Talk:Cavetown - Knowledge (XXG)

2524:(Sorry, this is long.) I've been following this pretty closely (I requested the article be PC-protected due to the edit warring over this section) but I've had trouble coming to an opinion, I think because I don't like either of the binary options that seem to be being presented here: I suspect the paragraph above is undue weight, and there are issues with the sourcing. But saying nothing, especially when the material is not contentious, doesn't seem to best serve our readers, especially when it's extremely common to have a statement on Knowledge (XXG) of someone's orientation—and including such a line, even when only sourced to the subject themself, seems to be permitted by 2302:. Most of these sources do not meet the Knowledge (XXG) trifecta of "reliable, independent, secondary". NME is the most reliable IMO, and in that he says "I admire people who really talk in-depth or advocate for things they believe in but I want to be able to show people that it’s ok to just be yourself. You’re allowed to just have a mental illness or be a certain identity, there doesn’t have to be anything further than that. You can just be. I’m just being and the fact people can see that and feel welcomed by it is really cool." We are doing the exact opposite: making a big deal out of something he explicitly does not. 3039:. For some reason there was a weird kerfuffle over him being in the Wikiproject Autism, which I just re-added. However frankly the current version of the article provides more reason for him being in the scope of the autism wikiproject since he spoke at least 2 different times about supporting those with autism and their families. But the reason he is within LGBT is a bit weirder in our current article phrasing as it sort of sounds like he just replied to Perez Hilton on some issue (you need to read between the lines compared to before 1040: 1022: 2580:, it seems that a section of the people wanting it removed feel that, because he outed himself as part of the apology, but said he'd not wanted to make such a statement until it became necessary when addressing something alleged to be transphobic, it shouldn't be included. I don't know whether that's valid grounds to exclude it or not, but I do feel that saying that he'd made such tweets and not mentioning that he himself is trans (which some past revisions of the article have done) does create a 2692:

list *just* the relevant sources to those *specific* items. This will help additional editors to contribute to the discussion without reading a dozen links, that are mainly unrelated. We don't need an rfc/!vote on exact wording, especially wording about non-contentious stuff like, how songs are "deeply personal". Those statements are so common and non-contentious, you could pretty much drop them in every artists biography, without much of a fight. --16:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

1287: 938: 917: 948: 812: 503: 414: 482: 393: 1488: 843: 784: 2946:

question 2. What is the basis for prohibiting the WikiProject from expressing its interest in this topic? In your first edit summary, you cited "BLP". I don't accept that our mere expression of interest in a topic constitutes a BLP violation. That argument has been tried before, and has never gained consensus. Is it disruptive? Moving the number of WikiProjects from 6 to 7? We could collapse the list, if that's the case.--

1133: 361: 720: 696: 299: 275: 730: 513: 244: 608: 2928:. That may not be sufficient to categorize as LGBT - a stronger statement of identity is probably needed - but the subject being in a same-sex relationship is certainly enough to make the article of interest to WP:LGBT. One reason would be so that we can be notified of and participate in discussions over whether or how that information should be covered in the article. 587: 618: 1255: 2086:, of course. Cavetown is extremely open about his personal life, and talks with fans online about these issues, and as a practice doesn’t use traditional media to get out his messages. These are self-disclosed facts as covered by reliable sources, and documented on his social media covered under our Self-published guidelines for these statements. 2871:). The two tests are nothing alike. While it is true that a general consensus can override a project's members and prohibit them from expressing interest in an article, how is that warranted here? Is it so disruptive for WP:LGBT to express interest in this article - where we have multiple reliable sources on the subject describing how 309: 1379:

Whenever a Knowledge (XXG) page covers a persons ethnicity or sexuality we apply a few tests. These tests have been developed because there are people who will say that someone is gay, straight, black, white, male. female, etc. when that person does not want to be called that. We apply the same rules

1323:

Hullo, I think it might be useful to create a list of all the tours Cavetown has done on this page, as well as small descriptions of each one. I will be pleased to work on this myself, and if anyone wants to join me, they may. I am looking for resources on how to find this list, and if anyone thinks

