Talk:Kim Petras/Archive 1

Archive 1

Style Issues

This article has suffered repeated vandalism, i.e. changing gender pronouns from "she" to "he" and "her" to "him". Kim Petras is officially registered as female in accordance with German law, which allows changing a person's legal gender status from age 15 in case of diagnosed and confirmed transsexuality/gender dysphoria. Therefore, female pronouns - and only female pronouns - do apply. It might be a good idea to limit editing to registered trustworthy users to prevent future such vandalism, which, given the nature of the case, can be construed as severe and rather insulting. -- unsigned comment added 14:27, 13 October 2008.

He's a boy. The opinions of this generation of law-makers don't matter: if German law said 2+2 was now to equal five, would the rest of the world change to suit? I'm not going to get involved in a petty squabble over which pronouns are used in this article, because I don't have the inclination to change this and every other article that tiptoes around the feelings of the gender-dysphoric subject to their proper states. I'm pointing out however that laws don't equal facts and there should be a note to this effect in the article - while according to German law he is a female, in reality he's a man with a mangled penis who looks like a female thanks to receiving hormone replacement treatment before the onset of puberty. 79.69.142.141 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"She" is a term referring to gender. Gender is a social construct. Therefore, genitalia, which is biological (and only a tiny bit social, but mostly in perception), has no bearing on pronoun use. You're just being rude. 138.192.29.117 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender roles are social constructs. Actual gender is determined at birth and no amount of surgery changes it. Whether or not it's rude, this is a fact. Whether he's post or pre-operative, Petras is male - the only thing that changes is the degree to which he has harmed his genitalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.130.192 (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not the role of an encyclopedia to be "polite". It is the role of an encyclopedia to be "factual". The human animal called "Kim Petras" is scientifically classified as a male. Therefore, the pronoun is he. This is not a place for the "gender equality" or "gender roles" battle to be fought, this is a place to be factual. It would be accurate to say that in many ways, he is physically female, and in almost all ways, he is psychologically female, but in reality, he has never had female sex organs, and assuredly has XY chromosomes as opposed to XX. Trying to force a "gender agenda" by swapping pronouns and attempting to "fool" the general public into overlooking the truth about this celebrity is misleading and inaccurate. Being intentionally misleading and inaccurate in order to push an agenda, and then trying to call others who disagree with you "rude" is far, far beyond "rude". I'd contend that it's downright evil. Furthermore, German law has absolutely nothing to do with which English pronoun to apply to a person, I don't care if German law allows Germans to change their "Gender" to "Spayed Cat Robot From Space", I'm not calling that person "it." JudgeX (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, the "determined at birth" condition is called sex rather than gender. -- pne (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sigh"! Physical sex is usually determined in a physical sense BEFORE birth not at birth! All fetuses start out female and then some of them mutate and become male basically but this physical change is normally before birth. In some cases the change is partial. Theres a lot of unscientific nonsense being posted here in an attempt to basically support being plain rude to someone. How would you insist on refering to Intersex people, as "it", I suppose.

Kim is also female by European law not just German law. --81.86.105.166 (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out what about the article does not represent a worldwide view? There seems to be no issue raised here of this kind? Has someone just flagged it with this as an act of drive-by vandalism?--81.86.105.166 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Since no reason for the worldwide tag was given, or raised on the talk page, and I can't see why either, I have removed it. The she/he thing is covered by Wikipedia guidelines, so that can't be it. Dendlai (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Source Issues

No source for 2nd Paragraph

Please also add the following source: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/2528710/Pop-star-Kim-Petras-had-a-sex-change-at-the-age-of-16.html The article is locked, so I cannot. 124.181.209.160 (talk) 03:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism

I'm considering applying for semi-protection for this page due to persistent vandalism. Of the 39 edits that have occurred 11 (28%) have been vandalism by anonymous editors. There have been 7 good edits by anonymous editors.

List of vandal edits at 17 Oct 2008:

1. 13:07, 21 September 2008 84.61.150.236 / Mannesmann Arcor (DSL) (Germany)
2. 20:59, 21 September 2008 78.51.196.136 / HanseNet Telekommunikation (Germany)
3. 20:59, 21 September 2008 78.51.196.136
4. 07:34, 30 September 2008 74.38.217.5 / Frontier Communications (USA)
5. 07:35, 30 September 2008 74.38.217.5
6. 07:36, 30 September 2008 74.38.217.5
7. 22:55, 10 October 2008 86.137.99.87 / BT Public Internet Service (UK)
8. 23:07, 14 October 2008 24.12.217.246 / Comcast Cable Communications ILLINOIS (USA)
9. 23:09, 14 October 2008 24.12.217.246
10. 05:47, 16 October 2008 217.235.134.124 / Deutsche Telekom AG (Germany)
11. 23:31, 17 October 2008 89.247.5.253 / Versatel Deutschland (DSL) (Germany)

BigBadaboom0 (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection sounds like a good idea to me. --pne (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to disagree. Whilst the vandalism is a pain, it's not really that frequent. I think the three of us watching this article should be enough to keep it safe for now. If/when she gets on to MTV though... --Bobyllib (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Male to Female Gender Transitioning

She stated herself on YouTube (I know, I know not reliable, but it was herself that stated this) that she was born a female, but had male genitalia at the time. So instead of male to female gender transitioning, would it be more like gender correction? --65.175.193.146 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The gender transition is from the perspective of other people. She clearly feels that her gender never changed. If anything it would be a 'sex correction' (to use your term). 'Gender' is in the mind whereas 'sex' is the physical bits. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• how about using he instead of she —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.29.154.109 (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about not bullying 16 year old girls. --81.86.105.166 (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Birthday

accordirng to Kim Myspace Page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=269588216

her birthday is January 1º —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.158.245 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that date posted on that profile. (Except that some messages at the bottom wish her "happy birthday" on the 1st - but that's not necessarily proof of anything except that some people believe her birthday to be the 1st.) -- pne (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

haha I was going to say "why did you delete my comment?" but then I realised I hadn't actually clicked "Save page" yet. Anyway, what I was going to say was as follows: Myspace almost always says a musical act's birthday is 1/1. As far as I know there's no option to change the birthday of a music profile (an oversight I feel, particularly in the case of solo artists). It doesn't mean that Kim's birthday is 1/1. If she'd stated that it was her birthday that'd be something (although probably not enough to satisfy WP:RS) but a load of her "friends" commenting with "happy birthday" is... nothing, especially in light of what I just said -- Bobyllib (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now sorted this. :D --Kystal (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

All female nouns should be male in this article.

