Talk:Sophie Labelle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birth name

Is Labelle's birth name known? 89.168.43.87 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

She did not become notable before her gender transition, so it is neither necessary nor desirable to list her birth name here. Funcrunch (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Many people that are known by other (including self-given) names still have their birth name stated on their page. I can't find any case where a person would not have their birth name stated, if known, even if most people could not recognize the person by their birth name. Desirability has nothing to do with this. 46.109.168.8 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Deadnaming is harmful to trans people. Causing unnecessary harm to living people is against Wikipedia policies. There's a recent, very long discussion on this topic on the talk page for Manual of Style/Biographies. Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that link doesn't appear to work. The relevant discussion is here, and no consensus was actually reached on the inclusion of birth names of persons who have changed their genders - although a slight preponderance of commenters (although some of the contributors disclosed a conflict of interest) suggested an opposition to the proposition. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 06:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion I mentioned (here's the direct link in the archive) was an RfC to change existing policy and allow birth names of people in the lead in all cases. Per MOS:BIRTHNAME, current policy states that with regards to trans people, "birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out". The RfC had no consensus to change this.

My argument, there and here, is that birth names (deadnames) of trans people should not be included in the article at all if the person was not notable prior to coming out, which is consistent with Wikipedia policies to avoid causing unnecessary harm to living people. Yes, I am transgender, but that does not inherently give me a "conflict of interest"; this topic concerns me people like me directly, and we have a right to weigh in on how we are represented on Wikipedia. (I gave a talk on this subject at the recent WikiConference North America.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Not noteworthy

This isn't noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.191.65.27 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

-- I second the above. What criteria was followed when deciding LaBelle is notable? --Pumalilly (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia notability criteria. I've never come across an article that has had so many brand new accounts question a subject's notability, tag it for notability, and nominate it for deletion. What's going on? Usually people want to edit in other areas before questioning notability. -- haminoon (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

To be specific, see WP:Notability. The general notability guidelines describe the topic well. To sum it up, multiple reliable sources have written about Labelle and her work. I hope that clears it up. ~Mable (chat) 09:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I decided to Google around a bit, and it seems like this Reddit post is the cause of the recent influx of activity. The comments include stuff like "Flag that shit as not notable, speedy deletion" and "Why does he [sic] even have a Wikipedia page?". I think you get the idea. ~Mable (chat) 09:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Source for criticism

The "Lolcow" site that is listed as a source in this edit is connected with Kiwi Farms, a site that has devoted entire threads (which I will not link to here) to deadnaming me and mocking my gender identity. I do not know if this Lolcow site qualifies as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, but because I cannot be reasonably objective here I am leaving it up to other editors to decide. Funcrunch (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As the person who made the edit I would like to chime in.

I understand issues with the site and its reputiation and thats why I was very cautious about using it as a source, but I found the article was fairly well written and tried to tell that theu didnt think the comic held core values, I may or may not agree with the reasoning but I feel like the page should tell atleast both sides . Thats why I left the original text unchanged about the attacks and moved it into a new contrversey section.

I aplogize if this offended you, but I still believe it should be up unless dictated by another higher up editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamRoubicek (talk • contribs) 20:54, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I've just reverted it again - there is absolutely no way lolcow can be considered a reliable reference anywhere on wikipedia. -- haminoon (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why was my comment removed from the talk page? My only complaint was that it's offensive to refer to everyone that critizes Sophie's comic to be transphobic people when numerous gblt members and allies have reviewed or spoken out against the webcomic for various reasons and not all trans women and trans men like how Sophie behaves and responses to people online in a condescending manner, too call all people that do not like her webcomic and judge them all to be just transphobic is just lying and acting as if the transwomen and men that do not like her comic do not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.186.245 (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

it's interesting that the article in question was written by "a software developer and server administrator who manages Lolcow LLC and its items, including the Kiwi Farms," rather than an expert in gender topics, webcomics, or internet culture. To be frank, I've shied away from writing an article on Labelle in the past simply because I'm not comfortable with the strength of the kind of sources that have covered her. It's hard not to be biased due to the lack of mainstream sources, eventhough she does meet GNG. I personally recommend not using this source, but I have no idea where that leaves other sources. I can't believe we can have an article on Assigned Male that has no criticism section, to be honest... ~Mable (chat) 23:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that this "lolcow" site does not meet wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source, and would urge contributors who have placed it as a source to find other sources for their claims. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 05:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nationality dispute

