Talk:Pauley Perrette

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pauley Perrette. 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 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

checked and true. --Omotecho (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in infobox[edit]

According to Template:Infobox person#Parameters, the religion parameter (or in this case, "denomination") should only be used if relevant/significant to the article subject (meaning: if it's notable to her career or persona). There's been a discussion on the Elvis Presley talk page as to whether to include religion in his IB, so if there's a question about its notability for him, then I would say that it definitely wouldn't notable for her. —Musdan77 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She has mentioned on her official Twitter account and in a couple interviews that she is UMC Methodist. She has been interviewed for local LA stations while doing activities at her church. She has a "Chucks at Church" feature on her Twitter account as well. Featuring people wearing their Chucks (she wears them too) at church. She has even participated in church services. I'm not sure what the UMC calls it, but at my church (ELCA Lutheran) we call it an "Assisting Minister" (even though those who assist aren't really ministers).
So Religion is very big for her and is referenced numerous times in various articles and reports, even which church she goes to church at. In this case, this is notable and easily referenced. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:26 on September 16, 2016 (UTC)

Virginia Slims[edit]

Pauley was the spokesperson for Virginia Slims cigarettes, why is this not in there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.50.20 (talk) 01:04, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Probably because it is not notable, or there are no reliable sources to support the claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struggling actress booked by advertising agency for X commercial is not exactly my concept of spokesperson for X. How many of the other products for which she appeared in commercials are listed in the article? That is why it's not there and should not be. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coming out on Twitter[edit]

