Jump to content

Talk:Ezra Miller/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Photograph

With Ezra Miller now playing the Flash and so now an actor of increasing interest to children, I advise that his main photograph be changed to include one that does not feature smoking. I am not opposed to smoking, but it seems that there should be so many pictures available of Miller that it is not prudent to choose one that does involve smoking for such a prominent place in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.112 (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the photograph was changed accordingly, but shouldn't we maybe update it with one from 2016, at least? There are some good photos of Miller from the 'Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice' European premier, such as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurochrome (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Activism

Ezra is twice referred to as an activist but I don't see any material that amplifies those assertions. Docdave (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Opera singer

As far as I can see, Miller sang as a young child occasionally in an opera chorus. I don't see how that makes 3 opera-related categories a defining feature of his career, and they ought to be removed, especially the utterly inapplicable Category:People associated with the Metropolitan Opera. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ezra Miller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Playboy interview

Can someone please ad something about his playboy interview? I am personally horrible at writings this stuff but it at least seems very relevant193.33.246.241 (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ezra Miller is not Jewish

Just because he "feels" Jewish that doesn't mean he is a Jew. The Code of Jewish Law clearly states that a child of a Jewish mother is Jewish, regardless of the father’s lineage (or whatever else may show up in a DNA test), while the child of a non-Jewish mother is not Jewish.Мишкин (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Who cares what the "Code of Jewish Law" says. He does not need permission to self identify with his Jewish heritage from his father's side. --Gonnym (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
The reference specifically quotes him referring to the traditional definition and how it dates from a time before DNA tests etc so mothers would be the only certain parent. Perhaps add a bit more from the quote to the main text for those who might take issue with him identifying with his paternal ancestry. CallyMc (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
This is a thorny question! Firstly, I am not sure that "self-identification" of ethnicity is an accepted thing: see Rachel Dolezal. With that question set aside for now, let's look at Who is a Jew? Yes, this is really a Wikipedia article. Since the Jewish religion predates the separation of national identity from religious belief, it is much like Hinduism, where there is no clear delineation where a person can say "this is how I understand God" vs. "this is how I view my national / cultural identity". Now, it would seem that on Wikipedia, we maintain a distinction between "Jews" and those who do not self-identify as Jewish, yet they carry some Semitic DNA. In Category:Jews, the description says, "
This category is for individuals who are Jews. For people of Jewish descent who don't identify as Jews, please see Category:People of Jewish descent.
". So I would say, that giving Miller the benefit of the doubt, we can safely include him in all applicable categories, because he does identify as a Jew and he is also of Jewish descent. I think restricting this to matrilineal descent is a red herring due to the variance even among Jews for that criterion. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender-neutral pronouns

A couple of IP editors have been changing the page today, replacing male singular pronouns (he, him, his) with gender-neutral plural ones (they, their, them). I don't disagree with the intentions behind this, but I'm not sure that it's in-line with WP:MOS guidelines, and it makes the article awkward to read - how should verbs following the pronoun be treated? Since we don't seem to have any guidance on this at the moment, I'm going to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style so we can get consensus on how to proceed. Please don't continue with these changes until that discussion has taken place. GirthSummit (blether) 19:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

See archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 198#Singular they. GirthSummit (blether) 09:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
There is a correct grammatical answer to that question: verbs following the singular they/them are conjugated exactly as you would for a plural they/them. This phenomenon is similar to the words "everyone" and "everybody" being treated as singular when interacting with verbs. A few good examples are shown in the Wikipedia article on the Singular they. 2605:E000:2EC8:CD00:2121:EB60:1CE5:C32D (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Coming from the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral pronouns: guidance discussion (a permalink here), I will note here as well that the Associated Press states, "They/them/their is acceptable in limited cases as a singular and-or gender-neutral pronoun, when alternative wording is overly awkward or clumsy. However, rewording usually is possible and always is preferable." It also states, "In stories about people who identify as neither male nor female or ask not to be referred to as he/she/him/her: Use the person's name in place of a pronoun, or otherwise reword the sentence, whenever possible. If they/them/their use is essential, explain in the text that the person prefers a gender-neutral pronoun. Be sure that the phrasing does not imply more than one person." I'll contact WP:Film about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID seems to apply. If 'they' is to be used, I suggest pronouns aren't used in the text until the reason why has been explained, which should be early in the lead. William Avery (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
William Avery, as seen above, I suggested similarly. With this edit, I changed the few singular they usages to the surname Miller. If we are to use singular they in this article, it needs to be made clear in the lead and/or with a hatnote that Miller is non-binary and so the pronoun usage is non-standard. But we should still avoid the singular they usage unless necessary. I don't see that Miller even regularly uses singular they for their gender identity. As seen in the Personal life section, Miller uses all pronouns interchangeably. We obviously are not going to use all pronouns interchangeably in this article, as to not confuse readers and have an inconsistent article in terms of pronoun usage. More discussion on this is seen at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Meanwhile, back on earth ... (a permalink for it is here). SMcCandlish has dealt with this type of thing at articles for non-binary people and might have thoughts on what to do in this case, such whether or not to use a hatnote. At articles for non-binary people, we should also keep in mind that a non-binary person may not use gender-neutral pronouns. Ruby Rose for, example, identifies as genderfluid, but still uses feminine pronouns. We had people jumping to use singular they for her without knowing her pronoun preference (and some seemingly did so even while knowing it). If the non-binary person hasn't expressed a pronoun preference, it might be best to go by the pronouns that the preponderance of reliable sources are using for that person. Although Miley Cyrus has identified as genderfluid, her Wikipedia article still uses feminine pronouns. This seems to be due to the fact that Cyrus didn't specify a pronoun preference and the preponderance of reliable sources still refer to her as a she. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I would just repeat here what I already said at WT:MOS#Gender-neutral pronouns: guidancepermalink.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that may help calm things down. Perhaps one day I'll understand why people get so worked up about this stuff. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
William Avery, it's just a matter of people not being used to someone using singular they as their pronoun preference and its ability to cause confusion. 192.182.205.156 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been changing some parts of the article away from singular they to "he," stating that Miller has stated that he uses masculine pronouns. That's something that needs to be sourced in the article then, similar to the Ruby Rose case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