Even if he doesn't have a penis, he still has the XY chromosome pair. No matter how much he looks like a female. He has had, has, and will have an XY chromosome pair as long as he lives. At least can we make it s/he? 71.107.2.35 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) ^ | I bet this 71.107 guy is the notorious giant... 82.52.19.236 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK there has never been any kind of medical statement to say what chromosone type Kim has, so this data is unkown and you are basically guessing. It's possible that Kim does not even have this knowledge herself.--81.86.105.166 (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If you talk extensively to medical professionals, you will soon see that there are many exceptions to the XY/XX-only dichotomy. In fact, many people are actually born with XY chromosome and are born and develop as women normally, and the underlying chromosomal makeup is not found until extensive medical tests are done. Specifically I am thinking of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome / http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome as a easily recalled example. Should those people not be called she, just because you feel like it? Even though by all external and biological cues most people would consider them female? What about people who are intersexed or those who have multiple X or Y chromosomes? The concern over pronouns seems rather insignificant and more like an attempt at trying to cling to dichotomies that generally, but yet don't completely exist in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.241 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

and you know that how? how do you know what her chromosomal, hormonal, primary, secondary, and structural characteristics are? you don't. you haven't seen lab results or pictures, and furthermore display a simplistic and presumptuous view of what's going on. 1.73% of live births display non-dimorphic physical characteristics, and she may or may not be a part of that number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.145.222 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kim has undergone the gender reassignment therapy/surgery and according to all legal documents, Kim is a she. The article reflects that. Whether you consider Kim as a he or a she has no bearing on the article. Kim is now legally a she and thats how Kim is referred to in this article (as per the law and per wiki guidelines). Killeroid (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad you cleared that up for me, it was kind of confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.107.2.35 (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

See this guideline. "A transgender, transsexual or genderqueer person's latest preference of name and pronoun should be adopted when referring to any phase of that person's life, unless this usage is overridden by that person's own expressed preference." She should be refered to as a she. Dendlai (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Should it not follow chronologically? The way it is used in this article is notably confusing and a frustrating read.68.36.148.39 (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Is there any reason for her MySpace, YouTube and personal blog links to be there? It makes the entire article seem like self publication, imo. 86.40.172.160 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Gender in info box

What do we put as the gender in the info box??? I think that perhaps we should put "male to female transsexual" or something like that. Or we could put "female" and have it link to MTF. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Former Name

Why is her former name (1) so prominent (2) featured at all? She's never gone by it publicly, has not used it, so it's use is purely a footnote at best. It has zero relevance to the substance of an informative article, and only serves to satisfy some strange and unnecessary curiosities. This makes it at *best* a tiny footnote in a section about her youth or trans status, not the leading item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.145.222 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look prominent to me - it's mentioned once, right at the beginning, in a similar way to how the maiden name of someone is mentioned who changed their name at marriage. (Or anyone else who goes by a different name now than at birth, for whatever reason; cf. Bill Clinton, for example.) -- pne (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's important since it's her birth name. Why someones birthname would **not** be relevant in a biographical article sorta baffles me. 216.100.215.173 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

General Cleanup

This article needs to be cleaned up a bit...

I also think we can safely make the following statements (this is kind of a sub reply to the above):

• Kim is a she
• Kims web pages, though not personalized URLs are links to her, and as long as we don't get her facebook, digg, instructables, linkedin, etc. pages we should be good on that point
• This article does have some advertising that needs to be cleaned up.

Are those fair assesments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.159.16 (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the advertising that need clearing up. Can you be specific?--81.86.105.166 (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Press Reporting about Kim

I'm presently spending quite a few hours trying to fix this page and to be honest I'm a little frustrated as I spent quite a lot of time trying to make it as accurate and suitable for wikipedia as I could in the first place and it was a difficult job what with all the citations and everything. It's not the way my writing style leans as people who spotted the "catchy dance pop tunes" thing will have noticed.

I don't think this was an act of Vandalism but someone who misunderstood what the wiki actually said which is easy to do I'm sure if you have read any extent of the media spin on Kim. The person who did it also tried to make the page clearer and neater with different sections and stuff and I feel their motivations were somewhat genuine.

To make it clear, the wiki entry did not say that Kim was the worlds youngest transsexual (person) like some newspapers have reported and always tried to be clear about this. In fact the worlds youngest transsexual person may have ben born a few hours ago for all we know. The wiki clearly stated that she is the youngest person known to have had SRS which is not just press hyperbole.

I'm still working hard to try and fix the article as it had become a bit obsessed with the tabloid news media spin on Kim and on her surgery, whereas I always tried hard to make the entry more balanced and to talk about Kim as a person and not just as "a sex change". I feel the tone of the wiki article is now a bit poorer and while I'm working hard to fix it I'd really appreciate if people remember this is supposed to be a wikipedia article on a person when they make edits and to try and not be overly influenced by all the tabloid rubbish.

While I'm here thanks to the person who picked up on the "catchy dance pop tunes" thing. Opinion of course and shouldn't have been there. :) --Kystal (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Apologies if I was sounding a little growly there, it's just theres a ton of other stuff I should be doing right now and it was a bit of a nasty suprise when I found the page. I've spent a lot of time fixing the entry and while it still seems more unbalanced than I would like, it's loads better and even the media/medical stuff isn't so disjointed anymore. I also took the opportunity to explain more clearly about the media invention side of reporting on Kim which isn't anything to do with her surgery and the fact she is the youngest person known to have had srs worldwide but to do with the claim that she was "the worlds youngest transsexual" [person] which is nonsense in so many ways it makes the head hurt and doesn't seem worth discussing, but I've tried to cover that aspect without giving it undue prominence and attention. I hope it has helped! :D --Kystal (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK once again I have removed the stuff about the news media from the summary. I can understand being angry about the nonsense the news media print about trans people. Yes they are usually persuing an agenda of hate that leads to the deaths of many trans people. They certainly have an awful lot of blood on their hands. However this entry is supposed to be about Kim and not about the news media. While it's probably worth mentioning the claims of her being "the worlds youngest transsexual" (as we do in the early life section) and clarifying that it is nonsense, it doesn't belong in the summary. I should point out that all kinds of absolute B.S. has been printed in the tabloid media about Kim, but I feel we should ignore this stuff and try and keep to stuff that is factual. I really appreciate the spelling corrections and help with style people have given, as such collaboration is definitely helping us to make a better entry that is both clear and easy to read and the entry is getting loads better even if we do now have a problem that the entry is now quite seriously unbalanced. However lets remember this entry is supposed to be about Kim. :) --Kystal (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to improve this article, but IMO many of your changes are making it worse. For instance why do you keep reinserting that "she is the youngest person known to have had SRS". I removed this statement because there is no way to verify it. It is opinion, whereas stating that she has had publicity to that effect is fact and appropriate for wikipedia. I also removed much of the content you added about transsexuality which read as someone lecturing us about transsexuality. As you state, this is an article about a person, not a medical condition. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by and discussing this. Here is the statement you make: She has received worldwide publicity several times as "the world's youngest transsexual", however the accuracy of this claim has not been established. Firstly it's just plainly not true that she has received this publicity several times, we make it quite quite clear that this just happened the once in the early years section which is mostly accurate, despite a little bias. Secondly it's not a significant fact and shouldn't be in the summary. The press have said all kinds of made up stuff they always do. In fact even the press knew it wasn't that significant, (perhaps because they knew they were making stuff up) and it didn't make the front pages of any newspapers. Thirdly the accuracy (or perhaps inaccuracy might be better stated) of this claim is easily established as we have done already in the early years section. Also you are misquoting me. Here is what I had written. She has also received worldwide publicity for being the youngest person in the world known to have had sex reassignment surgery (at the age of 16). As you see I too said she had publicity to this effect and it is backed by citation and it isn't untrue as your statement is. I hope you can see my point on this and really appreciate your dropping by to discuss this. I've also really appreciated the various fixes you have made to the stuff I have posted. I don't tend to write in an academic style and can be prone to making statements that are too expressive and the combination of the edits we are making is I feel leading to a better article (and I'm sorry to hear that maybe you don't feel that way, but I hope you will reconsider). Please do come back and post here if you continue to disagree with what I'm saying. Thankyou! :D --Kystal (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"The truly terrible thing is that everybody has their reasons. "— Jean Renoir. I see earlier in the talk that it is yourself trying to defend the entry against vandalism. I too have positive motives, so it is a little strange we find ourselves in such disagreement. You suggest the work I am putting in is making the entry worse. I urge you to do a diff between now and the changes you originally made on the 24th and to see if you still feel that way, okay this disagreement has caused us to put in more hours than we might wish but I believe you will agree that the page is now MUCH improved as a result. I also believe what I have written is both factual and backed by citation, however perhaps we might compromise and move the statement I made into the early life section. Instead we could have a statement in the summary saying "She has also been the subject of numerous worldwide news media reports regarding her medical history". What do you think? --Kystal (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Another note. We may now be in disagreement on another issue too. I didn't actually write the stuff you have flagged as lecturing about transsexuality, someone deleted it without comment and I thought it was accidently deleted during an edit to make things clearer. I just put it back in. The statement is actually factual. I'm not sure what exactly you might be in disagreement with however so perhaps if you post here I can set your mind at rest on the matter. I also didn't think that what was written came across as lecturing especially but maybe together we can re-write it in a way that doesn't come across as lecturing but also includes the important facts. I've reverted it back for the time being. :) --Kystal (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Re "publicity only once" issue. If you look at the references, you will find that she has appeared in the worldwide press at least three times: 2007 ("Unhappy as a boy, Kim became youngest ever transsexual at 12"), 2008 ("World's youngest transsexual gets record deal") and 2009 ("World's youngest sex-change operation")