3594:

per my comments above. A musician who has charted and signed with a major label is clearly the primary topic over a census-designated place with 1400 people, an unincorporated community so insignificant that I can't even find how big it is or how many people live there, and a small lake with 4 or so

3572:

has 0.3%. And that's being generous to the other articles; looking only at the two years since the musician article was created, it accounts for over 99% of page views, with fairly consistent traffic averaging around a thousand per day. By usage, the primary topic is overwhelmingly the musician, and

2691:

I agree about the problem of moving the goalpost. We need to stay focused on the narrow BLP-specific questions of whether to identify the subject as trans and aro (and related issue of using derogatory word for trans). That's it. Since there's only one editor advocating inclusion, can they please

2373:

An RfC asks for dialogue, if I feel a comment is false, misleading, or otherwise needs course correcting it’s not like the subject or his thousands of fans is watching this lonely talk page. Someone needs to stand up for what is blindingly obvious, that the information is now well-sourced, NPOV, and

2277:

Since he self-ids, I don't see any BLP issue here. The suggested paragraph may be too long / undue, but I think at minimum the article should say something like, "Cavetown identifies as aromantic and transgender. His song "Sweet Tooth" (2020) is addressed to his boyfriend." In 2020, it's hard to see

2246:

No lowering of standards is needed, nor asked for; just stated facts. Per WEIGHT, we are representing what the vast majority of of reliable sources say about him. Unsurprisingly most focus mainly on his music, but this is what the remaining content is about, especially recent sources with this newer

3242:

an article gets added, so that the WikiProject members can track discussions and participate in improving the article in a systematic way, including helping to ensure inappropriate material isn’t added (governed of course by relevant policies and decided by community consensus). It's much more akin

3237:

is that "a WikiProject tag identified that an article was within the interest of a group of editors rather than categorizing the article as belonging to a topic field; removing such tags without consensus of the involved WikiProject(s) was seen as unhelpful." Since WikiProject banners are typically

3056:

largely still holds. We generally let Wikiprojects tag articles if they feel they are of interest. Generally speaking, it should be obvious in the article why the article is of interest, and I don't particularly see anything in the current version of our article which provides a reason why he is of

2191:

Skinner self-reported all this information, there’s nothing “contentious” about any of it unless there’s the belief that LGBTQ identities are something to be ashamed.And we don’t write content based on what sources we wished existed but on the reliable ones that we do have. Skinner, sans publicist,

3292:

My only hesitation in just going ahead and re-adding the project tag was that the sourcing currently in the article appears to be the same sourcing that was objected to last November, in this discussion and the RFC above. However, the Personal Life section has now been a stable part of the article

3168:

Consider a Nobel-prize winning chemist -- a person notable for chemistry, not nationality -- who years ago mentioned in a twitter post that they are born and grown up in France and deleted the post the next day, with zero other sources mentioning the twitter post or mentioning their nationality in

2945:

Subject to the input of other WP:LGBT members, the answer to question 1 seems to be yes. (By its nature, question 1 can only be answered by members of the WikiProject; it makes no sense to argue that another editor or group of editors is not interested in a topic they say they are.) So we're on to

2891:

If we had multiple reliable sources describing what you said, we wouldn't even be having this conversation or the RFC above. All the categories, the Personal life section, the WP, the MOS-TM template, etc., would be here as it was a few days ago. But as it lacks reliable sources and as there is no

2325:

That’s a bit ingenious, he doesn’t proclaim his identity enough to be recognized for doing so? He utilized the one channel for communication and talked about his issues in the same nonchalant way he does everything. These just happen to be the only ones reliable, secondary, and independent sources

3199:

No, probably not, for the simple reason that the retraction of the tweet suggests that, say, perhaps their account was hacked, which creates a BLP issue. (Is this a real example, our of interest?) No such issue exists here. There also is no overwhelming consensus here: I'm counting about three

3137:

Consider a a Nobel-prize winning chemist -- a person notable for chemistry, not sexuality -- who years ago mentioned in a twitter post that they are gay and deleted the post the next day, with zero other sources mentioning the twitter post or mentioning their sexual preferences in any way. Assume