CountessCobra, regarding this, I'm not sure that Miller identifying as genderfluid means that Miller should no longer be in male categories. See what is stated above. The Wikipedia article says Miller uses masculine and feminine pronouns interchangeably. And last time I checked, most reliable sources still refer to Miller with masculine pronouns and identify Miller as male. Has this changed? No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Deanboier, see above. Regarding this, this and this, I reverted you, tweaked pieces, and re-added the "they/them pronouns" aspect in a different way because Miller using "they/them pronouns" doesn't mean that Miller never uses masculine pronouns. In this GQ source you added, Miller still doesn't state a preference for pronouns. The Personal life section clearly notes that Miller has used all pronouns interchangeably. We don't know if Miller still does that. It could be that Miller uses "all pronouns interchangeably" sometimes and uses only "they/them pronouns" at other times. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: categories: MOS:GENDERID says Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources and this presumably extends to categories. The latest article that deals with Miller's gender self identification is this one from a couple days ago, which says Miller uses they/them pronouns in a pointed refusal to be gendered. I'll repeat that last part for emphasis: refusal to be gendered. Calling Miller "male" therefore seems to contradict their self-identification and so goes against our guidelines. WanderingWanda (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: categories: To repeat for those unfamiliar with MOS:GENDERID, MOS:GENDERID does not apply to categories, just like it doesn't apply to article titles. And when I reverted CountessCobra on the male categories, there was no "pointed refusal to be gendered" source. That revert was back on September 18, 2019. Miller has been clear about using masculine and feminine pronouns interchangeably. At the time I reverted, there were sources such as this November 16, 2018 Billboard.com source (which refers to Miller as "he") stating that Miller "is comfortable with all the pronouns" and this November 19, 2018 The Guardian source stating "Not to mention the fact that Miller accepts male pronouns and is clearly male-presenting." So there was no violation of anything when I reverted CountessCobra. And, of course, editors will interpret the "pointed refusal to be gendered" source how they want to. But to repeat, "The Personal life section clearly notes that Miller has used all pronouns interchangeably. We don't know if Miller still does that. It could be that Miller uses 'all pronouns interchangeably' sometimes and uses only 'they/them pronouns' at other times." Miller would not be the first non-binary person to do that. Whether jokingly or not, Miller has also stated, "I barely identify as a human." Girth Summit, any thoughts on this latest development? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen, not really. My original post on this thread is from a time when I was only dimly aware that gender-neutral pronouns were a thing, I came across the article while RC patrolling and haven't been following the subject's statements of their gender identity. I don't think there's any suggestion that your revert from last year was in any way inappropriate. GirthSummit (blether) 09:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit and William Avery, as seen by this January 15, 2020 Variety source and this February 3, 2020 Deadline Hollywood source, sources still refer to Miller as "he", "him" and "his." Except for the latest GQ source, I haven't seen sources use singular they to refer to Miller. If any others do, they are scarce. This is no doubt because Miller previously stated things such as "I let he/his/him ride, and that's fine." And that was stated in November 2018. And no sources refer to Miller by feminine pronouns; no sources that I've seen. We'll see if any sources start to use singular they following the latest GQ source stating "pointed refusal to be gendered." But I doubt that they will since Miller has not made a statement shunning masculine pronouns and "non-binary" is already considered to be a "pointed refusal to be gendered." It's just that, as mentioned above, when someone identifies as non-binary, people (and sources sometimes as well) automatically assume that the person prefers they/them pronouns or completely shuns ever using a gendered pronoun for their gender identity. We'll see what, if anything, Miller states in the future on the matter. But people can get tired of reaffirming their gender identity or other thoughts on their gender. If sources continue to refer to Miller by masculine pronouns, a case can be made that the article can as well and that Miller can be placed back into male categories. After all, if Miller has an issue with these media outlets using the masculine pronouns, Miller will let them know. So far, Miller's explicit commentary on masculine pronouns is relayed as "is comfortable with all the pronouns" and "I let he/his/him ride, and that's fine." The matter might need an RfC if sources continue to refer to Miller by masculine pronouns and the only thing used to argue that we shouldn't do the same is a source stating "pointed refusal to be gendered." Of course, if Miller reaffirms allowance of masculine pronouns, there will be nothing to debate.
The latest GQ source also states that queer is "a label that Miller eschews, as even 'queer' is a label to them", despite the fact that Miller came out as queer in 2012, is still routinely called queer, and the source itself notes that "many have called Miller a 'queer icon'." So I added a bit on this to the article (followup edit here). Still, since the latest gender comments are not in Miller's own words, I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Just a few months ago, overzealous sources (because of overzealous social media) got it wrong on Billy Dee Williams's gender identity, and Wikipedia debated the matter as a result. If Williams's initial comment hadn't gotten so much attention to the point where he had to clarify, his Wikipedia article would still be calling him genderfluid or implying that he is.
As for "don't think there's any suggestion that your revert from last year was in any way inappropriate", I disagree, Girth. But, for reasons you and others are aware of, I'm not commenting any further on that. Please don't ping me if you reply; I'm watching this article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit is correct that I was not commenting on your reversion from last year, but merely on how the article should be categorized at the present time. WanderingWanda (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
MOS:GENDERID on pronouns really doesn't have much to do with categorization. Miller is rejecting all labels of all kinds, which is different from asserting a particular gender identity (including a nonbinary one). WP isn't required to strip Miller of every categorization (i.e., every label) simply because Miller doesn't like labels. This really is a distinct matter, and can't be simply thrown into a "gender identity" pot. Perhaps more to the point, though, Miller's dislike of labels isn't extreme; cf. the material above: "comfortable with all the pronouns" and "I let he/his/him ride, and that's fine." We should follow the sources on this, as in everything. Even the WP:ABOUTSELF/MOS:GENDERID angle doesn't support removing Miller from male categories, not at this stage, not by the content of the subject's own statements. Maybe revisit this in a year or two and see how the reputable mainstream media are writing about Miller. If they are not going out of their way to avoid "masculizing" Miller in any possible way ever, then WP shouldn't either. All that said, if Miller were simply bumped up a category level, out of male-gendered ones, the sky would not fall. And stuff like this is a good illustration why we shouldn't have gendered categories at all. Many of us have been saying this for over a decade now, but there's still a contingent (a loud one but probably not as large as they think they are) convinced the wiki-sky really will fall if we don't separate male nurses, female pool players, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
All that said, if Miller were simply bumped up a category level, out of male-gendered ones, the sky would not fall. Right, which I think ties into why WP:CATV says Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial: if a category is disputed there's often no harm in just leaving it off. WanderingWanda (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I would like to see real-world evidence of controversy, though, not just "a couple of editors grinding axes" pseudo-controversy. WP has too much of that going on, and it looks more and more to me like decisions are being made on a basis of who can be loudest, who can besmirch the intentions of the other side more. (Not just on gender-related matters, but a large number of things.) My default response to any kind of special pleading on Wikipedia, about anything, is an expectation that a good case be proven why it is really necessary for the reader experience, why the encyclopedia will be worse if WP:IAR is not invoked in this particular case. I don't think the encyclopedia will be certainly improved by removing the category in this case, especially since the subject is personally noncommittal – socio-politically critical of labeling, yet accepting in-practice of being labeled (with a label that suits the basic birth-biology facts and our readers' general understanding of such matters). The "I barely identify as a human" bit also casts doubt on the seriousness with which the actor takes this stuff or expects to be taken seriously. And Miller is overwhelmingly (as far as I can tell, exclusively) known for male roles, which strongly affects our readers' perception and expectation. Miller is also quoted as saying, "The way I would choose to identify myself wouldn't be gay", which isn't something someone with no gender identity at all would likely say, since in most usage the term means "homosexual male" and even in broadened usage means "homosexual male or female", but is not used to mean "bisexual genderqueer". All this combined with the new rejection of even the term "queer" (despite using it in 2012) strongly suggests this playful weaving between and around any terminology is a form of "I'm so mysterious" theatre or simply a creative way of maintaining some privacy in the face of nosy press and fan questions. Avoiding being publicly labeled with a gender or sexual identity doesn't demonstrate that none exists, or is a particular combination like intergender and bi, just that the public presentation is intentionally vague.

In the end, it seems fine to run with singular they (and use of the surname in lieu of pronouns), to match the most recently stated preferences, to the extent they aren't self-contradictory and can be separated from silly stuff like "barely identify as a human". But concluding that Miller cannot be put in any male categories is a PoV+OR position, based on taking half of what they say about pronouns and ignoring the other half, and ignoring the person's consistent general presentation as masculine (and mostly on the het side of the Kinsey scale at that). It thus would not serve our readers well. (Though getting rid of most gendered categories would in my view be better in the longer run. It doesn't matter whether an actor, doctor, etc., has ovaries or has testicles, or presents as masculine or as feminine. The intersection of those things with an occupation or other notability determinant isn't really a defining characteristic in its own right, despite the pretense of some "gender-centric" editors to the contrary.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

What you are proposing here – referring to the subject with non-gendered pronouns in the article body but then placing them in gendered categories – is odd. It is not something we do at other articles where we use they/them pronouns.
Whether Miller's gender presentation is typically masculine is not relevant (and, if it was, which it isn't, I would not call, say, this outfit masculine.)
(As for the idea of getting rid of gendered categories altogether, well, why stop there? I was chatting with an arb recently who thinks that the entire category system is a waste of time and should be eliminated!) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
It does matter, because how WP treats subjects is determined by how the rest of the world treats them. If most of the writing world treats Miller as male, then WP will too, even if we might go along with some of them in avoiding gendered pronouns pending clearer signals from the subject what their actual position on the matter is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Update on the pronouns sources use for Miller: Regarding the choking incident (discussed below), there are sources noting that Miller uses they/them pronouns while also using those pronouns for Miller and/or using Miller's surname, but most sources thus far are using masculine pronouns for Miller when reporting on this matter. And that includes this Variety source that a lot of sources are referring to when reporting on this topic. Another quality source using masculine pronouns for Miller while reporting on this is this Chicago Tribune source. This The A.V. Club source uses the surname a lot, but ends up using "his" once. I've looked at a lot of sources on this to see how they are referring to Miller since this incident has gotten a lot of attention. I'm thinking that a number of the sources taking a they/them and/or surname approach got their information from Wikipedia since the brief GQ Britain pronoun comment was obscure since Miller hadn't been getting a lot of attention lately and there were hardly any sources using they/them pronouns to refer to Miller before this choking incident. Also, it's been clear times before that Wikipedia has the power in this regard -- how people are gendered in the news/media sources. But again, like SMcCandlish and I stated, we can wait to revisit the pronoun aspect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The GQ interview is still the best source on this, because it's the only one of the recent sources that talked to Miller directly about their pronouns. And GQ went with they/them, in spite of the media's reluctance to use gender neutral pronouns. Per MOS:GENDERID we should go with our best understanding of Miller's latest self-designation, even [if] it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources.
Of course, what pronouns we use can change depending on what Miller says in the future. For example, we did, for a long time, use they/them to refer to Emma Sulkowicz, but in a recent interview, she asked a publication to use she/her. Based on that, -sche changed her pronouns in Wikipedia articles, and I supported the change (Talk:Emma_Sulkowicz#Pronouns_revisited). WanderingWanda (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I do understand where you are coming from, but I stand by what I stated above on all of this, including the fact that "it could be that Miller uses 'all pronouns interchangeably' sometimes and uses only 'they/them pronouns' at other times. Miller would not be the first non-binary person to do that." And the fact that the GQ statement is not a direct statement from Miller, while "comfortable with all the pronouns" and "I let he/his/him ride, and that's fine" are. And even with those statements and before the GQ statement, this article was avoiding masculine pronouns for Miller. I feel that SMcCandlish has it right. (Sorry to keep pinging you, SMcCandlish, if you'd rather that I don't.) And I'm certain that if the majority of reliable sources are still using masculine pronouns for Miller a year from now, and we do an RfC on this, most Wikipedians will express a sentiment similar to SMcCandlish's.
Per Miller's direct commentary, this is not a case of violating MOS:GENDERID. And SMcCandlish, who has crafted a lot of our guidelines and has weighed in on MOS:GENDERID issues multiple times, including when people are misusing it, is clear on that. I was aware of the Sulkowicz matter and saw the recent change there at some point. The Sulkowicz matter is not exactly like this one since Miller has relayed a "comfortable with all the pronouns" and "I let he/his/him ride, and that's fine" sentiment and has not explicitly stated an opposition to ever being gendered. Given that publications these days are sure to usually go by a person's preferred pronouns, one has to ask: "Why aren't publications overwhelmingly using they/them pronouns for Miller?" Is it because they just yet aren't aware of the GQ statement via Wikipedia? Or is it because Miller has also relayed a "comfortable with all the pronouns" and "I let he/his/him ride, and that's fine" sentiment and they are aware of this (previously or via Wikipedia)? From what we can discern, Miller isn't asking publications to never use masculine pronouns for them. GQ might have asked Miller what pronouns Miller wanted to use, and Miller opted for they/them pronouns, which, again, doesn't mean that Miller now completely shuns masculine pronouns. And to repeat, the latest GQ source also states that queer is "a label that Miller eschews, as even 'queer' is a label to them", despite the fact that Miller came out as queer in 2012, is still routinely called queer, and the source itself notes that "many have called Miller a 'queer icon'." And yet we haven't removed all of the queer text from the article, and I don't think we should. And when reporting on this choking incident, sources are calling Miller queer or noting that Miller has identified that way. Anyway, it is not like I stated or indicated that I wanted to debate this further at the moment. I was clear that the above was an update on how reliable sources are referring to Miller and that "we can wait to revisit the pronoun aspect." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Why are you people pandering to Mr. Miller's partisan politics? When someone claims not to have a gender and demands to be referred to as "they," that person is expressing a fringe far-left political ideology. It doesn't even have anything to do with transgenderism. Mr. Miller doesn't have gender identity disorder. He is merely engaging in political activism meant to "break down gender norms" or some other such feminist-inspired nonsense. See WP:NOT#ACTIVISM. By refusing to write this article in standard English, Wikipedia editors are engaging in extremist political activism that brings your encyclopedia into disrepute. The article as it is now is unreadable. I cannot bear to even get past the introduction for all the ravishing and defilement of the English language and insane political-correctness-in-full-overdrive-mode that are on full display. At the end of the day, you editors who grip the reins of power on Wikipedia have to ask yourselves: Is this a general-purpose encyclopedia for an English-speaking audience, or is it a radical leftist propaganda site designed to virtue-signal how "woke," post-modern, and illogical its writers are? If I were grading your papers and you were to write like this, I would give you all failing grades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.155.192.104 (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, there are two questions here. The first is: what pronouns use Miller use? That's the big question and it seems(?) like there's not a clear answer yet. The second "question", of whether to use they/them if that were what Miller exclusively used (exclusively, because someone like Rebecca Sugar or Leslie Feinberg who uses / is OK with multiple may still be referred to with the less troll-attracting ones), isn't even much of a question; the answer is that's what the MOS prescribes and what we do in every other such article, so even trying to get a local consensus to do otherwise in one article would be dubious. -sche (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Steel1943, I saw this earlier, but I am just now commenting on it. Maybe you want to weigh in on the categorization matter discussed in this section? Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is a pain to read. It's like... Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller Miller. Pandering to madness. --201.51.60.102 (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Just now I appended the following to the top section of this talk page. "Apologies for inserting myself here. I undid the most recent he → they edit just now thinking it was new, but that was before I ran across this section and realized I'd inadvertently become part of a longer-running edit war. Obviously I'm on the "he" side, but I see my reasons aren't new. So just count me as one more contributor to whatever consensus eventually emerges here."
Now I see this pronoun issue has a second section! I have nothing new to add to my first comment, other than that I came to this article to learn something about an actor I first heard about less than half an hour ago, and immediately stumbled over the mysterious "they"'s in the article resulting from an earlier edit today that seemed to have an overly weak argument in its favor. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pronouns

