Hello, all. I'm relatively new to editing and trying to get the formatting right in my first talk page post, so please forgive me if it looks weird. I will try to fix. We should discuss how to address the origin of the name 100 gecs. There is a problem in that there are conflicting stories about it that come from similar sources. There are a few different ways we can move forward with this. Below is my analysis of the problem and ways it can be addressed. This is important because this article comes up right away when I Google 100 gecs name origin and there are multiple answers that could be better than what is there now. Currently, the article reads with the following.
Les and Brady chose the name "100 gecs" after seeing the words spray-painted on the side of a building in Chicago.
To back this up, the article cites a video of Laura Les telling that name origin story in a Pigeons & Planes interview from June 17, 2020 on Youtube (which is currently reference #14 on the page).[1] That seems pretty straightforward. However, there is a Genius interview on Youtube from June 29, 2020 where Laura tells a name origin story about how she accidentally ordered too many geckos.[2] I have seen fan speculation that the group is changing the story each time they are asked. However, I have not seen the apparent conflict in stories directly addressed in any notable source.
Aside from these videos, published sources that I could find have mainly focused on the gecko name origin story. An article in The Outline retold the gecko story, with some added skepticism regarding its sincerity, in August 2019.[3] Rolling Stone later referenced The Outline's article in their piece published in December 2019.[4] Vanity Fair also mentioned geckos in an article on 100 gecs in November 2019.[5] Los Angeles Times referenced geckos as well in a piece they published in December 2019.[6]
There are a couple ways we can move forward. A) Put one of the stories in the article, geckos or spray paint. B) Put both of the stories in the article and/or note the existence of conflicting stories. C) Put none of the stories in the article and do not mention/explain the origin of the name. The main problem with option A is that these videos of Laura telling stories of the band's origin seem to conflict, so it is unclear which would be the best to use. The geckos story has the more recently published video and is referenced in more notable sources, so I think it's a little better to put that one if only one is chosen. However, I think the fact that Laura has contradicted it in another video suggests it may not be reliable. That leads to considering option B, which would be to note that different origin stories for the name have been given in different interviews. The problem that I see with this is that it borders on primary research. No notable source has said that there is a conflict between these stories. It seems to be mostly people on reddit and in Youtube comments sections who have noticed this so far. The article published in The Outline speculated that Laura's story about geckos may not have been serious, but I have not found a good source citing multiple stories and saying they conflict. As a result, I am concerned that option B would constitute original research and making an original claim, which is not what Wikipedia is about. I also have some concern that it might border on making an accusation of a living person, though the evidence from the videos hardly makes saying that there are conflicting stories a stretch. Option C might be the best because there is not really any source we can reference that addresses the conflict between these stories and there obviously is a good deal of ambiguity at play here. It is tempting to say something about the origin of the band name since the band has provided some information about it, but I do not think we actually have any information that we can say meets Wikipedia's standards to put there right now.
What do other editors think? Has anyone found other sources that could be useful to address this issue? Which option is best to use for the article for now? I personally would lean toward option C given the information I have at present. Logogeo96 (talk) 05:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I have looked into the history of this fact on the article and found that user Radiatoralligator first added the spray paint story as it appears currently on 17 July 2020. It looks like yesterday, 29 August 2020, a user 84.67.101.168 changed it to the following version of the geckos story with no reference and removed the reference that was there to the video where Laura told the spray paint story.
Les and Brady chose the name "100 gecs" after Laura accidentally adopted 100 geckos
- Within a few minutes, user Materialscientist reverted those changes for unexplained content removal. I agree that adding the geckos story without adding another reference and removing the other story with the primary source reference was not proper procedure. However, just because that editor who made changes yesterday did not cite a source does not mean that the geckos story could not be supported by sources at least as well, if not better, than the spray paint story. In fact, more notable print sources have used the geckos story (see my original post) and the more recent June 2020 interview with Laura giving the geckos story should be at least as good a reference as the less recent June 2020 interview with Laura giving the spray paint story. Overall, I would still prefer that this article not tell any story since there is no reliable source available that addresses the conflicting stories and points to which one, if any, is true. I do want the discussion about this to be fully documented so we can have a clear position going forward. I can see this easily being changed back and forth incessantly by people who watch only one interview or the other and think their understanding of the name's origin is correct and well-supported enough to put in the article. Logogeo96 (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- I also get the impression they're joking at least some of the time, and maybe all the time, about the origin of the name - but without any sources I've seen addressing this, I think the best course of action may be a footnote explaining the differences (see the footnote after Chadwick Boseman's birthday). Brad (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Looking further into relevant Wikipedia guidelines, it looks like these would be categorized as questionable sources on an exceptional claim. The interviews likely have no editorial oversight or fact checking on what the artists say. The print sources do not make conclusive statements in a way that we can be sure the editors fact-checked them. The print sources are more vague or questioning about the name origin and they say different things. The interviews would not work as questionable sources as sources on themselves because there is reasonable doubt regarding authenticity of these origin stories and they are exceptional claims because of their surprising nature not covered by mainstream sources, the conflict of interest involved, and statements that seem out of character with a position previously defended. Because exceptional claims require plenty of good sources to back them up, and those don't exist for any band name origin story, I would suggest that no origin story should be published in the article. There just are not the sources to substantiate any one of these theories, which makes publishing anything similar to publishing rumors. The footnote idea is interesting, but Chadwick Boseman's birthday is different because we know he was born in one of two years and there is some disagreement between 2 options in multiple reputable sources. We do not know if any of the multiple 100 gecs band name origin stories is true based on the accounts we have available at the moment and there are not reliable sources making clear statements about it in a way that we know would be thoroughly verified. Logogeo96 (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- Option B seems good because ive seen that sort of thing in other articles with a footnote or some text explaining. Also, the "gecs" part may be an interpolation of the game franchise Gex. Artwork of the character was used on the 100 gecs self titled EP Mauswaffles (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
