Talk:Laci Green

I've been thinking about adding a line to the article like this:

After fellow YouTuber Sam Pepper posted a video of himself groping women's butts, Green wrote an open letter (co-signed by some of YouTube's most influential vloggers) asking him to "stop violating women"^[1][2] and was interviewed by Channel 4 and the BBC about sexual harassment in the YouTube community.^[3][4]

However, I'm wary of wp:Recentism, and I could also understand if people felt Green's involvement was not sufficiently notable. What do you think? Green has said she is "in talks with The Guardian, BBC, Channel 4, and The New York Times" (though it's "unclear [...] if the stories will actually be published"), so we could always play it conservative and wait a while for those stories to come out before deciding what to do. -sche (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that it's best to wait and see what happens. We don't have a deadline. If you do add it, I'd suggest that you not use scare quotes. Instead, you should quote a journalist directly if you want to dispute that it was a prank. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've dropped the word "prank" altogether and added a citation of the Channel 4 and BBC Newsbeat interviews. I think I'll add it to the article soon. -sche (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If the controversy sections comes back, it's going to need much better sourcing. A blogger who has a problem with one of her videos is completely inconsequential. When reliable sources, such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, post a criticism of her videos, then we'll have something to say. However, Wikipedia is not here to document what YouTube vloggers have to say about her videos. I shouldn't even have to explain why "self-proclaimed" is horribly POV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good point about the blogger, but to call her a feminist you need a WP:RS, not her say so, yes? also there was no need to revert all my changes, can you please reinstate the things you have no problem with? TempletonU (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better to remove the word "feminist" completely? TempletonU (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is included in Category:American feminists, Category:Atheist feminists, Category:Sex-positive feminists, so either we can/should mention "feminist" in the lead, or we should remove those categories. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there is a source now so this is fine. but am I allowed to make the other positive changes that Ninja Robot Pirate reverted all of? Like mentioning positive reaction to her blogs? Does he only want to remove negative reaction? TempletonU (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Commentary from reliable sources would be fine. Any source that you add must mention her by name and have a listed editorial board; this generally means mainstream media, such as The New York Times or Wall Street Journal, but the reliable sources noticeboard can help to vet sources. You can add whatever you like as long as it follows our content policies. As a biography of a living person, the sourcing and content is a bit stricter than other articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I added much and you removed it all. Very little of what I put in was biased in the way you say it is. I am scared to waste time editing because you may revert it again, can you put back in the stuff that was no a problem in the way you said it was? TempletonU (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, Daily Dot is a very much reliable source. Why are you removing content sourced to it? "NPOV" can be fixed, just rephrase the sentences. But I feel that there may be a different reason you are removing the content. Care to elaborate? Tutelary (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I was the one who added one of the Daily Dot sources. Maybe you'd care to explain yourself? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

From the diff I was looking at, it looked like you were removing stuff and sentences relating to every single bit of criticism, even from Daily Dot. Now that I look at it again, you reverted the addition of content about the affirmative consent stuff, and the section headers. I see why for the affirmative consent--looks like it came from someone's blog, But what about the section headers? Tutelary (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Section headers? Seriously? Go ahead and add whatever section headers you feel are appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The affirmative consent was not all from a blog, only one sentence. I tried to show both kinds of response. But why couldn't you just remove the one sentence? You had to revert everything? TempletonU (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I just made the change in the way you should have made it, isn't it better now? TempletonU (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The blogger reactions are unsourced and the CNN source doesn't mention her at all. This not policy compliant. I already explained this... NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