3060:

Adding the article talk page to the wikiproject scope (which I appreciate also adds it to an internal category) is far less of a BLP problem then the above RfC which IMO is reasonable and does not have to be deleted or hidden once done. As said at the beginning, tagging his article as of interest

2553:

to mean, or there's an immediate loophole: someone who wants something removed from an article says it should be removed because it's contentious, with the evidence that it's contentious being that they don't think it should be there; then policy says it should be removed. (I'm not saying that's

2627:

I should have predicted that a mere handful of reliable sources wouldn’t be enough, so I had to research for more. As long as we correctly get the article updated to accurately reflect Cavetown’s self-identified sexual and gender identities I feel a little inconvenience is acceptable.I’m more

833: 1387:

The first rule is that we must include a source where the person self-identifies. So if a person has a twitter account, we know that it is their account (in the case of musicians and actors we sometimes see that a fan has created a page where they pretend to be the person) this meets the

3005:

is in the Wikiproject scope but because of any suggestion he is LGBT, but because of his extreme opposition to LGBT issues which is noted in our article. (He may no longer be living, but going by my 2008 comment, I expect his article talk page has been tagged since 2008 or earlier.)

3275:

brought my attention to this discussion. It seems since this discussion tapered off, the article has been updated with Cavetown’s self-stated trans identity and being on the aromatic and asexual spectrum. Is there any contention at this point that this article is within scope of

3243:

to adding the article to a shared watchlist than to a subject category. While a broader consensus can of course override a WikiProject's desire to help improve an article, I think such consensus should be based on a clearly expressed reason why it would be necessary to do so.--

3729:

Has Cavetown said they prefer they/them over he/him, or that usage should be mixed? Typically, listing two sets of pronouns suggests the person is similarly fine with either one. Typically I default to whichever is listed first, which on Cavetown’s Instagram profile is “he”.

2569:

Separately, there's been edit warring for a couple of months over whether coverage of the old tweets should be included, and parcelled in with that the fact that he is trans (which he announced as part of the apology for said tweets). I think the tweets are much more a

2173:"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." 3053: 2718:

It’s pretty clear that the sources applying to those identities are already on the proposed content, one sentence each.Also of note is that although I’m the only editor to research the reliable sourcing on this, other editors added the content.

1151: 2192:

sells out shows worldwide and gets chiefly covered in professional media in his industry. If you want to be dismissive and paint them all as tabloid, a slur on Knowledge (XXG), that’s certainly your right, but it doesn’t make it true.

3484:, going back to 2015 (which is as far back as the pageviews tool goes), it's ~17k for the census-designated place in Maryland, ~3k for the 1-sentence stub on the unincorporated community in Virginia, and ~723k for the musician. -- 1578:

asked about his talking “openly about things like sexuality or mental health” he replied, “You’re allowed to just have a mental illness or be a certain identity, there doesn’t have to be anything further than that. You can just

2175:

I can also show a direct quote where Cavetown tells us what his favorite brand of ukulele strings is. But for that information to be noteworthy is would have to covered by other sources, not just in one video Cavetown put up.

3713:

Hey can we alternate between he/him and they/them or at the very least use they/them if consistency is so important to provide a modicum of respect because I don’t think many people use they/them at all to refer to Cavetown

2140:. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is 1343:

First time creating a section of a talk page, please message me if there are any issues with this. In the most recent edit at the time of writing, details revealed in his twitter apology were removed. Link to edit:

3238:

collapsed once there is more than a handful, the main people that will be aware that a given article is in a WikiProject’s scope are those who are reviewing the reports for that WikiProject. And that’s exactly

3639:

Is there a reason the Bandcamp releases are separate from the rest of his discography at the bottom of the page? "Gd Vibes", "Everything is Made of Clouds", and "Everything is Made of Stars" specifically. -

2753:

as they have been blocked as a sock. Although there are no formal !votes besides the sock that are bolded keep, some of the comments seem to be supportive so it's probably best to leave the discussion open.