There is a dispute amongst editors over whether Labelle's nationality should be listed as Canadian or Québécois. From what I understand she identifies as the latter, but a reliable source on that is needed. Regardless, the dispute is not just over her identity, but over whether Québécois is itself a nationality. I do not have specific expertise here, so I invite others who do to discuss. Funcrunch (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Also requested input at WikiProjectComics/Canadian (assuming anyone's actually watching that page). Funcrunch (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's clear from the Quebec article that it is a nation but not a state. The only source I have that Labelle identifies as Québécois rather than Canadian is that she said so at one of public speaking events. This isn't online yet so isn't a reliable source. -- haminoon (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) --82.11.51.91 (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not the creator of this page but I'm responding here. Having reviewed the criteria for speedy deletion, I don't believe this article qualifies. I've removed the notice. Those who still feel the subject isn't notable have the option to nominate through the regular deletion process. Funcrunch (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page looks very biased towards the support of the author herself, mainly the absence of any criticism, save apparent mens rights activists. I tagged the page for neutrality edits, and added some basic criticism of her work. I'm newer here, so I'm asking for someone more experienced to assist me with the cleanup here. Frankly, this page should be deleted, but since it is up and running, we might as well clean it up a bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koz234 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

As I've said before, I can't believe we have an article on Assigned Male that doesn't have a good amount of criticism listed. Thing is, I have difficulty finding it among reliable sources. Linking to Reddit or some wiki is considered original research and it just doesn't work here. I wish we could find some good criticism among (online) magazines with good editorial practices. I'm definitely keeping the neutrality tag, though, because I agree that the webcomic currently seems to be praised by the Wikipedia article, something I do not feel comfortable with. ~Mable (chat) 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no problem with criticism of Labelle being added to this article, as long as the edits are made in good faith and come from reliable sources. Funcrunch (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality tag has been up for a couple of weeks now and no-one has introduced any reliably sourced criticism or offered any reliable sources we can use for criticism. I will remove it now. Obviously I have no problem with there being criticism in the article. I realise there are a number of new editors who have only edited this article, so I want to assure everyone there is nothing unusual about Wikipedia biographies that contain no criticism of the subject. Plenty of biography subjects are heavily criticised in internet forums and taverns but that doesn't mean the criticism belongs in an encyclopedia article. -- haminoon (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh hey, a new source became available a week ago: [1]. And there's barely any criticism. Huh... this is getting weird. Well, I guess a successful AfD is definitely not happening anymore. ~Mable (chat) 10:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Unreliable sources include gayiceland, due to inherent bias, gaystarnews, and gay central valley, etc, all for the same reason. Sources should be replaced with more reliable mainstream sources such as the CBC, which has covered her before, and could be used to support the claims made. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 03:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

