Talk:Emilie Autumn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEmilie Autumn has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 3, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Talk[edit]

I Can't Give You What Your Looking For Because It Isn't Here Greedco Is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7C23:EA00:2C7D:FF14:F333:7683 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff[edit]

Stashing interviews here for possible inclusion. Reliability will have to be checked.

Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insight into the meanings of her songs from her online journal entries:

Other also from the journal entries

Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one more interview (which mentions voices). Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another interview. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[5] Kaguya-chan (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar Disorder[edit]

Hearing voices absolutely is not a symptom of bipolar disorder. It doesn't matter if she says so in interviews, it is not true. I've no problem with the article including that she has bipolar disorder and hears/ has heard voices, but saying that the hearing of voices is a symptom of bipolar disorder is completely false. 188.141.12.67 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that she blames the disorder for causing the voices in her head, regardless of whether it actually does. Kaguya-chan (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hearing voices IS a symptom of bipolar disorder. I would know from experience - it can occur at times when you're in high mania. http://helpguide.org/mental/bipolar_disorder_symptoms_treatment.htm Look under "Signs and symptoms" if you want proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKiska (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not possible? Where do you get your information, if I might ask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.207.139.113 (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check any trustworthy medical website or the DSM, hallucinating voices is known as psychosis, which occurs in high mania. I posted a link to one in my previous post, I'll link you to another one. http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/manic-depression-symptoms-faq.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKiska (talk • contribs) 13:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing voices absolutely *can* be a symptom of bipolar disorder, in either mood state; I have severe bipolar disorder and have been hospitalized several times for the condition. If anything, I find her romanticising mental illness and her misleading descriptions of psych hospitals far more problematic than claiming bipolar, which half the industry is already doing these days anyway. --R, 13 Sept 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.199.149 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So...[edit]

So the article is pretty much finished except for the mangled Public image section. Any ideas about how to clean it up into 1-2 neat paragraphs or any general improvements? Your opinion is very much wanted, so speak up! :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asexuality[edit]

In the article it says: "Autumn identifies herself as asexual, despite having had relationships with men and women." However, being asexual does not mean that you can't have romantic relationships. (See wiki page on asexuality for reference.) --Rraton (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I removed that part form the article. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that could be possible, as long as there's no sex, which isn't true in this case, by her own admissions. She can call herself asexual, but that's a pretty strong word that means total celibacy as an absolute preference. She can stop having sex (hopefully for a better reason that bisexuality being somewhat cliched by now) but if still has sexual attraction towards anyone she's celibate, not asexual. Magmagoblin2 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, her sexuality is nobody's business but hers. If she wants to think of herself as asexual, let her. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear this up further, a little: Asexuality does not mean celibacy. It indicates that she doesn't experience sexual attraction (but might experience romantic attraction). There are asexuals that do have sex. People often do things they wouldn't, by their own innate interests, for partners they care for. (7x1) (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/emilieautumn/status/243503809198964736 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.168.181 (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's a liar who doesn't know what asxuality means. She is not descended from Alice Liddell. She stole the backstory from American McGee's Alice, she tells her fans to edit her article, she steals, she's a hypocrite and she blames her bi-polar all while doing it. She's not asexual, she's an attention whore. Asexuals aren't interested in sex or sexual relations. Asexuality mean not atrracted to either sex. So EA is a prime example of why we can't have nice things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.186.97 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 8 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not an opinion soapbox. Asexuality is defined on Wikipedia as; "Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality), in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction to others. and, in some cases, the lack of interest in sex." What your opinion of it is is irrevelvant, by that definition you can be asexual and have sex.124.169.35.101 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal name[edit]

I did a little due diligence on the legal name added to the article today:

  • The text of the tweet as quoted checks out.[6]
  • Although it's not a verified Twitter account, it is listed as official at her official website.[7]

Accordingly, I'd say we have verification to a reliable source of the name. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly likely not notable, but she's also been nominated for several Shorty Awards on Twitter... Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know there have been many discussions about her "real name". Let me make some declarative statements:

1. The article about Nigel Kennedy. In the first lines you can read about a certain "Jan Fritzges" who has a 19-year-old daughter named "Autumn". The article is from the 5th september 1997, so Autumn is born 1978 or 1977. They came from Costa Mesa, California. source: http://articles.sfgate.com/1997-09-05/entertainment/17757244_1_san-francisco-symphony-nigel-kennedy-beethoven-violin-concerto/2

2. In Costa Mesa, California, lives a woman named Emily A. Fritzges. She's related to a person named Jan Fritzges. source: http://www.peekyou.com/emily_fritzges/62568335

3. In Costa Mesa, California, lives a Costume Designer/seamstress named Jan Longmire. Her shop is named "Enchant" and she has a dragonfly on her page. source: http://enchant.costume.tripod.com/id20.htm

4. This Jan Longmire is on Facebook. She has a daughter named Emilie Autumn. source: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000740855088#!/profile.php?id=1020398103

5. Emilie Autumn knows Nigel Kennedy.

6. Emilie Autumns mother is a seamstress.

So. There we are. I come to the following conclusion:

Possibility A:

These are all different people: Emilie Autumn, Autumn Fritzges and her mother Jan, Jan Longmire the Costume Designer and her daughter Emilie Autumn. It's that simple and the rest is coincidence.

In this case, Nigel Kennedy knows Emilie Autumn, and an other girl named Autumn Fritzges, both play the violin. And there are two girls named Emilie Autumn, and both have a mother who's a seamstress.

Possibility B:

Emilie Autumn IS Emily Autumn Fritzges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.161.188 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's good doing research, but we can't allow original research in articles, especially if it runs counter to a reliable source. As an aside, it's perfectly possible that EA did change her surname by deed poll (or the local equivalent) to "Liddell", which would make it her "legal name". Sceptre (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That really is some amazing detective work there. I though I should also add that, not only does Ms Longmire have Emilie Autumn listed as her daughter, but she has someone called Clifford Lidell listed as her son. So, any one of these names could be possible. 94.15.207.211 (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about "running counter a reliable source" : EA told us her family died in a fire. So, she can't be Jan Fritzges daughter or Sunshynes sister, cause they're still alive. There must be another Emilie Autumn Liddell in Costa Mesa, California, beside "Emilie Autumn" (the one from JLs facebook), "Emily A. Fritzges" and "Autumn" (daughter of Jan Fritzges). Emilie, Autumn and Fritzges seem to be very common names in CA ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.206.233 (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Emilie is telling the truth. She and her moderators have worked hard to try and keep the Fritzges name under wraps (for example, there is a word filter on her official forum that changes the name Fritzges into Liddell), so there has to be something there. It may be that she doesn't want to be associated with her family, so she made up the backstory. I'm not putting this down as a "this is why Fritzges should be included", only as mere speculation, and as a counter argument to the above comment. 94.15.207.239 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emilie isn't always the best source about information on her life. Her old manager has stated that he has spoken with her mother for one. You'll find a lot of things that contradict what Emilie says sometimes...Her birth name probably is Emily Fritzges, her legal name could be Emilie Liddell for all we know as well.--68.193.35.12 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A recent Twitter post by EA claims that her "entire family died in a fire several years ago": http://twitter.com/#!/emilieautumn/status/104126098912190464 . Does that mean that she's contradicting herself on how her father died (in 2004)? Entire does imply whole family. Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this article: http://articles.sfgate.com/1997-09-05/entertainment/17757244_1_san-francisco-symphony-nigel-kennedy-beethoven-violin-concerto/2 Kennedy says that his-friend-Emilie "was bitten by an eel and can't play at the moment." (Her sister's pet eel did the damage, Autumn confided.)" AND, that happend to Emilie Autumn the musician. She said about it in the interview from 4gm.nl ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN7r_MuYjhQ ). So I find very possible that birth name of Emilie Autumn WAS Fritzges but she changed it to Liddell. 12:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.186.84 (talk)

Recently, on Youtube, member "cos2mer2" has claimed to be Emilie Autumn's (the artist's) mother and has identified herself as Jan Longmire. The following comments related to this claim have been copied from the Youtube video in which they are featured (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBD7ehJ0eFI) as a two-part explanation:

Comment 1: Emilie Autumn is one of my five children who grew up in a home surrounded by love and devotion. We have been the victims of lies and historical reinvention. Accusations of abuse have never been detailed. Our names, have been thrown around like trash. We are real people with real lives and we have all been lied about for years....Emilie's "history" is only plausible to people who were never there. Why the fantasy childhood? Who knows...we were kicked to the curb ten years ago..no explanation.