Per MOS:GENDERID: "Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what is most common in reliable sources." According to this March 12, 2020 GQ article, Miller uses they/them pronouns. Is there any more recent self-designation, or can we update the template at the top of this page and a pronoun editnotice to make this clear to new editors of the page? I am hoping to stem some of the pronoun-warring, but first I want to make sure I'm accurately reflecting things. I have read the discussions above, but they are about a year out-of-date and didn't appear to reach any strong consensus. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The correction at the bottom of this 21 January 2021 Polygon article says A previous version of this article used he/him pronouns for Miller. The actor has said in previous interviews that they now prefer they/them. We’ve edited the article to reflect this. Miller's use of they/them pronouns is also mentioned in these articles from April 2020, the later of which links them back to the GQ interview. GreenComputer (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Pronoun

Miller is gender queer, their pronoun cannot be strictly male, it should be either s/he and hir, zie and hir or they and their. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.7.90 (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a singular dude!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4601:5F50:ADE3:690B:F535:7488 (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. Zweifel (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Miller has stated that that he has no pronoun preference and is fine with he/him/his. (source)--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at this edit war going on over the pronouns and am LMAOing over here. Remember that none of you are being paid for this sh1t. 100.38.27.113 (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Since the subject doesn't have a preference, I would suggest we look at WP:GENDER which reminds us not to use pronouns that confuse the reader. For simplicity's sake, the article should use the biological pronoun. Ifnord (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The concept that other pronouns would confuse the reader inherently is based in the idea that the world is and should remain cisnormative, which is.... ignorant? And incorrect. They/them pronouns exist, and if it was wikipedia's job not to be confusing no human being would ever be educated by it. Let's link to the Wikipedia page for "nonbinary" or "genderqueer" on the first instance of a they/them pronoun if we must, but prefering he/him BECAUSE it is "the biological pronoun" - even if it is one of many Miller uses - is inherently transphobic. The effort is to erase an identity that might be confusing, which can never be separated from transphobia. As a side note, I got an edit war warning for changing the pronouns - and I see now that the pronouns have been changed back, which strikes me as identical "edit war behavior." (Yes, signed as an IP edit, but that's not for lack of Wikipedia experience - can't find login info for my account.) 2605:E000:2EC8:CD00:2121:EB60:1CE5:C32D (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Which ever pronoun you choose, it can never be "it" in reference to a human being. Due to Miller's stated gender identity in interviews, "they" is the correct referential pronoun. This is established usage with centuries of history, and there is no reason to keep changing this article to fit your political views. 84.48.192.105 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

If Miller is fine with 'he', why is it so controversial? Steepleman (t) 04:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
it may set a precedent, not an expert on how editing rules work on wikipedia but it's a rather dangerous precedent to set. Also, Ezra themselves seems to use pronouns interchangeably. Another reason to use a pronoun such as 'they', IMO (which is the current universally accepted method of talking about a person whose gender cannot or may not be specified) is to get people used to the idea of singular they (which has literally been a thing in english for over 400 years). Tjphysicist (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
you say Miller uses them interchangeably, but is there literally any instance you can find of him choosing "they"? It seems completely absurd to use "they" pronouns in this article simply because that's what we've decreed for queer individuals. 69.113.166.178 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for inserting myself here. I undid the most recent he → they edit just now thinking it was new, but that was before I ran across this section and realized I'd inadvertently become part of a longer-running edit war. Obviously I'm on the "he" side, but I see my reasons aren't new. So just count me as one more contributor to whatever consensus eventually emerges here. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

This attempt to re-engineer the English language results in copy that is awkward and difficult, hampering its ability to communicate. As an editor, I accept that individuals who request that they be referred to as "they" have a right to be heard and their request seriously considered. (Truth be told, I would defer to their wishes if the decision were mine, even though I personally oppose the neologism. It's a question of whose call it is, which in that case would turn up "not mine".) But it appears that this subject has _not_ requested the neologism. That being the case, it's not just unwarranted here, it's something orbiting abuse. As difficult as it is for many to accept, "I'm good" is as final and compelling a statement as "I've been hurt." Laodah 05:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Since they/their is so problematic, please at least switch all references to Miller to 'zer' just so this page can be read sensibly. 2601:182:4381:E60:294C:6DBB:50A5:43C9 (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

They? English please

I suggest we use actual pronouns rather than ones made up by people without literary degrees.

It’s confusing because it implies a plurality 2600:6C5E:5D7F:F073:427:ECE7:8272:E644 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I personally find it clumsy too, but singular they is a thing, and the gender guidelines for BLPs are to respect the choices individuals make about their pronouns. It's more important to be respectful to people than to grammar, and given that you're generally reading 'singular they' in a context where it's clear they/them are the pronouns in use it's generally not confusing unless you're being wilfully obtuse.Unbh (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Choking incident

Adding the choking incident that surfaced on April 1, 2020 as it there is no longer any doubt it was him and has been confirmed by a source at the location where the incident occurred. AChakra California (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

AChakra California, you've been repeatedly reverted on this matter for valid reasons. You've been reverted by Girth Summit, Eggishorn and me. You need to stop WP:Edit warring on this. Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia takes biographies of living persons very seriously and takes a conservative route on matters like these. As sources note, there are questions as to what happened and whether or not Miller was serious. Miller hasn't even yet commented on this. I have reverted you again, and will leave a note at the WP:BLP noticeboard on this topic for more opinions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Found Ezra Miller’s agent. AChakra California (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I see that there is already a thread at the BLP noticeboard. I'll add on to it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh good gravy, no. That is unacceptable on many levels. First, it's a rumor, and is reported as a rumor by the source. They are very careful to use words like "appears to be" and point out that any testimony is hear-say evidence. This is an encyclopedia, and we don't report rumors and gossip. Second, under BLP rules, this would fall under WP:BLPCRIME, unless it meets the requirements listed under WP:WELLKNOWN. The subject himself may be well known, but the incident itself has to be so widely reported that there is no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. One source is not going to cut it, especially a gossip column. Third, even if it did pass WELLKNOWN, it needs to be put into balance with the rest of the article. That means weighing the coverage and the significance of this incidence in the scope of his entire life and career, and then determine just how much space to give it. So far, it doesn't even deserve a single sentence, let alone an entire paragraph. Unless there is irrefutable confirmation it actually was him and not some look-alike, and this blows up into some major media frenzy, it most definitely needs to stay out. Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, thanks for weighing in. A lot of sources are reporting on this, but I obviously agree that we should take a cautious approach on it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Poking around for sources on this, what I see are ones like this which say "Ezra Miller [is] Not Being Investigated by Police" and at least initially caveat that the video only "appears" to be Miller. I notice that that particular source does go on to claim, without caveat, that "The video, which quickly went viral, shows Miller approaching a young woman [...] he then grabs her by the neck with his right hand and forces her to the ground", but I agree that the sourcing is still too weak to include such a claim in a BLP at this time. If Miller really did this, more definitive reliable-source coverage will most likely become available. -sche (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Leave it out. Even if true and reliably sourced, it's WP:UNDUE until a reliable secondary source outlines the event's long-term impacts. Obviously gossip media will report the incident but it's non-encyclopedic without a full analysis of what led to the event, and what effects it had. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Variety, which is definitely not a gossip column, confirmed with sources present when the altercation took place that the incident was serious. They also identified the person doing the choking as being Ezra. The fact that Ezra has made no public statements regarding the incident, or that police wasn't called to the scene, or that the fan did not press charges, doesn't mean the incident isn't relevant. In fact, it's arguably the most relevant thing that has happened to Ezra's career in the last few months – certainly what brought them to the spotlight the most. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainwalker1415 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Rainwalker1415 (talk · contribs), this is a no per above. It matters not that Variety is not a gossip column. Keep it up, and you will be WP:Blocked. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Hey Flyer22, I just came back here and it seems Variety is all of a sudden reliable. How come? Anyway, glad to see the page now acknowledges the truth. Rainwalker1415 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs), if you haven't read the link I shared: it's been confirmed by the establishment's owner that it was indeed Ezra in the incident. Neither Ezra nor anyone from their team has denied the episode or sought to defended themselves in any way, even though several months have passed. This being an encyclopedia, not a fan base, the facts should be reported. Edit: my contribution is still live because someone else, not I, added it back. If you keep removing it, I won't insist. But you still need a valid and up-to-date reason. Rainwalker1415
  • Rainwalker1415, CuriousGolden: WP:BLP - please read it carefully. We are cautious about BLPs, and especially cautious about potentially contentious assertions. These sources are not good enough to support the content you added to the page. Variety are pointedly not stating this stuff as fact in their own voice - they are hedging, attributing statements to a bar worker, and acknowledging that there is confusion about the facts. Wegotthiscovered.com base their own story on Variety, flesh it out with some speculation and gossip, and add nothing of value. For us to include this, we need a serious RS asserting it as fact. If you can find better sourcing, come back here and discuss it, but if that is all there is then policy requires us to keep it out of the article. GirthSummit (blether) 17:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's been eight months since this subject was last updated, and I don't feel like there's much debate over whether or not they did it at this point. I also think it's important to include or else people will use this outdated talk page as evidence in personal arguments, which I expect to arise with the release of the Snyder Cut. I don't have any sources at hand, but I know they're out there, just a little hard to find because, when you look up the event, you get mostly reports from April. Hahafunnyboy (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is there debate? It was obviously Ezra Miller, multiple sources have confirmed this, including an interview by the victim in the video. Forbes mentions the event as fact, not speculation. “Long term impacts?” The victim has spoken out about the abuse and the trauma its caused, what other long term impact do you need. Stop silencing victims. The incident is well documented, quite literally all captured on video. Who are you trying to protect here? Justfreddy93 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2021

