Jump to content

Talk:Laci Green

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 180.216.96.172 (talk) at 11:30, 1 June 2016 (→‎Stop deleting my statement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notability

Cited posts from The Daily Dot & Huffington Post, both reliable third-party sources. Please do not mark as speedy-deletion, and consider placing a template seeking more reliable sources.

Contested deletion

I had already added relevant info to the talk page stating to reconsider speedy deletion. I cited The Daily Dot and Huffington Post, both of which are reliable sources. The article should not qualify for speedy deletion in any way, and should be added a template for further review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BirthOfJesus (talk • contribs) 20:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... this person is legitimately widely reputed and referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyjunky (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Should not be up for speedy ... both of the three references are reliable for a Wikipedia articlet least for the time being and based on the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.208.106 (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add her at List of YouTube personalities? I have no time right now.Jeff5102 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doneJeff5102 (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted lists

The bulleted lists kind of read like a resume. Should we condense them into a single paragraph, maybe? Pcwendland (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Deletion

As noted, I nominated this for deletion. We shouldn't be using the subject as a source for material about herself, and the article doesn't establish notability. Many of these sources aren't reliable, and coverge in several RSs is cursory. The stuff which actually talks about her doesn't seem to establish her notability. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough reliable and notable sources here. The subject is clearly notable enough and there's consensus on this page against deletion. Catobonus (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Catobonus: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laci Green for the deletion dicussion, where you can post your thoughts on the matter. If you post here, your views probably won't be seen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks Catobonus (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Pepper

I've been thinking about adding a line to the article like this:

After fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper posted a video of himself groping women's butts, Green wrote an open letter (co-signed by some of YouTube's most influential vloggers) asking him to "stop violating women"[1][2] and was interviewed by Channel 4 and the BBC about sexual harassment in the YouTube community.[3][4]
  1. ^ YouTube Star Sam Pepper Attempts To 'Prank' Women By Grabbing Their Butts, Alanna Vagianos, Huffington Post, updated 23 September 2014, accessed 26 September 2014
  2. ^ Sam Pepper sexual harassment row: How YouTube teen fan girls found their voice, Reni-Eddo Lodge, The Telegraph, posted 30 September 2014, accessed 1 October 2014
  3. ^ Second YouTube star accused of sexual assault by fans, Channel 4, 2 October 2014
  4. ^ YouTube star Sam Pepper faces sexual harassment claims, Frankie McCamley, BBC Newsbeat, 1 October 2014

However, I'm wary of wp:Recentism, and I could also understand if people felt Green's involvement was not sufficiently notable. What do you think? Green has said she is "in talks with The Guardian, BBC, Channel 4, and The New York Times" (though it's "unclear [...] if the stories will actually be published"), so we could always play it conservative and wait a while for those stories to come out before deciding what to do. -sche (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's best to wait and see what happens. We don't have a deadline. If you do add it, I'd suggest that you not use scare quotes. Instead, you should quote a journalist directly if you want to dispute that it was a prank. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the word "prank" altogether and added a citation of the Channel 4 and BBC Newsbeat interviews. I think I'll add it to the article soon. -sche (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violations