164: 3027: 3046: 3577:

to be a compelling argument against. How many years should we wait until we decide it's time to start directing readers to the article that 99% are looking for? Certainly no more than two, I'd say.--

2403:"It is not your responsibility to point out every flaw in everyone's comments. If their opinion is so obviously flawed, give other readers the benefit of the doubt in figuring that out on their own." 2823:

WikiProject members are just editors, like everyone else. They do not have any special status that gives them more authority over content on articles. Decisions are still arrived at by consensus.

3899: 2964:

objections. Only then can you add a banner to wikiproject LGBT. (Free clue: you don't establish due weight by saying again and again the the material can be found in reliable sources. That is

1388:

self-identifying rule. Or if they self-identify in a direct quote in a high quality source (The New York, Times, CNN, NPR, that sort of source) this meets the self-identifying rule. We do

1351:

Certain keywords were kept out of this so as to not show up if searched for, although I assume the robots.txt should take care of that. See the description of the linked edit if confused.

3776:

The tweet quoted in the article's references says "i mostly go by he/him but am also comfortable with they/them". I think the article should use the one he indicates he usually uses.--

3214: 793: 706: 3834: 375: 223: 3675:

The reason it hasn't been changed is because Robbie is often a nickname for Robin. Without a source that says it isn't that, it isn't something that can be changed at the moment.

3949: 2924:

articles are clearly reliable sources. Whether the discussion of Skinner's boyfriend warrants a mention in the article is a separate editorial issue, but both see fit to discuss

1080: 2449:

If Trump has taught us anything, it’s that perfectly normal things like a musician coming out as transgender and aromantic, can be turned into a battle if you whip up a frenzy.

678: 1220: 2549:, is that it refers to whether the material is factually contentious, rather than whether there's a dispute over whether to include it in the article. I think that's what it 1086: 464: 3904: 3233:

I think the main point of contention here stems from different views about what it means for a WikiProject to mark an article of interest. The consensus of the RFC cited at

3884: 2673:. Nobody is going to disagree with a statement like "Skinner’s songs are deeply personal, something that he acknowledges helps him makes sense of the world around him." -- 668: 1004: 1182: 3341: 3869: 559: 3012:

is likewise within the scope of the wikiproject. AFAIK, there's no suggestion she identifies as LGBT in any way, indeed she didn't understand the possible meaning of

3934: 3889: 3829: 994: 1524: 644: 228: 158: 3954: 1463:

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their romantic or sexual partners? (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out. --

1169: 1056: 1196: 1165: 1558:

Skinner’s songs “are deeply personal, something that he acknowledges helps him makes sense of the world around him.” Skinner’s song “Sweet Tooth”, which opens

899: 90: 3796:

Now that a lot of Cavetown's old Bandcamp music has been put on Spotify/streaming on the "cavetown offline" page, should they be added to a seperate section?

3939: 3854: 3819: 3061:

says absolutely zero about him personally identifying as or being LGBT in any way whatsoever. Whereas the RfC above is explicitly commenting on that aspect.

454: 970: 3879: 2434:

You can't claim that something isn't contentious in a thread where multiple editors are contending about whether it should be included. I'm just saying. --

1458:

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their recent posts on Twitter? (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

1207: 211:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 3616:

per my earlier comments. It is obvious that the musician is the primary topic; a user searching "Cavetown" is almost certainly looking for the musician. ~

3026:

is likewise in scope in part because he successfully sued publishers who claimed he was gay or "homosexual" something which is noted in our article. (See

1662: 569: 3944: 3919: 3909: 889: 3272: 758: 640: 631: 592: 327: 203: 3864: 3859: 2940:

If it is of interest, is there a broader consensus to overrule that decision and prohibit the WikiProject from expressing its interest in the article?

3573:

there is no indication that any of the other minor place names have any claim to any significant degree of greater enduring notability. I don't find

1047: 1027: 430: 3929: 96: 3844: 1930: 1428:

is gay and that those aspects of their life are noteworthy, and they both have self-identified, so our articles cover those aspects of their life.