TempletonU, when I first saw this exchange, I thought Ninja was bullying a new user since they didn't know much. But when I looked into it further, he's been modest (but maybe a bit blunt in his first revert) regarding sourcing of this article. Youtube Commentators, blogs, and other unreliable sources don't belong in the article, especially 'youtube comments' as they are self published and do not comply with BLP. We're not averse to more criticism of her. You just need good, quality sources for it. Tutelary (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm often a bit blunt, and I guess I've worked on the article a bit. It's not my best work, but I've been trying to keep it policy-compliant and in good shape. I'm not a fan, I've never seen one of her videos, and I don't much care whether the article praises her or criticizes her. My only issue is Wikipedia policy, and I'm a bit of a hard-ass on that. The reason why I've been editing this article (and a few others) is because articles on YouTube celebrities are often in very bad shape. My frustration level has been high recently, and, yes, I have reverted a bit quickly. If you want help adding this controversy, TempletonU, I will do my best to find a reliable source that mentions it. But you have to stop adding your own commentary to the article; this is not allowed. We have to follow what reliable sources say, not what we feel about a person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am actually trying to support her and show both sides of her argument. The problem is I was citing the youtube video and the comments under it but Wikipedia removed that reference when I tried to add it. How do I reference videos she made? Can I only talk about a video if there is another site talking about it? You got confused because someone changed my word "Youtube commenters" to "Youtube commentators" which is different? I was trying to show that California's laws agree with her, but some Youtube users don't. TempletonU (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's your problem. As an encyclopedia, we can only summarize what reliable sources have already said. If no professional journalist has said that California's laws agree or disagree with her, then the entire subject must stay out of the article. Otherwise, it's original research, which is forbidden. We have automated systems that routinely remove citations to YouTube, as it is usually not a reliable source. In this case, the video itself would be a primary source. Primary sources must be used with caution; policy says we can't analyze their content, interpret them, or report on their veracity. This must be done by independent, reliable secondary sources. The reactions of bloggers/YouTube users are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia, and we don't report on them – unless we quote a reliable source who discusses them. For more info, you really should check out the linked guidelines and policies. The Teahouse and help desk can also be useful, or you can ask me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

So you should have left in my sentence saying what the video is about, yes? TempletonU (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has nothing to say on matters that have not attracted the attention of professional journalists, academics, and other reliable sources. Without a reliable source, to describe one video is undue weight, and to describe all videos is indiscriminate. When a newspaper discusses one of her videos, it will be reasonable to then summarize their article here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Why didn't you say that at the beginning? TempletonU (talk) 03:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Over the years, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have become quite complex, and it's difficult to properly summarize them without lapsing into jargon. I apologize for not being clearer; it seems that I was more terse than concise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why doesn't Trace have one?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.195.245 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

First: Who? Second: Why should this person? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Can't recall why this is on my watchlist, but I keep seeing offensive vandalism being done to this page by idiots.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Might be worth protecting this page. I think I watch listed the page awhile back because of vandalism. Meatsgains (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like the rewrite. It's full of original research and poor sources. I suggest we go back to the shorter, better written version, then discuss the changes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that makes sense, per WP:BRD. I'll go ahead and revert that and ping @Moonbear69: so we can have that conversation. Cheers, -- Irn (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I think moving the death threats up out of separate section and putting them in chronological order is an improvement, since the rest of the article is chronological and not thematic, per WP:CRITS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do I keep on getting my theory of her removed? I want a response, not a deletion.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for discussion the article topic; they are only for discussing how to improve the article. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

Do not add controversial or speculative information about living people. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the "living person" thing, wikipedia is not the place to inject " my theory" on any person, any place or any thing. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC

The ELs section contains, in addition to the subject's official website, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Tumblr links in apparent violation of WP:ELNO point #10. Just thought I'd check here first before removing as maybe there's some kind of exception for people notable for their social media activity? - Brianhe (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Since all of these can be found via the official website http://www.lacigreen.tv/, we don't need them, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. In other cases, where no official site catalogs all the social media, we sometimes can list all or many of them ourselves. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. The article references her social media accounts, so it makes some sense to have them there. At the same time, I'm not aware of any special exemption for people who are primarily notable for their media accounts. I think there's a special infobox for YouTube personalities, and we could switch over to using that. Then we'd have her YT account linked from there. The rest of the accounts are probably not as important to list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The infobox at Boxxy might be a good model to follow. Brianhe (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's a terrible article. I was thinking more along the lines of {{Infobox YouTube personality}}, but embedded modules could work, too. If we use an infobox that has Laci Green's YT account in it, I don't care what happens to the stuff in the external links. Except for the IMDb link, of course. That's not a social media site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

New here; I have suggested a large addition to the page. I have received a messg form dennis bratland saying at least part is deleted. What are the steps to follow? edit my initial piece and upload again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsan84 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 Oct 2016 (UTC)

@Tomsan84: it was written in the style of a blog post. Wikipedia has rules about what you put on a talk page. Content on Wikipedia needs to be neutral and reliably sourced. Reliable sources generally include articles in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, etc. Websites can be reliable, too, but they need to have a history of fact-checking and accuracy. A self-published video on YouTube is not good enough to source a controversial statement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Partially agreed, but I believe that the controversy should be added. I can rewrite the text making it more neutral, NP. Only before I do that I'd like to know if it has any chance. I mean I understand that YT vid's arent literature, but this is a page about a YouTuber, there wont be any lit. concerning these kind of events. Tomsan84 (talk)

