Talk:Vi Hart

Vi Hart's videos made private on youtube

I was browsing for a video that I had seen years ago and it seems like she only has one public video at the moment. When did the rest of her videos go private? 66.18.171.26 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that, Hart had just posted a new video in late October (that's pretty recent for this channel). I am not sure when they went private, but it had to be since then. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

the videos are private, aye. you can see whenabouts it happened by looking at the latest comments on "on gender". it was very recently, i think it was on the 7th or 8th of february. they seem to be trying to generate more attention for "on gender" in response to anti-trans policies being made in her home country of the usa right now, but if you need to see the videos most of them are on her vimeo. 86.29.121.40 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add the privating of all Vihart's videos to the introduction of this article? I am not sure if it is a significant enough event. Duskdishwasher (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If there is reliable sourcing for that event then it could be added to the page, otherwise it shouldn't be included. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm as intrigued as anybody else but I'm sure they have their reasons and, unless Reliable Sources have written about it, we can't include it. For all we know this might simply reflect internal politics at Microsoft and have nothing to do with anything else at all. Whatever it is, we don't want to say anything that might stir up trouble for Hart. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There is actually a post from Vihart's Patreon page explaining the reasons why Vihart has privated every video of theirs except On Gender, but I do not know if that is a reliable source. Duskdishwasher (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.patreon.com/posts/3-14-15-medium-124329856?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_fan&utm_content=web_share Duskdishwasher (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

this has a paywall, could someone perhaps describe the contents? that would be amazing Abortthieu (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Elevr.com broken links

Links to elevr.com are broken. I don't know how to fix this 98.35.188.212 (talk) 05:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

If an archive.org or archive.today of the particular page you're looking for exists, you can add those. 1101 (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. 1101 (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Twelve Tones

Is online and viewable at https://vimeo.com/147902572 Tim Bray (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Pronoun usage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My understanding regarding the usage of "They" vs. "She" is that MOS:IDENTITY indicates to use the pronoun most used by reliable sources *unless* MOS:IDINFO applies, and that MOS:IDINFO only applies when the living person has stated they wish to be referred to by a specific pronoun. Is that not the case? With regard to the article, Vi has directly stated that she does not care about pronoun usage, meaning that if my understanding is correct, IDINFO does not apply and we fall back to MOS:IDENTITY. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 09:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I see no reason to change it. I see no reason to open a can of worms over this. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The comment here is plagiarizing a four-year-old comment from a discussion that ended in a clear consensus not to make the change. I would have simply removed UI25's edit had you not responded to it, instead I am closing this as only the barest step above trolling. --JBL (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Settling the "Pronoun usage" question once and for all, the right way

This discussion seems to have gotten off to a couple of bad starts. I hold the following are true:

RSes

• Most reliable sources use she/her pronouns for Vi Hart. In fact I don't think we cite a single one that uses they/them pronouns. I don't think Vi Hart has ever even used (reflexive) they/them pronouns anywhere.

• I stress that I did not look very hard at all, because I have other things to do (like write this big comment) and am willing to be surprised here.
• Remark: this article using "they" is bound to be a risk for citogenesis, especially given how dutiful wikipedia typically is at following the express desires of its subjects.

Previous discussions

• In the previous discussion of this topic started by User:Jcmcc450 (check the archive), I don't believe there was a strong consensus. The main reason offered was never discussed.
• In the User:Uchiha Itachi 25 discussion above (which was actually another comment on the now-archived previous discussion, before an edit war mangled everything), no consensus was really reached because the conversation was aborted.
• There is a "Sigh" topic in the archive which presents some additional reasons bearing on this topic. I won't discuss that any further, though.

What does MOS say?

• The previous discussion ("Pronoun usage", in archive 1) began at 3AM 12 July 2021 (UTC), which means that the following MOS was in force: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1032636303. I believe in relevant details this MOS guidance is still basically the same today.
• Similar to the current MOS, that MOS states This primary page is supported by further detail pages, which are cross-referenced here and listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Contents. If any contradiction arises, this page has precedence. This means we do not need to confront subpages if this main page settles the question.
• Similar to the current MOS, this MOS states Specific guidelines apply to any person whose gender might be questioned, and any living transgender or non-binary person. In summary: • Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources.
• This verbiage seems to have been added in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&diff=prev&oldid=1015759549

• I do not see how there could possibly have been consensus to add this to MOS,

• I am not sure:

• if "in summary" somehow abrogates the authority of the main MOS page (unlikely)
• if being "gender agnostic" makes you:

• "non-binary" (probably not)
• "transgender" (almost certainly not)
• "any person whose gender might be questioned" (this seems trivially true because it is physically possible to question anyone's gender; however it is also true that we are discussing (questioning?) Hart's gender right now)

• if a pronoun is a "gendered word", or if "gendered word" is supposed to mean something like "seamstress" (this was listed explicitly in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity at the time the MOS summary was written, but now is not, leaving the question on this fine point of interpretation completely unaddressed in both places)

But, taking my most likely inferences for all of those changes, I think the consequent applies: Use gendered words [my inference: incl pronouns] only if they reflect the person [my inference: incl Hart]'s latest self-identification as reported in recent sources.

