Talk:Twelve Forever/Archive 1

Twelve Forever "controversy"
Thank you for your note on my talk page. I am opening up a discussion here in case others watching this page want to chime in.

Regarding the inclusion of the category "cartoon controversies": WP:CATDEF states A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having [...]. There is nothing in the article to suggest that a controversy is a defining characteristic of the show. I also note that this was at least the second time an editor removed the category from the page; however, because this page appears to have been categorized as such for a few months now, I will not revert this again.

However, I am going to remove the text regarding Reuben Baron. First of all, the statement claims that Baron is a "prominent animation critic," but this is subjective. The source is simply a random tweet from an unverified Twitter account that has a few hundred followers, which does not seem very prominent to me. Second, and more importantly, this source does not meet the requirements for inclusion at WP:SOCIALMEDIA, which provides that a self-published tweet cannot be used to support a claim about a third party (note that WP:SOCIALMEDIA is a policy and not a guideline). I am removing the statement from the article on those grounds. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * On further reflection, I removed the entire discussion about Petosky as a violation of WP:SYNTH. The statements imply that Petosky replaced Vickerman as an executive producer, but there is nothing in the source to support this. Petosky may well have been an executive producer since the beginning of the project. Shows often have multiple executive producers. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to accept the removal of the Reuben tweet, as much as it pains me to do so, but the AP article and Petosky's tweets are totally acceptable. Reducing it only to the sentences as you did, is just not right and does not summarize the controversy accurately.--Historyday01 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The AP article and Potosky's tweet are acceptable sources, but they do not directly back up the statement you are trying to make. Please find a source that summarizes the sources directly and not through synthesis. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The statements have been changed to make clear that Petosky did not become the producer...but I do think she should be mentioned as she was the one who said the show was cancelled in the first place. Good luck finding any source on this controversy. If you are so concerned about this, why not find the source yourself? Instead of removing content, why not add content? Why not make the page better? I have many, many pages to edit, and I can't dedicate all my time to Wikipedia. I have a life outside this site, you know.Historyday01 (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The statement Although Shadi Petosky was described as the executive producer on the show in a July 2019 AP article on LGBTQ representation in animation, she stated in September 2019 that she had no connection with the show since the show's first season had premiered on Netflix earlier that year. does not fit into the context of the larger paragraph. How does Petosky's involvement as an executive producer have any bearing on the surrounding sentences? And where in the sources does Petosky announce that the show was canceled?


 * Please read WP:V, which says, "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." If information is not verifiable, it should not be included in the article. Take a look also at WP:BURDEN: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution. The burden to find a source is on you, as the person who wants to have the material included, and not me. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Yeah, you can throw rules at me all you want, but the article earlier says that the show was cancelled, using Petosky's tweet as evidence:


 * "Ultimately, the series ended after its first season with no further plans to continue it, as noted by Petosky in a tweet."


 * I didn't see the point in repeating that and adding it to the controversy section too. I was trying to say that you are the person who challenged this, so why not help out and pitch in? I can't do everything around here. You don't have to be a jerk. Historyday01 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I made what I hope is the final revision to this... Now, it talks about the end of the show, but is broader. The words about Petosky make more sense in this context.


 * In September 2019, a Tumblr post by Julia Vickerman, the show's creator and executive producer, from 2010, which seemed to talk about self-described pedophilia involving a 14-year-old boy, surfaced, putting the show in jeopardy. The same month, Shadi Petosky announced that the show had been cancelled in a now-deleted tweet, but did not mention the controversy around Vickerman. While Petosky was described as the executive producer on the show in a July 2019 AP article on LGBTQ representation in animation, she stated in September 2019 that she had no connection with the show since the show's first season had premiered on Netflix earlier that year. The following year, in two articles published in April and May 2020, Lacey Womack of Screen Rant stated the show was "on an indefinite hiatus," with uncertain plans for the future.


 * That is all. You know, @Aoi (青い), this whole discussion was a waste of time and was totally unnecessary. In the end, we are back where we started. You can throw policies like WP:SOCIALMEDIA, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CATDEF at me all you want, but it would have been better if you had just revised the section yourself and done the research, instead of pushing it onto someone else. That would have been the nice and considerate thing to do. Besides WP:BURDEN that you cited says:
 * "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[5] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."
 * You clearly did not follow that last part yourself. Jeez, I guess you didn't even fully read the rules you cited. Yikes. Also, you did not read WP:Twitter-EL which says that "a specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source." In the case of this topic, since Petosky was an executive producer on the show, it is acceptable. You could argue the same with the Reuben tweet, but I don't think its needed, at this point. Petosky's tweet also follows WP:RSCONTEXT, which says that the "reliability of a source depends on context" and in this case Petosky's tweet is reliable and should not removed. Historyday01 (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)