and polygamy, that makes sense.
 * As for the whole "they" thing, you really should read through our article on singular they as multiple people have recommended. It specifically covers your objection: They with a singular antecedent goes back to the Middle English of the 14th century (slightly younger than they with a plural antecedent, which was borrowed from Old Norse in the 13th century), and has remained in common use for centuries in spite of its proscription by traditional grammarians beginning in the mid 18th century. Singular they is grammatically correct, and it has been grammatically correct for centuries. It actually developed in the same general timeframe as the singular you—another usage that grammarians complained about. Woodroar (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He is also male. This is incorrect. — Bilorv ( talk ) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)