Talk:Raegan Revord

Talk:Montana_Jordan#WP:LEADIMAGE

If you have an opinion, please join the discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not involved in that article, though your link made me aware why our picture here was so strangely low quality. I restarted your earlier (now archived) talk discussion to clarify my stance. CapnZapp (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

what is this discussion about? Noralovesmissycooper (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The heading is a link, you can tap/click it. But it resolved 2 months ago. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

ok Noralovesmissycooper (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Noralovesmissycooper If you're interested in old discussions on this talkpage, there are more of them, but they get archived. If you're editing on a phone, you may have to tap "Learn more about this page" to see the links to them. Don't add new comments to archived discussions, though, those are "done". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

ok where are the archived discussions Noralovesmissycooper (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

If you look toward the top of this page, in the yellow box, you'll see a line that says "Archives: 1, 2, 3". Each number is a link to a page of archives, oldest first. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Since you replied just after my post, Noralovesmissycooper, could it be that you are asking what I was talking about (as opposed to what the discussion Gråbergs Gråa Sång invited us to was about)? If so, that would be what was discussed here Talk:Raegan Revord/Archive 3#Picture of Raegan Revord 2.

In short, the lead image both for this article and the one about Montana Jordan are screen grabs from appropriately licensed Youtube video.

Here the relevant policy is MOS:IMAGEQUALITY which states:

Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; video stills; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary.

Note it tells us to not use video stills unless "absolutely necessary". Is it really "absolutely necessary" to feature the current picture of Revord?

You could answer this question in (at least) two ways:

Yes. Having a picture of Revord is so much better than having no picture consensus is this qualifies as "absolutely necessary". One counterargument is: having a poor image can prevent people (to a much higher degree) from making the effort needed to dig up a better image; a proper photograph (that still has the required licensingfor use by Wikipedia).

No. All this picture accomplishes is satisfying the completist urge. Not all articles that "should" have images actually have them. There is no rush, this article could very well do without this image until an actually-decent proper photograph can be unearthed.

Personally, I'm leaning towards "the current image doesn't improve the article enough to merit inclusion, and it definitely does not qualify as an "absolutely necessary" inclusion, and I suspect it mostly serves to prevent editors to become sufficiently agitated that they go out and find us a proper photograph" viewpoint, but my impression is that enough editors don't care enough either way for my stance to be the consensus here. (I would love to be wrong)

If this wasn't your question, the link discussed is Talk:Montana_Jordan#WP:LEADIMAGE. As advice in general, edit Wikipedia on a desktop. While most people read Wikipedia on their phones, the actual editing experience is sooo much better on desktop. Either way, have a good day. CapnZapp (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2025

Change they to she/ her 2A00:23C7:CDA6:3801:4D9:5BC2:6892:B5A3 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:GENDERID and Talk:Raegan_Revord#Officially_using_they/them_as_Raegan, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

For the collectors, one more "them": [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Raegan Revord 2017a.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Pronouns update?

I notice Raegan no longer has her pronouns in her Instagram bio which was what made them change on this page. Will they be reverted as a result? 2A00:23C6:89E:3501:E8C6:C666:EE0E:773C (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Why would they be reverted? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Presumably because of the logic "if the Instagram bio was what made us switch to they/them, then the removal of that would make us revert too", User:fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. But as discussed below, removing info is not equal to saying "I've changed my mind". Had Revord replaced the pronouns with another preference, or actually stated "I've changed my mind"; that'd be a different story. Also, we have relatively recent reliable sources that use they/them. The case for us making a change solely based on information removal is not strong, and that's before taking the bigger picture in mind. (I wanted to provide a direct answer assuming you genuinely didn't understand the OP's ask) CapnZapp (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

"Presumably because of the logic ..." – That is what I would have assumed, but it makes very little sense to me, so I wanted to give the IP an opportunity to elaborate. Perhaps they had some other rationale which would be more compelling, unlikely as that may be. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself but it makes very little sense? I think it makes a lot of (superficial) sense; it just takes too few variables into account. Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