Comment 2 (continued from the above): I've heard my name used in this video and in hundreds of comments, quotes, and various references to Emilie. The ignorance about me, my family, and Emilie's early life would be acceptable if it were kept to the private delusions of a gullible few. However, I have become referenced in a very public was by Emilie's fans, and will now begin to undo the massive amount of damage done to my family and myself by years of lies and misrepresentations of the reality of all our lives. Jan Longmire

Furthermore, this Youtube user was contacted by another user and half of the conversation (the replies from cos2mer2) were featured on the Asylum Reform site (http://www.theasylumreform.com/) in the "Thoughts Concerning EA" thread. They are as follows:

Response 1: Thanks for your email. I don't have anything to add to the public discussion of my family. I don't have a "side of the story". My family has a single history and we all remember it perfectly. In addition, I love all my children unconditionally, and that certainly includes Emilie. I hope you continue to enjoy her artistry and originality, and feel free to take her biographical offerings any way you choose. My sincere best wishes.

Response 2: Thank you for your wise advice regarding my privacy and the access that my current FB page gives to the overly curious info seekers. As it happens, I'm a costume designer of some significance within the very narrow niche of International Figure Skating. I established my FB presence in order to be accessible to my industry and it continues to serve that function so well that I can't afford to hide behind privacy settings. Almost all my posts are professional in content.. So, as I do get the occasional EA fan popping up with a friend request hoping to gain inside info, I just block that individual. The rest can shop for scraps of "truth" as they wish. At some point living a real life will become more important to these guys than scrounging through other people's "histories"....hopefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.80.88.8 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn’s name is still legally Emily Autumn Fritzges: http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/40525516/dou-secao-1-14-09-2012-pg-111

A few months ago, her name was publicly posted by Brazil's "Diario Oficial", which is a totally legal source that keeps track of people traveling to that country; that's how the law works there (you can even see her passport number). The members of her backing band ("The Bloody Crumpets") talk openly about their own real names, and they are: Margaret Rose Lally (Known as Captain Maggot), Tara Lee Heffner (Known as Ms. Varlow), and Beth Hinderliter (Known as The Blessed Contessa). Their names are listed there right after Emily Autumn Fritzges, along with Autumn's current Tour manager: Melissa Dawn King (simply known as Melissa King).

"Diario Oficial" (Brazil's Official Gazette) is a communication via by which the national press is obliged to make public every topic on the federal level. It consists of three sections that publish:

  • Laws, decrees, resolutions, instructions, regulations, ordinances and other legislative acts of general interest.
  • Acts regarding the interest of the Federal Public Administration servers.
  • Contracts, news.

It is linked to the Presidency of the Federative Republic of Brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.142.235.71 (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which means we need to look at it against the guidelines of WP:BLPPRIMARY:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Diario Oficial looks to sit pretty close to that definition of public documents and public records. I hesitate to use it as the key source to mention a name that is not otherwise mentioned in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion.

Is it really necessary to write "Emilie Autumn Liddell" in the article's first sentence? The majority of her fans know that her birth (and still legal) last name is Fritzges. I think it would be better if you just leave it like this: "Emilie Autumn (born on September 22, 1979) is an American singer-songwriter, poet, and violinist..." Just removing "Liddell" from the first sentence. I think it would be better and more neutral, and it is also a better way to avoid vandalism, which I know is making your job really hard. Just a suggestion. :)

Official site redone[edit]