Because this is a biography of a living person, there are pretty high standards regarding sourcing, especially for something controversial. If it hasn't been covered by a reliable source, that's a pretty good indication that it's not important enough to mention in the article. -- Irn (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you source it to newspapers articles, it has a very good chance of being included. If you source it to YouTube videos, it has no chance at all, as that would violate several of Wikipedia's core policies. Green appears sometimes in the mainstream media, such as this article and a followup in The New York Times. These are the kinds of sources that we'd need. We can use YouTube videos that she's made to describe uncontroversial, non-promotional claims, such as her age and where she was born, but, otherwise, self-published videos are forbidden. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Indeed, no chance. This is not the first time someone has wanted to add a dispute where one YouTuber criticizes another YouTuber without any third party sources taking any notice of the supposed controversy. There is a constant clamor to add criticism to YouTubers like Green, and so it might be worth while to spell this out in greater detail:

  Wikipedia has never sanctioned including mention of accusations or allegations or disputed facts, especially about living people, based solely on self-published social media, and those kinds of allegations are always deleted sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

  Why would any reputable, fact-checked media ever cover this "controversy"? The things Green is accused of doing have not resulted in any actual things happening. Except YouTube told somebody they had to change a thumbnail of a video. So what? The world just doesn't care.

  OK, maybe you think the real crime is that CNN and the BBC and NYT don't care that somebody had to change a thumbnail. Wikipedia is not the place to address that. It never has been. The best way to get the world to care about this is to convince reputable media to cover it. Maybe you believe that a very large number of YouTubers are incensed at Green; if that's true, go tell a professional reporter or editor, and if they don't cover it, ask them why. Don't ask us. We can't help you. Many, many people have come to Wikipedia because they wanted to get the world's attention over something they thought was being ignored, and every single time, Wikipedia said no.

  If you have some other topic, where good published source material does exists, please do add that to a Wikipedia article. Everyone is welcome to edit, it's just that these are the rules. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oke that clear enough for me :) 77.175.190.182 (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm a stickler for phonetics, so for all I know, her name is pronounced "Lassie".. right? If it's meant to sound like "Lacy", then an IPA thingy is definitely needed. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Laci has been in the 1,000 most common names since at least 1980, or 47 years. Wikipedia normally doesn't define or explain common English words, so I would oppose adding this kind of clutter to the lead. We avoid pronunciations in the lead for words that follow usual conventions, as this one does. See MOS:LEAD. Adding pronunciation aids for ESL speakers is normally avoided. Note that an IPA pronunciation would be fine later in the article if you wish, but not in the lead section. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hoo boy if it's pronounced Lassie that doesn't seem to be a regular or common pronunciation to me? 2001:4898:80E8:D:0:0:0:385 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If you're like me, you have no idea what's going on here and why there's suddenly so much drama on this article. I did a few Google searches, and this turned up coverage in reliable sources:

• Free Speech, Third Rail of Identity Politics: Sex-Positive Youtube Star Shunned by Fellow Social Justice Warriors at Newsweek
• Feminist Laci Green, popular internet host, harassed over relationship with controversial YouTuber at The New York Times

Reading through those articles explains a few of the recent edits. This seems like YouTube drama, and my typical response to it is, "No, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia." However, this seems to be picking up coverage in newspapers, and if we write a policy-compliant version, it may avoid turning this into some kind of gossip fest. Well, what does everyone else think? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

One way to minimize drama is to wait and see. Give it a year, and then write something about who Green is dating. There's huge risk of violating BLP policy with defamatory information if we rush to update articles about living people with the latest on who is dating whom. The only substantive nugget in all this breathless noise is the unsurprising fact that Green supports free speech rights for those she disagrees with, rather than siding with a very extreme campus-left minority. If this were a high-traffic article with many editors balancing and fact-checking, it would be safer to keep up with the latest news, but with bios like this, I am very comfortable with letting this article be a year out of date, so that the dust has settled and any statements here about a living person are on very solid ground.

The many YouTubers who create single-purpose-accounts to make drive-by edits as fallout from YouTube drama are not here to build an encyclopedia, and they don't help the consensus process find a balanced middle ground. Without more participation from serious Wikipedians, extreme caution is best.

