Talk:Q55237964
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Autodescription — G Flip (Q55237964)
description: Australian musician
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “G Flip” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Generic queries for musicians
This section is generated with {{Generic queries for musicians}}
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
@Quesotiotyo: Consensus on Wikidata has previously found that, when someone comes out as trans or non-binary, the gender they were formerly publicly known as should not be included in sex or gender (P21): see Talk:Q173399#On gender for the discussion. Additionally, your edits completely remove the non-binary (Q48270) value, leaving G Flip (Q55237964) incorrectly stating that the subject is female (Q6581072), which violates Wikidata's living people policy. If you still want to reinstate your edits, please gain consensus for them first. Thanks. GreenComputer (talk) 19:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @GreenComputer: So you do not feel that any of the guidelines at Help:Statements#Plurality_and_consensus or Help:Evolving knowledge can be applied here? Re: the living people policy, it seems that we have differing opinions on what can be considered "widespread public knowledge". Just to be clear, I am not wanting to engage in a debate about this person or the use of P21 in general. I do hope that best editing practices are followed regardless of the topic. Speaking of which, I apologize for not bringing the discussion to the talk page like I should have. Thank you for being the one to do so.
- --Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Quesotiotyo: I'm unsure what you mean by we have differing opinions on what can be considered "widespread public knowledge", could you clarify? As you can see from the previous discussion, the main issue is that it's generally not known if the individual has never been the gender they were formerly publicly known as (in which case a deprecated rank statement could be used for the gender they never actually were), or if the individual's gender has changed from the gender they were formerly publicly known as (in which case a normal rank statement with an end time (P582) qualifier could be used for the gender they used to be). In the absence of such clarification (especially in the light of the living people policy stating Instead of striving to provide all possible information about living people we strive to provide only information in whose veracity we have a high confidence), a statement for the gender an individual was formerly publicly known as should not be added. GreenComputer (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- What I meant by "widespread public knowledge" is that the statement was supported by multiple references to what would be considered reliable public sources of information, versus the example given at Wikidata:Living_people#Statements_that_may_violate_privacy about determining a person's address via a domain name registration. That original statement reflects a perspective which the considerations you have given above do not account for, and which should be allowed according to the statement at Help:Statements#Plurality_and_consensus that other points of views can be added as additional values as long as they include a source and appropriate qualifiers (at least, as I am interpreting it). I admit to not knowing the best way to do this though, so I shall refrain from making any further such edits until I see it demonstrated properly.
- There still remains the original issue of the reused statement identifier. The current claim is credited to Ghuron (and not a bot as I had previously stated, although I am certainly not the first to make that mistake :) ) even though none of it is what he added. Also, the ID will still be tied to the original claim value in previous versions of the item which might be used externally -- not ideal when we strive to have stable identifiers. And in general, for the sake of transparency it is best to remove the existing statement entirely (hopefully with an accompanying explanation) and then add a new one so it is clearly evident in the item's history. I would please ask that you correct this where it was not done properly and avoid this practice in the future. Thank you.
- --Quesotiotyo (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed and re-added the sex or gender (P21): non-binary (Q48270) statement to give it a new statement ID. GreenComputer (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Quesotiotyo: I'm unsure what you mean by we have differing opinions on what can be considered "widespread public knowledge", could you clarify? As you can see from the previous discussion, the main issue is that it's generally not known if the individual has never been the gender they were formerly publicly known as (in which case a deprecated rank statement could be used for the gender they never actually were), or if the individual's gender has changed from the gender they were formerly publicly known as (in which case a normal rank statement with an end time (P582) qualifier could be used for the gender they used to be). In the absence of such clarification (especially in the light of the living people policy stating Instead of striving to provide all possible information about living people we strive to provide only information in whose veracity we have a high confidence), a statement for the gender an individual was formerly publicly known as should not be added. GreenComputer (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)