Consensus is needed for this adition, also see following reverts and summaries. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:TWITTER is part of WP:V, which is policy. Since she said it on her official Twitter account, it's like we are quoting her directly. Same goes for official Facebook and Instagram (and other social media) accounts as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:20 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure, I have asked for outside advice from the BLP noticeboard. Since this is a BLP, I thought their advice would be worthy of inclusion in this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:28 on January 20, 2020 (UTC)
  • I know responses to the tweet are interpreting it as a declaration, but it isn't clear that it is one. The way it's worded (Aces, it is actually me.) can be read as a tweet directed to Aces, especially since the prior tweet was For the BILLIONTH TIME: I am NOT ON @instagram! That @realpauleyp and all other "PAULEY" accounts are FAKE!!!Please report them and do not follow.They're stealing my @twitter content.I am also NOT ON @FACEBOOK THIS @PAULEYP @TWITTER account is my ONLY social media account. I would want either a clearer self-declaration or independent coverage before putting it in a BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pauley Perrette also updated her twitter bio to include "Ace", which is the very excepted shortening of Asexual. Official Tweets of Actor Pauley Perrette Civil Rights/Community Activist, singer/songwriter Insomniac. Human. Ace.. For me this very clearly states her coming out as asexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.234.97.66 (talk) 15:33, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: Why are you adding unsourced content to a BLP and while there's an ongoing discussion and editwarring. Stop it. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have readded the sentence with the Twitter reference...BUT, I have commented the entire section out. Saying that it's addition is currently being discussed here and the need for secondary third-party reliable sources. I hope, for the time being, this will quell outside editors from adding and readding the section over and over while we are discussing this here. @FlightTime:, if you would have given me more time than say, 10 seconds, what I was doing would have been made clear. Also, I said what I was doing on your talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:24 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 24 hours. I have decided to leave the article in the state without any of the information under dispute, commented or not, which is my understanding of policy (WP:PREFER - "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as ... poor-quality coverage of living people") and not intended to favour any side of the debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why add something unsourced toa BLP then comment it out, seem like a pure case of POV pushing to me, drop the damn stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: It stops people from adding it, edit warring about it, and moves them to this discussion. It shows them, it is added, but we need to discuss it and what the discussion is about so it doesn't go sideways like 2J14 thought that we have a problem with people who are asexual, but that we need more sources, references.
@Ritchie333: It wasn't a content dispute, but that FlightTime wouldn't let me finish what I was doing without going to warp speed typing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer:Damn it, you don't fuck around with a BLP. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to dial it back a little bit. Had you listened to what I said on your talk page and gave me a minute, none of this would have happened. But it did, so, it gives us more time to discuss. So, let's discuss. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:05 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • I recently made an account. I'm the one who made the initial edit adding her statement of sexuality. Ace does not have many terms when referring to yourself. What would need to be provided for this to be accepted? Does she need to make a post stating asexual instead of ace? —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:46, January 21, 2020‎ (UTC)
  • @RadiationGhoul: Yes, that would be perfect. Short of media coverage, a second tweet with clearer language would be perfect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:03 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • @Neutralhomer:Perfect, thank you. The reason why people are so adamant is because asexuality has a history of being erased, told its not real. There are several asexual groups she has already been speaking directly with, who are reaching out to her to see if she would be willing to make a statement that would be accepted as "clear" by wiki. If she does I'll a note here. —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 16:46, January 21, 2020‎ (UTC)
  • @RadiationGhoul: *I do want to make this clear: We aren't trying to erase her statement, we are trying to confirm it in the clearest sense of the word...literally. I do see where people are coming from where "ace" could be considered other things, but I know it's basically one thing. So, with BLPs (Biographies of Living Persons) we have to sometimes wait for better sources. I appreciate your help on this as does everyone else. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:17 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • @Neutralhomer:I do, somewhat, understand the hesitance. However given the context of having it in her bio, I don't see how it could have any other meaning. I saw in the BLP board someone said it could mean a guitar or a plane. She has in her bio on twitter that she's "Insomniac. Human. Ace.". She's not saying she's a biplane, she's not saying she's a guitar. She's saying she's asexual. Even here on wiki, the first sentence of the asexual page states the term "ace". I do understand that you aren't trying to erase her statement. I'm trying to help shed light on why the exclusion of this, when it's a statement that came directly from her, is causing anger in the ace community. If you look at who she's following on Twitter, directly after making the tweet she began following multiple Asexual accounts. I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignored. —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 00:58, January 22, 2020‎ (UTC)
  • @Neutralhomer:It's true, asexuality is not a term widely known throughout the rest of the sexual community, and that's the problem here. We cannot raise awareness for asexuality when one of the largest information sources on the internet is micromanaging how we're allowed to come out. How are we supposed to raise awareness that "ace" equals "asexual" if we're discredited when we say "I'm ace!" There is no other definition of "Ace" that makes sense in the context of her bio. "Ace" is a common abbreviation of "Asexual" in the Ace Community (to the point where Asexuals self-identify using the Ace of Spades in a deck of cards). You're not trying to erase our identity, yet you are doing so by telling us how we're allowed to come out. Those of us that come out the "wrong way" aren't recognized. Instead of worrying about confusing your readers, you should see the learning opportunity that Wikipedia could provide here (which is what Wikipedia is for). People see that she came out as asexual and follow the link, and they could learn that people use the term "ace" as a shortended version of Asexual. Instead of removing the portion of the article all together, you could provide more information to help people learn. "Pauley Perrette came out as Asexual on Twitter[1], using the word "ace" which is a known abbreviation of the term[2]. Not only does she mention it in her bio and a pinned tweet, but she also followed 10 known asexual Twitter accounts[3] to confirm suspicions. It's been speculated for a long time within the asexual community because of this interview[4]." Instead of worrying about confusing people, you provide more information to teach people. --Faeriefate (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Believe me, I understand. Read further down, I am working trying to get the post on Pauley's page back up. But you raise good points. Since the asexuality.org page does use "ace" in a definition, that might be helpful as well. I'm not sure if it will be enought to sway those stubborn amongst us, but it's worth a shot. We could also use that CBS video. Have a pattern of behavior. What say you Ritchie333 and Cullen328? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:37 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)
  • @Neutralhomer: Thank you! I forgot to update to mention that be Wikipedia itself states that "Ace" is short for "Asexual"[5]. --Faeriefate (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RadiationGhoul(UTC): It has been 24 hours since Wikipedia's temporary lockout of Pauley Perrette's Twitter statement, an exclusion you claim "is causing anger in the ace community." Later in this thread, Neutralhomer alleged that "there is a community out there who is seeing this as 'Asexual erasure.'" Assuming, arguendo, that there is an appreciable community of asexual persons who express themselves online, I have searched but found no evidence that they are up in arms over this matter. On Twitter, for example, a mere handful of accounts (significantly not including @PauleyP herself) have criticized Wikipedia for not immediately certifying her declaration of asexuality. Nor have any non-editors expressed displeasure here on this Talk page, which has remained open for public comment despite the BLP blockage. Either you and Neutralhomer are misrepresenting the extent to which asexuals as a community are irate about this, or said community is so miniscule that its rage cannot be detected by outsiders. NedFausa (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RadiationGhoul: I understand and I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia. But you raise a good point, since it is in her bio (of a verified account) that should be enough. I want to bring in Ritchie333 on this (since he is an admin): Since Pauley has added this to her Twitter bio and clearly she isn't saying she is a guitar or plane and she is following asexual Twitter accounts, could we consider that enough for inclusion? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at Wikipedia Where on Twitter are you telling people what's going on here? As both a Wikipedian and an ace, I'd be interested to see what the ace community has to say about this. Adam9007 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I found it. Adam9007 (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An agreeing admin would move things along to consensus. Let me be clear. This entire thing was started by you. We had a reference, with in WP:TWITTER (through WP:V), but that wasn't good enough. You edit-warred instead of letting me edit, and having a comment-out version of the edit with a note explaining the reason for it's current non-inclusion wasn't good enough for you. You come to this page and bash me and tell me Damn it, you don't fuck around with a BLP when that's all you've been doing. The page gets temp-blocked, I work for a solution, and instead of working together, you decide to throw that nonsense in there about having an admin agree with me isn't consensus. I'm sorry, but Jimbo didn't die and he didn't make you in charge. Everything that has taken place on this page since that first addition of the edit can be traced back to you. I believe you need to step away from this article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
What did I start ? A consensus discussion ? maybe you should take me to ANI. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But when you were told that WP:TWITTER/WP:V was in effect, you didn't let it go. Now it's a mess. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
An agreeing admin would move things along to consensus. Not necessarily. An admin's opinion carries no more weight than that of a normal editor. Admins just implement consensus. Adam9007 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: Perhaps I wasn't clear (happens), normally when an admin !votes/decides one way, it kinda sways people to go in that direction. Especially in a discussion such as this one. Not saying that's what is going to happen. But since Ritchie was the blocking admin, it would help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23 on January 22, 2020 (UTC) 02:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This thread has generated more heat than light. Instead of angrily demanding which editor did what and when, we ought to focus on the issue at hand. To support adding "Perrette came out as asexual," can we rely on a 5-word tweet from her verified account ("Aces, it is actually me") and a single descriptor in her Twitter bio ("Ace")? To me, that seems thin. RadiationGhoul contends, "I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignored." If so, we'd have to rely on Twitter. But Pauley Perrette is a celebrity. As noted in our lede, she's an actress best known for co-starring in a hit TV series for 15 years (!), a published writer, singer, and civil rights advocate. To assume that the media will not cover her newly announced asexuality is unwarranted. Accordingly, I commend admin Ritchie333 for fully protecting the page for 24 hours. If by then no WP:RS has reported Perrette's coming out, we can decide the issue based on WP:BLPSPS, which allows self-published sources such as tweets when written by the subject of the article. However, the absence of independent coverage might also implicate WP:NOTEWORTHY. In other words, are we forcing something into an encyclopedia article that is not noteworthy enough to be covered by the media? NedFausa (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: I think what RadiationGhoul meant by "I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignored is that it won't be covered as it isn't covered like say someone coming out as gay, or bi, or lesbian, or trans. You just don't hear it. To be honest, I've never heard of media coverage of a celeb announcing that they were asexual. I don't think it's really understood either.
I think we should rely on WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V, and go from there. WP:BLPSPS wouldn't come into play since the "unless written or published by the subject of the article" clause is in effect. Her Twitter account is verified, so we can confirm that it is indeed her that wrote it. I believe (as does the Asexual Community who is actively watching this) that this is NOTEWORTHY. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:13 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also like to bring this to everyone's attention. Pauley began following 11 seperate Asexual accounts very recently. Taking this into account, I believe that should take any shred of doubt in anyone's mind and throw it out. The "ace" reference is indeed for "asexual" and not for anything else people have come up with (ie: guitar ace, World War I flying ace, etc.). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:18 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself. This is the second time you've pointed out how Pauley is following asexual Twitter accounts and denied that she's a guitar or WWI fighter pilot. In an already cluttered thread, such repetition is not helpful. NedFausa (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: Ya think? No one is responding and when they do respond, they respond to this. Be helpful if people would discuss what is important except for me repeating myself. Otherwise, I'm going to keep repeating myself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:54 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I don't see how 'ace' in her tweet could mean anything other than asexual. 'Ace' in its other senses tends to be accompanied by a modifier (or the modified word), and there is none here. Adam9007 (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm done for the night, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be back up after 12 Noon EST (I work tomorrow, 1/22). I will check this page and respond to what I can before I leave. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:07 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should include it until we can provide an unambiguous reference that any reader can check and confirm. An abbreviation known to a small subset of readers in a twitter bio doesn't meet that standard. And if we don't find independent coverage, then it isn't WP:DUE. Schazjmd (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd is the first in this thread to mention WP:DUE, and it deserves consideration. Specifically, WP:PROPORTION directs: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Editors who are themselves openly asexual naturally insist that Perrette's self-identification as Ace is a big f'ing deal. Yet when Perrette unambiguously revealed (in five tweets between May 2017–September 2019) her decision "to be celibate and single for life," Wikipedians did not rush to include it in her BLP. Nearly three years after she came out as celibate, we still have not added that minor revelation, and for good reason. It is not particularly noteworthy within the overall context of her personal life, which in my opinion is already given disproportionate attention in this BLP. Adding her asexuality, absent independent coverage from WP:RS, would be equally unwarranted. NedFausa (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa and Schazjmd: One's coming out, though, is warranted of coverage in Wikipedia because it is a big deal in someone's life. When someone comes out as whatever, they are saying "this is me, this is who I am" and they should be covered. What no one is willing to accept is she did this on her own, personal, verified Twitter account. Now, you all need to accept that there is a community out there who is seeing this as "Asexual erasure". They see two clear references to it (the tweet, and her bio) and they don't understand why an "unambiguous reference" when "ace" is understood by so many. People in this very discussion have said they understand it (outside of me). So, with the ace world looking on, I think we need to try harder and do better. Because right now, we are failing miserably! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:02 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, I haven't seen anyone dispute that it's Perrette's verified Twitter account. Schazjmd (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: How about we address the rest of what I said too. The rest is kind of important. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:21 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
No, we are not failing miserably. We are coming with BLP policy, which is mandatory. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Neutralhomer, you're merely repeating yourself over and over throughout the thread. You have not addressed the concern that we do not have an unambiguous source that the general public can use to validate the information. Her tweet is not a clear reference; to me, it clearly is addressing the audience of "Aces". Note the comma after the word. It's equivalent to "Friends and followers, it is actually me." Her bio is not a clear reference either as it requires familiarity with a neologism that is not commonly known except by those within that community or aware of it. Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: I believe we are. Would we do the same for a gay person? A lesbian person? A trans person? If they used a nickname for identity, would we, basically, make them send another tweet confirming what we already know? Is Wikipedia suffering from a little aphobia? Maybe we are being different to one group of people when we wouldn't to another? I think we need to look at ourselves, a good hard look. Because we wouldn't do this to anyone in the LGBT community, so why the IAQ part? It makes zero sense and yes, we are failing.
No one is even willing to have a real conversation. Focus on the 11 asexual accounts Ms. Perrette followed. Nope, it's gotta be something else. Would we do that to someone who just announced that they were gay? No! Wikipedia would be slammed with tweets, protests, and everything else calling us every word in the book. But we are, basically, forcing a woman to tweet again what her identity is? Why? Yes, that's failing. That's "eraser" in my book. We can do better, we just need to discuss it! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
@Schazjmd: Maybe if someone was willing to have a real conversation on the real issues instead of focusing on the same thing over and over and over and over and over, I wouldn't have to repeat myself (which I hate doing). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:40 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: Will you please stop with the "aphobia" bullshit, nobody (except you) is concerned about what people are. This is about BLP articles and what claims are made and the sources that support those claims, not how people/article subject are or how they live, jeez drop that damn stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FlightTime: Actually, I was quoting the Asexual Community and they said "aphobia" (aphobia, having a phobia of asexuals, kinda like homophobia, but for asexuals) and it does make sense when you use an open mind, an open heart, and listen. I haven't even picked up a stick. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: you continually obfuscate the issue by misrepresenting what others have said. Two days ago, on a different page, NatGertler observed that Ace, "lacking some sort of adjective like 'guitar ace' or 'World War I flying ace,'" is not particularly unclear. Yet, to score debating points, you have repeatedly treated his endorsement of Ace as if he were absurdly challenging it. Now you contend, "What no one is willing to accept is she did this on her own, personal, verified Twitter account." In fact, as Schazjmd says, no one has denied that she did this on her own, personal, verified Twitter account. That is simply not at issue. What is at issue is whether or not to accept her own, personal, verified Twitter account as the sole source for adding asexuality to her BLP. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths. NedFausa (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: What I have also said is "[why hasn't anyone focused] on the 11 asexual accounts Ms. Perrette followed"? But no one has given me an answer tot hat. People are stuck on the verified account (missing the point completely that it is fully in complience with WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V) and the "World War I flying ace" (missing the point entirely that she wasn't calling herself that with the 11 accounts she followed and she doesn't own a Sopwith Camel). Get it now...or must I repeat myself again? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, what you appear to consider "the real issues" are not the real issues in my view, in the light of Wikipedia policies. Three letters in a twitter bio do not equal WP:V. Looking at twitter accounts that Perrette has following is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The claimed outrage of an amorphous community does not dictate article content. Failing to include information in a biography of a living person that has not been reported on by any independent source nor is supported by an unambiguous SPS is what we're supposed to do. Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: "Claimed outage"? "Amorphous community"? Yeah. (bad choice of words there, dude) You are missing the point too. Read my response to NedFausa above yours, so I don't have to repeat myself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, I'm female, not a "dude". You've claimed some people are outraged; I'm taking your word for it. Amorphous community describes a loosely connected group of individuals based on some shared interest or characteristic but lacking a formal structure or point of contact. Perrette follows 2,015 accounts; whether some of them are asexual doesn't prove anything. Schazjmd (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am beachbum, everyone is a "dude", but I apologize. First accounts at the top. To me, it proves alot. I will ask (after work), if these groups would like to be linked on here. I will not link them without permission. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:07 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)