If the controversy sections comes back, it's going to need much better sourcing. A blogger who has a problem with one of her videos is completely inconsequential. When reliable sources, such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, post a criticism of her videos, then we'll have something to say. However, Wikipedia is not here to document what YouTube vloggers have to say about her videos. I shouldn't even have to explain why "self-proclaimed" is horribly POV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point about the blogger, but to call her a feminist you need a WP:RS, not her say so, yes? also there was no need to revert all my changes, can you please reinstate the things you have no problem with? TempletonU (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to remove the word "feminist" completely? TempletonU (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is included in [[::Category:American feminists]], Category:Atheist feminists, Category:Sex-positive feminists, so either we can/should mention "feminist" in the lead, or we should remove those categories. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is a source now so this is fine. but am I allowed to make the other positive changes that Ninja Robot Pirate reverted all of? Like mentioning positive reaction to her blogs? Does he only want to remove negative reaction? TempletonU (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary from reliable sources would be fine. Any source that you add must mention her by name and have a listed editorial board; this generally means mainstream media, such as The New York Times or Wall Street Journal, but the reliable sources noticeboard can help to vet sources. You can add whatever you like as long as it follows our content policies. As a biography of a living person, the sourcing and content is a bit stricter than other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added much and you removed it all. Very little of what I put in was biased in the way you say it is. I am scared to waste time editing because you may revert it again, can you put back in the stuff that was no a problem in the way you said it was? TempletonU (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, Daily Dot is a very much reliable source. Why are you removing content sourced to it? "NPOV" can be fixed, just rephrase the sentences. But I feel that there may be a different reason you are removing the content. Care to elaborate? Tutelary (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're talking about. I was the one who added one of the Daily Dot sources. Maybe you'd care to explain yourself? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the diff I was looking at, it looked like you were removing stuff and sentences relating to every single bit of criticism, even from Daily Dot. Now that I look at it again, you reverted the addition of content about the affirmative consent stuff, and the section headers. I see why for the affirmative consent--looks like it came from someone's blog, But what about the section headers? Tutelary (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Section headers? Seriously? Go ahead and add whatever section headers you feel are appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The affirmative consent was not all from a blog, only one sentence. I tried to show both kinds of response. But why couldn't you just remove the one sentence? You had to revert everything? TempletonU (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just made the change in the way you should have made it, isn't it better now? TempletonU (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blogger reactions are unsourced and the CNN source doesn't mention her at all. This not policy compliant. I already explained this... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TempletonU, when I first saw this exchange, I thought Ninja was bullying a new user since they didn't know much. But when I looked into it further, he's been modest (but maybe a bit blunt in his first revert) regarding sourcing of this article. Youtube Commentators, blogs, and other unreliable sources don't belong in the article, especially 'youtube comments' as they are self published and do not comply with BLP. We're not averse to more criticism of her. You just need good, quality sources for it. Tutelary (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm often a bit blunt, and I guess I've worked on the article a bit. It's not my best work, but I've been trying to keep it policy-compliant and in good shape. I'm not a fan, I've never seen one of her videos, and I don't much care whether the article praises her or criticizes her. My only issue is Wikipedia policy, and I'm a bit of a hard-ass on that. The reason why I've been editing this article (and a few others) is because articles on YouTube celebrities are often in very bad shape. My frustration level has been high recently, and, yes, I have reverted a bit quickly. If you want help adding this controversy, TempletonU, I will do my best to find a reliable source that mentions it. But you have to stop adding your own commentary to the article; this is not allowed. We have to follow what reliable sources say, not what we feel about a person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am actually trying to support her and show both sides of her argument. The problem is I was citing the youtube video and the comments under it but Wikipedia removed that reference when I tried to add it. How do I reference videos she made? Can I only talk about a video if there is another site talking about it? You got confused because someone changed my word "Youtube commenters" to "Youtube commentators" which is different? I was trying to show that California's laws agree with her, but some Youtube users don't. TempletonU (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's your problem. As an encyclopedia, we can only summarize what reliable sources have already said. If no professional journalist has said that California's laws agree or disagree with her, then the entire subject must stay out of the article. Otherwise, it's original research, which is forbidden. We have automated systems that routinely remove citations to YouTube, as it is usually not a reliable source. In this case, the video itself would be a primary source. Primary sources must be used with caution; policy says we can't analyze their content, interpret them, or report on their veracity. This must be done by independent, reliable secondary sources. The reactions of bloggers/YouTube users are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we don't report on them – unless we quote a reliable source who discusses them. For more info, you really should check out the linked guidelines and policies. The Teahouse and help desk can also be useful, or you can ask me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you should have left in my sentence saying what the video is about, yes? TempletonU (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has nothing to say on matters that have not attracted the attention of professional journalists, academics, and other reliable sources. Without a reliable source, to describe one video is undue weight, and to describe all videos is indiscriminate. When a newspaper discusses one of her videos, it will be reasonable to then summarize their article here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you. Why didn't you say that at the beginning? TempletonU (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have become quite complex, and it's difficult to properly summarize them without lapsing into jargon. I apologize for not being clearer; it seems that I was more terse than concise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Laci has a Wikipedia article...

Then why doesn't Trace have one?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.195.245 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First: Who? Second: Why should this person? Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we protect this article for a bit?

Can't recall why this is on my watchlist, but I keep seeing offensive vandalism being done to this page by idiots.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Might be worth protecting this page. I think I watch listed the page awhile back because of vandalism. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I'm not sure I like the rewrite. It's full of original research and poor sources. I suggest we go back to the shorter, better written version, then discuss the changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that makes sense, per WP:BRD. I'll go ahead and revert that and ping @Moonbear69: so we can have that conversation. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think moving the death threats up out of separate section and putting them in chronological order is an improvement, since the rest of the article is chronological and not thematic, per WP:CRITS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sounds good to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting my statement

Why do I keep on getting my theory of her removed? I want a response, not a deletion.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not a forum for discussion the article topic; they are only for discussing how to improve the article. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Do not add controversial or speculative information about living people. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the "living person" thing, wikipedia is not the place to inject " my theory" on any person, any place or any thing. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way, if her bad experience with Islam and Mormonism made her Islamophobic and Anti-Mormon, then why haven't her bad experience with men made her misandric?--180.216.96.172 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ELs section contains, in addition to the subject's official website, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr links in apparent violation of WP:ELNO point #10. Just thought I'd check here first before removing as maybe there's some kind of exception for people notable for their social media activity? - Brianhe (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of these can be found via the official website http://www.lacigreen.tv/, we don't need them, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. In other cases, where no official site catalogs all the social media, we sometimes can list all or many of them ourselves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. The article references her social media accounts, so it makes some sense to have them there. At the same time, I'm not aware of any special exemption for people who are primarily notable for their media accounts. I think there's a special infobox for YouTube personalities, and we could switch over to using that. Then we'd have her YT account linked from there. The rest of the accounts are probably not as important to list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox at Boxxy might be a good model to follow. Brianhe (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a terrible article. I was thinking more along the lines of {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, but embedded modules could work, too. If we use an infobox that has Laci Green's YT account in it, I don't care what happens to the stuff in the external links. Except for the IMDb link, of course. That's not a social media site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laci_Green&oldid=723161113"