Talk:Katherine Barrell

Reliable sources
Don't know how many editors are fully aware of the strict requirements for biographies of living persons (a.k.a. BLP). Biographical material needs to be verifiable and the sources need to be accessible so that the material can be verified. WP:VERIFY: "verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source". If a source is restricted by a paywall the information cannot be verified by editors who are unable, or do not want, to pay for access. Pyxis Solitary  yak  09:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Katherine Barrell said this
Katherine Barrell has been quoted saying, "I am attracted to both men and women and the person I fell in love with is a man." I googled the phrase and found many references to it. Is any reliable enough to confirm it? Pacingpal (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A "reliable source" is not third-hand information and fan sites. The following will educate you on what are/are not considered acceptable sources: WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:RS,  WP:UGC,  WP:RS/IMDB,  WP:RSPSOURCES.  Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 08:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * and referencing


 * With the following quote "I am attracted to both men and women and the person I fell in love with is a man. I wish it could just be about the human I am in love with, not their gender. This is why I am so passionate about advocating for equal acceptance across the spectrum of sexuality. Let’s just love who we love and leave each other alone. The world has bigger problems." 2A00:801:230:F8D6:C82C:29FF:9848:D37 (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Bi.org, of course, is going to jump on the opportunity to claim that she is bisexual -- yet Bi.org doesn't provide a link so that the rest of us can read for ourselves exactly what Barrell said in the Diva Magazine interview. The https://divamag.co.uk/2019/07/19.... URL links to the cover of the August 2019 issue, not the interview with Barrell. This is a BLP. BLPs are held to strict standards, which includes absolute verification and the quality of sources. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 10:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's see: Distractify alleges that Barrell is bisexual, but the link it provides for Diva Magazine is not the interview with Barrell -- so editors cannot verify the quote attributed to her. And Diva Magazine has not made the interview accessible without payment. All that Distractify is offering is hearsay and conclusions; it also insinuates that Barrell's support of the "LGBTQ+ community" is some kind of proof about her sexual orientation. An actor playing a lesbian supports LGBT! whoopee! Well, as I see it, an actor who plays a lesbian and has a fanbase that developed because of it better be supportive of LGBT -- her fan base, bread and butter depends on it.
 * I honestly do not understand why you are so aggressive. Distractify has obviously read the interview. Diva Mag also posted an advert on youtube - here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rONs7rxr3Kc for the same interview. I've written to them and asked them to make the interview public for the purpose of Wikipedia to be able to add this information. Distractify is not part of the Wynonna Earp-"fan base". The writer you are raging against obviously did some research and posted links rather than vague pointers to a fan base or rantings and wishes of "Wayhaught shippers".Shieldfire (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's amazing that you think taking anyone's word for anything, sight unseen, is acceptable. All Distractify offered is a mirror of what was already circulating among fans, all Bi.org did is circulate the same mirror. It's ridiculous that you and anyone else would think that a link for the magazine cover is a link for the interview. Pyxis Solitary  (yak). L not Q. 09:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The writer you are raging against...." Raging? What's next? Hysterics? I do not give an inch when it comes to BLPs. No conscientious editor will. You and everyone else who wants to add the bisexual orientation needs to absorb the message that BLPs don't use third-hand information for personal biographical details. Get a clue about what the following advisory at the top means:
 * The use of discretionary sanctions has been authorized by the Arbitration Committee for pages related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, including this article.
 * Exactly what was she asked in the interview, and exactly what was her entire response from start to finish? Quotes taken out of context are neither credible nor acceptable. Diva knows very well that Wayhaught fandom went nuts when word got out about her alledged 'coming out as bi' in its interview with her. Diva editors aren't stupid. They've kept the interview behind a paywall and stood by while the allegation spread among Barrel's fans, Wayhaught fans, and Wynonna Earp fans. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at Diva is well aware of the Barrell "Diva interview" controversy in her Wikipedia biography.
 * Yes you are raging. Now I'm involved in this as well, apparently, according to you, I "needs to absorb the message that BLPs don't use third-hand information for personal biographical details." and "It's ridiculous that you and anyone else would think that a link for the magazine cover is a link for the interview.". Take a step back, take a deep breath, and actually read what I wrote - rather than what you think I am writing. I said I wrote to Diva.uk asking them to make the interview public so we can check it.Shieldfire (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I got a copy of the interview, it's not online so cannot be checked. Diva Magazine August 2019, "Officer Haught" - p. 37 "Kat is saddened to have received some negative feedback online because of her own marriage. “I am attracted to both men and women and the person I fell in love with is a man. I wish it could just be about the human I am in love with, not their gender. This is why I am so passionate about advocating for equal acceptance across the spectrum of sexuality. Let’s just love who we love and leave each other alone. The world has bigger problems.”"Shieldfire (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Since it's about a living person's personal life, we'll all have to wait until what she said can be verified with unrestricted access to the Diva interview. Pyxis Solitary   (yak) . L not Q. 08:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Information about children