Warning
@Neutralhomer: since you have acknowledged "contacting multiple groups on Twitter (along with Ms. Perrette) who are in an uproar over this," and that you "outed my own Wikipedia account on Twitter," I am compelled to share with other editors your attack today via Twitter on our colleague Schazjmd. By quoting her comments made at this page, you leave no doubt whom you mean by "people with hard heads and closed minds." Please get a grip. Off-wiki personal attacks against another editor are unacceptable and may lead to sanctions against you. NedFausa (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a battle or an attempt to erase or hide anything. This is where I'm coming from: When Mrs. Long, owner of the neighborhood grocery store and fan of NCIS, reads the article about the actress who played her favorite character on the show and sees that it says Perrette has said she's asexual, and Mrs. Long wants to know more about what exactly did she say and in what context so she clicks the reference, then that reference needs to be something Mrs. Long understands. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. We have plenty of articles including BLPs that source to articles in foreign languages. We have plenty of articles that source to medical and scientific journals not intended for the lay community. There are times when more easily comprehended sources are preferred, but it is not at all a requirement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, although my example is probably not very good. What I'm trying to get at is that an uninvolved reader can verify what the article says. Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're claiming that we are required to do something, can you point to that policy? Because it sure looks like a policy that you are just making up. It does not have to be comprehendible to any given individual who can't be bothered to look up "ace" in the dictionary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our interpretations of The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. (WP:V) differ. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly does not require us to build our sourcing around the least-competent possible reader. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I've already said my example was not very good. Schazjmd (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler: I am not the least-competent possible reader. Yet before yesterday, I had no idea that Ace = asexual person. Why don't you cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline requiring me to consult the Urban Dictionary in order to understand a source in a show-business celebrity's BLP? NedFausa (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that Merriam-Webster is the Urban Dictionary. I'm also not aware of any reason that you should be the measuring mark for sources. I've certainly seen lots of showbiz BLPs sourced to places in languages that I do not read; that does not make the source illegitimate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Schazjmd: I am sooo glad you finally mentioned WP:V. I have mentioned it multiple times. WP:TWITTER is an extension of WP:V. I believe that should be enough in this case. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:16 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