The grammar in this entry is incorrect. It repeatedly uses the word "they" to refer to only one person. (BLP violation removed) 2001:8003:326B:F101:E02E:D63C:14EF:C679 (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Miller uses they/them pronouns, which GQ stated is done "in a pointed refusal to be gendered." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
BLPvio redacted. As I've said on other pages that get this sort of ER, we only need one declined ER visible to establish the precedent, so in the future I suggest people just remove ones along these lines. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2021

Ezra Miller was accused of choking a woman in 2020 and has yet to make a comment publicly. [1] 67.243.157.65 (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that no one addressed this earlier, but I just fixed this for you after being surprised not to see it on the page. It's a pretty major omission at this point, and regardless, this should not have been marked as "answered" without giving you an actual response. Beggarsbanquet (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Miller, Ezra. https://variety.com/2020/film/news/ezra-miller-throttling-woman-video-1234571800/. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2021

Sons of an Illustrious Father is now renamed as "Oddkin" and consists of only Larson and Miller now. Unclear since when or why, but the group's Instagram is serving as evidence. Sorry folks I'm not active on Wikipedia as an editor often so I am not sure if it's acceptable to propose an edit like this, please let me know if I can do better. Thank you.

[1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.instagram.com/sonsofanillustriousfather/?hl=en. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please edit date of recent kerfuffle

Noted on the article is that Miller was arrested in Hawaii on March 8, 2022. Correct date is March 28. 2603:800C:2400:207:A9AA:214B:B0D1:DAD6 (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Please correct the date of Ezra's arrest at the karaoke bar. It currently says March 8, 2022. It should say March 28, 2022. The article cited shows the date of the occurrence, for reference.

X: On March 8, 2022, Miller was arrested in Hawaii, following a physical confrontation with patrons at a karaoke bar.[52]

Y: On March 28, 2022, Miller was arrested in Hawaii, following a physical confrontation with patrons at a karaoke bar. The couple later dropped a petition for a restraining order[52] 72.234.106.220 (talk) 11:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

Under Personal Life > Other, in the last paragraph, Miller is misgendered. Change the final sentence to: "Shortly thereafter, a restraining order was filed against them by the couple they assaulted." 184.146.220.20 (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

change for clarity on who made bail the couple or miller. change

Shortly thereafter, a couple with whom Miller had been staying after making bail filed a restraining order against Miller, accusing them of assault.

to

Shortly after Miller made bail, a couple with whom Miller had been staying with filed a restraining order against Miller, accusing them of assault. 2600:6C67:4A7F:E45B:B591:9BCB:9332:C3D1 (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I hope you don't mind that I dropped the second "with" from the change. -- Pemilligan (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of stolen music

Rollingstone article. Worth mentioning?★Trekker (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to evaluate whether to add this to one of the current sub-sections or start another, but this just came out today: Guns, Bullets, and Weed: Ezra Miller Housing Three Young Children and Their Mother at Vermont Farm - Sources claim the living conditions at the Flash star’s farm are unsafe for children, alleging there are weapons lying around and that a one-year-old put a loose bullet in her mouth. June 23, 2022 11:54AM ET, by Cheyenne Roundtree. As with the last Rolling Stone piece, it's being picked up by various news outlets. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

plural for verbs

One can use whatever pronouns wishes, but a single person is one person, therefore whatever pronoun one might have, it is singular. English grammar uses singular for verbs when referring to a single individual. Imagine saying "An individual uses pronoun they, but they also use pronoun their. <- This sentence is talking about the same person or a different people? Grammar should be consistent. For example:

  • Miller IS set to play the character
  • They areIS set to play the character

Or:

  • Miller uses they/them pronouns

should NOT be converted to:

  • They use they/them pronouns

but to

  • They uses they/them pronouns

We are not talking about multiple personality disorders here. The article is written in standard English, therefore standard English grammar rules should apply here. Pronoun preference does not mean that one sentence the action is done by a single entity, while the next sentence there are suddenly multiple entities doing said action. It is pretty sensible to assume that they in Miller's case is a singular pronoun, just like it and zir are.

2A02:2F0B:B20D:2700:1C18:AC45:9356:57EE (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please calm down. You are complaining about English grammar, not the article itself, so this whole thing you are ranting about? - it is off-topic. At least in my opinion.
You are going to get nowhere down this avenue, because this isn't going to be changed, not before English is. --Roundish ⋆tc) 22:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The poster is referring to proper English grammar. If using singular "they" then the verb is singular (as in Ezra's case), if using plural "they" (referring to multiple people) then the verb is plural. By using a plural verb with what should be a singular "they" then you are both misgendering Ezra and breaking grammar. Please stop advocating for misgendering Ezra. Also, this is not off-topic as that is pertinent to this article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Imeriki al-Shimoni, current English grammar is that the verb is plural... regardless of whether "they" is used as singular or plural. --Roundish ⋆tc) 22:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
This complaint is illiterate twaddle. Singular they has been in use for centuries, and it has always taken plural verbs. Example: "I don't know the person who lives upstairs, but they sure like to play their music loud." This sentence starts out in the singular, and makes it clear that we are talking about one person; however, it switches to singular they in the second clause, because the gender of the subject is unknown, and the second verb naturally takes the plural form. It would sound pretty strange if we replaced the 'like' with 'likes'. We're not going to start contorting the English language because some folk don't like the idea of people expressing a preference for singular they. Girth Summit (blether) 23:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I hope this discussion (if we can even call it that) is done now. --Roundish ⋆tc) 23:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I imagine it's only a matter of time before people start giving their preferred verbs. That'll make it much easier! Unbh (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, singular they has been in use for centuries, but people only used it if the person they were referring to was unknown. Shakespeare would have never said or written "I ran into Ezra Miller today. They looked pretty messed up." Marrakech (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
A Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3
Though Shakespeare's women were boys dressed as girls, so he may or may not be the example you want here. Unbh (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
That's utterly irrelevant.★Trekker (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
No, it's not, not when people make arguments to Shakespeare and Dickens about this sort stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs) 03:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes it is. Also sign your comments.★Trekker (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
. No, it's not.Unbh (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022

The following line: “ Since 2022, Miller has been the subject of several incidents relating to disorderly…” should be changed to “Since 2011”

The legal issues section of ezra millers page literally contradicts the above line: “ On June 28, 2011, in the midst of filming The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Miller was a passenger in a vehicle that was pulled over in Pittsburgh for a broken brake light; police discovered twenty grams of marijuana in Miller's possession”

An edit to say “Since 2011” would resolve this conflicting information. Justfreddy93 (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: A marijuana rap isn't the same as disorderly conduct, or grooming allegations. It appears the serious stuff started in 2022. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2022

The entry is grammatically incorrect by using "they are" when referring to a singular person. "Are" is properly used only for plural subjects. Correct grammar in this instance is "they is." 2603:300A:1D00:3400:D1B1:24BD:DEE6:5AA2 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: [1] When “they” is the subject of a sentence, “they” takes a plural verb regardless of whether “they” is meant to be singular or plural. For example, write “they are,” not “they is.” The singular “they” works similarly to the singular “you”—even though “you” may refer to one person or multiple people, in a scholarly paper you should write “you are,” not “you is.” ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I think that I understand this passage, but I do find it pretty hard to follow.

"In 2018, Miller showed support for the #MeToo movement and revealed a personal experience concerning a Hollywood producer and a director, both of whom were left unnamed: "They gave me wine and I was underaged. They were like, 'Hey, want to be in our movie about gay revolution?' And I was like, 'No, you guys are monsters.'" Later that year, they announced that they were in a polyamorous relationship with multiple people, including their bandmates in the rock band Sons of an Illustrious Father."