Compared with the risk of harm, I see no upside to rushing to add the latest dating gossip to a bio, even if it was in the NYT. We should back in June of 2018 and see what the source have for us.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the people who usually gets involved in this sort of thing, I'm also of the wait and see variety. It feels like a train wreck, but this may suffer way too much recentism. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a reason to change the words around Tranny (slang). It was used and is considered offensive. What's the point of changing it downward? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The key word is "considered" I Changed a line concerning the word "tranny". The original was based on subjective opinion regarding the word and not supported by the usage of the word as described in Wikipedia. Quote: "The term is *considered* a slur by *some* transgender activists" My changes conveyed more accurately usage of the word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talk • contribs) 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Your changes to the page to reflect a subjective opinion about the word. It is not supported by the facts, You are compromising the neutrality and objectivity of the sentence in question. Please see how the word is described on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranny_(slang) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

3RR-blocked Tvaerskaegg, who is reverting against multiple other editors without discussion. I suggest discussion here before making a firm decision - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Consisency with other articles isn't mandatory, and there's no reason to assume the other article takes precedence over this one. Is there any such thing as a slur that you couldn't say is only considered by "some" to be offensive? But then you could write that "some" say the world is round. It's against Wikipedia policy to use a doubtful tone if a fact is widely accepted. The Tranny article needs to be corrected to describe current usage. Fringe opinions that it's not offensive belong lower down in the article, given less weight. The Lacie Green article need only say it's an offensive slur, not get sidetracked with these nuances. Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The Tranny (slang) article was, I think, pretty far out of date, treating statements from 2010 through 2014 as the present. I have revised it to give dates to the statements cited, showing that they follow a chronology, rather than all representing the "now". Some of the citations given were clear misrepresentations, and one was citing a video's comment section as if that were a source. For our purposes, Dictionary.com and the American Heritage dictionary define the term unequivocally as offensive and pejorative.

What you can see is that the years 2010-2012 were somewhat of an inflection point, with some uncertainty as to whether the word was still considered normal speech, rather than edgy, radical, or offensive, and Laci Green's controversy over the word was in 2012. We should probably say something along those lines here in this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with the statement above: "Green's controversy over the word was in 2012. We should probably say something along those lines here in this article". The article as it stands does not accurately reflect the nature and context of Green's statement on this matter and the controversy surrounding them at the time they occured and gives a false impression. My edit is a more accurate and objective description, is consistent with the facts and is fully supported by the included scource. It is in absolutely no need of reverting to the original version and should stand. I am not engaged in an editing war, merely concerned with objectivety and accuracy. I shall not revert the present article to my more accurate and objective version since it will only result in more reverts. This matter must go further. I will see what options are available and pursue them in the near future when my time permits.

A dispute resolution request regarding this issue has been activated by Tvaerskaegg.

I have performed another edit in a different section of the article because it ascribes comments to Alexander Nazaryan that he did not make in the included link. I have edited the article so that Alexander Nazaryan is correctly quoted. Tvaerskaegg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talk • contribs) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The dispute resolution lead to nowhere. My take on the situation: WP:NPOV tells us that a neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone. Thus, calling the disputed term "pejorative" and "offensive" is not impartial and should be removed. Moreover, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: BLPs should simply document what these sources say. In the Daily Dot-articles, which are the sources for this affair, the terms "pejorative" and "offensive" cannot be found. Thus, the only choice we have is to avoid use of those words and stick to the facts. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't take facts and recast them as opinions because the facts might make a living person not look so good. See WP:WikiVoice: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." The fact that tranny is considered offensive is documented in Tranny (slang). The kinds of sources that settle questions about the status of a word, major dictionaries, and widespread rules of etiquette and style, like newspaper style guides and the terms of service at Facebook and Google, agree on this. The minority view is represented by a few prominent individuals, but our social institutions have a strong consensus. See the sources in Tranny (slang). The article even recounts the history of how it came to be understood as offensive. The a minority view that it is not offensive is similar to the minority view that many racial epithets aren't offensive. The due weight policy outlines how we give attention to minority views in proportion to their prominence. But the BLP policy does not require us to say "some say the world is round" just because a living person said it is flat. Wikipedia is not impartial in the dispute over whether the world is round or flat because Wikipedia sides with the broad consensus among reliable sources that it is round. We don't utterly censor the view that it is flat, but those views are limited to contexts where the minority flat-earth view is relevant.

If Green were one of those who think tranny is not offensive, along with RuPaul or Kate Bornstein, then we could say that. But she isn't. She agreed that it is offensive and that she shouldn't have said it. She is not involved int he debate over whether the word should be used. It makes no sense to import that debate into this bio of Green when that was never the issue.