addendum : Reading some of the above threads suggests that some of the major contributors here may have a conflict of interest? Nonetheless, this shouldnt impede the search for quality sources to replace these tabloids with. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 03:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The conflict of interest may just be that people who edit here really like the webcomic. I like to think all of us want to see some good criticism added to this article if we could source it properly, though... As for LGBT activism sources like Gayiceland, I really don't know. If we can't use such sources, we can start to wonder whether we can cover this BLP properly at all. ~Mable (chat) 08:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Maplestrip. I like the comic, but I have no personal or professional relationship with the subject whatsoever. And simply being in the LGBT+ community does not make an editor or a source inherently biased with regard to articles about people in said community; there is no single viewpoint shared by all LGBT+ people. Funcrunch (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the major contributors have a conflict of interest. Stop feeding the trolls. -- haminoon (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I came here from the note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#LBGTQ_newspapers. I fail to see a problem with the sources. I am removing the template. If someone puts it back, can that person directly state the concern? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase the points made on the linked discussion, "gay iceland" is a tourist attraction site - not at all a reputable source for a biography on a living person, whereas the other sources do not lend an air of notability, as niche sources who are biased in reporting on these niches. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ninja edit: On bias, I dont mean bias as in a biased viewpoint, but rather a focus on a very specific, and non-mainstream niche, that would alter the impressions of notability. Also, for biographies of living persons, these sources feel very unrobust, or however you want to put that. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 01:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty to copy a portion of your comment (and ping you) on the general LGBT sources discussion. I would personally actually like to see this go through the AfD process and really examine the sources. Still, though, I think Labelle makes it through the notability guidelines with the sources we have right now. ~Mable (chat) 10:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

More unreliable sources

Just a reminder that you need more than WP:PRIMARY sources for controversial wp:blp topics. Referencing some Facebook and Twitter posts isn't enough. -- haminoon (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

According to which rule? -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the above named rule. Considering who Labelle is, it would make sense to find better sources. A bunch of assorted social media posts don't really prove anything, especially since most of them are from Labelle herself! Current additions undoubtedly violate Wikipedia rules, like WP:SOCIALMEDIA and WP:SOCIALMEDIA against self-published sources. Please stop being disruptive. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"Considering who Labelle is, it would make sense to find better sources." No, it wouldn't. All of the sources about the "diaperfur drama" are primary sources and "unreliable" secondary sources. (Such as social media posts). To say they don't "prove" anything is absurd. Labelle herself has admitted to everything I wrote. None of the statements I made are controversial, even if the topic itself is a "drama". None of what I wrote violates any of the 5 rules concerning Social Media. No rule is "against self-published sources", they clearly state "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which is EXACTLY what I did. Please stop using invalid excuses and misinterpreting Wikipedia Rules. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would this info be WP:DUE in her biography? Are there WP:SECONDARY sources that cover this? If not, that would be evidence that it is WP:UNDUE info. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I just found this article (https://www.latribune.ca/chroniques/mickael-bergeron/deni-dexistence-2ae514adc4a1d1d5f627d983dccc7ec9) about the drama. I suppose I can write about it now. Also, Sophie herself describes the drama as very significant for her life in this (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1676754872506770&id=300503316798606) post, so it should be mentioned in this article. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