From MOS:GENDERID: Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. So unless Revord makes a further self-identification (and the current Instagram has none), "they/them" should remain. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Facepalm I don't know, I guess changing back is as reasonable as not. Whatever we do, the current "note" on her preference doesn't make sense atm. Fwiw, [2] from Woman's World is fairly recent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and Women's World uses "they" for Revord: As Revord gears up for the release of their novel, the actress and now writer is ready to share the beloved characters they’ve created with the world. Female pronouns are only in the article to refer to a character in their book. This is consistent with the Instagram use (alas, not in the Internet Archive). Don't see why we'd switch back. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If you want to read the new Instagram change as "I changed my mind, I want to be she/her", a switch back is not unreasonable. But if you read it "That's enough, people know how I feel now." it's not. Either reading (or any other) is WP:OR. So, I guess I'm at "no change" atm. I just wish she hadn't bothered. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I should add that at least I initially read Nat's argument to refer to the removal as Revord's latest expressed preference, but by now I think it is clear he was referring to Women's World. To be clear; removal of info is not equal to (clearly) expressing a preference; I agree we should keep using what our recent RS are telling us barring the article subject clearly expressing a new preference. CapnZapp (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't count the removal as expressing any preference, nor do I count Women's World as an example of her expressing a preference, as she is not Women's World. Her latest expressed preference that we know of was the addition of "them" pronouns to the Instagram account. Heck, I myself have removed a "he/him" from at least one social media account, and I can tell you that that hasn't stopped me from being male. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, yes... and no. We should not take "latest expressed preference" into account if Revord has removed that preference. And I think we currently aren't: The reason we're not changing Revord's pronouns back is... because Revord currently expresses no preference, and so we go with RS such as Women's World as our "fall-back" option. The absence of a message is not a message in itself, at least as far as our work as Wiki editors are concerned. We don't hold people to what they have said, if they demonstrably have taken steps to no longer say it, unless of course that caused RS to take note in some way. TL;DR: there are reasons we're using they/them but one of them is not because Revord at one point expressed that preference on their Instagram. The reason is pretty straight-forward: they no longer do. CapnZapp (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, no, I don't see the logic of assuming that the pronouns were revoked just because it's not what they're currently using that space on their social media description for. If they wore a t-shirt last week that said "My pronouns are them/they" and then wore a different t-shirt today, that would not mean that the statement is revoked. The reason we're are using they/them is definitely, absolutely that they put that message out on instagram, as the history of the discussion here shows. Had they switched to a new stated preference, that would be a different matter, This would remain the case even if they deleted their entire Instagram account. Women's World does not set the definition, as they do not report their self-identification, merely uses a pronoun for them. MOS:GENDERID makes this clear. This will not get erased the moment some other outlet uses "she".

We are living in a world where there is kickback to displaying your pronouns. Various government workers who used to put pronouns on their signatures no longer do. Does this mean they've retracted the pronouns? No, they are just no longer displaying them in that specific location, because it might cost the their jobs. The effect is not limited to those who might place unexpected pronouns, so it's not just a matter of hiding one's unexpected identification; the statement of pronouns itself is controversial. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

""they/them" should remain" was the right call. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Btw, you have repeatedly been mis-numbering Woman's World, that's probably offensive to somebody and there's likely a policy against it somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for misnumbering. I will try to say Women's Worlds from now on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That's it, I'm taking this to ANI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

i agree with nat. just because revord deleted the she/her pronouns does not mean tge pronouns are they/them. she may have felt secretive about the pronouns therefor got rid of them. Noralovesmissycooper (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is that we should not remember a statement a subject has removed, Nat. After a case where a gender preference has disappeared, we need to construct our articles as if the subject never stated it. Anything else, including your (possibly unintentional) use of "revoked" is deeply unfortunate language - we do not assume the right to hold people - especially young people - to preferences. Now I want you to accept that people change, and that we respect that right by not hounding their online history. We are (or were, in this case) not using a deleted gender preference as a basis for our article, full stop. Whether we would have switched back is a different discussion. Now, it's possible we are both guarding the privacy of our subjects here, and so I want to make clear I do not disagree with the rest of your reasoning. Only the part where you conflate the risks of presenting your preferences with our need for sourcing. A briefly shown gender preference cannot be used as a foundation for writing an encyclopedia once removed. We respect SELF-PUBLISHED preferences while they exist; otherwise we have to fall back on reliable sources. As a weak counter-argument, but one mirroring your own logic; what if those nebulous agents use Wikipedia to threaten a subject...? A subject that removed their preference in fear of reprisals; yet Wikipedia sets that preference in stone for all the world to know (according to your logic). But never mind. Let us instead not second-guess why something gets removed or changed, and simply act on what we have, not what we no longer have. Take care, CapnZapp (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you're getting at.

I'm just telling you that it's very wrong, both in terms of the guidelines and in terms of reasonability.

Many statements of preference are ephemeral in nature. You make a lot of absolutist statements that have no grounding.

By seeking to take away the fact of the statement, you are indeed the one seeking to second-guess. What we had was the truth that the statement had been made.

Luckily, it ends up not making a difference here, but if you wish to void or rewrite MOS:GENDERID, which if I recall was reached with much struggle, this is not the place to do that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The time has come to ask you to cut out the confrontative approach. You are definitely not open to being wrong, ever, Nat and you respond in a very exhausting manner. First off, quit putting words in my mouth. You wrote if you wish to void or rewrite MOS:GENDERID which I'm certainly not. I need you to acknowledge I'm not out to change GENDERID, or I'm going to stop assuming good faith from your side, ok? Now then, assuming I can still assume you're discussing in GF; you linked to MOS:GENDERID but I see nothing specific to the matter at hand there. Yes, that page states Singular they/them/their pronouns are appropriate to use in reference to any person who goes by them, but for the purposes of this discussion I am (still) assuming you don't really think I'm not fully on board with Revord's stated gender preference. More relevant would be MOS:GIDINFO since it directly discusses best practices re: pronouns. Except it too does not prescribe how we obtain someone's preferences, which is what we're discussing here: how do we decide what pronouns anyone goes by? So you need to be much more specific if you are going to insist on us needing no source for a given preference, and by "no source" I mean that if someone's preferences can't be obtained because they deleted them, then that is quite literally no source. Also, please expand on how you can weigh "we should use someone's preference even if they delete it" higher than "we should respect if someone deletes a former preference," given that making assumptions as to why someone decides to remove a social media setting is wildly OR. CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Since this is now moot for this page, I will respond on your Talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC) Striking that and posting here, as Capn has previously barred me from talking about similar matters on his Talk page, sufficient that it might be widely construed to apply to this.