We need to stop beating this dead horse over whether tranny is offensive. It isn't a serious controversy any more, and what controversy exists is peripheral to an article about Laci Green. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis Bratland. I hope you don't mind, but there are some problems here: .
1. The first one is that it was you who edited the Tranny (slang)-article yourself, making it rather odd to use it as a source to make your point. And what is more: I have doubts if you are right in this one, since:

• The Cambridge Dictionary says the word is sometimes offensive,
• Merriam-Webster calls it sometimes disparaging,
• the Oxford Dictionary describes it as offensive, informal
• Macmillan Dictionary describes it as informal
• Longman Dictionary also calls it informal

Thus, your point that it just is a "minority view" that the word tranny is not considered offensive is simply not true.
2. Secondly, the WP:WikiVoice-part you referenced to was about uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources; since that is not the case (see above) we should look to the other rules. And since WP:BLPSOURCE dictates that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion (emphasis not mine) we should remove it asap.
3. and finally, even IF you were right, and it was a solid, established fact that the word "tranny" is offensive, what added value would it have to insert the word "offensive"? Then, that would be an unneccesary Pleonasm.
Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I've no interest in this article, but if anyone wants another opinion then mine is that the article shouldn't say the word is offensive. The dictionaries say it's "sometimes" offensive, I'd assume that one reason is that it depends on the context. The word has been used multiple times in this discussion, so if anyone here ever gets a Wikipedia article about them, should it mention that they once used "the offensive word Tranny"? Of course not. I'm not even convinced that someone using the word is worth mentioning in Wikipedia. A few members of the "I'm Offended" gang might have blogged their discontent at the time, but that doesn't make it an encyclopedia-worthy big event. As if occasional use of non-PC language, which we may or may not genuinely regret afterwards, is the exclusive domain of a handful of bad apples such as Ms. Green. Great floors (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding changes made by Tvaerskaegg to Laci Green article and following reversion. My changes are not point of view but a point of fact. Read the link provided. Nowhere does it say:

"far-right media" responded with what Newsweek's Alexander Nazaryan called "celebration", "praise", and "glee".[26]

That quote is untrue. The link provided says what I say it said. Read it. The revision you reverted to is untrue. It is factually incorrect and the article should be changed back to my factual version. If the articla stands as it is then it is lying about the external link it provides and it reflects badly on the people who created it. I am not going to get involved in an editing war, if the article creators let their untrue version stand then it can remain as a monument to the unreliability of Wikipedia and the incompetence of certain editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Right here:

• "Far-right media have celebrated Green’s video"
• "She also received praise from Age of Shitlords, an alt-right site (the name appropriates a derogatory term used by liberals on social media for those deemed bigots). "
• "The site gleefully posted adverse reactions to Green’s red pill video"

If you want to remove the quotes from "celebration", "praise", and "glee", since they aren't precise quotes, that's fine, but it helps to clarify that the adjectives are Alexander Nazaryan's words.

Your changes to say "responded with what Newsweek's Alexander Nazaryan described as celebrating 'an instance of a liberal finally acknowledging liberalism’s inherent flaws'" might be another quote from the article, but you are changing the subject. It's an example of hijacking this bio about a living person to turn it into a battleground. This is not an article about "liberalism's inherent flaws" and bringing up these kinds of attacks is inflammatory and off-topic. It is enough to say simply that those who had previously harassed Green were beside themselves, and responded with over the top demonstrations. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that I am changinging the subject. I am clarifying the attitude of far right media in regard to Green's video which is a central component to the whole issue and needs to be stated as much as does that of the left (or whoever it was who sent Green abuse and death threats). The bio is not and should not be an ideological battleground but the person the . Tbio is about was and perhaps still is in the middle of an ideological battleground. Clearly stating the issues behind the battle is not turning to article into a battle, it is reporting some of the components behind the battle. Green was threatened by the left. The reason why has been stated. She was celebrated by the right. The reason why needs also to be stated. I am not saying and my revision of the article is not saying anything about what liberals might or might not think, it is neutral on that point. It is merely reporting what "far-right media" think about the issue in question. This clarification is necessary since the far right media are intimately involved and are, necessarily, brought up in the article.