EvergreenFir is right. RafaelJC12, please see my comment below, but in sum, this is controversial, and as such, self-published sources are not acceptable in this case. Furthermore, adding this section is contentious, meaning that it should stay removed per WP:BLPREMOVE. --Historyday01 (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually it would. The "diaperfur drama," as you term it, is literally a social media controversy (as anyone with common sense would see) akin to this, which would portend having reliable secondary sources to prove the claims in the section you added. There has been extensive discussion of reliable sources on places like WP:RSPSOURCES, which states that Twitter is "generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description. In most cases, Twitter accounts should only be cited if they are verified accounts or if the user's identity is confirmed in some way. Tweets that are not covered by reliable sources are likely to constitute undue weight. Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons." Not sure what rules you are reading. Furthermore, Labelle's Twitter is NOT verified either, which also puts the weight against adding her Tweet. The Facebook link, when I just tried it, doesn't work, which further invalidates the whole addition, as it is all based on a single tweet by Labelle, which is not sufficient to source such an addition. Even if the link did work, as I think that Facebook is suffering a downage right now, it still would not sufficient. Additionally, adding more self-published sources would run up against WP:SELFSOURCE which states "use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources." There are controversies on social media ALL the time and they are never covered on site as they are just a bunch of people chattering on social media. That's literally what's happening here. And on a page like Labelle, like with most bios, there are clearly defined rules to follow, especially when it comes to adding sources. Historyday01 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You just made an edit where you replace a facebook deadlink with a twitter post from the same account. The facebook links I used are live (except that facebook itself is down today). The claims I made using her twitter are about herself and fall under the exception of "the tweet is used for an uncontroversial self-description". Furthermore, I just found this article (https://www.latribune.ca/chroniques/mickael-bergeron/deni-dexistence-2ae514adc4a1d1d5f627d983dccc7ec9) that talks about the drama. I believe I should be able to write about it now. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In the case of that edit, I did it because it was replacing a deadlink of a Facebook page, and following what I said above, it is used to prove a non-controversial claim (her birthday). That article seems to good, but I still think there should be more than one source which isn't link to a social media site (Facebook or Twitter), and the article you shared, itself, shows that this is a social media controversy, and as such, it would fall under the rule that the tweet is used to prove a controversial self-description. You can't pass off a badly sourced section (assuming it is similar to the previous section) just by adding in one reliable source. And if that Facebook link is removed, even with one tweet and that La Tribune article, I wouldn't say that's enough to make it notable, following the guidelines outlined in WP:BIO and more specifically, when it comes to sources, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPRS, and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Furthermore, the content, in its current form, as you have written it in your previous edits (and even with one additional LA Tribune source), falls under the definition of "contentious material" as outlined in WP:BLPREMOVE and is almost at the level of gossip per WP:BLPGOSSIP. As such, it should not be re-added, as that would weaken the integrity of her article as a whole while violating various Wikipedia rules as previously stated. Historyday01 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used in certain circumstances, but not for something like this. Citing a tweet might establish that she said something, but it doesn't establish that it's noteworthy to include on Wikipedia. Not every tempest in a teacup on social media needs (or should) be included here. Additionally, Wikipedia has policies for articles about living people that address the issue of privacy and the fact that some things are none of our business. Please read those policies before you edit further. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

None of what I claimed violated her privacy, unless you think the things the she publishes herself are private, which is absurd. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Just weighing in to say that haminoon, HistoryDay01, and JasonAQuest are quite right that you would need strong secondary sources here before this can be added. You need to establish that this is noteworthy enough to mention in her biography. Please see WP:BLP, WP:ABOUTSELF, etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You guys are extremely biased. The text I wrote didn't break any single rule. The "diaperfur drama" is indeed relevant, as Labelle herself said (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1676754872506770&id=300503316798606). Just because it's a drama doesn't mean you can't talk about it with verifiable claims, NONE of the claims I made are controversial (that is, none of them are disputed by anyone, not even you guys), it's all stuff that she admitted. How is it her "coming out again at 32" is not even mentioned in her article? There's no doubt, in any reasonable mind, that this topic is relevant for her. You are deliberately lying about what the rules say, about the "controversy" of what I wrote, and about the significance of the event. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to solicit outside opinions at WP:BLPN or wherever if you like, but they will all tell you exactly what the editors here have. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare is right. RafaelJC12, what you are describing is a controversy, and the claims you are making are controversial, as anyone with common sense would see. Whether Labelle says that it is relevant, doesn't matter, what matters is that reliable sources say it is relevant and notable to include. And you have NOT provided any reliable sources which show it to be notable and relevant. No one is lying about the rules here, its just that you interpreting them incorrectly. Historyday01 (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources include Transcaping.com Staykinky (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Transcaping is a personal blog. Personal blogs are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So you won't allow legitimate news media articles and you won't allow personal blogs it really sounds like you're just interested in defending this abuser then you are allowing legitimate conversation to go through 2600:4040:F052:3A00:ECA4:6506:7E95:AB63 (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Any personal blogs would fall under WP:SPS which states that "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. 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. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This undoubtedly applies in this case. Historyday01 (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

so how many times do people need to write about it before you come to reality and realize that this is the central issue to her character? That excluding this is actively preventing parents from finding out (BLP violation removed)? Why is it so important to you to defend (BLP violation removed)? Why does a single person decide? Again if you search for Sophie Labelle this is what comes up first, on every social media platform. This really feels like a Spotlight issue, there is a known (BLP violation removed) and you people are covering up for her. 2600:4040:F052:3A00:20D2:6132:DFEB:CA84 (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Her character? Labelle is a real person. Any social media posts would be self-published posts. Not everything is covered in reliable sources. And this is a discussion between multiple editors, not something decided by me or any other single user on here. Historyday01 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph

The Telegraph meets all the criteria to be a RS. Please don't delete my edits. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

While all content must be verifiable to reliable sources, not all verifiable content must be included in an article. I somewhat agree with what Rkieferbaum said in their edit summary, that a version of this content might be relevant to the article, but that it has to be done in an extremely careful manner.

There's a few issues that we need to sort through first. Is content along these lines due for inclusion? What other, if any, reliable sources have covered the comments made by Cates? How much attention across all reliable sources covering this, when accounting for their biases, do sources bring towards Labelle's adult orientated art over her Assigned Male comic series? Are there any contrasting views? What consideration should we give to Labelle's or Sheffield City Council's responses to Cates? Or is this a storm in a teacup, and ultimately something that in the broader long-term context of Labelle's biography just not worth including? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Two other UK national newspapers have covered it. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you please link to these other newspapers that have covered it? As the only sources I can see from a Google search are the Daily Mail and Daily Express, both of which are considered unreliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

RileyKilo/Transcaping is a transgender journalist who has covered this recently. It is central to her biography, every time she posts anything, both transpeople and transphobe are upset at her for not addressing this. I would also like to include her "TranssexualLiam" comics that bash transmen. Staykinky (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know. Its like posting about the claimed controversies involved with Vivienne Medrano. People on the internet talk about it, but the sources are sites like fanlore.org, which mainly link to self-published sources, and there isn't any reliable sources for the claims. As far as I've seen, up to this point, unreliable and self-published sources have been proposed for these claims. And RileyKilo/Transcaping could be a good journalist and all, but she is a YouTuber with a WordPress, Twitter, and Patreon, which would be an unreliable source per the discussion last year on the Reliable sources noticeboard, and what is stated at WP:NOTRELIABLE and WP:SELFPUB. Historyday01 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing is irrelevant. This is a fringe think of the children canard of one MP, and including it runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. ValarianB (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree. It does seem like a pretty fringe topic, and its addition would add little to the article. Also, the above discussion, back in 2021, entitled, "More unreliable sources", where some users tried to add unreliable sources about the SAME issue. I would argue that Fahrenheit666's edits repeat the issues of those who tried to add the content back in 2021, sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, clearly whatever people tried to add in 2021 isn't the same as something that happened the day before yesterday, so this is obviously an ongoing issue with Labelle. Another venue on her current UK tour has also dropped her. There is a recurrent theme of her furry diaper art causing issues. That seems worthy of inclusion. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The Telegraph is NOT a reliable source on this issue, which is a clear fringe issue, and what I said in 2021 still applies, considering your past edits on this topic, in which you made claims about Labelle and the supposed connotations of the artwork: "Whether Labelle says that it [the issue] is relevant, doesn't matter, what matters is that reliable sources say it is relevant and notable to include. And you have NOT provided any reliable sources which show it to be notable and relevant". I still stand by what I said then, and it is obvious that The Telegraph is only writing this article in an attempt to bash Labelle, considering their ideological bent, in line with previous discussions where editors have described them as "heavily politicised", "competing...for click bait", and has "long had clear biases". Also, this topic does not add "details of Labelle's 2023 UK speaking tour" either as you claimed. Also, the use of the Telegraph article here runs afoul of WP:REDFLAG. That is NOT fulfilled by your edit on Labelle's page, in any shape or form. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Right, I get it now. A reliable source is one that agrees with your opinion. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not it, its just that your edits are on a controversial topic, and do not fulfill existing rules on here for reliable sources, especially since it is only being used by itself and with no other reliable sources supporting the claims made in the text you added. Its that simple. I've been fine with the Telegraph being used for a source on OTHER pages, its just for this page it doesn't work for the reasons I explained. Historyday01 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Every day, reliable sources report wild accusations and criticisms made by Marjorie Taylor Greene. Sometimes if these statements receive enough attention, they are included in her Wikipedia article, but they are rarely or never included in whatever the target of her ire is that day, because at the end of the day hers is just a political opinion. Miriam Cates is no different, her remarks that sources hold to be bigoted and transphobic get a short bit of coverage in her own article, but her own opinion on the works of Sophie Labelle carry no weight outside of that. ValarianB (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. That's a good comparison there. There seems to be a tendency of some to try and add fringe claims like this to articles, without following that guidance. I've seen people do it over the years, whether on biographies like this or even on pages of TV series. Historyday01 (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Historyday01 the Telegraph is a reliable source as per WP:RSP. In any case this should only come into play if there was a dispute about the factual accuracy of the material, which I don't believe there is - Cates made the remarks and Labelle has publicly acknowledged the images are hers. However the question of whether something is factually accurate and verifiable is separate to whether it should be included in Wikipedia. In this case I think there are valid BLP concerns given these are private activities which are separate to the individual's primary notability. We don't publish every little detail about public figures' sexuality that makes its way into the public domain, unless there's an additional element like legal proceedings or sustained coverage that affects their primary notability. ITBF (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I realize that, but in this case, since this a controversial topic, I would say that the Telegraph source is not sufficient, and hence not notable, and I can agree that in this case there are valid BLP concerns. Historyday01 (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The added paragraph is obviously WP:UNDUE. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I can agree with that. Historyday01 (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