I apologize if this reply isn't formatted correctly, but I just now saw a ping from farther back in the conversation. @NedFausa: I'm not sure why my "is causing anger in the ace community" comment is being brought into question, but I want to say that my statement is correct. Just because "outsiders" haven't heard about it doesn't mean it's not real. I never used the word "rage", I never said how large the conversation was, I never said that they were "up in arms", I NEVER misrepresented anything. The ace community is fairly small compared to other LGBT groups and often overlooked. The size of a group does not have baring on the issue at hand. Your comment makes it seem as if the issue isn't an issue just because others haven't heard of it. I think I've been very level headed and polite, although I do find it difficult to have a discussion in this format since I'm not used to it. So I apologize if things I have said have come across the wrong way, but I don't believe I have ever misrepresented anything and I don't appreciate the accusation. Later in the conversation you talked about needing to use Urban Dictionary to understand what Ace meant. I want to point out that you don't need to use Urban Dictionary, you can actually refer to the Wikipedia page for Asexuality. Again I apologize if any of this comes off the wrong way or if I messed up formatting. —RadiationGhoul(UTC) (talk • contribs) 01:27, January 23, 2020‎ (UTC)

You know what, Too much POV for me, Goodbye, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime/FlightTime Phone: Figures, you start this mess, keep it going, then bail. Nice. See ya later. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:55 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: it's not a "mess" it's called a discussion (why do keep blaming me for this discussion, ? ). Quit your attacks and just argue your point. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 19:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Community[edit]

The fact that a few dozen people who have no understanding of Wikipedia's BLP policy are upset on Twitter is of zero relevance to this discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is just the community (that didn't exist according to NedFausa) is quite upset and yes, I believe they are relevant to this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Should I stop, we stop this hurtful nonsense, follow WP:TWITTER/WP:V, follow policy, add it back, and move on? Because they are watching and it's just a matter of time because this goes viral and we have to explain why we, as a community, couldn't decide that "ace" in a tweet and in a bio, and 11 asexual Twitter accounts being followed was enough, but the hate people are spewing was necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, following BLP policy is not nonsense, and if you are asking me as an administrator to disregard policy because asexual people on Twitter want a celebrity's Wikipedia article to say that she is asexual, then the answer is no. You do not have consensus to add this content at this time. Period. End of story. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: No, I'm asking you to follow policy. This entry follows WP:TWITTER/WP:V, that should be enough. It's an entry from the person, typed by the person, on their own verified Twitter account. It's ask if they were speaking it themselves. So, BLP policy is intact as well. I think you can come down off this policy high horse, because it's being followed by WP:TWITTER, an extension of WP:V. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Someone just raised this point on Twitter: "Anyone want to explain to me why a fictional peanut can die in a car crash but asexuality, which is U.N. Protected identity is being debated as legitimate or not on @Wikipedia." That person is indeed correct. Last paragraph of the "History" section of Mr. Peanut. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:06 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
This is not a debate about the legitimacy of asexuality, but about the ambiguity of a tweet. Now, I will read the article about the peanut mascot. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that she doesn't seem to have corrected the many assumptions that she meant asexual? Adam9007 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she is currently filming a TV show (Broke) and maybe she doesn't feel the need to. She might not feel the need to validate and correct herself in the eyes of others. Some people are content to live their lives without correcting people's assumptions about them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:23 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, Hang on, are you now saying you reckon she might not have meant asexual? Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: Is that even close to what I said? No. What I said was she doesn't need to validate or correct herself in the eyes of others. She has said she is "ace". She knows what it means. People have clearly understood. If there was a misunderstanding, I think she would have corrected it. Clearly there wasn't, clearly she hasn't sent out a "hold on, I think we have a misunderstanding" tweet, so she hasn't seen the need to clear anything up. So, she hasn't seen the need to validate or correct herself. Seeing that the 11 Twitter accounts she is following and the tweet in question were clearly enough for her (not to mention the bio) and for everyone else. Try not to mence my words this time. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:46 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, If there was a misunderstanding, I think she would have corrected it. Yeah, that's exactly my point. I thought you were saying she might not care if people have misconceptions about her because of the tweet. Adam9007 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was, clearly there wasn't a misunderstanding. She was saying she is ace. We're both saying the same things, just in different ways. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. If I said something like 'I feel so gay right now', and people took that to mean I was coming out as homosexual, I'd be correcting them asap. She said 'ace', people (lots of people) took that to mean asexual, and she hasn't said otherwise. That strongly suggests to me that she did indeed mean asexual. Adam9007 (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person on Twitter said this, I believe it bares repeating: " "A mere handful of accounts"--how many accounts, according to NedFausa here, would be enough to compel a change? Undefined goalposts are pointless. No non-editors have commented on this talk page"--the talk page is deeply hostile from multiple perspectives. Editing Wikipedia is not trivial for non-editors to figure out, the people on that page are aggressive and combative, and frankly the onus is not on the victims. [the] community is so miniscule that its rage cannot be detected by outsiders"--It's a small, dispersed community of diverse people. It also has its own flag. There are major organizations like that represent it. We exist and WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS ERASURE. Asexual people are constantly bombarded with doubt about their existence when they dare to come out or be outspoken. That's *exactly* what is happening on that Talk page. That's why it's deeply hurtful to many of us to see a few gatekeepers actively commit erasure on WP." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:46 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

I have made my points as clearly and respectfully as I can in this discussion, and it is now time for input from other experienced editors. So, I will withdraw from this conversation at least until there are new developments. I have opened a thread at ANI asking for input from others. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I couldn't get you to discuss the WP:TWITTER aspect, but at least we agree on something. More eyes are needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:55 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

This has thread has dissolved into silly putty. Attempting to refute my claim that there was "no evidence a community is up in arms," Neutralhomer has assembled a list of what he calls "community accounts" on Twitter. As far as I can tell, not one of these accounts spontaneously expressed concern about Wikipedia's rejection of Pauley Perrette's tweet as the sole source for identifying her as asexual. Rather, Neutralhomer apparently canvassed them off-wiki for permission to link to their accounts. It proves nothing except how adept Neutralhomer is at wasting people's time. NedFausa (talk) 04:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: How about you just admit you are wrong and move on. You have done nothing to improve this discussion. I sent two tweets to the AVEN - Asexual Visibility & Education Network account and that's where all those people came from. So, you are wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I have kept that community up-to-date on this entire mess as well. They didn't understand the goings-on of Wikipedia and I explained it. You sure as hell weren't going to do it. So, who's time am I wasting? Their's? No. Yours? No. Because all you had to do was just look at the wall of text and see how wrong you were. Wikipedia's? No. Their time is being wasted by everyone else that keeps this mess going. So, who's time am I wasting? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:10 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
@NedFausa: I am being asked to directly quote this: "And we've just seen the update and that is not what you've done or are doing. You can tell them direct from us that they are resource and support accounts, to help Asexual people and the ace community has expressed concern and outrage. NeutralHomer has been nothing but helpful and supportive, has answered any concerns and questions from the Ace community. The Asexual community are watching." That's from AVEN - Asexual Visibility & Education Network - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

