Talk:Emma Portner

She is now with man, so she should be removed from LGBT categories, if she does not officially announce she is lesbian, or bisexual. This can be offensive to some people, include me.--78.102.53.207 (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Someone's orientation does not change based on who they're in a relationship with. Also, Elliot Page has not said that he's a man, only that he's trans and uses he/they pronouns. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Right, but now we have a bunch of unsourced categories on this page. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This seems like it might be an area of contention. I noticed that @Vaselineeeeeeee previously reverted the same edit that I just made, so I thought I'd make a section to discuss it and reach a consensus. It's my understanding that articles are to focus on their subject area and nothing else. Including a sentence in Emma Portner's personal life section that just says her spouse came out as transgender doesn't seem necessary. Unless the sentence includes information about Portner's reaction to the announcement or her support for her spouse as he has undergone his transition or something like that, it's irrelevant. Unless I'm missing a rule that necessitates the inclusion of an explanatory sentence about Page coming out as transgender on his wife's Wikipedia article? TJScalzo (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TJScalzo: Portner married a woman at the time of her marriage. To write "Elliot" with no context seems as though Portner is heterosexual. Maybe a note is a better option. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@TJScalzo and Vaselineeeeeeee: I've removed the note as WP:UNDUE weight. Just because someone has a masculine-sounding name doesn't mean a mention of them in relation to marriage needs a note. GreenComputer (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@GreenComputer: If you say so. The reader, many of those who have no idea of her personal life, will have to click on Page's article to find that out and put two and two together. Seems very round-about. But I won't revert further so no worries. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@GreenComputer: I think that makes the most sense. I wasn't sure what the exact Wikipedia policy was, but I felt like it wasn't needed within this context. There just isn't enough public information about Portner's relationship with Page beyond supportive comments on social media. TJScalzo (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

She was born on 26. Nov. 1994. Some of the sources: https://marriedbiography.com/emma-portner-biography/ https://www.listal.com/emma-portner https://www.dreshare.com/emma-portner/ Yearnst (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Done --TheImaCow (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I recognize that we make an effort not to deadname or misgender people, but it's absurd to suggest that we can no longer categorize someone who married a partner of the same sex as LGBT because that partner subsequently came out as genderqueer/trans. I suggest that we restore the LGBT categories, even if not the lesbian ones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a reliable source for the categories? StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

By the way, there was already a discussion started on this above. StAnselm (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@StAnselm: Porter has been very public about her marriage to a woman, and the article continues to note her marriage to Page, although Page came out as genderqueer after they were married. This is not some secret or scandal. I'm sure you could also google a source as to Porter's specific self-identification, but "very proudly and publicly in a same-sex marriage" is sufficient to categorize someone as LGBT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is that a quote from somewhere? We would need a reliable source that *Porter* considered it to be a same-sex marriage. StAnselm (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, now you're just trolling. Please stop, it's not funny and it's not respectful to the article subject or to the editors who are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia in good faith. Our guidelines exist to ensure that we refer to LGBT subjects respectfully, not as a figleaf of an excuse to disrespect their choice to come out publicly and shove them back in the closet.

As for how to elaborate the article text, the easiest thing might just be to add "(who came out as trans in December 2020)" or something like that to the line about their marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Here is evidence that Portner does not now consider herself to be heterosexual, so back go the categories. It's about the 4th article on a Google search, not at all hard to find. Really, I do not think someone's spouse coming out as trans should lead us to make any assumptions that their own sexuality has changed. The burden of proof would be on whoever wanted to change the article in those situations. The Land (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I guess that's the source we're after, but I note she does say "I hope you know my sexual preferences and gender identity are none of your business." StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

An editor falsely wrote in an edit summary here that the inclusion of a poorly cited birthdate was "per editrequest." There is no such edit request in the history of this page, and the cited source, MarriedBiography.com, is in no way, shape or form WP:RS for WP:BLP. I've restored RS-cited "Birth based on age as of date" template.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The edit I evidently made here — there's something wrong with it.