While I have no particular issue with us using the singular they in a case like this, I think it does require some special attention to be paid to issues of ambiguity. In this paragraph, the quote from Miller uses the pronoun 'they' in the traditional sense in that it refers to two people: a producer and a director. But then we suddenly switch (I believe) to using the singular they to refer to Ezra Miller. For a moment, I thought we were continuing the use of plural they and that the Hollywood producer and the director had announced that they (the two of them) were in a polyamorous relationship, etc.

I thought at first to simply change the final sentence to begin "Later that year, Miller announced..." but it actually still leaves the problem. Did Miller announce that the producer and director were in a polyamorous relationship?

Just to avoid any unwelcome political/moral debate here I'll just note that the same kind of ambiguity can easily occur with traditional use of he/she pronouns - it's just that it's easier to fix in no small part because people are so accustomed to it. As per a comment further up the talk page, about "they is" or "they are" - this relatively new and relatively rare usage gives rise to some grammatical puzzles that require a bit more effort. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to split the paragraph into two, or completely rephrase the problematic sentence: "Miller entered a polyamorous relationship later that year, which also included the actor's bandmates". —VersaceSpace 🌃 16:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ezra Miller burglary

Is the burglary in Vermont notable enough to be put in the article? The Hollywood Reporter and Variety have both released articles about it.60isanumber (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

CNBC and LA Times too, it is significant. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It is among it's preferred pronouns.

"According to a former resident of Miller's farm in Vermont, Miller believes that people criticize their relationship with Iron Eyes because..."

Whose relationship? Miller's? The former resident? The nebulous people? Why is it so difficult to clearly communicate this person's wrongdoing, and why are we obligated to enhance that difficulty?

If the objective is to cause confusion and division, "their" is fine but the objective is to aggregate a compendium of human knowledge... we should at least be writing the article in a way that it's possible to glean knowledge from it.

It's my personal opinion that the human called Miller wants it to be difficult to clearly discuss it's actions and I'm only just now realizing that it also plays directly into it's goals to do it the way that it wants. You cant criticize someone if you cant effectively communicate about them.

Ultimately, I understand that my words will have no impact on the dogma but just be aware that at least 1 person got halfway through reading about grooming allegations before giving up out of frustration with the unintelligible grammar. 172.103.176.90 (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I know what he she they 172.103.176.90 (talk) means.
I know what that [i.e., "that" = what 172.103.176.90 (talk) said] means.
He She They 172.103.176.90 (talk) makes a good point. My preferred lede:
Ezra Matthew Miller (born September 30, 1992) is an American actor. Their[a] whose feature film debut was in Afterschool (2008), which they followed by starring followed by starring roles in the drama We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) and The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012).
And so on.
Please, ladies and gentlemen everyone, be courteous and nimble in your editing without sacrificing grammatical cogency. I'm holding my breath while I await the next wave of preference that pillories any mention of human or person, etc. Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Tokata Iron Eyes

"Her parents also alleged in court documents that Miller had caused bruises on their child's body and that Miller had manipulated their child to believe she is transgender."

I can't find anything asserting that the parents said that Miller had "manipulated their child to believe she is transgender", one source has Tokata's social media account quoted as *refuting* her parents allegations as being transphobic. Additionally, Tokata Iron Eyes wikipedia page suggests her/their father has identified them as nonbinary. So it'd seem these two pages contradict. I think we should either try to source this claim, or remove it, or at the bear minimum place a citation needed after it. 5.68.219.54 (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Either way their request for a permanent protective order was dismissed as detailed in this Vanity Fair article: https://web.archive.org/web/20220918145003/https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/09/inside-ezra-millers-dark-spiral-messiah-delusions?client_service_id=31204&utm_social_type=owned&service_user_id=1.78e+16&client_service_name=vanity%20fair&supported_service_name=instagram_publishing
Any reason this isn't in the article yet? 72.80.0.8 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Singular they

Activists that have hurried to lock the article after introducing grammatical errors should educate themselves with the suggested reading: Singular they. The article currently reads like someone had an epileptic seizure. 2A02:2F0E:D70D:1D00:4870:D60A:77CF:CB59 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

They?

WP:SOAPBOX ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 17:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Are we really going to fucking refer to a single person as "they?" Insanity. 2A03:C5C0:107E:7501:D893:256:8E7C:54CA (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes.Unbh (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand that this is the current cause celebré but I have to say as far as reading the article it makes it entirely confusing. Is there a way to cut back on pronoun usage and use they’s proper name to make for easier reading? 71.190.233.44 (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This would not be an issue to take up here, because current Wikipedia policy is that singular they is acceptable in the same manner as "she" and "he". --Roundish ⋆tc) 21:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Pronoun preference should definitely be respected, but it's not unreasonable to use names instead for clarity. Singular they can be clumsy and unclear.Unbh (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
No, "pronoun preference" should definitely not be respected when it contradicts the requirements of grammar, for the same reason that "height preference" should not determine how one reports the height of a person. Miller is a guy. The pronouns for referring to guys are "he," "him," "his." Using "they" etc. with respect to a singular is excusable, if it is, only when the antecedent is indefinite and could be either a male or a female. Wikipedia should correct its absurd policy. 2601:844:4180:BE70:D82:D944:FE83:5238 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I dislike the use of singular they. But if it's about respect for a person or respect for grammar then respect for the person wins out. Language, including grammar, is an evolving thing, Unbh (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The 'they' thing is so played out. He's a guy, just say 'he'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5205:FC00:1C7C:778:C769:EBBD (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That of course is the accepted point of view. But since in this case "they" refers to a single person, "they *are*" with a plural verb cannot be correct. You should say, "they is." The acceptable contraction is they's, e. g. "They's very concerned with their pronouns." Wastrel Way (talk) Eric
No, singular "they" has been used with "are" for centuries, for example: Who's that shadowy figure in the distance? What are they doing? OrangeCroutons (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
While it may be acceptable it makes for clumsy reading and is confusing. I’m not suggesting get rid of the pronoun preference altogether, merely stating that the article would read better with the use of proper name as opposed to pronoun in many cases to increase readability. 71.190.233.44 (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly this, which is why I returned the last pronoun edits to Miller since using names is obviously clearer in that context. Unbh (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
"singular they is acceptable", there is no such thing as a singular "they". This is insane world. In 1990 none of this existed. It's a social contagion. So many young people are being destroyed. WIKIPEDIA should not encourage this, it's is causing 1000s of suicides. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/14/more-than-half-of-transgender-male-adolescents-attempt-suicide-study-says/ Disciple4lif (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
For the Ezra article they should refer to him as "it". That's singular. Disciple4lif (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. There needs to be some serious discussion about this, because the current "solution" of referring to a single individual in the plural form is less than ideal to put it mildly. Adriano 7 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There are more important things to discuss seriously than the preferred pronouns of minor celebrities and the consequent readability of wikipedia BLPs!
It's 2022, how are we still arguing over singular 'they'? The word has been used as a singular pronoun literally for centuries. Shakespeare had this figured out ya'll. This very website has an article about its use since the 14th century. Language also changes. Look at 'you' and our usage of thy, thine, and thou. This insistence on they being "only plural" is not only grammatically *incorrect* it's just a flimsy excuse to be disrespectful. JuniBug (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Singular they has only been a thing for a long time in certain contexts/usages though. It has expanded recently and, as you say, maybe the language usage surrounding it needs to change too. I think using "they is" etc. should be preferred for singular they. 64.72.57.87 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
You will be pleased to hear that some 99.%+ of all people don't use they/them pronouns, so this will have virtually no impact on your existence. Have a nice day. Cortador (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ezra Miller article. This is not a forum for debating Wikipedia policies that apply to all articles. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

What has this world come to? I literally came to this article to find out if "Ezra" is a boy's or a girls name. NOWHERE in the article is it to be found whether he is a man or a woman and I had to google to find out that he is a man! This is madness. rayukk | talk 01:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Luckily there's an article on the name that will help - Ezra (name). But to summarise for you, it's a name for everyone! Unbh (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It is the form of address they prefer, please respect their choice. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought I was missing something. Who else are they talking about? Please just stop. It makes the article unreadable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.67.88 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

It would be less confusing to simply use the person's name in place of any pronouns, no matter how many times the name is repeated. Arcanicus (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Arcanicus, I agree that some uses of they, which can be more ambiguous than she or he, could be converted to Miller. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 20:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Really confusing read with all the messed up grammar. I realize that transgender people exist, but factually referring to them (BLP violation removed) defeats the intended purpose of an encyclopedia. The man is clearly a man, so why the ambiguous usage of "they"? I understand singular they can be used in certain contexts, but in this one we know the person is a male, so introducing the ambiguity just makes things more confusing to the reader. What is the intention behind this? There could easily be a section explaining (BLP violation removed) instead of the weird playing along with it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.164.223 (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Delusion? Wikipedia talk page does not exist to announce your bigotry. There is no "gender confusion" and you need to grow up. This talk page is to discuss edits, not cry because you are a bigot that doesn't understand reality. If you can't respect choices, such as pronouns, that do not harm you in any way, shape, or form, then keep your mouth shut and move along. Your transphobia and hatred is not needed here, or anywhere else. JuniBug (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't be using the subject's own choice of pronouns. This drivel makes the articles (plural because this is going on all over the place) unreadable, confusing, inaccurate and hard to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.240.179 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I was so confused reading this. I saw "they" in the first paragraphs and stood there for 5 minutes wondering who 'they' were. Cause standard English grammar. This isn't even about transgenderism it's about proper writing lol. I know it exists but I relegate that to Twitter and misc internet fringes. Not (supposedly) respectable encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C200:83A0:506A:A369:67B0:5BFD (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused, if you're worried about grammar, what is the problem here? Singular they has existed for centuries. As stated before, this wiki has an article on that very thing. Please learn about proper English grammar, and its history, before commenting on it. It's obvious you're uneducated on the subject. JuniBug (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate report of Miller' rep declaration about choking incident