Re "youngest ever sex change operation" claim. This is stated as fact in several articles however I can see no evidence or justification for this statement of fact. They don't even say "her doctor has stated that she is the youngest". Personally I am dubious of the claim and I don't feel comfortable repeating it as fact in this article. I believe that saying that she has had publicity to that effect, but it cannot be verified, is the more encyclopedic approach to take.

Re "Secondly it's [her publicity] not a significant fact and shouldn't be in the summary". IMO this is not correct. It is the entire basis for her notability and thus her inclusion in wikipedia. It is very important. A teenaged "aspiring pop singer" would not otherwise meet the notability requirements of wikipedia. If you look at the history, this article was nominated for deletion last year, but was saved precisely because of the notability earned due to the "worlds youngest transsexual" publicity.

Re "I didn't actually write the stuff you have flagged as lecturing about transsexuality". My apologies if that is the case.

Re "In addition children much younger than 12 had transitioned even at that time". I believe this sentence is unnecessary as its content is already covered by "Gender Identity Disorder is often diagnosed in early childhood".

Re "and is pre-existing before diagnosis". My objection to this text is that it unnecessary because any medical condition preexists diagnosis. It is simply stating the obvious. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I understand your POV a little better now which is good. Re "publicity only once" issue. Well 3 times isn't "several" (You knew I was going to say that!) ;) Also I would of course argue that the 3 times were for seperate things. First one being worlds youngest transsexual nonsense, second being her record deal, third being youngest to have SRS. I feel several is thus at least an exageration, not that I'm one to talk or anything but you know...Re "youngest ever sex change operation" claim. I'm not that dubious of this claim and believe it is almost certainly the case. Please note that I also used the word known, allowing for some unknown possibility. Also I do actually state that she has had publicity to this effect. Thus my statement is factual and backed by citation. Lastly this is actually far, far more likely than her being the "worlds youngest transsexual" as the tabloids put it. I'll try and add some more info shortly why I think this is actually somewhat less dubious than you might imagine, but I think the "known", citation, and the fact it is publicity she has received do cover this. Re "Secondly it's [her publicity] not a significant fact and shouldn't be in the summary". I'm sure you have done a diff and noted that I was one of the people arguing against deletion on notability grounds. I don't think it was just unflagged for deletion entirely on the notable for being notable basis but I can see you point that the amount of publicity she has received is significant. I would argue it's not all based around her being the worlds youngest transsexual however so perhaps the compromise I proposed would actually be better than either of the statements we wrote. What do you think? We would then at least be able to take our disagreement out of the summary! :) It would cover the publicity without getting into the more contentious issues. Re "I didn't actually write the stuff you have flagged as lecturing about transsexuality" No need to apologise I'm not that easily offended! :) Re "In addition children much younger than 12 had transitioned even at that time". This is a seperate issue but it's not unneccesary as the tabloids were making claims based on her transition and you can of course transition without a medical diagnosis at all and people often do, perhaps later getting that diagnosis. The medical diagnosis and the transition are two seperate things. Re "and is pre-existing before diagnosis". You make a fair point that this is possibly obvious (although not to the tabloid media it would seem) so maybe we should remove that?

Phew! Why can't I write about easier subjects like Miley Cyrus or something! :) --Kystal (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I've enlarged slightly on the text I proposed as a compromise and updated the entry. It now makes clear that she has received extensive coverage regarding her medical history in the context of her young age. Come on now this is a big improvement right? It seems to me we can both agree on this as factual. It covers at least 2 waves of the publicity she has received in the summary which I know is important to you on notability grounds so we have that covered too and we avoid puttiing any of the tabloid media claims in the summary regardless of whether they might be true or otherwise. In addition I've moved the stuff about SRS down into the early life section. I've made it really clear that this is what the newspapers have printed. I've even describerd it as a "claim" and I've left the citation in and used the qualifying term "known". So I've really toned down the text in relation to that too.

We can agree on this right? Surely we are getting somewhere on this, I've tried to understand your POV and include all your concerns in this text. Hope I havn't missed out on anything. Let me know what you think! :D --Kystal (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These edits are much better IMO, although I have made some tweaks. Re the "led to lots of arguments" bit you just reinserted - can you add a reference for that please? -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Great glad we are getting to a consensus. Yes I think I can dig up referances, there were a few articles that refer to this and it would be good to add this as often right wing blogs etc try to infer her parents damaged her by just going along with it all when actually by all accounts it was somewhat nasty. At the moment what we have sounds slightly odd, and I'd just prefer it wasn't left quite so open to re-interpretation. Not that it will stop such blogs as they are worse than the tabloids but it would be nice if ppl could come to the wiki for more factual information.--Kystal (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bother, the net is so swamped with kim petras articles I can't find any of this stuff anymore. It's lucky I kept that Annanova article all this time or I'd never find that now either. There were a couple of articles that went on about rows over haircuts, and one that went into more detail about that erm "incident with the scissors" when she was 4. I could try and cobble something together from what I have now but it would be long, and maybe not good. If anyone else can find these articles it would be appreciated.--Kystal (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Germany to the rescue again! I managed to fudge around it and sort of came up with something that covers similar ground and is correctly cited. Hope it's okay. --Kystal (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Neat! I take it from the edits we have reached some kind of consensus here. I'm not sure about adding the word transgender but right now I can't come up with a better replacement and its a minor point. Love the moving of the modelling for hair salon to the early life section as it helps make it more balanced and not just about her medical history and press reports. Also I too spotted the issue with the conflicting stuff about which releases were via Joyce records and tried to edit it to be more accurate but my actions were misinterpreted as overemphising the label ironically(!) so thanks for trying to sort that out too. We still have quite an unbalanced entry but it's getting better. Apologies if I've come across as too growly in all this. Last week was a bad week for me but this one is going to be loads better I'm sure. I hope I havn't incurred any bad feelings in the matter. At least this is reigniting my belief in resolving disafgreement through communication. Thanks for your help! --Kystal (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have rewritten the music section. I felt the mention of her songwriting was clunky, and have tried to integrate it in a way I feel works better. I removed the references to where her music can be purchased because that is too much like advertising, and someone will inevitably flag that if it stays. I also removed the references to MTV and Limewire. I do not feel those were consequential enough to be mentioned in a biography. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the stuff about the FadeAway track being available on Itunes etc, to make it clear the track was available on non physical as well as physical formats and in the electronic form is actually available worldwide. Hence why I mentioned CD too. You may be making a fair point about the mentions on MTV and limewire, although they are pretty significant music publications and you were arguing a short while ago that it was the publicity she was receiving that made her significant. So by not mentioning the publicity she has received for her music but mentioning it in the context of her medical history, we are kind of skewing the whole article again. At the moment the wiki article has an extreme amount of bias which while I'm convinced is sort of accidental, it's not good. Still could be a lot worse I suppose...--Kystal (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is presently unbalanced

At present we have quite an unbalanced article on Kim. It's definitely getting better but we should be able to say more about her music career and the rest of her life than we are doing. I'm as guilty as anyone in this. Because of the nature of the article it's very easy to get caught up in the politics and press reporting and stuff and to miss out on other important stuff.