Ms. Autumn redid her official site, and took out the section where she discussed her appearances on other musicians' tracks, among other things. And none of it can be found on Internet Archive, of course, because that would make everything far too easy. And, she now says that she was born in Los Angeles [8]... Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Emilie Autumn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    A German circus performer,[1] her father immigrated to America at the age of nine and ran away at age fourteen; ran away from what?  Done
    Accords sufficiently with MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Referenced well, sources appear RS in context, no evidence of OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Detailed with unnecessary trivia
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Licensed, tagged and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Just one minor point above to address. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I am happy to pass this as a GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review. Her father became a run-away; I've gone ahead and clarified that in the article. Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Teatime suffering was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Industrial Genre[edit]

Guys, stop removing industrial from the box, Emilie adds industrial into her work and I think it fits nicely.! Stop! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.37.202 (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What independent reliable sources can you provide that classify her music as industrial, and is industrial a major genre of music? —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at old versions of the article, there were three genres listed: Classical, electronic, and industrial. Based on that, I'll accept industrial being listed as a genre unless an argument is presented here for removing that genre from the infobox. Regarding the later addition of dark cabaret, that's the genre that I'm not sure warrants a mention in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Post-Gazette gives her genres as "classical, cabaret, electronica and glam-rock", but she commented in an interview: "the fact that I'm categorized largely in industrial mainly because of yelling a lot and the kind of drum programming I do, that is the industrial revolution... If I have to categorize it anything, I call it glam rock because there's a lot of glitter on the stage." Hope that helps! Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
her music has absolutely NOTHING to do with electro industrial... AFX237V7 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely right. This woman has absolutely no idea what Industrial music means. For her, it's just a marketing term. Furthermore, it's not the only term she used to describe her music. There are 3 or 4 more self-invented genre terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.17.134 (talk) 09:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... and please, show me the Darkwave part in her music. Many of her songs are new-age/folk-oriented, comparable to the sound of Clannad and related groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.134.17.134 (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal range[edit]

A vocal range can't go "from contralto to dramatic soprano." Each is a distinct voice type, although some may overlap to some extent. It would be better if EA's range were described in terms of lowest to highest note (for example, A3 to C5 or whatever; you'll see this kind of distinction on other singers' pages). See Fach, Voice_type, etc. 71.79.244.206 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! In an ideal world, her range would be covered in the way you just suggested. Unfortunately, as Ms. Autumn is not very well known in the mainstream press, there aren't many reliable sources discussing her, let alone her vocal range. This seems to be slowly changing, as she just got covered in the SF Examiner, but for now the only thing I can find is from her birthday chat:

ENDER ASKED Sorry to be bothering you again, Ms. Autumn, but I believe I have another question… do you take singing lessons? If so, how long have you been studying for? Are you an alto, soprano, mezzo?
EMILIE AUTUMN ANSWERED Hi sweet! I’ve never had a singing lesson, I simply take the basics of tone production that I learnt on the fiddle and apply them to my vocal chords, which seems to work passibly. I am naturally an alto, though have developed a sort of soprano which you can hear on songs like “Marry Me”. Thanks for the great question!

http://batteredrose.com/info/transcripts/eas-birthday-chat/

Any suggestions on how to best replace the incorrect sentence? Kaguya-chan (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

In the main text is said she was born in 1977, but in the box is said she was born in 1979. Nodate have a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.122.13.174 (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction corrected to 1979. The reference is properly placed in the 1979–2000: Beginnings section of the article; the introduction and infobox do not need references when the material is referenced in the main body of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Albums section[edit]

I think "A Bit o' This & That" should be listed in the "rarities albums" category instead of the "Compilation Albums" section, since its not an studio album, but it isn't an EP ether. It can't be a compilation album, cause it doesn't include her singles or her biggest hits, or songs previously released (except for the remixed for what if and chambermaid). It fits more in the rarities category cause it has the songs that were never released on Enchant or Opheliac, and it also has live recordings, demos and some remixes. So I don't see how someone can consider it as a compilation album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.145.11.97 (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out. I've gone ahead and fixed it. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real birth year?[edit]

Emilie tends to say she was born in 1979, however the following image contradicts that and would suggest she was actually born in 1977. (http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcb9wtogJO1rptmyso4_500.jpg) I have heard that the latter date is correct, so could we use the linked image as proof, and adjust the date accordingly? Or is this a no-go? Thanks. 176.27.79.19 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. What source did the album cover get its date from? I think the Allmusic bio is a better source than this. —C.Fred (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred You're in denial. I suggest you reading this: http://asylumplaguedoctor.tumblr.com/biography with better (and legal) sources than Emilie's words. But we all know you're fathergod, so nevermind, talking to you is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.142.232.101 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it possible that the On A Day... album cover/insert that lists her birth year as 1977 is just a misprint? I mean, the above link mentions that the 2001 re-release of the album lists Autumn's birth year as 1979. The re-release predates the bulk of Autumn's discography (including Enchant), and it was released during a time that even a lot of skeptics seem to accept as an "era" when Autumn was "honest" about her life. It's possible that she's lied about other aspects of her life (I'm not going to bother with that, largely because it is not my place to judge or analyse what she's said in that regard), but this seems like an honest mistake rather than an outright, revisionist lie. 96.52.37.75 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why the WP guideline is to go for secondary sources rather than primary. The hope is that the researchers for the biography will have checked and double-checked sources, rather than just printed what Autumn says. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actual birth year[edit]

Original research, obviously, so can't be included in the article proper (along with her birth surname, Fritzges, of course), but the following record indicates her birth date was, as indicated on the 1997 'On A Day' promo that she clearly now regrets given her forum etc black that part out, 22 September 1977. https://www.familysearch.org/search/search/record/results/?count=20&query=%2Bgivenname%3A%22Emily%20A%22~%20%2Bsurname%3AFritzges~

Just adding this here for posterity! 88.109.210.206 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emilie Autumn. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Emilie Autumn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Emilie Autumn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emilie Autumn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asexual[edit]

Pinging Adam9007, NedFausa, and will invite IP on their talk page. The reference that Adam added to support the asexual statement appears to me to be an independent, reliable source. IP, what is your objection to the source? Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I came to this article because I was reviewing Special:PendingChanges and this one has 4 pending. Schazjmd (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, The IP seems to be under the impression that BLP material must come directly from the subject, or it's not reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that isn't right. Now, I'll agree that the previous ref (Autumn's ambiguous tweet) wasn't a good source for the claim as Autumn merely says the press asked it; however, the LGBTQ Nation article is a better source. Schazjmd (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to argue that a quiz that mentions someone in passing is an appropriate source regarding their sexuality, I suggest you do so at WP:BLPN [9] 165.120.15.119 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Referring to it as a "quiz" isn't very accurate. It's a long article (poorly titled) discussing the nature of asexuality, the spectrum of sexuality, the history of asexuality and concerns of individuals who claim to be asexual. However, that's a good point that the section on "Who are some famous asexual celebrities?" merely includes Autumn in a list (passing mention). Schazjmd (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd Thanks for the ping. I have no objection to citing LGBTQ Nation as a source, although I do think that for this particular reference, we ought to indicate that Emilie Autumn has "reportedly identified as asexual," since she is not directly quoted to that effect in the article. Also, please be aware I have requested that this BLP page be unprotected. NedFausa (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I requested that it be protected, lest the edit warring continues. Adam9007 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 I was unaware of your request for full page protection when, five minutes later, I requested that the page be unprotected. In any case, I will not withdraw my request, since today's editing in no way justifies the full protection you want. NedFausa (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the last time something like this happened, the article was full protected rather quickly (I am of course referring to Pauley Perrette). Adam9007 (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are these two sources any good? Adam9007 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 I support referencing either or both of those sources. The first is weaker, since homosensual.com has been cited at only one English Wikipedia page. The second, though, is stronger because Radio Santa Fe has its own English Wikipedia page. NedFausa (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And what about LGBTQ Nation? Adam9007 (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 As I stated a few paragraphs above, I have no objection to citing LGBTQ Nation as a source, although I do think that for this particular reference, we ought to indicate that Emilie Autumn has "reportedly identified as asexual," since she is not directly quoted to that effect in the article. NedFausa (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I would most strongly object to the inclusion of such a statement. 'X has stated that Y is Z' might be valid sourcing for many things, but when it comes to sexuality, any inclusion of commentary at all should be properly sourced to something which is directly discussing the individual concerned, rather than mentioning them in passing. We are under no obligation to say anything about Autumn's sexuality at all, and if sources can't be found which indicate it is of significance to the individual's public life, such a statement would seem to me to be of little more merit than mere gossip. The mere existence of a source for something is never on its own sufficient grounds for inclusion, and as far as WP:BLP is concerned, we are required to write "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy" If Ms Autumn wants to make less ambiguous statements regarding the matter, or if it actually becomes relevant to her notability, the situation might change, but hopefully then more could be said on the subject than a single sentence which leaves the reader wondering why we think it matters. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@165.120.15.119: You make a good point. Even if we reach consensus that LGBTQ Nation, homosensual.com, and/or Radio Santa Fe are acceptable sources, there remains the issue of whether asexuality is noteworthy in this BLP. I hope that Adam9007 will weigh in on this latter point. NedFausa (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the homosensual.com ref explicitly casts doubt on the claim that Autumn identifies as asexual citing the tweet that this article previously used to support the claim. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: thank you. In focusing on the general acceptability of homosensual.com as a source, I overlooked the fact that it reports "many people have doubted" Autumn's asexuality, and presents nothing to counter that doubt. NedFausa (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like Autumn has claimed she is asexual, but doubt has been cast on this assertion.? As for noteworthiness, I imagine that if it's been mentioned in three third-party sources, then it at least has some significance. Adam9007 (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: Yes, your paraphrase captures the essence of what homosensual.com stated. As to being noteworthy, however, that's problematic because homosensual.com casts doubt on her asexuality, and LGBTQ Nation mentions her merely in passing. Only Radio Santa Fe accords Autumn's asexuality significance, asserting that it was (in 2010) "motivating her to build her personal project in a supernatural way." I think ultimately our content dispute will be resolved not on the reliability of available sources but on how noteworthy her asexuality is as reported by the preponderance of those sources. NedFausa (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From past experience, Wikipedia accepts what someone says about their identity without further comment, unless there is a specific reason to dispute this. By policy this applies to gender, and in practice, it also applies to sexuality. We do not assume that the Wikipedia definition of a topic supersedes reliable sources, nor do we editorialize on the definition favored by the individual. For example, articles cannot assume that gay people who have sexual relationships with different-sex people must by lying.

"...doubt has been cast on this assertion" is a textbook example of WP:WEASEL. This doubt is no more notable than any other bit of gossip. Yes, it's what a source say, but this is not enough, especially for a WP:BLP. We do not present "both sides" as if they were equivalent, since this would be false balance.

Regarding reliable sources, all sources are judged in context. That a source has an article is useful, but not necessary, for it to be WP:RS.

So here are the proposed sources:

  • @emilieautumn (September 6, 2012). "Press asked if I still consider myself asexual. Shared revelation: Wasn't that I disliked sex, just nevr been w/ any1 who was any good @ it" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
This tweet strongly implies that the press already assumed she was asexual, and the tweet doesn't actually dispute this. Per my first point, having had sex (mediocre or otherwise) doesn't matter. Interpreting this to mean she isn't really asexual would be WP:OR.
This appears to be a passing mention in a flimsy, but reliable, source. Sources are not obligated to "show their work" for every single thing they mention, because this would be an unsupportable burden of proof.
Non-English sources often lack English-language Wikipedia articles, but this doesn't mean they are not reliable. At a glance, this appear to have at least some fact-checking and editorial oversight. Again, per my first point, their editorializing about her having past relationships is gossip.
In some context, Homosensual is probably fine, but this article sure reads like a listicle. Over-relying on clickbait suggest this is only being considered as a way to include "doubt". Selective use of sources is not neutral.