As it is written right now on Wikipedia it seems that the rep says that "the strangulation was a spontaneois reaction" while Miller’s rep says that the choking was not a choking nor a strangulation, but “a spontaneous reaction” during which the actor “went at her collarbone.” after having been baited by “a group of teens” about their mixed martial arts skills. Quote from Variety article: Miller’s rep says the actor was baited by “a group of teens” about their mixed martial arts skills. She claims the choking was not a choking but “a spontaneous reaction” during which the actor “went at her collarbone.” Akatty (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This needs to be fixed, agreed 72.80.0.8 (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

change pronouns from they/them/their to he/him/his as ezra miller is an adult male so those are the correct pronouns 94.175.156.79 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see MOS:GENDERID Cannolis (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: See Gender neutral language and Singular they. Your lack of familiarity with these issues does not require changes to the subject's pronouns. General Ization Talk 19:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronoms

Mixing conventional pronouns with individually chosen pronouns adds to the confusion surrounding English language use. Is what is important is communicating preference, why not use "he (N)" to denote the person who considered their gender neutral. Then at least we can also communicate the singular without confusion. 2806:102E:3:4385:5C66:963B:3D30:ED54 (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a policy question, not for this page. As far as this page is concerned, we may usefully seek to reduce the ambiguity associated with using they’s preferred pronoun. That would be far more productive than sterile debate here. Good wishes to all, Springnuts (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

The last section in controversies has a broken source link, the vanity fair reference. The current URL goes to a 405. Here is the correct URL

https://web.archive.org/web/20220922021200/https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/09/inside-ezra-millers-dark-spiral-messiah-delusions

It’s the first capture that actually works. 107.218.153.45 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Lightoil (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wanted fugitive?

Sorry, but wasn't Ezra Miller wanted by the police after eloping with Tokata Iron Eyes? Her parents put out a report that Miller had groomed, brainwashed and abducted her after which I've read elsewhere the police asked Miller to turn himself in and in response he left a taunt for them on his Instagram page saying "You can't find me, I'm in another universe." Instagram have subsequently deleted his account but if Miller was a fugitive from justice but was then identified as living in Vermont then why has he only just now been arrested after his act of burglary? --The Moderationater (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Ezra Miller has never been wanted by the police, it was a lie made up on social media. They have never had a relationship with Tokata Iron Eyes, who is gay, and certainly never eloped with her.
The lie about Ezra taunting police on Instagram comes from a single blogger, it has no truth to it. Ezra shared memes from their girlfriend at the time, and they were aimed at friends on Instagram who had sold Miller out to the press with libellous stories. 92.19.43.245 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction

The intro regarding their controversies seems a little messy. Not sure we need the bit about them identifying as Jesus, Satan etc as this is alleged at the current time. Could we also clean up the sentence structure of the controversy section? It states 2022, but Miller has caused issues since 2020 plus the list seems unnecessarily long and convoluted, mixing up their actual arrests (burglary, disorderly conduct) with allegations (kidnapping, grooming). I think all is important but just needs cleaning up Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bottomlivefan95: The stuff about Jesus, the Messiah and the devil is extremely strange and notable. behavior and therefore deserves mention in the opening. It doesn't matter if it's from one article, it's from one article that's been widely quoted by many other important and reputable news sources. Same for the grooming controversies. Our job is not to save Miller's reputation. Think about it: most of the attention Miller has received for some time has been about child grooming and now Messianic stuff. We need to mention this in the opener.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

Hi there, thanks for your response!

Please don’t think I am trying to save Miller’s reputation. That is certainly not my intent! I would argue the attention (at least from mainstream media and the general public) have been for Miller’s violent behaviour and the kidnapping controversy a few months ago. Everything else is covered in the controversy section. I am definitely open to discussion on the inclusion of the allegations of child grooming but I think the messianic identification can stay in the controversy section for a while, unless wording can be changed to ‘Miller has faced allegations of grooming and cult-like behaviour’? How does that sound? That way it’s not too wordy and everything is included? Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no kidnapping controversy, it was literally made up on social media and was never in any allegations or reported to any law. 92.19.43.245 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bottomlivefan95: I think "cult-like behavior" does not portray the strangeness of the situation. I would much prefer we mention that Miller is claiming to be Jesus, the devil, and the next Messiah.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS

The strangeness of the situation isn’t necessary for the opening lines of the article and I do not believe the allegations of them identifying as Jesus, The Devil and The messiah is relevant enough for the opening paragraph. This is merely a factual article on Miller and the introduction is meant to give a clear and concise run through of their relevance in their field and to culture as a whole. Hope this makes sense. I suggest we wait a couple of days to see if any other contributor wishes to have an input and if not, we can pass this on to a moderator. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bottomlivefan95: I disagree with your opinion but I believe you are handling this matter in a mature and fair manner.MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS
MagicatthemovieS, I think you're inadvertently signing your comments with five tildes instead of four. That means that no timestamp is added, which breaks some things. To sign, simply end your comment with this: ~~~~. Thank you! Madeline (part of me) 17:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
There is actually not much factual in this article at all, it is a rehash of lies sold to gosdip media by Lauren Turner (Ezra’s lying stalker,) Chase Iron Eyes - who used these lies for an extortion scam on WBD, and Cazanova Turner, the Hawaiian ex of Ezra’s then girlfriend. He was trying to force the State to take her children, so not only did he, a domestic abuser, lie to rolling stone etc, he lied to police and the CPS. 92.19.43.245 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Magicatthemovies, I really appreciate that. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the many charges and concerns about Miller's behaviour, going on for years now, are notable enough for the lede. I don't think the paragraph about grooming and the wild claims he's making about himself should have been removed from the lede. Unless there are more substantial arguments against it, I am going to put it back. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi CorbieVreccan, thanks for your input. We were discussing the matter and trying to avoid an ‘edit war’ so it would have been more appreciated if you hadn’t gone straight to editing the article. Also, Miller didn’t claim after the apology to be Jesus, The Devil and the Messiah - this was from an article detailing the events leading up to his statement and isn’t a direct quote from Miller. As I have stated before, I don’t believe this is relevant enough for the lede so I will remove it. However, if you wish to re-add - I would suggest rewording it so it correctly follows the timeline of the events which unfolded. I once again do suggest that this bit be changed to cult-like behaviour as this will encompass all factors: Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bottomlivefan95: you are the one edit warring with multiple people. You don't have consensus for reverting everyone else here. I suggest you stop with the reverts. If you think there's a problem I missed with the timeline, adjust the timeline, don't cut the content. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I have restored a pre-revert-war version. I strongly suggest you leave it alone until and unless a different consensus emerges. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi CorbieVreccan,

There is no need to be rude. I was not ‘edit warring with multiple people’, I was having a discussion on both this page and their talk page on this article’s introduction - as well as asking for input from others. I do not appreciate being treated as if I had broken rules. If I had been outvoted, I would have very happily stood down and I frequently offered suggestions on a middle ground. Your stern tone is unneeded and unnecessary. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @CorbieVreccan,

There is no need to be rude. I was not ‘edit warring with multiple people’, I was having a discussion on both this page and their talk page on this article’s introduction - as well as asking for input from others. I do not appreciate being treated as if I had broken rules. If I had been outvoted, I would have very happily stood down and I frequently offered suggestions on a middle ground. Your stern tone is unneeded and unnecessary. Bottomlivefan95 (talk) 22:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Let's all try to stay civilMagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Making Category:People acquitted of assault

Category:People acquitted of assault 109.247.136.212 (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


Using queer when queer isn't wanted

Miller didn't "come out as queer" if Miller doesn't use the word "queer." It plainly states this in the article, so don't say Miller did something that Miller didn't do. Surprisingly, not everyone wants to jump on the "let's call it queer now" bus. 2603:6080:EF05:973B:D83B:A713:7301:3C68 (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

After looking at the cited articles in that section, I added a clarification. Funcrunch (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree: queer can mean two things--it can mean an adherence to queer theory (an offshoot of a critical theory), or it can mean gay but not part of queer theory ideology. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Grammar issues in introduction

There are grammatical issues with the sentences "Since 2022, Miller has been committed disorderly conduct, assault, and burglary, resulting in multiple widely publicized arrests and citations. They have also been groomed minors."

To fix the grammar of this section, it should be amended to "Since 2022, Miller has committed disorderly conduct, assault, and burglary, resulting in multiple widely publicized arrests and citations. They have also groomed minors."

However, the final sentence about Miller's grooming allegations is too short: consider whether this is relevant enough to be mentioned in the introduction, and whether it should be presented as a plain fact when no convictions have been made. 192.41.114.225 (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ezra should be listed primarily as an actor and musician.

Ezra should be listed primarily as an actor and musician. The criminal is already later, in the article. The article is unprofessional, I don’t understand who was allowed to write it. 37.229.81.139 (talk) 10:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the criminal should be regarded as such. 2603:6010:C501:2C00:F524:1938:2E2B:E684 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Miller is already described as an actor and musician. If you are referring to the mention of Miller's legal issues in the third paragraph of the lead, the purpose of the lead section is to summarize the information in the body of the article. That summary should include the recent accusations of criminal activity as they are reliably sourced and discussed in the body of the article. General Ization Talk 03:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

They, them run amok

From the Personal life section: "In 2010, Miller dated Zoë Kravitz while they ["they" = Miller and Kravitz, or just Kravitz? or just Miller?] were filming Beware the Gonzo. Miller became engaged to Erin, a woman they ["they" = Miller and Kravitz, or just Miller?] began dating in 2016, but called it off after a spiritual adviser told them ["them" = Miller and Kravitz, or just Miller? or just Erin? or Miller and Erin?] that she was a "parasite". Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely correct--using they/them for this man is just postmodern insanity. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
In places where using "they" could be confusing, the sentence should be reworded to avoid using pronouns in a confusing way. "Miller dated Zoë Kravitz while Miller was filming..." Rreagan007 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed the one bit of ambiguity identified here (the bit about filming Beware the Gonzo, which appears to apply to both). Pronoun ambiguity isn't specific to they/them pronouns; the same thing can exist in any use of pronouns (e.g. "Joe and Greg went back to get his coat"). The remaining examples are clearly not ambiguous and the people complaining about it should drop the stick. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Request grammar

In section Career, the sentence is "They are set to play the character in the standalone film The Flash, which was released in 2023." say "set to play" and "was released" both. This is conflict of tense grammar. Sentence should be "They are set to play... which is scheduled for release in 2023" (or something similar), or should be "They were chosen to play... which was released in 2023" (or something similar). Thank you. Jim Basketballhoop (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Tokata and Ezra’s relationship

Why is Tokata stated to be Ezra’s partner? She is a lesbian so not only is it disrespectful, she has never dated Ezra. This misinformation needs removing, as a matter of urgency, given that Ezra is under constant harassment and death threats over this lie. There are already too many false allegations in this article, but that is one of the worst. 92.7.100.1 (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Also the fact that this article is categorized under "List of solved missing person cases" - Tokata Iron Eyes was never "missing". Someone isn't "missing" just because their overbearing parents claim so to tabloids and social media. There was never a missing persons report for Tokata Iron Eyes. 72.80.0.8 (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Actor

why is Ezra Miller an actor when they don't define as male?

Because they act...Unbh (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
In the future, could we just remove anything along these lines? --Roundish ⋆tc) 15:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Actor is a term that can refer to any gender. Google and learn the term before spouting nonsense Justfreddy93 (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. Ztoddw (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Messianic claims in lead

Discuss rather than going back and forth in the editing. It's sourced and notable. It's not "gossip". I think it should be there. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@MikeAllen: Two of us have now reverted you. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean you’re an administrator so I’m sure you know what is best for this article. With they said I’m taking it off my watchlist, it’s become too problematic for me. Thanks and happy editing! Mike Allen 20:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan per WP:STATUSQUO you need to gain WP:CONSENSUS to include this in the lead. If not, the article should remain at the last stable version. And two of us have reverted you too. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
CorbieVreccan I say add the Jesus stuff. It's necessary for the public to understand the actor's mental state and the source is good.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
It definitely belongs in the article body, but is UNDUE for the lead. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I went to look for the last stable version concerning this material and I'm not sure we have one. It was in the lead for a while, ever since the interviews came out. But there has been some blanking and back and forth for a significant part of that time. I think we've had it in the lead for more of the time, but I'm not certain. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 16:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Well this is a BLP so absent consensus it should be kept out per WP:BLPRESTORE. Anyway, is this somehow particularly significant to Miller's biography as a whole? From what I can tell, the most notable parts of their public life seem to be their acting and their legal trouble, while the messianic claims seem rather tangential. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems to be a big part of Miller's personal life. Beyond that, it's really notable for anyone to think that way. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
What about incorporating a more concise version of it in the current sentences? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Where would you put that? Together with the criminal allegations? That would inevitably imply conclusions we don't have sources for. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Separate paragraphMagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
I was responding to CorbieVreccan's suggestion it should be incorporated into an existing sentence. And this definitely isn't defining enough for it's own paragraph in the lead. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If I say I'm Jesus, that's defining. If I say I'm the devil, that's defining. Miller has said both according to reliable sources. Also, Let's add a category at the bottom of the page about Miller claiming to be the messiah.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
Agree. It's defining and sourced. The version we had of it is fine. I don't prefer that we incorporate it into a longer sentence; I was just brainstorming options. (Here are some articles in the cats for comparison, in case that helps anyone: Category:Self-declared messiahs. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 17:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
As Miller is Jewish, I think Category:Jewish messiah claimants may be appropriate.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
I took a semirandom sampling of that category. Most of the people there are, as expected, religious leaders or the like for whom messianic claims are obviously relevant. The only ones I encountered that weren't, were GG Allin and Doc Corbin Dart. Neither of these actually mention such claims in the body at all. For this article, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The lead currently summarizes Miller's career and controversies, which are major parts of the article. The Jesus stuff is just a single sentence. We do have a larger-than-average "Personal life" section, which I suppose we could try to summarize in the lead somehow, though given that that is a section with a lot of personal details that don't fit elsewhere, a proper summary may be hard. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
There is more than a single sentence about the Jesus stuff, there's references to Miller wanting to be a messiah to Native Americans. Also, the article says Miller has all these religious delusions about demons and Freemasons and the apocalypse and a Native American spider goddess. It would appear to me that religion/spirituality is a big, relevant-to-mention part of their life! You don't need to be a religious leader for your spirituality to be relevant!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS
It is clear from multiple sources that Miller sees themself as a religious leader. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Miller sees itself as a religious leader. Therefore Miller is deranged as well as grammatically challenged. 86.139.218.251 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I still don't think there is enough discussion of this in the body to justify having it in the lead. @Wasabi OS, Krimuk2.0, and MikeAllen: You have all been involved in this dispute. Is there anything you'd like to add to this discussion? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it should be added to the lead, as was mentioned it adds undue weight and clogs the lead. It's difficult to come to a conclusion, but I initially removed it because it looked like vandalism. To me, it (or maybe just the way it's written) doesn't really reflect Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. Wasabi OS (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
We can write it in such a way that it sounds encyclopedic to you. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it should be in the lead. It is only a passing mention in the Relationship with Tokata Iron Eyes section. Mike Allen 23:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It's been about a year since those statements came out. Do we know if there have been any more recent interviews or coverage that might mention this? They released the movie. Did they just keep him away from the press with the opening? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 18:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Pronouns make it confusing

We use singular they per MOS:GID. Trying to overturn that here is useless and unconstructive. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why does it say they or thier when it should be he or she? It makes the reading of information confusing to the reader. Once you do figure it out the context of the information. It sounds like the web page has labeled this person as schizophrenic, or that the reader is? 72.85.202.186 (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Please read the first note in the article and MOS:NB. Nthep (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah OK but it's still extremely confusing. THEY and THEIR are not pronouns and they never will be. THEY refers to groups or sets. THEIR implies contextual ownership. Words matter. Words actually mean things. Language matters. Language [and grammar, by extension] is vastly more important than the passing trends or phases of popular culture; especially when those trends and phases result in an intense degree of over-correction. Ezra Miller is a man who presents as male in every single possible facet of social and visual determination. He's a man who should be referred to as him. Clearly it's not happening today, but at some point we have to stop kowtowing to this very vocal but very small minority of people who militantly demand the rest of us adopt this utter bastardization of the English lexicon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C42:7900:2F:14:41D2:7237:42D5 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No, not 'we use' use, but 'you use'. If you wish to put your ignorance of grammar on public display and live by a belief that corectness is a matter of the latest voting fashion, that's up to you. If Wikipedia does so, it is to its detriment and is a reason for it not to be taken seriously. Perhaps you would support a public vote on whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5.3 is to be taken as 'correct'?
"They" and "Their" are pronouns. Check literally any dictionary. Stormx2 (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
It was obvious to me that the person meant that THEY and THEIR are not singular pronouns. For the most part that is correct, although I recognize there are rare cases in which these pronouns may be used to refer to a singular person, in the case that the person's gender is unknown; but that is not completely relevant to the discussion here, because the common general usage of these pronouns is plural. The point, of course, is that the article is very confusing when it uses the "singular they" pronoun to refer to a self-identified non-binary individual. Ztoddw (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
lol @ "THEY and THEIR are not pronouns". -sche (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Definition of "they" on Google: "used to refer to a person whose gender or sexual identity does not correspond to the traditional binary opposition of male and female". Sorry, you can believe what you'd like but English prevails. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The use of they and their pronouns do indeed make the article unclear. This idea of indivudals choosing their own pronouns is ideological and related to the insanity of parts of postmodernism (control of language ideas, and power)--in a sane society pronouns are chosen by others as anaphors for a previous sentence in which the person was named. The pronouns are a communication between the writer (or speaker) and the reader--and should be understood by both. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
You are exactly right. No one has given a counter argument. If there is no rational counter argument, then I would expect Wikipedia admins or moderators to re-evaluate their policy regarding the use of the "singular they" pronoun, and re-evaluate it's usage in this article and others. Is there a way to bring it to their attention? Does the policy they refer to have a talk page that this needs to be addressed on? It seems that for good or bad, people believe that the official Wikipedia policies should override any other common-sense arguments. I wonder if there is anyone left on the Wikipedia admin and moderator teams who thinks the way we do about this issue. Ztoddw (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
"A Hawaii couple gained a temporary restraining order against Miller on March 31, 2022 after Miller allegedly barged into their bedroom and threatened them, hours after they were released from their arrest for an altercation at a karaoke bar in Hilo." -> I initially read this as the Hawaii couple having just been released from arrest. Only after multiple rereads and finding the karaoke incident higher up in the article (the timeline is quite confused) I was able to ascertain that the second half of the sentence was referring to Ezra. Something like "A Hawaii couple gained a temporary restraining order against Miller on March 31, 2022 after Miller allegedly barged into their bedroom and threatened them, hours after Ezra was released from their arrest for an altercation at a karaoke bar in Hilo." would have made it clearer, but it serves as an example how the whole they/their thing makes it much harder to write about them cogently. 109.228.176.49 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Google doesn't have the prerogative to redefine words in the English language. Especially words as foundational and incredibly common as pronouns. Ztoddw (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This article contains several prime examples where using "they" instead of "he" or "she" makes the meaning perfectly ambiguous. For example, when Miller had an altercation with other customers at a bar, "Miller later claimed that they became enraged after being 'accosted by a Nazi'" could mean that either Miller or the customers became enraged. One would already have to know the story independent of this article in order to know the true meaning... which is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmurrian (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If you see a sentence that is ambiguous due to they/them pronouns, reword it. If you want to revisit the wiki-wide consensus to use they/them pronouns for those who request it, see WT:MOSBIO. Everything else here is off-topic. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why are we bowing down to non biological nonsense. This, that, they, them, cays, carrots, monkeys, frogs.... the world is going mad and if this is the direction Wikipedia is going in by changing male and females to whatever they want to be called is a backwards step in humanity amd Wikipedia needs to either close down or revert all these nonsense claims of non binary nonsense back to male and female. There is no such thing as anything other than a man or a woman. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-edits2022 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"the world is going mad and if this is the direction Wikipedia is going in by changing male and females to whatever they want to be called is a backwards step in humanity"
I identify as a frog crossed with a unicorn.
My personal pronouns are banker, shop, and ztcruvdtnkn. Please respect them.
Wikipedia is increasingly a source of amusement. Unlike real encyclopaedias it does not have quality control over content and does not have actual editors, although it has many entities that identify as editors (and frogs, and unicorns).
I identify Ezra as a anyxhydvhhf, and I am as entitled as anyone to identify him/her/it/frog/unicorn as a anyxhydvhhf.
Respect all entities!
Including all those I know think it's good entertainment. 86.139.218.251 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I read
"a woman they began dating in 2016,"
and I was wondering if that was with cravitz which was at the beginning of the sentence.
I would be nice if grammatically correct sentence was encouraged. Shmget (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, we work by consensus. We also work on scope. As in, something that may affect many articles (like gender), may have its consensus decided on another article that will relate how we treat many articles. That could be on the article for Gender identity, or in this case, in the Manual of Style, because it's going to affect practically every single article that mentions a person.
So however you feel about gender identity, that would be the place to discuss it, because changing it would affect more than just Ezra Miller's article. But before you do, check to see if it has been discussed before (it has), and see if you have anything new to add to that conversation (If I may suggest, that means more than just "It's not real"). If, and only if the general consensus is to change how we handle such things, only then would we look at updating individual articles. El Dubs (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