For example it was only a couple of days ago I was very embaressed to realise thae while we had described her as a pop-singer, we had actually completely ommitted she is a songwriter too and writes her own songs. This is a really important, basic and obvious fact but I'd not even noticed we hadn't mentioned it all this time. (nb, this seems to have falllen out the article again)

I'm not sure how we can go about rectifying this, we are making some progress at the moment but I feel we need to make an effort to do better. For example we have said a fair bit about the publicity she received regarding her medical history but virtually nothing about the publicity she has received for her music career and one of the 3 waves so far was about her muisc career. There is that MTV report that Kim is so proud of and there is also a report on limewire I can dig up that are both kind of neat. there must be other stuff out there too.

I feel the more medical related stuff is getting preety good and clear now and is no longer disjointed and hard to understand like it once was, it's come on leaps and bounds, however we now ned to do the same for the rest of the article on her, so we don't have such a one sided bias.

I hope you can all help in this. --Kystal (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

MTV Link: [1]

LimeWire link: [2]

--Kystal (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with you that this article is unbalanced. Perhaps you are feeling protective of Ms Petras, and think that it is unfair to her that the majority of this article is about her medical condition. I sympathise with this feeling. More than likely the condition plays only a minor role in her everyday life. However, as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is the sole reason for her notability, and is the only reason she is included in WP at all. Her music career, such as it is, does not meet the criteria for inclusion in WP.

Finally, given that Ms Petras links to this article from her official site (it is the first link on her news page) we can be reasonably confident that she more-or-less approves of its contents. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are probably not entirely wrong, that I get slightly over protective of Ms Petras. Theres a couple of times when I've been annoyed that I'm like turning into somebodys mother or something and wondering if I'm starting to be getting on a bit or what. It's pretty daft as I get the impression she is very smart and more than capable of looking out for herself most of the time, however we have managed to make significant improvements to the music section the last couple of days. I'm also not suggesting that we have to say as much about her music career as about the other stuff, more that we have been a bit too foccused on the other stuff and not really made as much effort about her music stuff. I think thats understandable given the circumstances but all the same... Lastly lets not get too carried away with the Notability thing. We've done a good job on that score I feel and we will see how things go with the passage of time, but not everything that goes on the wiki page has to be about her notability. If you look at the page for say Miley Cyrus (nearly same age) or Lady Gaga or almost any number of other artists out there, there is often all kinds of drivel on there. (Not that I'm suggesting we should fill the Kim page with drivel but just that it can be non notable info). Anyway I think we are a lot closer to the way it should be right now. What we really need is some kind of new announcements from the Petras camp at this point.

I did notice we got added to the links on her website! On the one hand she does also link to The Sun, but OTOH given we are listed at the top, I'm guessing that is a vote of confidence. :) Maybe she was even impressed we updated with the latest info so fast. ;)

A big thanks for providing the music notability link too! :) That's really useful to know! I'd only read the general notability guidelines till now so I'm really grateful for you going to the trouble of passing on a link to this! Intresting reading, and theres definitely a couple of suprises in there!--Kystal (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

notability concern

Is being an "aspiring musician" really justification to be included in wikipedia? I would say there should be more of an emphasis that she is the youngest transexual so far.--Kencaesi (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You did read the article, I hope? It is mainly about her sex change. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"aspiring musician" not anymore, she is relasing her new single "Die For You". Source: [[3]].

Xopauxo wiki (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

As has been discussed here before, she does not yet meet Wikipedia's eligibility requirements as a musician. Her inclusion here is solely due to the notability gained as a result of the worldwide publicity she has received. That publicity relates to her medical condition - not her musical achievements or ambitions. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, is it realy worth to give a transsexual a place in a encyclopedia? There are thousends transsexuals out there and every 2nd Thai Transsexual starts earlier than her. Dr. Sam Winter from University of Hong Kong confirmed in his research that he has had Thai Transsexual with SRS at the age of 15. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaczi1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia the place of Self Promotion. Kim Petras has NO Record Label and she dont even perform. She's just a Kid, who likes to be a Star in use of her transsexual past by selling her live to the german TV-Show 'SternTV'. In fact of this, she got some attention of other Medias and on the other hand she got kicked out of the family & kids help programm for transsexual kids. Please keep Wikipedia clear and dont allow every kid, who wanna be a star, to promote themself. Remove this entry because of notability concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaczi1 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

"Studying"

Studying to become a fashion designer... I find it hard to believe she is at a university at her age as the average age for getting a high school diploma (Abitur) in Germany after currently 13 years of school in the state of Northrhine-Westphalia is 18 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.196.194 (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact she is not studying at the moment. She is on a private school to make her degree, this school is specialized for AD(H)D Kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaczi1 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He should be called a He

Through out the article it calls him a She, or her. but according to Wikipedia"...In humans and most animals, sex is determined genetically..."

"Most mammals, including humans, are genetically determined as such by the XY sex-determination system where males have an XY (as opposed to XX) sex chromosome"

and so genetics are the determination of he/she male/female, not what one wishes to be called. Does he have a uterus and ovaries, and the XX chromosome? If I wanted to be called King, should I be allowed that title just because I feel I am a king and should have always been one? no.

People places and things should be called what they are, If he refuses to be called a he then there must be a new word invented for transsexuals to differ from the He,She standards. Perhaps HeShe for male-to-female trans gender, and She-He for female to male. either way, he should not be called a she.

I have nothing against transsexuals, but a mental state is not the same as a physical state. he is a male physically and scientifically speaking.

71.112.197.79 (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But not all mammals, or humans for that matter, follow this dichotomy. There are males with XXY chromosomes, and people born with XY chromosomes who develop as (externally) normal females. There have even been (exceedingly rare) cases of genetic chimerism in which two fetuses of opposite sex fuse and develop as one person with both sets of chromosomes. Would you deny a person with CAIS, in which a person with XY chromosomes is immune to the effects of testosterone and so develops as a female, the use of feminine pronouns? If not, on what basis would you deny transsexual persons the right to use their preferred pronouns?

In the end, the style guidelines are clear, regardless of your personal opinion. If you disagree, take it up there, but while those guidelines stand this and related articles will follow them. Dysfunction (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ehm...in Germany a lot of people know her- but not as a singer!!! ô.O Really, she is a singer?! I think, in Germany only a few knew that... ^^ We know her as the youngest transexual, she never had a chart-positition... (sorry for gramma mistakes :P) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.211.81.249 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Youngest transsexual

I've looked around the net and found that there's a 8 year old girl, called Jazz, who started living as a girl with the consent of the parents at age 6 or so. She hasn't had any hormone therapy and surgery. So she is the youngest transgender person so far, not Kim, who is the youngest post operation. 82.52.19.236 (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The video is here http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/858237/my-secret-self 82.52.19.236 (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't claim she is the youngest person; it claims she had notoriety for being the youngest to go through several medical procedures. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"she"?

