Talk:Mary Cagle

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

Asexuality[edit]

With this edit on 23 Jan 2020, Adam9007 added "Cagle identifies as asexual." To support his statement, Adam9007 cited a tweet posted by @cubewatermelon on 3 Mar 2015. However, that is not a verified Twitter account. It's entirely possible that "cubewatermelon" is simply a fan, or group of fans, or even non-fans peddling their own POV under the guise of being a celebrity. For that reason, I dispute this source, and shall revert the contribution with a request that it not be restored unless editors reach consensus to do so after discussion at this Talk page. NedFausa (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@cubewatermelon is Mary Cagle's twitter handle. Every one of her comic websites (see Mary Cagle#External links) links to it. Oornery (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If so, why has Twitter not verified her account? Until that happens, it could be anyone tweeting from that username. NedFausa (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how account verification works. You can apply for verification, doesn't mean you'll get it. Use common sense. If every one of the comic websites links to this twitter account, an account which has been around since 2008 and regularly tweets comic updates, is there any reason to doubt that the person behind the account is someone other than the comic creator? Oornery (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oornery: Please be advised that if you continue to restore disputed content without consensus, you will be reported for violating WP:EW. NedFausa (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NedFausa: For the record, I had not yet seen your talk page reply when I made the restoration, thus considered the matter resolved. Was not my intent to edit war. Oornery (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NedFausa: Sorry Ned, you don't get to argue on in the discussion on Pauley's page that a verified account where she says "Ace", follows accounts, etc. needs ambiguous language, but here the person says they are "asexual", but it's not a verified account. Either it's one way or the other. You can't have it both ways. I don't think you are editing with a neutral point of view. I believe you are editing with a clear bias and one against those who are asexual. I think you need to walk away from this discussion...now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38 on January 24, 2020 (UTC)
I believe: (1) editors should never rely directly on unverified Twitter accounts; (2) editors may rely on verified Twitter accounts—but such accounts are not exempt from the panoply of Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and when disputed they should be used as sources only with consensus. On this page, we are not discussing content sourced to a verified Twitter account. NedFausa (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every issue should be evaluated on its own merits, based on individual sources. If you have some specific issues, start a discussion on those talk pages first. RFCs should only be used if that fails. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's comments are relevant and sensible:

Statements about someone's sexuality, from wherever sourced, need to meet a few important thresholds. The information needs to be noteworthy in order to be encyclopedic. It is not automatically noteworthy in the first place. One way to establish this would be through multiple high quality reliable sources. One example would be Anderson Cooper - which became of historical interest because of great speculation about it, his longterm silence on the topic, followed by his publicly coming out as gay. This was widely covered in the press and is of interest for multiple perfectly good reasons having to do with the changing of social mores, etc. Another way to establish this would be through a coherent argument as to why it is relevant: I can imagine that if someone is highly active in LGBTQ causes, speaking often on the issue, it could be sensibly interesting to readers in terms of understanding their perspective. Indeed, it might be a case where someone being heterosexual might be of valid interest. In general, though, I would say that some kind of reasonable argument needs to be made: the sexual preferences of a random business executive or news personality where it has had no meaningful interaction with their professional life seems to me to be of little interest, even if some random comment might be used to justify it. Second, social media sourcing can be fine in clear cases, and might or might not be sufficient to establish the noteworthiness of the information. A passing mention of a partner could very well fail that test. An ambiguous statement that could be interpreted in different ways almost certainly fails that test. For everything we must ask ourselves both "Is it true?" and "Is it encyclopedic?" and where we are talking about a BLP we must always consider matters of dignity and take a firm approach to notability - in many cases the expressed wishes of the subject can be relevant.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

