Talk:Kat Blaque

Citations and Notability

Hi, I was forced to remove some content from this page because it could not be cited to reliable third party sources, potentially violating WP:BLP. In addition, I removed two sources for being self-published sources and thus lacking editorial oversight. At this point, almost all of this article's content is uncited, and most of it cannot be cited at all, because it strongly appears to have been written by the subject herself or by people connected with the subject. Because of this, I have added an "autobiography" tag to the article. Because the article only has one remaining source (of fairly low quality as well) I have added a notability tag as well. Denarivs (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Maintaining BLP standards

Hi, I was forced to remove the Huffington Post source [1] because it failed the WP:BLPSOURCES prohibition on tabloid journalism and junk food news. (In addition, the subject is a blogger at Huffington Post so there is a conflict of interest making the source non-reliable) Because of the article's resultant lack of sources I added a "no sources template" to the top of the page. I also removed unsourced original research that was potentially libelous and failed WP:BLP. Thanks so much, Denarivs (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

One person making a comment on a talk page and not receiving any replies is the most hilarious attempt at redefining consensus I've ever heard. You were bold. You were reverted. Now you need to discuss.

You are attempting to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion processes by systematically gutting an article, and severely damaging an article on a BLP because you're removing everything making finding the good content you've removed because you're playing games and distinguishing it from anything that did actually need to removed is a massive headache for neutral editors.

If you refuse to discuss this and gut the article any further than the ridiculous amount you have, I will revert you immediately. You need to actually come here and discuss what you're doing instead of assuming a consensus to keep can be subverted by just manually repeatedly gutting an article and then revert-warring anyone who challenges you.

Ironically, your only ever attempt at creating an article, which presumably you intended to put into live space at some point, uses many of exactly the same sources you have been using spurious rationale to try and have removed here. You are not nearly as subtle as you think you are, and your flagrant disregard for an existing consensus as to notability and deletion and contempt for Wikipedia's sourcing policies while you try to end-run that consensus will not stand. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your vicious and personal attacks on my editing are false and deeply offensive. A simple check of the page's history reveals [[2]] that the majority of the page's deletions were made not by me, but by a totally different and unrelated editor. I, for my part, have simply been removing unsourced and poorly sourced immediately and without waiting for discussion, as per WP:BLP. I have absolutely no desire to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion processes, as you libelously claim in bad faith; rather, I am simply applying Wikipedia's policies as they are written. If you would like to include potentially libel and unsourced info in this article, you will have to take it up with Wikipedia's rulemakers. I will continue to remove possibly defamatory materials as Wikipedia's rules require. I would also like to politely remind you that the 3-revert rule does not apply to removing poorly sourced content from a BLP article, as I have been doing here.

Now, to talk about specific edits:

There is no source for Ms. Blaque's place or date of birth; per WP:BLP the information must be removed immediately. The information also fails to protect Ms. Blaque's privacy per WP:BLP.

The "pop-buzz" source [[3]] is blog of some sorts with no editorial policy or notability; it is both gossip and not reliable, failing two prongs of WP:BLP.

The buzzfeed blog post [[4]] is both gossip and lacking editorial control, per the page itself. Per WP:BLPSPS it is unacceptable.

The self-published 'YouTube" video is not reliable, and the "LGBT Update" source obviously fails WP:BLP as well.