I am editing the article to say:

Though she did not repudiate any of her past positions on these issues, "far-right media" responded with what Newsweek's Alexander Nazaryan called "celebration"and "praise" over what they considered to be "an instance of a liberal finally acknowledging liberalism’s inherent flaws".[26]

Which is a verbatim quote from the link, relevant to the issue and qualifies what the "celebration" was all about since the word is used directly to refer to what is said in my revision. The word "glee" has been omitted since it is used in connection with reactions to Green's video rather than to the actual video. Tvaerskaegg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvaerskaegg (talk • contribs) 18:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not an article about what words Alexander Nazaryan of Newsweek used to describe the far-right media reaction to some new videos by Laci Green. I removed all of that and simply said they welcomed it. One of the problems of what you're trying to insert is that Green did not actually "acknowledge liberalism's inherent flaws." That's just Nazaryan's characterization of the way the far-right media characterized what Green said. A second-hand interpretation of a second-hand interpretation. It's a terrible distraction.

Please do not continue pushing this. You are using this article as a battleground. Also, can you learn to sign your posts? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a battleground as far as I am concerned, it is about accuracy, neutrality and objectivety. The article about Laci Green is very poor quality as it stands. It conveys little to no useful information about her conflicts and still violates neutrality, accuracy and objectivity in its tone, although this has improved somewhat since I started editing. Your recent edit is inadequate and makes a bad article worse. You are wrong, I did not "try to insert" anything about Green's acknowledgement about anything, I clearly indicated that the quote was what the "far right media" considered according to a provided link. Your use of the term "far right media" in the article is weasel words. No definition of or context for this phrase is given. It is also incorrect and biased, Green has also received support from liberals, something which should be included in the article. The revisions I have presented, in regard to Green's use of the word "tranny" as well as the "red pill video" issue rescue and improve a bad article and should stand. I intend to carry this matter further until a satisfactory resolution has been reached. I shall learn to [[WP:SIG|sign my posts as soon as time permits. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tvaerskaegg

I would anticipate that you will make very little progress with this article if you get hung up on tangential details every step of the way. Terms like "far-right" media are plain English, and when you insist terms like this be intensively defined, your fellow editors are going to treat that as sophistry and lawyering. We are here to write about the essentials, not count how many angels can dance on the head of every pin. I'd spend a few months learning more about how Wikipedia works by editing less politicized, less controversial issues. Then come back here with fresh eyes. There isn't a deadline, so slow down. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What you consider tangental details may well in reality be central and relevant aspects, as in this Laci Green issue. "Far right" is plain English but in this case it is an unsubstantiated and unsupported speculation by you. The essentials of the Green article are largely missing due to a vexatious and what I regard as a partisan and biased attitude by my opposing editors. I have no interest in editing Wikipedia per se but instead, as I have repeatedly said, I am concerned with accuracy and objectivity, both of which are sadly lacking in the Green article. You are right that I must learn how the nuts and bolts of Wikipedia work and this I will do when my time permits. This issue will continue and others will likely arise as my editing skills progress but in the meantime I will take your advice and slow down. Tvaerskaegg.

You don't have any "opposing" editors. We are all your collaborators. We are all here to build an encyclopedia. That isn't just flowery speech. Civility is policy, and assuming good faith is actually mandatory. The quote you repeatedly inserted in the article, the phrase "an instance of a liberal finally acknowledging liberalism's inherent flaws" comes from the Nazaryan article. The characterization "Far-right media" comes straight from that article. You yourself considered that source reliable enough to quote directly from it. What's more, the very sentence you quoted, begins with the the words "Far-right media". Nazaryan didn't say that some vague "critics" of Green celebrated. He wrote clearly that "Far-right media" were the ones celebrating. And now I stand accused of being the source of "unsubstantiated and unsupported speculation"? You falsely accuse me making up the words that were literally right in front of your eyes when you copy-pasted the second half of the sentence. This kind of muddled thinking is typical of what happens when you imagine other editors have sinister motives. Now you are the one with egg on your face.

My edits were entirely accurate. I conveyed what the source said, that it was "far-right media" who were reacting to Green's change in her approach with celebration, glee, etc. These facts were right in front of you. Further research shows that all the other coverage fo Green also says it is far right media, the alt-right, men's rights activist, and fellow travelers, who were Green's harassers and critics, and who are now giddy. You sit here denying this very obvious, widely known fact, yet you cite not a single reliable source. You are the one spreading unsubstantiated and unsupported speculation.