I hope that's useful. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

flimsy, but reliable, source Could you elaborate on that? 'flimsy' and 'reliable' seem to contradict each other here. Adam9007 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. As I said, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, which means that sources are not judged on a pass/fail system. Sources which might be okay for some things are not going to be enough for others. The line is sometimes very fuzzy, and this a major source of disputes, which is why we have dedicated noticeboards for these things. This particular website would not pass muster for an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim, but likewise, I don't think it's so bad that it should be automatically rejected for non-controversial information. Outlets are rarely rejected out-of-hand (although I think, perhaps, this is starting to change as WP:RSP grows longer, and patience for fake news grows thinner, but that's a tangent).
Since I linked to EXTRAORDINARY, I should clarify that I absolutely do not accept that being asexual is an extraordinary claim. Further, none of these sources suggest that Autumn views it as controversial. By that, I mean that none of these sources show that she has "controverted" it. Nothing here seems surprising, or self-promotional, or out of character, and of course, none of this has anything to do with WP:FRINGE issues, either. Grayfell (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grayfell, have you been following the discussion on this at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Poorly_sourced_assertions_of_asexuality.? Schazjmd (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I've seen it, but I was not closely following it until now. TBH, I don't know how much difference one more editor will make there. Here, at least, I thought maybe this would be useful, but perhaps not. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely do not accept that being asexual is an extraordinary claim Neither do I, under the everyday definition of the term. Unfortunately, this case seems to me (and evidently much of the community, going by that noticeboard discussion) to fit Wikipedia's definition of 'extraordinary', by my reading of WP:EXTRAORDINARY#2. Adam9007 (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was afraid of. The context for that entry makes it seem like it's more about WP:COI, but asking if someone has a COI for themselves, because of it's their own twitter account? For their own identity? It's a mess. Grayfell (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to the fact it's been challenged multiple times, even with the LGBTQ Nation sourcing. Adam9007 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who, exactly, is challenging this? Per sources, what person or group is challenging this? Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An IP challenged this here, here, here, here, and here. That's five times, even with the LGBTQ Nation sourcing. Adam9007 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. Editors are not the same as reliable sources because this would only facilitate bad-faith activity, among other issues. If this is the point you want to emphasize, on what grounds are these editors challenging this? We still use sources either way, so again, per sources, who is challenging this? Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure I follow; are you asking if a reliable source has challenged the assertion that she's asexual? Or are you asking if an editor is challenging it based on sources? If so, the IP's assertions that it needs to be sourced from the subject herself directly is certainly a challenge, as it's a statement of doubt of LGBTQ Nation's veracity or reliability, and (s)he also stated that the twitter source doesn't actually say she's asexual, which also sounds a lot like a challenge to me. Adam9007 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before Grayfell brought up WP:EXTRAORDINARY on this page, I had not considered it. Wondering what I'd missed in the related discussions, I checked Talk:Pauley Perrette, Talk:Mary Cagle, Talk:Janeane Garofalo, BLP Noticeboard (1 of 2), BLP Noticeboard (2 of 2) and ANI re Pauley Perrette. To my surprise, I found not one mention of WP:EXTRAORDINARY. But this policy deserves greater attention here, and I commend Grayfell for introducing it. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, we are told. Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. I submit that a claim in Wikipedia of a celebrity's asexuality is both surprising and apparently important. We live in a highly sexualized society, and departure from that norm is unusual to say the least. When such a development is not covered by multiple mainstream sources, we must pay serious mind to WP:EXTRAORDINARY in considering its addition to that person's BLP. NedFausa (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked you to stop pinging me, that applies to this article as well. Don't bother apologizing, just do not do it again. Neither I nor anybody else cares which template you use to notify another user, FYI.
I specifically cautioned against misusing EXTRAORDINARY. It is not appropriate to describe someone's sexual identity as "surprising" based on tissue-thin editorializing about society. Attempting to apply this guideline to a dispute spanning multiple articles, without regard to context, would be a mistake at best, and could easily be perceived as an attempt to game the system, at worst. Think very carefully about how you want to pursue this. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think very carefully about how you want to pursue this. Is that some kind of veiled threat? I don't take kindly to those. NedFausa (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emilie_Autumn&oldid=1205524096"