I eagerly await your response, but per Wikipedia policy I will go ahead and make the necessary edits immediately. Denarivs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there any actual dispute over anything stated in the current lead sentence: "Kathryn Wilkins, also known by the alias Kat Blaque, is a transgender African American feminist vlogger"? i.e. her name, alias, race, trans status, and the fact that she's a vlogger? That's all the sources that you deleted were establishing here. Funcrunch (talk) 05:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, from your attempts to discredit the Everyday Feminism site that this article uses as a source, and from your latest user page edit, I have serious doubts that you are editing in good faith. Funcrunch (talk) 05:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. Denarivs has a long history of trying to delete this article by stealth by removing a sourced sentence every day or two and then just revert-warring whenever challenged, and claiming that any of what Funcrunch mentioned is "possibly defamatory" (literally, you said that) gives me incredible doubt as to any purported good faith. Above is a good example of the sort of thing: he claims to be removing her birthdate because it "fails to protect Ms. Blaque's privacy per WP:BLP" when BLP actually has a section about this that contradicts that. There has been a severe lack of good-faith explanation for Denarivs' repeated and massive deletions to circumvent AfD and we need to see him do better than the above grasping at straws for removing every possible single scrap of information possible in the hope of getting the stage where he can get the article speedy deleted by an admin who hasn't checked the history. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have gone ahead and removed some unsourced information from this page, as Wikipedia policy WP:BLP explicitly requires: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Until reliable sources are provided for this material it cannot be part of this article. the specific sources cannot be considered reliable until we reach a consensus, and you've haven't responded to the specific claims I've made. Thanks so much, and I'd like to clarify that I'm absolutely editing in good faith! Denarivs (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no specific claims you've made: you've blanket removed all sources from the article to justify removing the content attached to them, and you've come up with reasons so spurious they're explicitly contradicted by the policies you claim to have cited. I have zero problem with you removing any material that is unsourced, but your behaviour regarding allegedly "unreliable" sources has been beyond aggressive and has involved, among other things, you challenging sources you yourself have used elsewhere. Bluntly, your judgment as to what is a "reliable" source has so little to do with WP:RS that you need to actually get a consensus. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we should post to a dispute resolution noticeboard for outside help/advice at this point? It's clear that Denarivs will continue to revert no matter what is said on this talk page. Funcrunch (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about that: after your comment above (and to my very great surprise) he accepted that that one source was valid, and so demonstrated that the existence of a source about Kat Blaque that he would ultimately agree to not remove (albeit after repeatedly trying to first) was an genuinely possible thing. All he needs to do here is come here and discuss the sources somehow beyond making yet another "I reverted and gutted the article again because of these super-spurious policy claims, nyah" as if we hadn't read the policy and just weren't questioning his judgment and behaviour, discuss sources in good faith and we might get somewhere. The reason I've gotten involved at all is the constant determined, spurious article gutting, and I'm not terribly wedded to individual sources and very open to persuasion so long as we can actually get even a stub that he won't try to gut on someone AfD held was notable. It's not like that would be a hard conversation with someone who was engaging remotely genuinely on a sourcing issue and that one edit suggested that he might be capable of it, so let's wait and see. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm just trying to neutrally apply Wikipedia policy. I have no desire to gut this article, it's just that there was very little reliably-sourced information to begin with. Denarivs (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I've removed Kat Blaque's birthdate and place of birth from this article. I can find no source for either claim except sites that are rehosting the wikipedia article. WP:BLP explains that everything in a Wikipedia article on living people must be cited or able to be cited. If you add this content back please provide a source; Wikipedia policy prohibits it from being in the article otherwise. If any reliable source exists, obviously the citation needed tags should be removed and the content should be restored. Thanks. Denarivs (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Notable?

Is this individual really notable? I've done a review of her youtube videos and posts and there's nothing particularly special there that I found ... other than being transgendered (which is not itself sufficient grounds for being notable) this person doesn't seem to be particularly notable to me. 210.84.55.191 (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The result of a previous nomination for deletion of this article was keep, as it was determined the subject is sufficiently notable. And it's transgender, not "transgendered". Funcrunch (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Contentious editing

Denarivs has returned to contentious editing on this page with removal (twice) of links like this which simply establish that she appeared in a video, under the reasoning that it is self-published and "potentially libeling the subject". Per previous discussion on this page and the return of the same behavior, I do not believe Denarivs is editing in good faith. Funcrunch (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

To quote that "source":

"This post was created by a user and has not been vetted or endorsed by BuzzFeed's editorial staff. BuzzFeed Community is a place where anyone can post awesome lists and creations. Learn more or post your buzz!"