961: 922: 865: 331: 2785:, WikiProjects define their own scope, and whether a WikiProject banner is justified is determined by the active members of that WikiProject. A 2611:

By making radical changes in the question being asked as the RfC progresses, different people end up !voting for or against different things. --

3839: 1771: 1261: 3849: 1453:

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their sexuality? (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

1443:

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their ethnicity (not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

754: 744: 701: 535: 3661: 1448:

Do any high-quality reliable sources talk about their religion (Not just a mention in passing, but significant coverage?) No? leave it out.

41: 2536:

are listed as LGBTQ on their own articles because they self-report as such on that website, which is effectively a self-published source.)

1158: 421: 398: 3326:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

1972: 326:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3914: 3824: 2867:). The test for a WikiProject banner is whether the subject is of interest to a group of editors who volunteer to track and support it ( 3874: 3745: 3715: 3223: 3106: 3045:

I have been a BLP hawk for a long time, but I have no problems with Wikiprojects tagging articles of interest, as I said back in 2008

2590: 335: 2558:'s suggestion should be the entirety of coverage of Cavetown's sexual/romantic orientation, if appropriately sourced to either clear 1892: 1797: 856: 817: 370: 322: 285: 280: 110: 1516: 3042:). Still based on the current version of the article, even treating this as a complete BLP, both wikiproject tags seem reasonable. 115: 31: 3209:

Most LGBTQ people aren't notable for their orientation or gender in 2020 (thankfully). If we were to remove all such people from

2138:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion

3397: 2998:

There seems to be a lot of confusion here. A person being in the Wikiproject doesn't in any way suggest that the person is LGBT.

1305: 55: 3204:

about the subject's orientation or gender should be in the article (and either of those would pass the threshold for inclusion).

526: 487: 85: 1176: 1145: 255: 3894: 2707: 2064: 2023: 1957: 1916: 1824: 1753: 1712: 1348:. While I feel that this is probably for the better, what precedent has been set on Knowledge (XXG) about issues like this? 76: 3630:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2983:

specifically prohibits a consensus among participants in a WikiProject overriding community consensus on a wider scale. --

2975:

Adding a wikiproject LGBT banner to a BLP where there is no consensus that the person being LGBT meets the requirement of

2796:

Without getting into the issue discussed above about what content is appropriate to add to the article, after reading the

1609:

I think that is well written however I would replace one of those words with "a slur often used in transphobic contexts"

3121: 2934:

says that WikiProjects define their own scope, though community consensus can override. That suggests a two-prong test:

2789:

banner states that the article is of interest to the WikiProject. Unless specified in the parameters, it does not state

2283: 3690: 3317: 1293: 179: 3924: 3544: 3441: 3405: 3146:. Assume that there is an overwhelming consensus that their sexual preferences do not belong in the article. Yet they 2574:

concern that someone's orientation, and I don't have a strong opinion of whether they should be included. Judging by

1727: 1412:

policy. Is their sexuality or ethnicity noteworthy? Have multiple high-quality sources discussed it? Being covered in

3369: 1366:

Great question! We have special rules for people who are alive or who have recently died. You can see these rules at

146: 3033: 212: 120: 3507: 3473: 1329: 3096:—that the article for a person who self-identifies as LGBTQ, something which is not in doubt, can't be added to 3523: 3385: 3177:. Assume that there is an overwhelming consensus that their nationality do not belong in the article. Yet they 2037: 1614: 3665: 3327: 1635: 261: 2541:

Contentiousness: I contend(!) that, despite the fact that we're arguing about its inclusion, the material is

3680: 3645: 2960:

No. First you must gain consensus to add material to the article that says Cavetown is LGBT, overcoming the

1420:

are not considered evidence that someone's sexuality is noteworthy. For example, plenty of sources say that

1356: 2695: 2563: 2529: 2525: 1498: 3749: 3719: 3540: 3437: 3401: 140: 3574: 3481: 3451: 3234: 3093: 2931: 2868: 2782: 1629: 1610: 66: 3801: 3741:

Last time I checked people tend to want them mixed and language such as either or any are used otherwise

3459: 3190: 1584: 1512: 1055: