Talk:Ty Defoe

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 12 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordkost.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent reversion

I would like to flag this revision that eliminated a bunch of new content created via research and writing by Ty and about Ty's work: "Rv a bunch of nonsense close paraphrasing - no one is a shape shifter outside of fiction." Before you completely dismiss the way that Ty identifies, why don't you try to understand more about "shape-shifting" and its relevance within indigenous cultures and two-spirit identity? Don't engage in more colonial violence on indigenous cultures. For more information, please see: https://blog.kachinahouse.com/the-importance-of-shapeshifting-in-native-american-culture/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmirsajadi (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Rmirsajadi I recognize that you are new here but please take a read of WP:BLP and WP:V. And WP:AGF, all editors, including new ones are expected to abide by this policy and not attack others. I also appreciate that they may identify as they please but we do not present fiction as fact nor do we allow promotion. The changes were completely inappropriate and largely unsourced. VAXIDICAE💉 18:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae I'm not "new here," and I don't understand what I said that "attacked others." My student can continue to edit and shape their material in accordance with WP:BLP and WP:V, but nothing here is promotional, and your presumption re: fact vs, fiction is, again, enacting white violence on indigenous cultures. User:Rmirsajadi

@Rmirsajadi: The way things are presented matters. We are a factual encyclopedia, and our writing is literal, not figurative. "Shapeshifter", taken at literal value, is clearly incorrect. Nobody can shapeshift, just as nobody can do magic or walk on water. But if explained as an indigenous belief and cultural practice, then it makes sense. So its about proper context. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: So to clarify, writing "Ty Defoe self-identifies as a shape-shifter, which is rooted in the Native American belief system that ..." with a citation would be fine? The way the edit was originally erased and deemed patently fictitious is where much of my issue lies. - User:Rmirsajadi

The citation included for that statement isn't appropriate, it's not an independent reliable source and does not discuss shapeshifting in any meaningful way and it certainly does not belong in the lead, as leads should never require explanations. VAXIDICAE💉 19:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Further, even our own article on shapeshifting only briefly touches on the topic as it relates to Native American culture and still identifies it as mythological. VAXIDICAE💉 19:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

With a citation to a reliable source (a blog is not an RS), that would be a good addition I think. Though as Praxidicae points out, likely not in the lead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As Prax also points out, our article on shapeshifting could probably use some improvement first, with good high quality sources. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a question for another time, but how does one uplift the narratives of people who are erased if one were to solely look at "good high quality sources?" So many minoritarian writers are denied inclusion in Wikipedia because the gatekeepers of those sources privilege whiteness, maleness, cisness, etc. User:Rmirsajadi — Preceding undated comment added 19:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That is an issue with the media, we cannot include content that isn't supported by published reliable sources. To blame editors in that respect is unfair and untrue. reliable sources aren't generally decided arbitrarily. VAXIDICAE💉 19:17, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Rmirsajadi, there's a long epistemological debate to be had about the nature of "knowledge" as it is produced and framed on Wikipedia, but this is not the venue for it. The people you are interacting with (who are, by the way, a woman and a non-binary person) have been entirely reasonable with you. Wikipedia has policies, and they apply to everyone – even if we don't like them, and even if they can be detrimental sometimes. Among those is to not edit-war when an addition to a biography of a living person is challenged, and that we do have to follow what mainstream, reliable, published sources have to say about a subject. Yes, those are often imperfect and have inherent, historically shaped biases, representation problems and yes, knowledge is always the property of the ruling to some extent – but we follow, we do not lead: In most cases, that's for the better. No matter how good your intentions, no matter how true your truth, Wikipedia is not the place to shape what is accepted knowledge, it's the place to represent what is; the shaping needs to take place further up the stream. And again, I do think Praxidicae and CaptainEek are being entirely reasonable here; please don't accuse them of bad faith, and don't attribute to them characteristics that they do not have. Blablubbs|talk 19:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I would expect a WikiEd instructor to have a robust understanding of the policies and guidelines surrounding reliable sources, verifiability of claims and biographies of living people. I would also expect a WikiEd instructor to not set their studients up to fail by encouraging their students to violate these policies. Universities can help by funding published research which Wikipedia editors can then cite in articles. These policies are in place to protect vulnerable BLP subjects (among other reasons), and we have to apply them consistently. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 19:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to pose a question here, because I honestly don't know. Is "shapeshifter" being used here as a term of identity or spirituality, as opposed to someone who literally transforms into a different species? We still need reliable sources, of course, which might be a problem, but expressing clearly what unusual terms mean (or linking to an appropriate Wikipedia article) can help. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)