  • The danger of using Twitter is apparent here. Since the tweet was ambiguous, and open to interpretation, it represents original research for us to make claims based off of it. Until such a time as when the subject either makes a clear tweet, or it is picked up by a reputable news source, we should not mention it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:TWITTER. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:55 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm done for the night, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be back up after 12 Noon EST (I work tomorrow, 1/23). I will check this page and respond to what I can before I leave. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • She has made a clear statement, by identifying herself in her Twitter bio as "Ace". This is a term with meaning; that some of the editors here are not familiar with it is an opportunity for their education, not for ignoring the statement. Whether it merits inclusion may be a separate question, but she has verifiably self-identified; if reading what a source says counts as "original research", then all of Wikipedia is original research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the ace community watching this[edit]

Having read the flood of tweets complaining about the Wikipedia community's behaviour, from people who seem to think that this is about erasing our identity (yes, I'm ace), I am gobsmacked. If that's really what you think, then Neutralhomer clearly hasn't done a very good job of explaining how Wikipedia works. This is not about erasing asexuality; Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a fansite, and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Just because a lot of people think she came out as asexual, doesn't mean it's appropriate for inclusion here. The problem with her tweet is that the context of the word 'ace' is, to some people (too many unfortunately), too ambiguous to rely on, especially for content of this nature. Had she said 'asexual' instead of 'ace', I don't think we'd be having all this drama (for the record, I too am pretty sure she meant asexual). Some editors here actually seem to think she may have meant something else. What if we're wrong and they're right? (not saying they are, just that it's possible) Then Wikipedia would have spread misinformation about a living person. Do you have any idea how dangerous that can be? This is not about erasing asexuality; it's about making sure we (Wikipedia) don't spread misinformation (however inadvertently) about living people. No-one is denying that she could have (or even probably) meant asexual, nor is anyone disapproving her supposed asexuality. But here on Wikipedia, 'probably' really isn't good enough; we want (and in the case of BLPs, require) 'certainly'. That's why I really don't think we can have this information put on the article at this time. Adam9007 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC

@Adam9007: I actually thought I did a good job explaining Wikipedia in 200+ characters. I believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) that her having "Ace" in her bio and following the 11 Twitter accounts, plus not correcting anyone when they said "welcome to the Ace Community" was enough for them. Plus, no one is looking at WP:TWITTER. Now, I have been, from the beginning, willing to wait for a secondary source...but...I understand that Community's position that media coverage might not happen. After that tweet was presented, I thought about it. I hadn't heard/saw anyone being covered in the media for announcing they were Asexual. So...this might be all the information we have. We might have to make do with what we have. Hence why (to the annoyance of most), I keep repeating WP:TWITTER (an extension of WP:V) and repeating it's a verified account. We can take this as her own words. All the bio and followed accounts into it and I think we are safe in the BLP department. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:58 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure you properly explained exactly why Wikipedia needs better sourcing. You said we need something with clearer language, but 'ace' is already clear to asexuals. I reckon that, in their eyes, she has already clearly stated she's asexual and are having trouble understanding why the Wikipedia community disagree. Also, there seems to be some who, despite what you said, are convinced it's down to acephobia on certain editors' parts. Adam9007 (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I understand "ace" too. I got it right off the bat. I even said, I believe most people here saw it and nodded in agreement and moved on. Why it's gone through this mess, I think you've hit the nail on the head with that last sentence. I personally don't think we needed all of this discussion, just add two more links/references and be done with it. But we are basically forcing someone, a woman at that, to explain herself and that's very wrong in my eyes, plus we are forcing her to explain her identity, and that is even more wrong. She shouldn't have to explain anything if she doesn't want to. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:27 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
plus we are forcing her to explain her identity To be fair, 'ace' does have multiple meanings, though I totally get where they're coming from when they say that there wouldn't be this ambiguity for 'straight' or 'gay'. Someone once asked me to specify what I meant by 'queer' when I used the word in a context he considered to make its meaning ambiguous. Adam9007 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this is true and I'm not arguing there are other meanings, but if we look at the evidence, we can rule those out. I'll be honest, until a couple years ago, I didn't know "queer" was a thing either. I knew of the LGBTIA, but not the Q. Couple celebs (Tessa Thompson, played "Valkyrie" in the MCU, had mentioned in an article she was queer) came out as queer, so I had to look it up. But, I learned. I'm seeing a lot of people who either haven't learned what "ace" means or are unwilling to learn. I don't think we need "ambiguous" meaning for us, when that is what it means to that particular person. I would never ask you to say, in clear language, what you mean by "ace". I wouldn't. Because you don't have to explain yourself to me....or anyone. Pauley doesn't have to either, especially to us (ie: Wikipedia). What we have (accounts followed, bio, the tweet) should and needs to be enough. The closed minds need to accept that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:45 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
lol, I was actually using 'queer' as a synonym for 'strange', not a reference to sexual orientation. But I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for clarification where multiple, very different, interpretations are possible. Adam9007 (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: Hello! As one of the members of the ace community who's been watching this, I see how you can say that this is not about erasing asexuality, but the fact of the matter is that erasure is exactly what is happening here. You say that too many people the context of "ace" is too ambiguous to rely on, yet - as another person mentioned, and was not commented on - Wikipedia itself defines what "ace" means, and includes an academic source for it: Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual"[14]. I feel like not acknowledging this point is very disingenuous, /especially/ because you yourself are ace. I understand the need to uphold the standard of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but I also feel like acting like "ace" is being used in an ambiguous way in this instance (particularly when evidence of intent exists through Ms. Paulette's actions of following a large number of asexuality based accounts, as has been said repeatedly). If it's felt that the meaning of "ace" in this context is ambiguous, then I feel that can be resolved simply by linking to the Wikipedia article I linked, the academic source that it quotes, or both.
Honestly, the number of times people in this discussion are throwing around BLP and the need for certainty is making me weary. People are acting like incorrect information about living people hasn't happened before, and been corrected, with no major legal consequences to Wikipedia that I could find (see: [[1]] ). Per that same page, Senator Orrin Hatch joked about the fact his date of death was wrong thanks to incorrect information from Wikipedia. If it turns out that Ms. Paulette did not mean she was asexual, that bit can be taken out in literally seconds. This isn't etching it into stone for all time and irreversible. What it is doing, however, is creating a giant controversy where one should not reasonably exist, angering a significant portion of the ace community, contributing to ace erasure, and making many Wikipedia mods look like closed-minded purists unwilling to believe what people say about themselves unless it's confirmed by sources who likely know nothing about the subject.BlueArmyMan (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself defines what "ace" means, and includes an academic source for it: Asexuality is sometimes called ace (a phonetic shortening of "asexual"[14]. If it's felt that the meaning of "ace" in this context is ambiguous, then I feel that can be resolved simply by linking to the Wikipedia article I linked, the academic source that it quotes, or both. But that doesn't prove that she meant asexual in her tweet; it just proves that's one of the possible interpretations of it. We really need to know what she meant for certain before we can put it in the article. Adam9007 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to one meaning of a word while it is unclear whether that is intended amounts to deciding for ourselves that that is what is meant. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gotta go to work, if anyone has questions or concerns for me, I will be home after 8p EST. I will check this page and respond when I get home and have some dinner. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:57 on January 23, 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, this has reached Tumblr. And Wikipedia is being accused of acephobia. Just thought you ought to know. Adam9007 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: I am unfamiliar with Tumblr search techniques. Please link to the specific accusation(s) you mean. Thanks! NedFausa (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accusation of acephobia Someone withdrew an upcoming donation to Wikipedia General uproar Adam9007 (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't decide content disputes according to whoever can drum up the most furore on Tumblr. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's true. But since several contributors to this Talk page have alleged that the community of asexual persons is angry at Wikipedia for excluding (for now) Pauley Perrette's self-identification as Ace, I'm interested to see such evidence, and I thank Adam9007 for providing the links I requested. Unfortunately, Tumblr seems to be mostly reproducing commentary from Twitter that arose as a direct result of Neutralhomer's off-wiki canvassing over the past three days. So I'm afraid Tumblr adds nothing to my understanding of the issues underlying this dispute. NedFausa (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: Sorry Ned, I only asked on one page and everyone showed up in droves. Plus, they were watching long before I initiated contact. You are connecting my contact with them and their upset as the same event. But they were upset about this, were commenting on this, were watching this, prior to my contact with the Asexual Community. All I did, was give them some information on how Wikipedia worked, give them updates on what is going on, when things moved to ANI, information. So, you can drop the "Neutralhomer did it" shtick...it ain't workin'. It's not like you have done anything to help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:23 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)

Looking for examples of what qualifies as "unambiguous" in Wikis of other asexual women, I came across these examples that were seemingly considered okay, and at least equally - if not more - ambiguous: [[2]] (cited source: https://twitter.com/emilieautumn/status/243503809198964736 ) & [[3]] (cited source: https://twitter.com/cubewatermelon/status/523406624807845889 ). Emilie Autumn never describes herself as asexual, only says someone else does. Mary Cagle says she's *probably* asexual, which is ambiguous language. Yet both of these sources were accepted for years without a problem. (Relatedly, a better source to use for Mary Cagle would probably be this one: https://twitter.com/cubewatermelon/status/572973125996060673?s=20 ). Plus, Janeane Garofalo's page links to an article that says she's a self-described asexual, but no clip or direct quote from her. How do those pass BLP, but "Aces, it's literally me" and a bio change on a verified account, and following multiple prominent asexual community members not? BlueArmyMan (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueArmyMan, Because 'asexual' leaves no room for interpretation, whereas 'ace' does I'm afraid. Adam9007 (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re missing my point, which the user below me apparently got; none of the examples I gave included the subject themselves saying explicitly they are asexual, which seems to be the standard being applied here. Two of them have someone other than the subject saying the subject is asexual (in Janeane Garofalo's case it’s said that she says so in her stand up special, but provides no clip of it). And, until today, they stood for /years/, unchecked, and incorrect. And unlitigated, at that, which has been mentioned repeatedly as a consequence of mislabeling someone under BLP.

The strict enforcement of policy in this case feels very arbitrary, and it also feels like editors are not fully listening to or comprehending the points being made by both aces and longtime editors, except when it benefits their own position.

The effect here is that editors are acting like gatekeepers, deeming that because a person did not use Acceptable Language, what they said about themselves is not fit for inclusion to a record of their own life.BlueArmyMan (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the violations in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. I shall remove the claims, as improperly sourced. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ace. BLP or not, that'll just create more conflict and kerfuffle. Adam9007 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the claim on Mary Cagle’s page, but update the source to the more clear one I provided above?BlueArmyMan (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-inserted asexuality statements into the Emilie Autumn and Janeane Garofalo articles with superior sourcing, but couldn't find a source for Mary Cagle. Adam9007 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided one where she says the literal and exact phrase "I'm asexual" on her twitter in my earlier passage: https://twitter.com/cubewatermelon/status/572973125996060673?s=20 Also, the source you provided for Emilie Autumn and Janeane Garofalo lists them as asexual, true, but there is no direct statement from either that say they are, nor does the article point to any. How is that considered a superior source?BlueArmyMan (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a third-party source and it's more reliable than Twitter. Adam9007 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable source for a person's sexuality is a clear statement from that individual. Do you really think it is valid for third parties to decide it for them? 165.120.15.119 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A third party source by a writer that includes no statement from the subject themselves, or a link to one, is considered more reliable that a Twitter post from an account that has been verified by Twitter staff to be the person they claim to be? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and I feel like it underscores my point about these standards being arbitrary and up to the whim of the editor in question. BlueArmyMan (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The actual standards are usually clear enough. Sadly though, there seem to be several people taking part in this discussion who don't understand them. Per Wikipedia policy, biographies of living persons must be properly sourced, and per Wikipedia policy, we don't decide for ourselves what particular interpretation we make of ambiguous phrases. If something can't be properly and unambiguously sourced, it doesn't belong in a biography. This isn't Twitter. This isn't Tumblr. This is (or is supposed to be) an encyclopaedia, and getting things right is more important than rushing into things just because someone is raising a stink on social media. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also at least one person in this discussion who /does/ understand them, and has responded repeatedly with standards that would qualify, and has been seemingly ignored, or at least not refuted. Further, I would argue that Adam9007 inserted a very ambiguous source after I pointed out that the existing sources were more ambiguous than the one under debate in this discussion; sources which were considered just fine for a number of years with no checkup and no consequences, and were only fixed because I pointed them out. Please do not talk down to me like I am incapable of understanding what the standards are for Wikipedia, particularly since I helped to make a page more accurate by providing an unambiguous source. Or, alternatively, please explain why [[4]] - which user Neutralhomer has put forward as a possible standard several times, to no response - would not be applicable in this instance, so that the people who do not understand what Wikipedia standards are can learn. BlueArmyMan (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueArmyMan: I would argue that Adam9007 inserted a very ambiguous source The source says: There are actually a handful of asexual celebrities. The most famous asexual celebrities are likely comediennes Janeane Garofalo and Paula Poundstone, British crooner Morrissey and reality TV fashion guru Tim Gunn. Musicians Emilie Autumn... I am confused. How is that ambiguous? Adam9007 (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: It is ambiguous, at least to me, because the article writer is the one making the claim/assertion that the named celebrities are asexual, and offering no explicit proof or statement from the people themselves, which is the standard that seems to be required in the case of Pauley Perette so far. BlueArmyMan (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueArmyMan: Even well-known reliable sources don't tend to offer outright proof of their claims, so what makes you think LGBTQ Nation isn't reliable? Consensus so far seems to be that it is. Adam9007 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Straight white guy here... Big surprise, wikipedia editors also have white men deciding when and where and how trans, ace, and queer people can define themselves. Despite all the intellectualist crying about the need for unambiguous sources, your core argument is that you think Ace might mean something else when Pauley Perette puts it in their twitter Bio. Straight people always do this. Whenever someone chooses to identify as outside the norm, they try and find ways to avoid acknowledging it and insisting "oh they're just really good friends, they don't mean that". Having read every post in these discussions, I'm shocked that firstly that this is still in contention, and then secondly, when you're being called out for acephobic behaviour, you have the audacity to attack another member because they apparently shone some light on your actions? Damn, get a grip. Pauley Perette made a statement about themselves that IS unambiguous, we all know what they meant, and the argument that some the least educated reader might not understand the source is weak as hell. Get to grips with your own acephobia because this is making Wikipedia look like poorly sourced rubbish trying to avoid acknowledging information they don't like. 82.3.41.118 (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big surprise, wikipedia editors also have white men deciding when and where and how trans, ace, and queer people can define themselves No, that is not what is in dispute at all. What's in dispute is whether or not we can include that in the article at this time. Not only do some people think her statement is unclear, but, as stated above, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so some editors may (if they don't already) think that, even if it was unambiguous, it's such a minor detail as to be not be worth reporting here at this time. Adam9007 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And she now appears to have removed the 'Ace' statement from her bio. This changes everything, surely? Adam9007 (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting us. This alteration is indeed material, but I'm not sure it changes everything. She has not deleted the tweet that triggered our dispute: "Aces, it is actually me." NedFausa (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, that's a tweet addressed to Aces. It does not say she identifies as asexual, and that's the ambiguity that started the whole discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: I'm not sure it changes everything Some (myself included) were saying that the word 'Ace' on her bio was an unambiguous statement of asexuality. Adam9007 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Neutralhomer acknowledged at his User talk page on 22 Jan 2020 that he'd "outed" his own Wikipedia account on Twitter, I guess it's OK to now link to his 21 Jan 2020 tweets to Pauley Perrette's verified account (@PauleyP). After identifying himself as "an editor over at Wikipedia," he asked her to "tweet confirming what you meant in clear language" as to being asexual. Of course he himself "understood what you meant and to be honest, don't feel further clarification is needed. But, unfortunately, there are those that do. :( Those people suck." As one of those he no doubt meant who "suck," I wonder if Perrette's removal today of "Ace" from her official Twitter bio is a response to Neutralhomer's request for clarification. If so, her action might after all be dispositive of the issue we've been debating. However, as it stands, that conclusion would be presumptuous. The unfortunate ambiguity that has troubled us remains. NedFausa (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: Actually, Neutralhomer would tell you to ask Neutralhomer what he meant before trying to guess. :) Second, Neutralhomer would tell you that the first tweet you linked to was said "an editor at Wikipedia". Didn't say which one. Oops! Yeah, Neutralhomer didn't "out" his Twitter account until this tweet, the first one he sent to the Asexual Community]. Let's drop the third person. But, yes, for the record, you are one of those people who "suck".
You refused to work with anyone, stood in the way of (or completely ignored) the simplest of Wikipedia rules, refused to engage in discussion, insulted (veiled or not) whenever you could, couldn't accept when you were clearly wrong (ie: a community does exist and it is up in arms), you took any chance to slam me whenever you could (like now), but some how I'm the bad guy because I chose to reach out to a community on my own Twitter account? Hmmm. I didn't see you running for Twitter to explain the rules and policies of Wikipedia, to open your eyes and your mind, to learn something. So, yes, when I said "Those people suck", I was meaning you (amongst others), but I didn't name you. You figured that out yourself. But I believe I had a damn good reason.
Now, you say "the alteration [of her bio] is indeed material". In complete opposition to what you have been arguing this entire time. You have said the bio is irrlevant, it's OR, it's BLP, it doesn't matter, it wasn't ambiguous enough, it needed clearer language. Basically anything to keep us from including the bio.
So, I say to you, the removal of the "Ace" from her bio is pointless. The Wikipedia community didn't take it into account before and it shouldn't be taken into account now. We can't not choose to accept something as relivant and then choose to accept that same something as relevant later when it fits the way we want things to work. Doesn't work that way. It wasn't relevant then (when we were trying to use it as added evidence to back up the tweet), it can't be relevant now when it's gone as "nope, it all didn't exist to begin with" or whatever.
Oh and Ned, you can drop the "let's bash Neutralhomer" stick. I was offline for 24 hours (give or take) and you couldn't help bringing me up. Drop it or I will consider this to be WP:HOUNDING. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56 on January 25, 2020 (UTC)
@Neutralhomer: Actually, your sense of time sucks. Your tweet to @asexuality, "Hi, I am 'Neutralhomer' on Wikipedia," was sent at 8:09 PM - 21 Jan 2020. Your tweet to @PauleyP, "Hi, I am an editor over at Wikipedia," was sent at 10:00 PM - 21 Jan 2020. NedFausa (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Either the usage of Perrette's Twitter account as a source for her sexuality is valid, or it isn't, regardless of who is supposedly bashing who. And if Perrette has responded to a direct question by removing 'ace' from her bio, I can't see how we can possibly use an earlier ambiguous statement on the matter as a source at all. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry! On behalf of Wikipedia, Neutralhomer has publicly apologized to Pauley Perrette. "That entire thing spiraled out of control in ways even I couldn't imagine. I apologize for ANY pain that was caused to you. The entire thing was/is inexcusable." Inexcusable, I tell you. NedFausa (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this edit is in accordance with core policies is completely insane. --JBL (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: "It's being discussed in 'Coming out on Twitter'". No. No it's not. I pinged the two most vocal admins about not adding "Asexual" in her Wikipedia page a week ago with evidence that both Wikipedia and AVEN (Asexuality Visibility and Education Network) says that "ace" is a shortened term for "asexual". I proposed linking to it so that "Mary Sue who runs a coffee shop and doesn't know what 'ace' means" can understand that this is her coming out. It should not be dictated how asexuals are and aren't allowed to come out. This is denying the identity of one of the largest asexual celebrities because she didn't come out in a way the sexual community deems "acceptable".
@Ritchie333: and @Cullen328: AVEN (Asexuality Visibility and Education Network)'s FAQ page says "Ace" is short for "Asexual. Wikipedia's page on Asexuality Wikipedia is huge source of information for people. Instead of worrying about confusing them, why not use this as a learning opportunity and teach them? Why are we ignoring the fact that there's sources out there that say "ace" is short for "asexual" when one of those sources is Wikipedia itself? I can even provide links to images showing Pauley Perrette's Twitter bio if just the tweet is too confusing for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faeriefate (talk • contribs)
Faeriefate, Perrette's tweet appeared to be addressing "Aces". She's removed mention of "Ace" from her Twitter bio. There is no reliable source to add it to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NedFausa, thank you for reverting the latest addition, which was even worse than the previous one. Faeriefate, please read WP:RGW -- this is not what Wikipedia is for. --JBL (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section break for readability[edit]