"Trying to overturn that here is useless and unconstructive" from, above: Where does the absolute authority to designate things as 'unchanging from now on' comes from ? If that rule managed to get shoved down our throats, it can certainly be reversed Shmget (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

"a group of teenagers" taunting Miller over their mixed martial arts skills," Whose skill is this about ? the teenagers ? Shmget (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It must be the teenagers' skills (plural), otherwise it would use the pronoun, 'his' (masculine, singular). 2A00:23EE:14F0:15B2:F59A:96AE:22BB:7804 (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Dumbest Wikipedia entry I have ever read, and I have read thousands.

This post is way below Wikipedia standards. I have been a huge (yuge) fan of Wikipedia. I have never issued a formal complaint or critique, but this one is a worthy first timer. This entry is way too wordy, disjointed, gossipy, and difficult to read due to the excessive use of pronouns starting sentences that could (with sound editing) be omitted or joined together. I respect the use of they/them, but it's not possible to clean up this mess if the entry is locked. MarcSheerin (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Some of the stuff here is borderline libel with how many speculative/hearsay-filled articles it cites. Just as an example, "Law enforcement were initially unable to locate Miller to serve them with the order." - the article this cites is an interview from LA Times and contains absolutely zero statements from anyone in law enforcement stating Miller was even being searched for. The claim of this came from the accuser himself Chase Iron Eyes. 72.80.0.8 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What garbage

Complete garbage. Pronouns are just stupid for identifying a singular person. Reading this should make anyone realize this nonsense. 172.115.107.152 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree! If he want to be they let him but here, where many nations read barely English are confused by his pronouncements. I to not believe Wikipedia is obligated to respect his decision. Maybe in USA but Wikipedia is for whole world. Miloradovan (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Please read MOS:GENDERID and then read Singular they. It is part of the Manual of Style, and is a consensus guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand this. English is not my maternal language and frankly I do not have time to read this. I am not obligated to call him they. Why has Wikipedia gone woke? Persons who think of them selves as non-binary should need to have two pages. Miloradovan (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Miloradovan, you are not obligated to understand anything and you are always free to either learn new things or ignore what you do not yet understand. If you do not have the time to read what you have been invited to read, then you always have the option to sat nothing, as opposed to saying something uninformed. But when you continue to comment from ignorance of 2023 English language usage and the English language Wikipedia's Manual of Style, then please tell us why any other Wikipedia editor should pay attention to what you have to say about this matter? A basic principle of human decency is to refer to people as they wish to be described. Decent people do not use pejoratives or ethnic slurs or use misgendering language. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I am C3PO please call me like that. Miloradovan (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
So a troll? Mike Allen 19:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Trolls don't exist. We are not in a fairy tale. I am Roman Catholic Christian. Miloradovan (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:DENY, my friend. Couruu (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
You are indeed not obligated to call anyone they. You are also not obligated to edit Wikipedia. Whether or not you agree with the concept of gender identity, wikipedia works based on consensus, not each person's individual belief system. The article would be even more confusing if we had some people like yourself using traditional pronouns, and other people using preferred pronouns. This is why consensus is important, so that we are consistent.
So even if you disagree with it, the consensus is that we use preferred pronouns. Please feel free to try and get the consensus changed over at MOS:ID, but in the meantime, wikipedia works best when we all respect consensus. El Dubs (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
"wikipedia works best when we all respect consensus." sure my man, remember epic rachel marsden saga? consensus then was to expose everything and all about the whole affair. only that's not what happened, now did it? no admin or any of the power players gave a fuck about consensus, the name of the game was to cover up the whole fiasco. it's the same with this pronoun debate, so get off your high horse about the importance of consensus

Changes to this article

)Remove all references to Tokata Iron Eyes and Ezra being in a relationship. As per Variety, Business Insider and Rolling Stone already cited here, Tokata and Ezra have denied a relationship, as has Ezra’s lawyer. Rosie d’Ercole is verified as Ezra’s partner.

) A new section needs to be added. Ezra’s stalker (Redacted)

)Shannon Guin was exposed as a fraud in court, for lying about Ezra Miller and falsely obtaining a restraining order. Multiple witnesses debunked her claims, and her own texts about Ezra, to Ezra’s friends, further exposed the scam. There was no grooming or harm to her child. https://www.vulture.com/2023/07/ezra-miller-says-they-were-unjustly-and-directly-targeted.html

)Tokata Iron Eyes defeated both her parents conservatorship bid and the spurious claims of grooming in the Dakota Tribal Court. The court closed public records on this case. Greencatyuna (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Faults with this article

It’s clear to me that the people editing the article have no communication or understanding with/of the people they are naming. The article is just a compilation of debunked and unverified, libellous articles from unaccredited celebrity gossip media. There’s no follow up to these articles, such as the grooming lie. Yes, Chase Iron Eyes made a vague claim but only in tabloids and via his wife’s twitter account, never to any credible authority, and this article omits the fact that the lie about grooming was not organic to the Iron Eyes. So we need a whole new section. Ezra Miller’s stalkers. Ezra has a number of active stalkers, the most harmful and prolific being (Redacted)

So, my issue with this article, is that this context and full background is completely missing. All this article shows is the POV of proven frauds. I don’t know how to provide sources, because this is insider knowledge, it’s not conveniently published by Rolling Stone, who also aided the Iron Eyes in their scam with a catfishing email, ‘trashtheflash’ to get dirt on Ezra for use in libellous and unverified articles by the accused racist, Cheyenne Roundtree. This email scam was tested by a number of YouTube influencers and supporters of Ezra, with fake stories, to prove Rolling Stone does not verify claims. Greencatyuna (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You will need to provide sourcing, because the rather large chunk of text I just redacted is a lot of problematic BLP-violating content. Same with the section below (and no, interviews on YouTube are not reliable). Primefac (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok but if interviews on YouTube are not reliable despite it being the actual direct and court verified source, why is Rolling Stone claiming ‘unarmed sources say…’ followed by blatantly untrue things about Ezra Miller credible? Greencatyuna (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Unverified claims

Why is this article still full of errors, fallacies, and unsubstantiated/debunked claims? This section: Miller's off-screen life has been marred with multiple controversies and legal issues. Since 2022, they have been accused of committing assault, burglary, disorderly conduct, harassment, and grooming of minors, resulting in multiple widely publicized arrests, citations, and restraining orders.

The grooming accusation was related to an 18 year old. Was refuted by credible witnesses, refuted by both the “victim” and of course the accused, was defeated in the Dakota Tribal Court after no evidence was found, and was never reported to any federal or local authorities such as a police force. Miller took out a restraining order in 2018 in Marion County which proves the grooming claim was made up. So why is this not included in this section? I propose cutting out ALL tabloid junk, as it’s misinformation at best, and at its worse causes the actual victim, Ezra Miller, to receive death threats and suffer mental health issues and loss of earnings.

Why is nobody taking this seriously? Because of deliberate and malicious misinformation such as included here, Ezra Miller was being threatened and abused as recently as this week. So should Wikipedia just be sued? Greencatyuna (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Greencatyuna, writing So should Wikipedia just be sued? is counterproductive. That type of statement makes me not want to work on improving the article, since I disclose my real name and identity. It's intimidating. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:No legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
You should make specific formal edit requests identifying the specific sources that you believe to be unreliable, and proposing specific changes in wording. Keep each request small and easy for other editors to understand and act on. You can also propose better sources to be used in the article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

Add Next Magazine (New York City) in 45 reference! 2804:7F2:6A7:FE2A:8825:D5B7:33E3:162C (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — HTGS (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ezra_Miller/Archive_1&oldid=1218766903"