Please, going forward, I ask you, assume good faith. Do not treat other editors as your enemy. Take your time, slow down, and when one of your fellow collaborators in editing disagrees with you, stop and think. Maybe they have a point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in a flame war with you just as I don't want to get involved in an editing war, but I will point out that you are wrong on many points. The original article was slanted to give a certain view of Green and her tribulations. It was a clear example of perception management and much of that still remains. I have tried to correct this despite the intransigence I have met and I have achieved some small success but there is much still left to do. I will continue when my time allows and when I have mastered the requisite Wikipedia editing skills. Of course the descriptive term "Far-right media" comes from the included link and I accepted and included that term as long as link remained. But you removed the link while keeping the term. This is bad practice and unacceptable. It removed context, turned the words into weasel words and became nothing more than a blind and unsupported assertion by you. It needed removing so I removed it and replaced it with a term that returns sense and meaning to the sentence. If you choose to revert to it then further editing along the lines I suggested will also be necessary. I have no objection to you using the term if you wish, but only under the conditions I have just stipulated. The use of the words "celebration", "glee", etc in the original was misleading, it gave the impression they were an essential part of a direct quote. They were not. This needed correcting, so I corrected it and included a more direct quote that provided relevant context and information. Cherry picking in order to manage the perception of Wikipedia readers is wrong and unacceptable and this I vehemently oppose, whatever direction the perception mangement may take. Of course more sources could be added to improve a bad and sloppy article and it is my intention to do this when and as my technical editing skills improve and my time permits. Tvaerskaegg.

No, you said "'Far right' is plain English but in this case it is an unsubstantiated and unsupported speculation by you." That is a false accusation. It was supported. Please admit that your accusation was false. Now yo are changing your story, and you're making this accusation that I "removed the link while keeping the term." Removed what link? The citation to the Newsweek article was never removed. What link? Please stop making false accusations. Stop trying to change your story to hide your blunders. Everyone can see exactly what you did and what you said. It's right there in the history. Your own words are right there.

you keep repeating how the article is slanted and biased, but you haven't cited a single thing to support that. That's just your opinion. Until you cite a source to support what you say, nobody will listen to you. I really hope you can take some time to learn how to edit Wikipedia and then make a positive contribution. This game where you throw these accusations at others is not working. Please work collaboratively, and assume good faith.

Also, you're posting while logged out, exposing your ip address. You need to log back in. To sign your posts, click the signature button at the top of the editing window, or type four tildes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You are correct about the link remaining. What I have corrected is your selective cherry picking of the link which created a slanted impression of the issue. One of my previous edits included use of the term "Far-right media" and also included a verbatim quote connected with the term and which provided a more balanced representation. This was an accurate and reasonable version, but you removed the part I included, leaving only a selective version. I have edited out your selective quote leaving none about the "Far-right media" issue. I have said that I would be perfectly happy about using the term "Far-right media" as long as it was part of my extended version, but you would not have this. The alternative is to leave out all reference to "Far-right media" and I have edited the article to this effect. This is how the article now stands and is probably the best compromise available at this point.--Tvaerskaegg (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC) PS. Thanks for the tip about signatures.

So, what this amounts to is that we have a small disagreement about the exact wording of a sentence. You will find that such small disagreements happen continually on any article you edit. If you accuse editors who think a sentence should be worded slightly differently of bias, malice, or devious "selective cherry picking" and other such crimes, you will find that progress is nearly impossible. Assuming good faith means discussing these small disagreements in a cheerful and friendly way. Take away all this hostility, and the 2,000+ word discussion we have here would not have been necessary.

You would like to make more improvements to this article. That is a welcome contribution. Please study reliable sources, compare different points of view, and make judicious changes and additions to the article. Try to have faith that other editors will appreciate it if you correct their mistakes or oversights. You and I have both made mistakes in the past, and we will all make mistakes in the future. Have faith that future disagreements can be worked out in a reasonable way. It's not a battleground. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough, now I get it, Wikipedia is consensual rather than adversarial. That is something I'll have to get used to. Thanks for the advice and instruction, it's always good to learn something. It remains to be seen how well I can function in a non-adversarial context but I think I'll be able to manage it.--Tvaerskaegg (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to request that Category:Atheist feminists be removed as the article does not indicate that she is an atheist feminist (as opposed to an atheist who is also feminist). Thanks, 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Note that the category was re-added in diff. -sche (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I re-removed it. The category page says "This category is for persons who subscribe to the atheist feminism movement, not for all feminists who are atheists." -sche (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I just listened to an article on "This American Life" on NPR (3 Feb 2018). It's a half-hour article which talks about Laci Green and discusses the controversies about her, and more generally, the issues of YouTube wars, right-wing attacks on feminists, social justice warriors, etc. I'm posting the link here in case someone finds this useful for future editing or citing.

P.S. Just for my own interest: (1) Are NPR and "This American Life" considered reliable sources? (I would think yes.) (2) Are archived radio shows allowed for references on Wikipedia?