  • Interested users may wish to read Jimbo's cogent thoughts on the matter. While the question was posed neutrally, I have no doubt it was created with this discussion in mind. Although Jimbo's word holds no more weight than any other's, he raises two key points when discussing sexuality and social media: "Is it true?" and "Is it encyclopedic?" He also notes An ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in different ways almost certainly fails that test. I think that is further support that we shouldn't rush to conclusions, especially with a BLP. His statements also get at a key issue: WP:DUE weight, and the spirit of our policies on notability. If a reliable and independent source does not discuss something, why should we? We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and thus rely on our sources to determine what we should talk about. No secondary sources mention Perrette's sexuality, thus why should we? Someone's sexuality is rarely encyclopedic, unless it is critical to their activities (such as activism). I think much greater caution needs to be taken in the future in using sources like WP:TWITTER, especially in light of this situation. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:31, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. --JBL (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Perrette, Pauley. "Aces, it is actually me". Twitter. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  2. ^ "General FAQ- Definitions". AVEN. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  3. ^ "Pauley Perrette - Following". Twitter. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  4. ^ D'Amelio, John. "Pauley Perrette on life beyond "NCIS" after 15 years as Abby". CBS News. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  5. ^ "Asexuality- Definitions, identity and relationships". Wikipedia. Retrieved 24 January 2020.

Indignation[edit]

Why do you remove a paragraph from where you say you are asexual? problem with that? 2J14 (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, it's the language. She used the word "ace". Now, I understand it clearly, but others, not so much. So, we are waiting on secondary third-party reliable sources (ie: media coverage or another tweet confirming the first in clearer language). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:28 on January 21, 2020 (UTC)
The exact words of her tweet two days ago were "Aces, it is actually me." That is a highly ambiguous sentence with several possible interpretations. "Aces" has many meanings including slang for close friends as well as slang for asexual people. In addition, the phrasing implies that she is addressing people she calls "Aces" instead of self-identifying with the word "ace", whatever its definition. As far as I know, there have been no follow-up stories about this matter in reliable sources. Since then, she has tweeted about unrelated matters promoting her current TV show. This tweet by itself is not adequate to report, in Wikipedia's voice, that she has announced that she is asexual. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and it will be enforced. The burden is on those who want to add this to the article to gain consensus by explaining in detail how this proposed content complies with policy, winning over editors who have objected. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except she edited her Twitter bio to include "ace", and followed several asexual twitter accounts, and did not correct anyone when they said "welcome to the asexual community". [[User:|Madeyefire]] (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is sufficient to meet the very strict standards of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy, Madeyefire, although I appreciate your interest in this biography. I follow several transgender people on social media out of genuine friendship, but I am not transgender. My enforcement of Wikipedia's policies has nothing whatsoever to do with any negative feelings toward asexual people. I have no negative feelings at all about asexual people, and wish them nothing but happiness and self-fulfillment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the bio entry is sufficient under BLP for us to note their asexuality, just as we recognize that someone who declares themselves "gay" is a homosexual and not just happy, or a "lesbian" is not from Lesbos. That some editors are professing ignorance of the language around asexuality does not mean that it doesn't exist nor that it isn't acceptable any more than a foreign-language source or a source using medical terminology is unacceptable. (Whether its lack of coverage makes inclusion a matter of inappropriate weight is a separate question, although I fear that this Wikipedia kerfuffle, rather than the announcement itself, is what will get coverage.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Nat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:07 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the bio entry is sufficient under BLP for us to note their asexuality, just as we recognize that someone who declares themselves "gay" is a homosexual and not just happy, or a "lesbian" is not from Lesbos. That some editors are professing ignorance of the language around asexuality does not mean that it doesn't exist nor that it isn't acceptable any more than a foreign-language source or a source using medical terminology is unacceptable. Exactly. If she had put 'gay' on her bio, that wouldn't be considered ambiguous, even though 'gay' in that context could theoretically also mean merry. 'Straight' would be understood to mean heterosexual, even though the word 'straight' has many, many meanings. In this context, I have a hard time understanding how 'ace' can mean anything other than asexual. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This is what I have been trying to say this entire time. Thank you!!! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)
To demonstrate, let's take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions for 'ace':
  • A playing card with a single spot on it, ranked as the highest card in its suit in most card games. That's clearly can't be it (not literally anyway; I know ace playing cards are used as asexual symbols...)
  • A person who excels at a particular sport or other activity. Excels at what, exactly?
  • A pilot who has shot down many enemy aircraft. Of course she did.
  • (in tennis and similar games) a service that an opponent is unable to return and thus wins a point. Er, nope.
  • A hole in one. Nope.
  • A person who has no sexual feelings or desires. (in other words, asexual) Yes, that fits. Fits rather nicely given her activity to boot.
As for the adjectives:
  • Very good. Again, very good at what?
  • (of a person) having no sexual feelings or desires; asexual. Again, fits nicely.
The word clearly isn't being used as a verb, so there's no point in going through those. Adam9007 (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for closure, it would seem that the word isn't being used at all, now. Not since Perrette was pestered by a Wikipedia contributor to provide an explanation of what the ambiguous posts meant. She has now removed it from her 'bio'. See the last few posts in the section above. I'm quite sure the asexual community have plenty of things to be justly indignant about, but it would seem that they don't include Wikipedia refusing to acknowledge someone's asexuality. Getting things right is important, and indignation doesn't justify jumping to conclusions, or labelling people who would rather not be labelled. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 January 2020[edit]

Within reference citation template following "In addition to acting, Perrette is a poet,"
please change
title=https://www.washingtonpost.com › ... Naval Gazing With Pauley Perrette
to
title=Naval Gazing With Pauley Perrette

AND change
url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/
to
url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/tv/2005/08/21/naval-gazing-with-pauley-perrette/f7e9af82-fda7-47c9-8b48-a0a00a4fa4c0/

Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Izno (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 22 January 2020[edit]

She was added to Category:Asexual women just before the page was fully protected, she needs to be removed. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Discussion is ongoing. Also, you are not impartial and should not be asking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:24 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
OMG, what? it's a valid edit request. You're starting to walk on the grounds of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the discussion was started before this addition and the discussion is ongoing that's exactly why it should be undone. Not to mention it's still unsourced. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Wikihounding is if I followed you to other pages on the project. I'm not. I've been here for 14 years, I know the rules. Please, don't try to spin them on me. I know when someone is being impartial, using the community to push an ideal (you seem to be quite eager to remove anything regarding "asexuality" from this page), and not willing to work together. Sorry, I don't agree, I'm entitled to my opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:58 on January 22, 2020 (UTC)
Yes you do have that right, just like anyone else and you could not be more wrong, I couldn't care less about "asexuality" my concern has always been about a poorly sourced claim on a BLP, which looks like you need to read up on. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support edit request. Considering lack of consensus, this category is premature and misleading. NedFausa (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done To enforce WP:BLP policy, I have removed this contentious category until there is policy-based consensus to add it back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing With Mental Health Issues[edit]

Why aren't her ongoing issues with Bipolar disorder mentioned, she has spoken about this frequently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1000:71:C9A2:4EF8:F714:9A35 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauley_Perrette&oldid=1212559821"