 * : For you to be able to include this information 1, 2, you must also provide a reliable source. Without a source it cannot remain in the article. Whether you like it or not, you need to abide by WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not Fandom. Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I did give a reliable source. Katherine Barrell had a verified Instagram account from which she, herself, posted about her child being born. Do you think I'd just make up a name and date of an extra child? No need to be rude here. It's easily verifiable. I'm not using it as a Fandom. I donate to Wikipedia on the regular and find out as a wonderful source for information. I'm merely updating her information. I'm not the only person here who has said the same thing. She has 2 children, not 1. I thought this page was about being as accurate as possible? Or am I wrong in that assessment? Stormyranger15 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, Hallmark wrote an article announcing the birth of their second child. What other verifiable resources do we need? To prove it, here's the link: https://heavy.com/entertainment/hallmark/couple-kat-barrell-ray-galletti-baby/ Stormyranger15 (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I see in your public log that you created your account on 31 May 2024, so I'm going to assume that you are not familiar with the policies and guidelines for editing Wikipedia articles. I suggest that you start learning how to do it with the following: WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material...." and WP:CITE: "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged...." Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did give a reliable source. No, you did not. You did not cite a source. You can see in the editing history (which I linked above as 1 and 2) that there are no sources provided. Look at the References section of the article to see what providing a source means.
 * Yes, I am new and I tried to update the references section and it didn't take in guessing. There is an article, written by heavy magazine, announcing exactly what I edited in there. If you look further in my replies I add a link to it. But, the way you're treating me is beyond rude. I'm sure you like rules and whatnot but it's not any good reason to treat me the way you just did. So, I'm unsure if I was able to update the resources correctly if you'd actually just delete my edit regardless. Maybe YOU should do the update since I DID give a verifiable resource according to WIKIPEDIA's rules you so "kindly" pointed out to me. I'm not an idiot, I looked the first time and saw what I needed as proof. The article was more than enough based upon the Diva Magazine quote you showed about her sensuality. Unless I'm wrong, yet again? They also got her announcement from the same exact source as everyone else telling you the same thing. Instagram. Which should also be considered verifiable as she has a verified (blue checkmark) account. I will try editing one more time. If it won't let me update the resources then do whatever you want but don't come at me again. I appreciate you trying to stop people from just adding anything they want but you could be more nice about it. You came out guns blazing to a new user, who's also contributed A LOT of finding to Wikipedia, for no reason. You should have simply asked me what my resource was and I would've happily told you and explained the situation. Geez. If you didn't want to volunteer for this job then just don't do it anymore. Don't take it out on others mistakes. Stormyranger15 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * also, sorry for grammar problems. I use Swype on my phone and don't have my glasses on to see properly but they're not so bad you cannot understand my meaning. Stormyranger15 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * When I edit an article (be it to add content, reverse, or restore) I provide a summary of my edit. I reversed the edit that did not contain reliable sources for the claim about Barrell's daughter, and explained in my summary why it was not acceptable ("no reliable sources = edit not acceptable"). You ignored the reason why a BLP needs sources and re-added the info about the daughter without citing a published source. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS states "A disruptive editor often exhibits these tendencies: 2. Is unwilling or unable to satisfy Verifiability; fails to cite sources...." I can work with new editors who make an effort to learn from their mistakes, but editors who display stubbornness dont get any hand-holding. Pyxis Solitary   (yak yak) . Ol' homo. 06:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I only edited it ONCE. The second time was accepted because it's still there and I was able to accurately link the source to the heavy article that someone else had already put there.
 * I noticed someone else, before me, tried to edit prior to me. That was done by a wolfie something or other. That was before i even created an account! You probably saw the same edit and assumed we were the same person? Which is ironic considering what you condemned me for. I'm Stormyranger15. They're WolfieQueenGI. At the top of the thread here you mention them. We are not the same person. So, you're citing me as a disruptive editor because you think I screwed up twice? I'm asking you to please take that down as I did not try it twice before doing it correctly. The day I made my account is the day I first tried editing. That was after you cited WolfieQueenGI.
 * I have edited twice now. The first time you came down on me thinking I was this Wolfie person. The second time you realized I was new and then corrected yourself, linking the rules to me. From which I had explained that I had already read the rules and thought I had linked the resource but it didn't go through for whatever reason. Then I edited a second time from which I was able to do it correctly and it hasn't been taken down so I'm assuming it was done properly this time?
 * Now you're calling me a disruptive person and thinking I'm the other person, again. I don't understand your issue with me but I will complain if you keep insisting I did something wrong more than once. I did learn "from my mistakes" the first time. The only disruptive editor here, for me, is you at this point. I have no problem complaining if you keep insisting I didn't listen the first time. Geez. Stormyranger15 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)