Why are you using "she" when he's a boy? Does that mean that if I wear a dress I instantly turn into a girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.118.250 (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk, this has been spoken about many times before. Wikipedia's guidelines state that we are to refer to a person as the gender they identify as. Strelok 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If we don't condone bad behavior by being enablers then we will all be big jerks. This is why you call a terrorist a "freedom fighter" or an "armed combatant." We should help everyone by helping them to identify with what they aren't. 173.81.132.123 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're replying to a conversation from over 9 months ago. In any event, your suggestion, besides being offensive (comparing gender identity issues with terrorism) has no basis in policy, so it's irrelevant. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

voice

The interesting question for me is whether this individual has a female voice or a castrato voice. To me, the voice does not sound entirely like a woman's voice. While castrati were once common, for instance long ago in Italy, we have few living examples. The few surviving recordings of Alessandro Moreschi are so lousy and in such an odd singing style that it is difficult to draw conclusions about what the castrato voice really sounded like. Some performers, such as Michael Jackson and Vitas have been subjects of speculation as to whether there might have been genital damage issues that influenced their voices, or whether they were natural countertenor/altos. Here is someone who is actually known in some sense to be a castrato, so what can we learn about how the voices of the castrati might differ from a woman's voice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead Link

The link to his YouTube page doesn't work. It sends us to a video that does not exist, where is should send us to her profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinQuadro (talk • contribs) 06:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Masshuku2, 13 April 2011

This should be the code used:
Kim Petras's's channel on YouTube
Masshuku2 (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Well, I'm sure this isn't the solution you would have been shooting for, but I went ahead and deleted all of the links except for her personal homepage, per the external links guidelines. We shouldn't be giving links to every site a subject has a presence on. One is sufficient. Furthermore, the guidelines state, "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites."; since her youtube, twitter, etc. pages are all linked from her main page, we don't need or want to link them here. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 October 2011

File:Kim petras 07.jpg

Codyskoff (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Picture does not seem to exist here. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Webcomic feature

I don't know how noticeable something like this Jan 2011 comic would be, but it seems to illustrate her recognition in TG communities, would it be relevant to incorporate? Y12J (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronoun Errors

There are a number of problems in this article regarding her pronouns:

-In 'Early Life', the third sentence begins with 'Eventually his', referring to her incorrectly.

-In 'Music career', the second sentence refers to Petras with 'her videos, which included some of his own compositions', once again mistakenly referring to her as 'his'. In the next paragraph, a sentence makes the same error: 'A few months later in September 2008, she released his first', meaning Petras.

-In the last paragraph of 'Publicity', the sentence 'in an interview about his surgery she stated' once again mistakenly refers to Petras with both 'he' and 'she'.

I don't think it's a huge problem, because it seems like someone tried to correct her pronouns from an earlier, incorrect article, but it gives off a very confusing and conflicting vibe for anyone who might happen across the article because the work isn't finished. Everydayatjunessucks (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I got the last few. Does anyone spot any more? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2013

I am an official representative of Kim Petras. Much of the information on this page is incorrect and we would like the chance to update it; either temporarily unprotect the page for us to make the necessary changes or take the page down entirely please. PSPR2012 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:COI may be a page you should read on. ZappaOMati 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be best to post what information is incorrect so it can be fixed, citing reliable sources. "X should be Y" as can be seen on this WP:Reliable source. Obviously we want the best information possible. Insomesia (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, please, message one of us with whatever you do know so that we can update whatever is necessary. Surely for anything more than a minor correction, a source could be found somewhere, right? Unfortunately getting the page unprotected requires a moderator, and in my estimation would not be the best idea as a lot of people could come in and vandalize the article. But yes, we of course want things as accurate as possible, so feel free to let us know just what is wrong. We're not, however, going to remove all of what we *do* have just because someone claims to be a representative. MXVN (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New Site

I recently registered this account so I cannot edit protected articles yet. Could someone with permission update her site URL? As of today (July 5th) her official site is http://www.kimpetras.com/ and http://kimpetrasonline.com/ is no longer available. If a source is necessary, here is her announcement about the new site on her official twitter: https://twitter.com/IKimPetras/status/352084826578362368 Eduardo Neuhaus (talk) 09:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done--Auric talk 13:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kim Petras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013132141/http://www.stern.de:80/tv/sterntv/613719.html to http://www.stern.de/tv/sterntv/613719.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kim Petras. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131205204744/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4U55kGd4kA to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4U55kGd4kA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue Prominence given to former name

Getting really tired of this! We have established that we do not have to include her "dead name". Please stop editing it back in. Especially in poor english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kystal (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It would appear that undue prominence is now being given to Kims former name. This is surely inappropriate given the circumstances. I'm not sure if this has come about along the way due to the intense amount of vandalism this article has received or if it is an accident of a more innocent nature, but it's certainly not appropriate to include it like that in Bold at the top of the article. To quote the wikipedia guidelines "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Kims former name was already previously mentioned in the article, which itself is perhaps a questionable act but this recent edit giving it undue prominence is entirely inappropriate.

Kystal (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Kystal

Please see WP:LEAD, which says in part, "The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. If a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for John F. Kennedy, which has John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy." Kim Petras's given name is Tim Petras; as such, we must include it in the lead. This is no different than including the pre-married name of a woman who changes her name after marriage. Also, I don't know what "victimization" you're talking about. There's no victimizing involved in giving someone's birth name. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Qwyrxian, it's helpful. However Kim has clearly legally changed her given name and I wouldn't have thought that Tim could be considered a commonly known nickname for her because she has only ever been well known as Kim and the usage of the name "Tim" has only been in attempts to bully her. The victimisation I am talking to refers to bullying around her medical history. It also refers to the fact that the male name assigned to her a while after birth is part of the violation she experienced as a child assigned the wrong gender. Clearly she is keen to be free of that violation and abuse. Anyway it is clear that Kims given name is not Tim but Kim, so there is actually no need to give this undue prominence in this way and as I suggest, wikipedia guidelines make it clear we should not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kystal (talk • contribs) 10:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, Krystal, I forgot about this. You raise interesting points; I still think you are wrong, but I'm not certain. I'm going to ask at the BLP noticeboard for more input. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

We should definitely fix this according to the following: "For transgender and intersex people it is usually unneeded to put information on their gender, including an apparently male or female birth name, in the lead of the article, especially on a BLP. Often this should be woven into an 'Early life' section". Ironically this was the way the article was some time ago.Kystal (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Should it, then, still be mentioned one time in that section (by the birth date, perhaps)? MXVN (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for just jumping into the discussion; I won't pretend I know I huge deal about Petras -- for starters, I only knew her birth name was Tim by looking on this talk page. However, that name is not currently in the article anywhere (it's in one of the references but the information is not in the article). I won't edit this as there is a discussion going on and it would be improper to just take it into my own hands, but I have a suggestion: If she changed her name, then I am agreed it should say Kim Petras; however, would it not be appropriate to follow suit of other pages in the same situation -- for example, Teller (the magician)'s page has it set out as:

Teller, (Born Raymond Joseph Teller),

And then goes on with the article using his legal name. I believe this is quite similar in Petras case, for both are publicly known only by their legal name. Just my thought on this, thanks. Lord loss210 (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

No. it's not the same situation at all is it now? *sigh* Kystal (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Article translated to Greek

I would like to thank all contributors of the article. It has just been translated to greek. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 10:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kim Petras. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080927020528/http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=8693 to http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=8693
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322165021/http://www.joyce-records.com/ to http://www.joyce-records.com/

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) 12:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2017