First, I would never have summarily removed tags. Second, I did not write the two paragraphs beginning "In 2019, she was nominated for Arena Dance..." — those grafs are filled with non-encyclopedic tone and WP:PUFFERY, and anyone who knows my edits knows I do not write like that. Third, this edit removed the name of a newspaper from a citation — I would never remove the name of the source.

I'm not saying I was hacked. But I genuinely have no idea about those three specific edits. My best guess is I copy-pasted part of an older version. But those three things I mention above, plus any weird odd or end I may have missed, are not me, and my apparently putting them in was accidental and inadvertent.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

You could have easily corrected it by making another edit. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I didn't realize it until User:Praxidicae pointed it out. Please show good-faith: I mean, look at my edits today from 16:52 to 17:02. I make mistakes sometimes. Everyone does. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please stop pinging me. VAXIDICAE💉 18:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Per the timestamp on your original comment above, you were aware of it almost two hours before I commented here. You could have corrected it in that time. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little confused because, in all seriousness, I have to assume you know what the word "realize" means, so I say again: "I didn't realize it until User:Praxidicae pointed it out." I'm not sure how I could have fixed something I didn't realize was broken.

Praxidicae pointed it out to me at 15:58, barely one hour after I'd made the accidental edits, and by the time Prax notified me, they had already made the correction. I did something accidentally and owned up to it when it was pointed out. When you asked, I told you I didn't realize it until Prax pointed it out. So you not dropping the stick is beginning to feel like you're bullying me.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can we all just let this go and not worry about who's to blame? It's fixed now. Mo Billings (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would love to. And then Abbyjjjj96 continues to bully me with a needlessly aggressive edit summary [1]. I did give a reason. It was an accident. I came to this talk page of my own volition to own up to it. Human beings make mistakes and have accidents. Attacking me in an edit summary was completely unnecessary and harassing.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The correction Praxidicae made was your removal of the AfD notice. In your first comment in this section, you acknowledge your edit had numerous problems, not just the AfD notice, which you claimed were "accidental and inadvertent" but made no effort to correct. Don't cry 'bullying' because someone points out your inconsistency. My edit summary was not aggressive – I explained the change I made and why. I wasn't going to revert something that wasn't obvious vandalism without giving a reason. Your comments are not only misleading but incredibly inflammatory and I won't be responding further. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, wow, I'm deciding to comment here again after all because your comments were even more misleading than I thought. At the AfD for this article, you added some of the same details which you later added to this article but claimed not to have written ("Second, I did not write the two paragraphs beginning "In 2019, she was nominated for Arena Dance..." — those grafs are filled with non-encyclopedic tone and WP:PUFFERY, and anyone who knows my edits knows I do not write like that."). Okay... Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think what Tenebrae is saying is that although the two paragraphs got inserted with his edit, he doesn't know how it happened. He didn't write them - they were in the article until this edit removed them. It was some kind of mistake, it happened, and you fixed it. Please, let's all take a step back and let this drop instead of throwing accusations at each other. Mo Billings (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The issue was not that they made a mistake with their edit, which is fair (and it was more than adding those two paragraphs, they also removed citation parameters and sourced biographical information; it's odd that they acknowledged an accident but then did not reinclude those things in the article), but that in the other thread, they falsely presented things and made accusations towards me using aggressive language. There's been no indication they think that was a mistake, but sure. Bye. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Here is your aggressive language: "Partial revert of Tenebrae's edit removing a bunch of sourced information without giving a reason." I did you give a reason: It was an accident. Look at my editing history: I don't add puffery. I would certainly never remove a newspaper name in a citation. Why are you being so relentlessly cruel? Why are you crucifying me? I didn't re-include those things because I thought User:Praxidicae did. Jesus...just stop! You're making me take Ativan. You're just lashing at out me over and over and over. I must have copy-pasted something accidentally. It was an accident. I came right here and acknowledged it. What else am I supposed to do. Please just stop!--Tenebrae (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)Reply