--JBL (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this appears to be an attempt to turn this into a proxy-battle over how Wikipedia handles this in general. This is not appropriate for many reasons.
Since none of this quote was specific to Mary Cagle, the relevance of this comment is not quite as obvious as it might first appear. Wales' position makes a lot of sense in general, but this isn't a Wikipedia policy page or MoS guideline, nor is this article about sexual identity and social media or similar. It is an article about one specific person.
We need to look at this in context for Mary Cagle (who is not Anderson Cooper!) Cagle, who is an artist, has shared artwork of herself imposed over the asexual pride flag. Some might claim this is open to interpretation, but I think this is absurd on its face, especially combined with the other tweets. In context, she pretty clearly considers this something to be proud of, and not private information. Cagle has also tweeted that her asexuality has influenced her art, and her art is the reason she is noteworthy.
This the discussion is about including a single sentence mentioning her asexuality. We have to be plain about why this matters. By arguing about whether or not this is due weight on general principle, we risk turning a real-life person's identity into a proxy battle over the significance of this to other people. This is not appropriate or respectful, and ignoring basic facts about her specific identity because other people's (different) sexual identities might, hypothetically, be a privacy issue to those other people is misguided at best and offensive at worst. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cagle, who is an artist, has shared artwork of herself imposed over the asexual pride flag -- that's great; do any reliable sources mention it as part of their coverage of Cagle? Because that's the question that you should be asking yourself before you go on turning biographies of individual people into proxy battles about minority groups to which they belong, sexual or otherwise. --JBL (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

Dispute about the reliability of an unverified twitter account for citing a WP:BLPSELFPUB statement (see Talk:Mary Cagle#Asexuality). 02:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Include - Twitter's verification is neither necessary, nor sufficient, for this to be used. As a general rule of thumb, we accept what people say about themselves, but that doesn't mean we need to include it. In this case, I do not see any reason to doubt that this is her account. Therefore, this is a valid BLPSELF source. If it were just one tweet, I would say it's WP:UNDUE, and it still might be, but it's also not particularly controversial. If there is some specific reason to doubt this detail, or a policy-based reason to exclude this detail, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: WP:UNDUE: as the editor who originally added the statement over a year ago, I will say that I was on the fence about adding it, ultimately deciding to because of this tweet (which I cited), which states "Over the past year I've discovered that I'm probably asexual, which in retrospect explains a lot about my work and taste in media." The reason being that she says its an influence on her work, which is relevant to an article about her work as a comic creator. Oornery (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards include. WP:BLPSELFPUB doesn't say that Twitter accounts must be verified, just that there be no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Does anyone have any reason to believe her account or statement is not authentic? Adam9007 (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam9007: WP:SELFPUBLISH advises: Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Editors who have no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of Cagle's unverified Twitter account nevertheless ought to justify citing it in lieu of independent reliable sources. NedFausa (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really about Cagle, or is this a proxy dispute imported from some other article? It's common to cite primary sources for routine biographical information. Nothing about this single sentence violates WP:SELFSOURCE. The justification is that it's a single sentence which is relevant, not unduly self-serving, and not about a third-party. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: But is it noteworthy? If so, we shouldn't have to rely on a single source, especially when it's derived from an unverified Twitter account. NedFausa (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are judged in context. We don't have to do anything. we get to cite primary sources when it improves the article. It's a single sentence on a detail which the artist herself has indicated is significant. You keep hammering the "unverified" thing, but nobody is disputing that its hers, so this doesn't matter. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: Is there any evidence, apart from her unverified Twitter account (which mostly jokes about the subject), that the artist herself believes her asexuality is significant? If so, I missed it. NedFausa (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I just said, being unverified is irrelevant, and hammering this point suggests that you're trying to prove an unrelated point. You expectations for sources are unrealistic. Pick your battles, or at the very least, stop pinging me. Grayfell (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the pings. I didn't realize they annoy you. In any case, I believe others have argued a point similar to yours: that we must rely in a Wikipedia BLP upon questionable sources such as an unverified Twitter account because it's "unrealistic" to expect established, independent sources to confirm what's in the particular tweet being cited. As I see it, such desperation merely proves that the content being added is not noteworthy. NedFausa (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. It's not that they annoy me, it's that they seem like "desperation". Instead of accepting differing opinions (which is the point of an RFC), you are repeating the same points. Further, this appears to be spill-over from a separate article with its own set of sources and context. As I said, this is starting to seem like disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This all started at Talk:Pauley_Perrette#Coming_out_on_Twitter, which snowballed to this article and a couple of others. Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. And I for one reject any suggestion that our edits and discussions of asexuality since 20 Jan 2020 at the article spaces or talk pages of Pauley Perrette, Emilie Autumn, Mary Cagle or Janeane Garofalo constitute disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. NedFausa (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The twitter is currently being used to cite her birthdate (and is the only ref listed for it). Oornery (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Date of birth is important, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Birth date and place. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, this information can be supported by primary sources, in some cases. This appears to me to be such a case. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards include. I do think we should be cautious about scraping social media for info, as I know one subject who requested that her Wikipedia article be deleted because it included way too much personal info about her from Twitter. But the fact that Cagle has created art of herself with the ace pride flag is good indication that she's OK with this info being out there, and including it does seem to be allowed per WP:BLPSELFPUB. And the dirty little secret of Wikipedia is that for lesser-known subjects we probably do have to lean on primary sources a little bit more than we might like. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switching vote to neutral after reading JBL's arguments above. WanderingWanda (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards exclude - I'm uncomfortable with the way the sentence is worded: Cagle identifies as asexual. - which is a definitive statement and her tweet is not a definitive statement. And I say that because I don't self-identify as being probably gay. I self-identify as being gay. Period. If the language was tweaked to match the tweet, then I'd be OK with it. I am comfortable though with the twitter account being hers. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway: There are other sources too. Oornery (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the original source offered were the best relevant statement available, I would have strongly opposed inclusion per Isaidnoway. However, the post [1] is considerably more definitive. (The arguments for treating the twitter account as Cagle's seem reasonable.) It would still be far better (for reasons of weight) to have a proper secondary source for this, so put me down as neutral on inclusion. --JBL (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concession
Having further considered the various points presented here, I concede that we may reliably cite Mary Cagle's Twitter account @cubewatermelon to restore the disputed edit "Cagle identifies as asexual." As Oornery has shown, "Every one of her comic websites (see Mary Cagle#External links) links to this account." I believe that alone sufficiently legitimizes her Twitter account so that we may rely on it. My other concern was the absence of independent sources that view Cagle's asexuality as important enough to have reported it. Although her tweets about being asexual are often lighthearted, the fact that she has tweeted about this repeatedly over the course of 9½ years demonstrates, as Grayfell (no ping by request) has indicated, that the artist herself does consider this detail about her life to be significant. So I will not oppose restoration of the disputed edit, and I sincerely thank Adam9007, Oornery, Grayfell, WanderingWanda and 165.120.15.119 for contributing to this debate. NedFausa (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain...[edit]