Would like to lengthen article and fix grammatical errors Ottamieh (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Gulumeemee (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2017

would like to adjust grammatical errors and lengthen. thanks. --Ottamieh (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Ottamieh (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Edits to section "Carreer"

Someone with editing rights should review this section. There is still a sub-headline for her work before 2017 but the information is missing. In this EDIT (diff-link) the old information was overwritten. I haven't checked the sources but if the old information was correct her debut was actually an EP in 2011. ---213.61.190.10 (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Minor change

Can her dead (birth) name be removed? It’s extremely disrespectful. AttaboyRV (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Please remove "born Tim Petras". Use the current name and gender throughout the article. While there is no universal trans story or experience, many transgender individuals knew their correct genders from a very young age. Even if a transgender person does not undergo a social or physical transition until much later in life, they should be referred to by the pronouns and titles corresponding with their current stated identity for all phases of their life. This guideline is in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. 2607:FEA8:D620:531:C1B5:ED68:213C:5DC7 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

 Already done — Newslinger talk 11:03, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

Remove "Birth Name" from the article. It's her Dead Name and not needed to be on there. Jprocker560 (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This article handles that subject similarly to other articles on transgender people (Caitlyn Jenner, The Wachowskis), which list birth names but otherwise do not refer to those individuals by those names in the rest of the article, consistent with MOS:GENDERID. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

remove "Birth Name" from the article or change it to "Real Name: Kim Petras". A person's deadname is unnecessary knowledge to list even when public. Sharkoftheday (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please see response from Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

EPs in Discography section?

Should the Discography section mention EPs as well? Or, are these reserved for studio albums only? @Ss112: Pinging you as someone familiar with music/discography standards. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Generally when the artist releases an album (or has announced one) and they have a separate discography page, we list the albums only. Of course, there are exceptions. It just depends on the local consensus, I suppose. Ss112 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ss112, Ok, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Kim Petras discography into Kim Petras. The Petras bio stands at 6kb of readable prose, which does not meet the requirements for a WP:SIZESPLIT. Also, while the discography article looks big, this singer has only released one notable EP and one notable single. She has only made two charts in her career (And both are component charts). I think a separate discography article is simply WP:TOOSOON. The discog list as it currently stands, is at just 649 characters of readable prose. And if the unnecessary songwriting credits and videography tables were excluded, it would be comfortably accommodated on the parent article.—NØ 12:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC) In case no one has weighed in until March 17, I’ll WP:BOLDly carry out the merge.—NØ 21:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that Petras has now announced her debut studio album Clarity, which has been covered by a few reliable sources. So my opinion has changed to a weak keep for the discography article. Will refrain from closing this discussion myself though as someone supported the merge.—NØ 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I actually prefer the standalone discography. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree because there really isn’t a policy backed argument to justify the list being separate. She has 2 notable songs at most and even that’s a stretch, and no studio album.—NØ 18:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

• Agree, simply not enough notable material for a separate discography article AgWoolridge (talk) 05:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: I see you've changed your mind. @AgWoolridge: Unless you disagree, I'm going to remove the merge tag. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Came here to say that I was surprised to see the merge tag at the top of the article, and I disagree with a merge. Seem like plenty of reliable sources, significant releases and charting positions to justify a discography page. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 11:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Bilorv, Ok, thanks for contributing to this discussion. I've removed the tags for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

Remove her birth name. It is transphobic to publish a transgender person's birth name when they've changed it. :) Riverraleigh (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. No it's not; see above for reasoning. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2019

Remove birth name 2A02:908:2222:D2E0:103E:97ED:C65B:7C8 (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. Highway 89 (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2019

"Since 2016, Petras has been released music as an independent artist under her own imprint, BunHead Records." should read "Since 2016, Petras has been releasing music as an independent artist under her own imprint, BunHead Records. Jpend89 (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Highway 89 (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2018

Remove Petras' birth name from the article, in accordance with Wikipedia Manual of Style/Biography.

In the manual of style/biography under the Changed Names section, the following is written:

In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly":

   (from Laverne Cox, not notable under prior name) Laverne Cox (born May 29) ...
   (from Chelsea Manning, notable under prior name) Chelsea Elizabeth Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning; December 17, 1987) ...

Kim Petras was not a notable person under the name [redacted] --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC) Petras, and given that deadnaming transgender people is by transgender people themselves most often considered rude, inappropriate, or inconsiderate, I believe it would be not only most appropriate but also most consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic to remove Petras' birth name from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.235.120 (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. The MOS specifically singles out the lead sentence, and this article is in compliance with that. The birth name is used in the infobox only and is well-sourced. You'd need to establish a consensus to remove it before using this template; see multiple previous similar edit requests. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done. In prior discussions about trans people, the rule in MOS:MULTINAMES has been applied to the whole article not just the lede. So I WP:BOLDly made the change as suggested. --Wickedterrier (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

 Undone. (Can you point to any of those discussions? It would help in order to see if applying them here is appropriate). In this case, the MOS guideline is merely saying it shouldn't be in the lead sentence; it's silent about the rest of the article. However, while Petras might not have been notable under her birth name, the birth name itself seems to be noteworthy – there are multiple sources used in the article that mention it prominently, and Petras appears to be notable for undergoing sex-reassignment surgery at a very young age. Thus, having a single mention of the birth name in the infobox seems like a reasonable compromise; it keeps the information without giving it especially undue weight. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Redone. The point of the infobox is to summarise the content of the article. If it's not mentioned in the text itself, it shouldn't be sneaked it into the infobox, either. It's a pity that the rule is so full of holes. A literalist, rules-lawyering editor could justify putting the name into the remainder of the text, since that's not covered by the rule either – but that's against the intent of the rule, namely sparing trans people from gratuitous deadnaming. The rules-lawyering editor could even argue that technically, Petras already became notable under her birth name, as it wasn't changed legally yet – I don't know when it was actually changed legally, though –; but since the sources also mention that her chosen name at the time was already Kim, it's just the persistent, and blatantly transphobic, journalistic habit of going out of one's way to deadname trans people to support to the equally transphobic men-becoming-women (and vice versa) narrative (going so far as to even invent deadnames for sources that wish to remain anonymous in at least one case) that is responsible for this unfortunate situation in the first place. But unless mentioning the deadname is definitely inevitable like in the cases of Caitlyn Jenner or Chelsea Manning, Wikipedia should really, really not do it. Kim Petras's birth name is completely irrelevant to the reader wishing to understand her life. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

UNRELIABLE sources

It shouldn’t even have to be explained, but when an article has almost more references to UNRELIABLE sources than reliable ones a template is necessary. Wikipedia has policies against the use of blogs, YouTube, and social media as sources (which this article gives undue weight to) but even worse, people resorting to original research to find childhood photos, and using garbage like “iSpot.tv”? That’s just pathetic. Trillfendi (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Broken Tour

Broken Tour was redirected. Not a great entry, but I assume the concert tour is actually notable, so this diff may come in handy for future article development. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

Which image should we use?

• 
• 

I prefer the first, even if the latter is more recent, but another editor disagrees. Hence this discussion. Preference? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nokia621: Pinging you as the editor preferring the second image, in case you want to make your case. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I prefer File:Kim Petras (42743719761).jpg out of these two. As Petras looks confused in the other one and her looks haven't changed much since the preferred picture was taken. However since the other picture is from a YouTube video, it might be possible to get a better screen grab from it.—NØ 20:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• The first one is a higher quality image so I also believe it should stay in the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Turn Off the Light (album)

I'm not sure why the page cannot be edited, but let this serve as a reminder to add mention of Turn Off the Light (album). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

Will someone add the following to the discography section?