This is another one of those conversations where you go through a phase of making up what I meant rather than addressing what I said ("I should add that at least I initially read Nat's argument to refer to the removal as Revord's latest expressed preference, but by now I think it is clear he was referring to Women's World.")

I pointed out what MOS:GENDERID says in its very first sentence (Here fully: "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." The latest expression had been the Instagram source (reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF.) You went on to repeatedly invent variations from this ("We should not take "latest expressed preference" into account if Revord has removed that preference."; "After a case where a gender preference has disappeared, we need to construct our articles as if the subject never stated it.") If you don't want people to entertain the notion that you might be at odds with what that MOS entry says, you may want to not repeatedly argue against it.

You repeatedly argue with the clear history that the Instagram post was the reason why the pronoun switch was finally accepted ion this page, and continues to be the reason why some editors support the use of they/them pronouns ("there are reasons we're using they/them but one of them is not because Revord at one point expressed that preference on their Instagram." "We are (or were, in this case) not using a deleted gender preference as a basis for our article, full stop.") And what basis would that leave us with anyway? A single use of a single pronoun in Woman's World, not attributed as Revord's preference? That doesn't even reach the level of "what is common in sources", which, as MOS:GENDERID says, is not sufficient to trump the self-expression.

"Also, please expand on how you can weigh "we should use someone's preference even if they delete it" higher than "we should respect if someone deletes a former preference," given that making assumptions as to why someone decides to remove a social media setting is wildly OR." The very idea that there is something to "respect" there would appear to make as assumption about why they removed it. Not all removals are retractions. Had they stated some other pronouns (Within a reasonable standard English set), I would absolutely have respected it. But I make no such assumption, and thus fall back on MOS:GENDERID, "most recent expressed self-identification". Surely not using that space in the social media bio is not an indication that a person has no pronouns. I am not going to apologize for leaning on Wikipedia's guidelines rather than CapnZapp's rules. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Let me just remind everyone that Wikipedia revolves around the world; the world does not revolve around Wikipedia. A person could change their preferred pronouns daily, and it still wouldn't be prudent for us Wiki editors to complain. Especially for young individuals, their experiences and insecurities are far more important and relevant than the needs of Wiki editors. Revord has done nothing wrong, and I would like this talk page (a page that's publicly available world-wide, mind you) to reflect this sentiment. Please let's avoid further manifestations of a self-centered worldview. A sincere thank you for your patience, CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

the IP is wrong, today there is in instagram they/them. here are archiv-versions from 2. may and today: [3] & [4] --Mary Joanna (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Given that Instagram, (which I never use) is primary sourcing and then using that is WP:OR, is it really a safe bet? I would have never messed around with her bio in the first place, regardless of what she says. Facts are facts and wikipedia should only be factual. Govvy (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes self-published information can be used, this is such an instance, see WP:ABOUTSELF for the specifics. "I would have never messed around with her bio in the first place, regardless of what she says. Facts are facts ..." Please read MOS:GENDERID. Thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

How is using Revord's confirmed Instagram saying "Raegan Revord they/them" WP:OR? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF! pronouns are self-determined and we have to accept this. --Mary Joanna (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

If you are conditioned to think of any primary source as less solid than a secondary one, which generally Wikipedia does, it's not hard to jump to the conclusion that we should never use any self-published source, Gråberg. Of course (now no longer talking to you specifically, since you already know this) gender identity is the rare special case, where we at Wikipedia have decided BIO subjects' preference (and possible feelings about getting misrepresented) take precedence over our usual priorities. I can totally understand if users initially confuse SELF-PUBLISHED for OR. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is policy, there is more than GENDERID that can be got out of sources like that, WP:DOB for example. But off-topic for this discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely. Keep in mind I'm here only trying to explain why a less-knowledgeable Wiki user might think a subject's Instagram-posted gender preferences are original research, and why I think it's better to gently correct them than shake our collective heads at their ignorance. Keeping up with all the Wikipedia policies and guidelines isn't exactly trivial. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

If "less-knowledgeable Wiki user" refers to Govvy, they're a user with 37,014 edits, account created on December 22, 2005. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Whoops... I don't know if it was off again and on again, or if I was just looking at the body of the text, but you are right. They/them is on there now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't there, but it's there again now. The t-shirt is back. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)