Unless I'm missing something, a Twitter comment by Ms Cagle (assuming for the moment that it is her) stating that "Over the past year I've discovered that I'm probably asexual, which in retrospect explains a lot about my work and taste in media" [2] is being proposed as one of the sources for an assertion that "Cagle identifies as asexual". Can someone please explain how a suggestion from her that she is 'probably' asexual can be used as a source to assert definitively that she is? If there are other sources which back up the statement, they may possibly be valid, but that isn't a valid source for the statement at all. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are other sources: [3] [4] Oornery (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of which seems to actually contain a statement by Cagle that she is asexual. Again, assuming that it is Cagle. Can anyone provide any external evidence that this is her? There is nothing I can see to suggest this account has been authenticated by Twitter, and WP:SELFSOURCE would seem to suggest that such material can't be used if its authenticity might be in doubt. 165.120.15.119 (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every one of her comic websites (see Mary Cagle#External links) links to this account. On https://marycagle.com, see the Twitter icon in the sidebar. On http://www.kiwiblitz.com, see the Twitter icon in the sidebar under the comic. On http://www.sleeplessdomain.com/about, the name Mary Cagle is hyperlinked to this Twitter account. Oornery (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research (policy) states: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. (Emphasis added.) NedFausa (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weighing the reliability of sources isn't original research: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we are forbidden from applying WP:OR to arrive at consensus as to whether or not Mary Cagle's unverified Twitter account may be relied upon as a source? NedFausa (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidden? Yeah, sure, close enough. We have sources saying something directly. Discussing whether or not to use that source isn't about WP:OR, because OR applies to article content.

Wikipedia is not a subsidiary of Twitter, so verification is not a definitive threshold for reliability. As far as I can tell, nobody has proposed any particular reason to doubt the authenticity of this twitter account. Is there some specific reason to think this is wrong? According to archives, she's had a link to that twitter account on her website since at least January 2012, if not earlier. There isn't any specific reason to think that this is hoax account, and speculating that it might be because it's "unverified", without any other reason, is non-productive. Grayfell (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asexuality again[edit]

Belatedly, I have restored the content about asexuality. This contend was removed by NedFausa (who has since been site-banned) on the basis that the account was not verified, and that user later conceded that the twitter account is Cagle's. In this case, this phrase "Identifies as" is unnecessary and implies a degree of subjectivity which is not entirely compliant with BLP guidelines, so I've also simplified it. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Cagle&oldid=1206507110"