According to this page, the Daily Telegraph is a Reliable Source. RafaelJC12 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• WP:BLPBALANCE includes, Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral, and this appears to emphasize WP:NPOV considerations in WP:BLP articles, because this section also states, The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

As noted above in this discussion, articles are not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a tabloid - it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Also as discussed above, there does not appear to be strong support in sources for inclusion of the disputed content, so I agree that per several of our core content policies, it should be excluded at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point there, and I'll definitely keep this in mind, as some definitely try and make Wikipedia sensationalist or spread "titillating claims", for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Strangely, we have nothing like this on Bruce Timm's article. Before anyone cites WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think it's worth noting that LaBelle targeted by those stoking the current moral panic and we should not include tabloid nonsense unless it becomes central to the moral panic or that person's biography (eg, Ray Buckey and the McMartin preschool trial). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I totally agree. It definitely is tabloid nonsense and people keep trying to add it, leading to unnecessary discussions. Sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

  The issues with Sophie Labelle and her (BLP violation removed) images is central to her biography. Many journalists and transgender people have covered it. It should be included, there is another video that just came out about it and is the reason why people cancel her events. Staykinky (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  Nah, not really. I have to seriously doubt that "many journalists and transgender people" have covered this topic specifically. And YouTube videos would fall under self-published sources, as would those on other platforms. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  At least three transgender people have made videos about it and several newspapers have written about it . If you go on Twitter and search for Sophie LaBelle you don't find anything about her comic you find everything about this.
  It's just a matter of time before this becomes part of the Wikipedia so stop delaying. Stop defending this (BLP violation removed). 2600:4040:F052:3A00:20D2:6132:DFEB:CA84 (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

  Tweets are self-published sources and anyone can say anything they want on Twitter. Arguably, the same is the case on YouTube, Instagram, or any social network. No one is "delaying" anything, it is just there haven't been any reliable sources I've seen, as of yet, which have discussed this topic. Others in this discussion feel the same. I, personally, would rather direct my energies toward something more productive than delving into "proving" tabloid nonsense, as EvergreenFir described it. Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)