Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pauley Perrette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Consensus is needed for this adition, also see following reverts and summaries. - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at WikipediaWhere 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)
Damn it, you don't fuck around with a BLPwhen 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)
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)
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)
"I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignoredis 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'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 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)
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)
The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.( WP:V) differ. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 22 January 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
plus we are forcing her to explain her identityTo 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would argue that Adam9007 inserted a very ambiguous sourceThe 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)
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)
Big surprise, wikipedia editors also have white men deciding when and where and how trans, ace, and queer people can define themselvesNo, 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)
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)
I'm not sure it changes everythingSome (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)
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)
References
Why do you remove a paragraph from where you say you are asexual? problem with that? 2J14 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 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)
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.
Very good.Again, very good at what?
(of a person) having no sexual feelings or desires; asexual.Again, fits nicely.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pauley Perrette article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about
living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Consensus is needed for this adition, also see following reverts and summaries. - FlightTime Phone ( open channel) 19:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
I am actively trying to communicate with the asexual community on Twitter right now to help them understand the goings-on here at WikipediaWhere 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)
Damn it, you don't fuck around with a BLPwhen 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)
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)
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)
"I highly doubt media will cover her asexuality, as it's something usually overlooked and ignoredis 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'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 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)
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)
The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.( WP:V) differ. Schazjmd (talk) 21:31, 22 January 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
plus we are forcing her to explain her identityTo 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would argue that Adam9007 inserted a very ambiguous sourceThe 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)
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)
Big surprise, wikipedia editors also have white men deciding when and where and how trans, ace, and queer people can define themselvesNo, 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)
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)
I'm not sure it changes everythingSome (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)
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)
References
Why do you remove a paragraph from where you say you are asexual? problem with that? 2J14 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 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)
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.
Very good.Again, very good at what?
(of a person) having no sexual feelings or desires; asexual.Again, fits nicely.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)