• Turn Off the Light (2019)

Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

No opposition and seems uncontroversial.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 September 2019

Fix ambiguous wikilink: change VOX (TV channel) to VOX (German TV channel). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done by User:BD2412 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

New picture?

Could somebody change the photo in the infobox? I feel like this isn't a very flattering representation of her — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndncndln (talk • contribs) 15:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dr Luke controversy

I feel like the Dr Luke controversy bit doesn't really belong in the artists' career overview, I would either remove it or put it in a dedicated "Controversies" or "Reception" section or something similar. My tendency is actually to remove it because as far as controversies go this one isn't really notable (yet, maybe this will change?). As an upcoming artist Kim can't really afford to cut ties with producers like that, and the sources linked to substantiate the supposed 'backlash' do not really show any evidence of an actual public backlash, just album reviews that make note of Dr Luke's reputation. What do you guys think? cave (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

She also almost lost her spot on Troye Sivan's tour due to her involvement with Luke. She had to make public apologies, while still defending him and this has been the subject of articles by big media outlets who describe his affiliation with her and her work as casting a shadow on her career. This should be in the controversy section. --Ottamieh (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Shall I move that blurb to a new section then? Would you mind expanding it with this context you just gave me, with a source? cave (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

sure thing, I can do it--Ottamieh (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm just going to clean it up a bit some strenuous detail about the legal battle, and a couple of claims that don't exactly line up with the sources. cave (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

At first glance I'm fine with the content we currently have in the "Controversies" section, but such a section shouldn't exist per WP:CSECTION. It does belong in the overview of Petras' career, because it's a big part of it and as our sources show, it constitutes a significant part of reception to "Clarity". It should be spread out chronologically in the article, because the "Controversies / Involvement with Dr. Luke" heading reads like Wikipedia has an opinion that Petras has been wrong to be involved with Dr. Luke. I'll add that our personal opinions on this do not matter, so arguments like As an upcoming artist Kim can't really afford to cut ties with producers like that hold no weight unless they come from a secondary source. — Bilorv (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you think of this? I reorganized some comments into a "Reception" section, and distilled the controversy to fix any undue weight issues. Diff 943741475 cave (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, certainly an improvement from a "Controversy" section and I think it makes sense in "Reception". — Bilorv (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

HRT

@OwenBlacker: re diff: while I don't disagree that hormone replacement therapy is hormone replacemet therapy is hormone replacemet therapy, often using the same drugs whether it's for trans or cis women, it is nonetheless the case that all of the content on trans HRT has been segregated into trans-specific articles like the one Hormone replacement therapy (male-to-female) redirects to—Feminizing hormone therapy—and the article you changed it to link to, Hormone replacement therapy, is exclusively about menopausal therapy and doesn't even mention transgender uses at all, so it seems like a worse (incorrect) link target. A better generic target, if we don't want to think directly to the Feminizing hormone therapy article, might be Hormone therapy. I'm bringing this up here rather than just changing the link target, in case you want to instead add some trans content to the Hormone replacement therapy article. -sche (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for letting me know; I'll revert my change then — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Kim Petras.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SundaysChild. Peer reviewers: SundaysChild.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Birth Name"

Please remove her "birth name". Sharing the dead name of someone who is transgender is very harmful and should not be on a very public page as it could cause said person and others distress and/or discomfort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C100:1D82:39F5:D1A3:626:6BDD (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't cited so I removed it. (Though somebody will probably re-add it, unfortunately) --Wickedterrier (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple sources currently in use in the article include this information. See a few sections up where I explained why I thought why it should be included. I don't know why keeping information is "unfortunate". It had been in the article body as well, but it was removed there at some point. My original stance was that keeping it in the infobox was a reasonable compromise between both viewpoints. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A compromise between publishing names widely regarded to be offensive by the LGBT community not publishing it is to publish it anyways, but in a surreptitious manner? Needless to say I strongly disagree with this. The Wikipedia guidelines specifically say not to deadname trans people unless they were famous under that name. No remotely current sources use that name to refer to her, even when talking about her past. The only source liked is over 10 years old. I've removed it yet again. cave (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

This has been going back and forth for a while. I don't care that much, but it's well-sourced; the age of the source doesn't matter. As stated above, there is some actual noteworthiness here. If you're claiming this violates MOS guidelines, please point to the exact place where you think it does. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Where is the noteworthiness? The age of the article matters because 10 years ago the world was a different place. Nowadays you will struggle to find a reputable source using this name to refer to Kim, other than hate websites. Newspapers know not to do this in 2019, Wikipedia should too. Removed. cave (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The noteworthiness was explained above, as the youngest person to undergo sex-reassignment surgery. I asked you to back up your initial claim that it was in violation of the MOS, but you haven't done so. No one is referring to the subject using the birth name, simply noting that's what it was. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The noteworthiness you mention is her age of transition, not her name pre-transition. There is no added value in including the name. She was only 16 years old when this source was published. Please find a source that is more recent to back up the noteworthiness of publishing this name. cave (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Again, the age of the source is irrelevant. It's one minor mention. There's nothing intended to offend here. I don't understand the extreme resistance to including this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

The age of the article is relevant in this case because social mores have changed. Deadnaming trans people is widely regarded as offensive, something that wasn't so commonly understood 10 years ago. There is a reason no recent article on a newspaper, or not even the body of this aricle mentions that name, and again, including it in the infobox seems like a surreptitious way to get it in somehow anyway, not a compromise like you mentioned. If you don't understand the resistance, I ask that you please refer to this article: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Gender_identity#Common_name cave (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not "deadnaming", and it's not offensive here as it's clearly stated that it's a birth name. The link you gave is just an essay, not a policy or guideline, and it doesn't even apply to this situation anyway, because this is simply one single mention of what the birth name was, not a continual referring to by the birth name. You seem to have some strong feelings here, but I think the current situation keeps any fears of offense to a minimum while preserving sourced information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Again the name you want to include fails the noteworthiness test. Here's some extra reading material on what is deadnaming and why we shouldn't do it, it includes mentioning the birth name: The last one is especially poignant to this situation, here's an excerpt: "Jenner's transition, it was difficult to avoid bringing up Jenner's previous name, Bruce, since it's what Americans knew her as before — and the name she explicitly said she wanted to be referred to even after she came out on Sawyer's show. So if news outlets completely avoided Jenner's deadname, it's entirely possible that a lot of readers would have been left genuinely confused. The issue instead more commonly arises when someone deadnames a person who has already been out. For instance, Laverne Cox, star of Orange Is the New Black, has always been known as Laverne Cox in the public view. Trying to dig up a deadname for her and publishing it could be taken as an attempt to undermine Cox's identity." cave (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact, I'm tired of arguing about this. I'm unwatching the page, and if it ever gets changed again, I won't even see it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Could we please get some sort of "official" ruling on this or open the discussion to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Had Petras for only a few days on my whatchlist and the dispute seems to go nowhere. --LH7605 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

References

I added the subject's birth name with two reliable sources. Despite personal feelings about the use of a name no longer being used, it's encyclopedic knowledge about the subject despite the opposition for inclusion. Despite personal feelings about this, kindly remember that Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED) before reverting. --Chlorineer (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I also added a hatnote indicating how "Tim Petras" redirects to this page and should not be confused to the similarly-sounding Tim Petros article page. --Chlorineer (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

She was never notable under that name and wikipedia policy is not vague on this. Deadname does not belong. Rab V (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Petras was notable under the former name, Tim Petras. The articles cited fall outside Petras's gained notoriety as a singer and focus on a different aspect of Petras's life. Hence, and as MOS:DEADNAME states, Petras's former name shall be included in the article, as long as this inclusion abides to all other stylistic guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlorineer (talk • contribs) 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Articles mentioning her former name when she was already going by Kim do not count and even if they did there isn't enough to establish that the deadname is at all notable. Rab V (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact even those articles primarily refer to her as Kim Petras. It's even the first two words in the second source. Rab V (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether articles about the subject's notable gender 'transition' as "[they] do not count," is at the very least debatable and, in my opinion, constitute a violation of WP:CENSORSHIP. The fact that there's so much discussion about this is a clear indication of its importance and encyclopedic relevance and, therefore, worthy of inclusion. --11:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Chlorineer (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a straightforward violation of MOS:DEADNAME that has nothing to do with "personal feelings". The community have agreed not to include deadnames where the person was not notable prior to transition; notability prior to transition is nothing to do with sources existing that mention the birthname and the chosen name. — Bilorv (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What about during the "transition"? Before gaining notoriety as a pop singer (the main focus of the Wiki page at the moment), Petras was notable for being "...believed to be the youngest person ever to undergo gender reassignment surgery." If, for example, someone was doing research on notable people with similar conditions, I feel strongly that Petras's former name may provide encyclopedic value and is therefore worthy of inclusion.--Chlorineer (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

"During the transition" is a strange phrase without unambiguous meaning, but as far as I know, Petras used the name "Kim" and not her deadname prior to gender reassignment surgery. You can think what you want—don't confuse me for somebody attempting to change your mind—but Wikipedia functions through community consensus and I'm pointing out that the consensus is unambiguous and we all must abide by it (or seek to change it at a guideline level). — Bilorv (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:DEADNAME appears to clearly discourage us from adding her deadname to the article. That a few sources can be found that also include her deadname in addition to her name is not unusual, but also not relevant for our need to consider how she is notable, particularly by independent and reliable sources, as Kim. Beccaynr (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• As others have said, no evidence has been presented that she was notable under her former name. Even if she was notable for and during her transition, all evidence suggests she was using the name Kim Petras at the time therefore this does not demonstrate she was notable under any other name. Editor views that it has "encyclopedic value" are irrelevant as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override the strong community consensus on this issue. Nil Einne (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  To try and stop further changes by editors who may not be aware of the community consensus, I've added a hidden comment [4]. To avoid dispute I've kept it simple and simply told editors to check out the relevant guidance and previous discussion rather than forbidding changes but if anyone wants a stronger message I'm fine with that. (But please don't put the deadname in even as a hidden comment.) I've also only added it a single time at the lead, hoping most editors will see it and we won't get many trying to add it to the infobox or whatever without checking out the lead. We could of course add something to the edit notice but I'm not sure if that's either necessary or likely to be more effective. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  The more notifications we can add the better, within reason of course. They won't stop the malicious but they will stop the genuinely misguided. This way we can be sure that anybody adding deadnames is ignoring the warnings and doing so deliberately. This way we can issue warnings for vandalism with good confidence that this is not just somebody making a mistake in good faith. DanielRigal (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Given the information we have about the meaning of vandalism, I would be more inclined to issue a warning for disruptive editing based on WP:BLPRESTORE if the deadname continues to be added to this article. Beccaynr (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  My main advice to avoid disruption would be to editors: don't engage endlessly in discussion. Revert additions to the article once and move on. Answer the question on the talk page and move on. There is no way to stop people reaching this article (and many others on transgender BLPs) in bad faith and demanding we revive a long-settled discussion. Hidden comments cause no harm but often have little effect. There is, however, the option to prevent damage by mostly ignoring the edits and spending your volunteering time more productively. — Bilorv (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Problématique draft

• Draft:Problématique (album)

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First transoersob

Kim is not the first trans person to win a Grammy. Wendy Carlos was - a few decades ago. 2001:1C04:380A:C000:E5AC:6069:C421:7D98 (talk) 07:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

first openly transgender. A key word was properly added. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not normally a fan of "openly" but, in this case, it is serving a valid purpose by making precisely this distinction. DanielRigal (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2023

Change X "In 2013, Petras was featured on two singles named "Flight to Paris" and "Hearbeat" by German DJ Klaas. Throughout the next few years, Petras worked with producers including The Stereotypes, C.J. Abraham, Stephen Dresser, Johan "Jones" Wetterberg, Edward Ellis, and Aaron Joseph on a music career, releasing demos on her SoundCloud page, including one titled "STFU". For her contributions to social media, Petras was ranked at number 19 on Billboard's Artist Chart, listing developing artists, in July 2013. In 2015, Petras appeared on "You" by Isaac Phase for his album, Phase 00001"

to

Y "In 2013, Petras was featured on two singles named "Flight to Paris" and "Hearbeat" by German DJ Klaas. Petras was eventually contacted by 21 year old, Los Angeles based A&R and Producer Edward Ellis after having discovered her covers on YouTube. Ellis reached out to a friend at Universal Music Publishing (Petras current Publisher) and asked if the two could be introduced. Edward had spent time studying Kim's craft and saw something very special. From this point onward Kim and himself committed the following year solely to sending demos back-and-forth between LA and Germany. They were kindred spirits in some sense while also occasionally “butting heads” in a very familiar brother sister dynamic. They were both in love with pop music, culture and what moves the “zeitgeist” forward as they would both be caught flippantly saying to one another. Kim was gradually introduced by Edward to his partner CJ Abraham, Steve Dresser, and Johan “Jones” Wetterberg. This inevitably lead to a partnership between Petras, Abraham, Ellis, and Dresser. This team begun the initial development of Kims career, introduced her to the industry in LA and subsequently secured her first major label record deal and publishing contract. Throughout these few years, Petras worked with producers including The Stereotypes, Johan "Jones" Wetterberg, and eventually, Aaron Joseph on a music career, releasing demos on her SoundCloud page, including one titled "STFU". For her contributions to social media, Petras was ranked at number 19 on Billboard's Artist Chart, listing developing artists, in July 2013. In 2015, Petras appeared on "You" by Isaac Phase for his album, Phase 00001."

Im more than happy to provide sources, supporting documentation, photos, or any other non-confidential material to corroborate these recommended changes. I did my best to keep the framing on Kim, while also introducing some key facts and details that have been missing for quite some time. There's quite a lot that went into Kims journey and would just love to see that represented here on Wiki!

Thanks a lot. CorrectTheRecord92 (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 14:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Problématique (album)

Problématique (album) is back! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Birth place

FrozenIcicle Greetings. Kim Petras's birth place was changed without any discussion or proof (1), even tho all sources says it's Cologne (1) instead of Bonn (which is never mentioned anywhere). Can You put Cologne back? 87.116.178.232 (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for bringing awareness to this issue. FrozenIcicle (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace

Hi, Kim said that she was born in Bonn in a youtube video by 1LIVE called „Kim Petras im 1LIVE Fragenhagel“ in min 1:20-1:28. Mirko wear (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion

I have started a discussion at Talk:Feed the Beast (Kim Petras album) concerning poorly sourced information which is of relevance to this article. Thanks, Dylx 15:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2024

Edit the line: "Kim was scheduled to make the theme song of UEFA Euro 2024 with OneRepublic and Meduza, but in 20 March 2024, was announced that Kim wouldn't participate anymore due "unforeseen shceduling issues", being replaced by also german singer Leony" to "Kim was scheduled to make the theme song of UEFA Euro 2024 with OneRepublic and Meduza, but in 20 March 2024, it was announced that Kim wouldn't participate anymore due "unforeseen scheduling issues." She was replaced by German singer Leony.[72]" Ellipsiseclipse (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)