The buzzfeed blog post has no editorial vetting and it is not from an expert in the field. It is entirely unusable for any article. I am strongly editing in good faith and have made countless improvements to this article; however I am having doubts that Funcrunch is editing in good faith. Denarivs (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You have openly mocked marginalized people on your user page in response to previous discussions on this talk page (for the article of a black trans woman). Funcrunch (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And it doesn't take an "expert in the field" to simply embed a video in a page, a video that clearly shows Kat Blaque speaking about the subject in the article. Funcrunch (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You also didn't seem to have a problem adding a blog as a source to support your position on another article today. Funcrunch (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks on my lived experiences are repugnant. I want to ask you politely not to doubt my life choices. This blog post is unacceptable because it is self published and is not subject to editorial review; it flatly fails WP:RS. Denarivs (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything libelous in the claim that she collaborated on a YouTube video. It may be, however, a trivial aspect of the topic if only primary sources are available for it. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

July 2017

IP has been blocked for disruptive editing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To say there is no misandrie, IS an misandrous statement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UdCF96jlk4 To say there is no such thing as racism against white people, IS racism: http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/01/can-black-people-be-racist/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.12.45.60 (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC) Don't think those are reliable sources. Hayman30 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC) You kiddin me? That are her OWN words! Link goes to a video from her and an article written by HER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.12.45.60 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC) 1) Youtube and Everyday Feminism are not reliable, particularly for a BLP (biography of living person). See WP:BLPSOURCES. 2) It is your own interpretation that labels her words as sexist and racist, which means that the sources you've provided don't actually back up your proposed edit anyway and constitute original research. Marianna251TALK 14:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC) You know the word dictionary? You know what the dictionary has to say? "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races." https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/racism Please leave wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.12.45.60 (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC) And another two: "discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender" = sexism Misandry = hatred of males. She is saying there is no such thing. Who is wrong? The dictionary made it up? This discussion is just ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.12.45.60 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Feminist label

This HuffPo interview with Kat Blaque is being used as a source to label her as an intersectional feminist. The only mention of feminism/feminist is with her writing for Everyday Feminism. I removed it in this edit but was reverted here by The Drover's Wife using Twinkle's vandalism revert, which was inappropriate given the edit. While I understand that Kat Blaque's writings and youtube videos are strongly informed by and related to intersectional feminism, we cannot, per WP:V and WP:OR, ascribe that label unless either she calls herself that or reliable sources widely call her that. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, take out the word "feminist" - but keep the rest of the material which was directly quoted. This article has a long history of inappropriate removals aimed at gutting the article rather than anything based in Wikipedia policy, hence the straight revert. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: I understand that this article is targeted frequently (and I participated in the previous AFD for this too). I've taken your suggestion and kept the quote while removing the label. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Activist"

I'm getting a bit fed up with seeing the word "activist" getting linked and unlinked and that has made me look at the way we are using the word and I think that we may have a problem.

First up, I think that we can resolve the linking question quite easily. "Activist" is, in itself, a very general term that does not need linking any more than most other normal words do. If she is a specific type of activist then we might be able to link to an article about that and that might actually be informative for our readers. As it is, Activist is a redirect to Activism which is a completely generic article about all sorts of activism and our readers will have no way of knowing which, if any, of those apply to her.

So, what sort of activist is she? This is where we hit the problem. Activism is not specifically mentioned anywhere else in the article. Sure, some of the stuff in the Other Ventures section might fit a definition of activism but we don't quite seem to have threaded that needle. At present I don't think that the body of the article justifies the use of the word "activist" in the introduction.

I think we have two options:

1. Either, we increase coverage of her activism in the article body and make a more specific statement about her activism in the introduction, probably with a link.
2. Or, we remove the word "activist" from the introduction.

I can see a few sources that describe her as an activist. I'd very much like us to avoid the specific term "transgender rights activist" (as it is increasingly being used as a dogwhistle phrase by bigots for any trans person who does not meekly allow themselves to be bullied) but something like "YouTuber, public speaker and intersectional feminist activist for transgender and black equality" could work if we can build up the article body to support that. I think this source is good. (It would almost be a crime for us not to find a way to use the term "intersectionality salad".) --DanielRigal (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, if you can find the sources then there's definitely much improvement to be made. My edits were an application of WP:OVERLINK without meaning to endorse the current description. — Bilorv (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Is "Kat Blaque" a real name or a pseudonym?

Doesn't sound very real. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:58C4:30C9:1BD:694B (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)