• While I think it's perfectly cromulent to be "gender agnostic" and referred to by she/her pronouns, I think from the Vi Hart tweet currently cited on the page Fun fact: I consider myself gender agnostic. "Person," not "Woman," please[...] I think it's... most likely? That Vi Hart's latest self-identification wouldn't be reflected by she/her pronouns. Although of course there are plenty of genderqueer people who do feel that their self-identification is adequately reflected by she/her pronouns. So, I don't really know.

• NB: Hart's statement here seems self-contradictory because agnosticism means that one doesn't come to a decision about something or know about it, not that... one has decided that other people can't make a conclusion about it. Perhaps from this we should conclude that "gender agnosticism" actually entails further commitments that bear upon this decision?

The final piece of evidence that resolves everything

• I have watched the entirety of the other thing we cite on the matter, https://vimeo.com/147402002, and it is very short thus you also can.
• In the video, Hart says (1:48) "I don't identify as being agender or bigender or any other number of genderqueer identities either. I simply don't identify".
• In this video, shortly after this segment, in a part I'm not transcribing verbatim, Hart also claims not to mind when other people use gendered language to describe... her, which contradicts the tweet. This video is from 2015 which is after the 2014 tweet. The video is thus the latest info we have and indicates a reversal from the previous position. This new position is coherent but would be inconsistent with the previous position. See also It all seems like a linguistic game to me. I could jump in and start playing, but it wouldn't seem right.
• As far as I know, this is the final information we have on the matter.

From this I conclude:

The current MOS guideline is shaky. It should be removed, and something like the guideline User:Jcmcc450 thought was the effective guideline should be put in place instead, along the lines of: MOS:IDENTITY clearly states that we use the pronoun most used by Reliable Sources *unless* MOS:IDINFO applies. MOS:IDINFO only applies when the Living Person has stated they wish to be referred to by a specific pronoun. In this case, the individual has directly stated that they do not care about pronoun usage, therefore, IDINFO does not apply and we fall back to MOS:IDENTITY. If I had a blank check I might advocate for a different policy altogether, but I think this new one most fits with other Wikipedia consensi. It is possible that the current guideline is trying to say this, and just needs to be copy-edited to stop failing to say it.

Vi Hart's most recent statement on the subject is "I don't identify as being agender or bigender or any other number of genderqueer identities either. I simply don't identify". This means we explicitly have no self-identification as reported in recent sources. (Not just "no recent sources have indicated self-identification", but "recent sources have indicated explicitly no self-identification". A literal interpretation of the MOS (Use gendered words only if they reflect the person's latest self-identification as reported in recent sources.) would seem to indicate that this means we cannot use any pronouns to refer to Hart. This would be silly, however; we should simply do what we do for the millions of other people who have no self-identification as reported in recent sources: default to what RSes say. (Or perhaps "explicitly no self-identification" is sufficiently "reflected" by "whatever RSes say", in some way?) Furthermore, it would be misleading to use they/them pronouns on this page as this would imply to the reader that Hart is "agender or bigender or any other number of genderqueer identities" or uses they/them pronouns.

Note that I only discuss the strange language of MOS because this is what the previous two editors who brought this up objected on the grounds of. I think the previous paragraph resolves the issue, and we can basically ignore MOS as not applying to this case. Dingolover6969 (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you please briefly state your specific question or suggestion for the article? – OdinintheNorth (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Use she/her because it is used by reliable sources and our subject, in the most recent info on the matter, has indicated explicitly no self-identification that would contradict this, nor any objection to using gendered language to describe her; therefore it's the right thing to do in the spirit of MOS. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

So your contention is that people who wish to avoid gendered terminology must keep saying that at regular intervals so that their most recent communication must always be about the pronouns they wish to avoid, if they want that self-identification to stick? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia policy though. A person's pronouns are not set by reliable sources, but by how they identify. I would also point you to a ref in the article itself (source #3) that shows Hart expressing a preference for avoiding gendered language where possible. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SUCCINCT. This is too verbose to be a useful talk page contribution. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Well then, see my brief statement above, and I'm sure we can all have fun rehashing OP along the way as we rediscover all the details one might want to bring up as relevant 🙂 Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Since I knew I wouldn't be able to return to the topic for a while, I was hoping that the one comprehensive burst would begin a conversation with all the relevant points in my absence; but alas, it did not. Dingolover6969 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Comment After discussions at talk:Sophie (musician), gender pronoun omission or the use of one/one's pronoun set was vetoed by Wikipedia community, however you can notice it’s still used in some parts of pages such as Quentin Crisp. Judith Butler had to publicly come out with they/them pronoun set after coming out as non-binary, because until then the article used she/her pronoun set. Oh and agnostic in this sense means non-believer, interpreting gender as a belief (instead of a social construct or linguistic category/label for a social group). Web-julio (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Former YouTuber

The first sentence of the article currently describes Hart as a "former YouTuber". While this is technically correct, to me it implies they are no longer creating videos. Hart is still publishing new videos, they just moved from YouTube to Vimeo. However, I'm not sure what the appropriate term is here, maybe "video essayist", but that doesn't feel quite right. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)