Video Killed the Video Star - By Kelefa Sanneh. Journalist Kelefa Sanneh delves into the story of Laci Green, a famous Youtuber and sex educator. Like any internet celebrity, Laci gets harrassed on the internet. No surprise there. What is surprising is who winds up harassing her...and what she does about it. (28 minutes)

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/637/words-you-cant-say

Omc (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why a program on NPR wouldn't be a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I wasn't very clear about the point of my question (2). Most of Wikipedia's references that I have seen consist of references to text sources, either on the Internet on in print. What motivated my question is that I was wondering whether Wikipedia allows references to information in audio or video format, such as archived radio or TV shows or YouTube videos. (Obviously assuming the standard Wikipedia criteria such as WP:RS are satisfied.) If so, are they treated any differently from standard text sources? Omc (talk)

You can use {{cite AV media}} to cite an audio recording. There's certainly a strong bias toward text sources, but I think that's mostly because they're easier to find and skim over. I dislike having to watch a 45 minute video just to find what may turn out to be 30 seconds of useful information. In that amount of time, I could have skimmed over many text sources. But the media is usable as a source if someone is willing to dedicate the time to listening to/watching it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I just looked at {{cite AV media}}. The time parameter can be used to point to a particular spot in a video or audio, which solves that problem if the editor actually uses it. Omc (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Why would we describe the word "Tranny" as a pejorative term when it is used in a context where that is clear? If we don't want to use pejorative terms, we should just say "a pejorative term for trans folk". If we're not worried about offending, just say the word without the extra commentary.LedRush (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

See the "some find offensive"-paragraph above. My stance was, and is, that we leave the "pejorative"-part out, since Ms Green did not mean it in a pejorative way, and the dictionaries do agree with describing the term that way. However, although some people agreed on these points, some aggressive POV-pushing lead to statements by users like this: We don't take facts and recast them as opinions because the facts might make a living person not look so good. See WP:WikiVoice: "Avoid stating facts as opinions." The fact that tranny is considered offensive is documented in Tranny (slang). Even though this "fact" was edited in in the Tranny-article by the same user who states as a fact that it is offensive here. I have no interest in another tiresome discussion that leads to nowhere, but if you want to start it again, please do so. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Because somebody, such as brain genius Jeff5102, might disagree with you that it is clear that it is a pejorative term. Please see their above comments in section 'Some find offensive'. If it would be unclear without the adjective, we should keep it in, as this helps keep things clear. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. Name-calling is exactly why I, as I said, "have no interest in another tiresome discussion that leads to nowhere." Thank you for showing us the main reason why I mostly refrain from editing contemporary topics like this one.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Just because someone disagrees with you as to whether the term is offensive, it is crystal clear in the article that Green thought it was wrong that she had used it in the past and that many people found it incredibly offensive (so offensive they threatened death).LedRush (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. So when Anita Sarkeesian receives death threats because of her talking about toxic masculinity, then "Toxic masculinity" is pejorative, right? But that aside, why are you using phrases like somebody, such as brain genius Jeff5102? I am trying to make agood encyclopedia here. So are you. Then why the name calling? That doesn't contribute to a "civil, constructive atmosphere" on Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes, I think toxic masculinity is a pejorative term. I get your point, but don't you think it's clear in the article that Green and the people that got mad at her deemed the word offensive?

2. Peter's personal attack on you was completely unwarranted. I didn't say you were braindead...I actually agree with you mostly on this issue.

3. It is completely unnecessary to define the term as pejorative to make this article better. It is redundant at best.LedRush (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Point 1 and 3: I agree with your line of reasoning.

Point 2: I mistook you for Peter. That was my mistake. Sorry!Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries. I appreciate the apology as people on WP are often far too entrenched to make even the slightest concession that they might not have a stranglehold on truth to even make small gestures. I'm glad to see you're not one of those people. Cheers.LedRush (talk) 10:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

So...it seems there are no arguments for the current version of the article, right?LedRush (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: I have outlined my argument above. If you have trouble with my succinctness, I will try to explain more slowly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but that argument has already been countered. Do you have anything substantive to say? Also, it would be awesome if you could do it without making yet another personal attack.LedRush (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Logic master 3000 here to tell me that my argument has been 'countered'. Yikes. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". And again, I ask that you desist your personal attacks.LedRush (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@LedRush: Here, restated, nice and slow: Somebody disagrees that the slur is pejorative. This was in a section above, linked here (click the blue to follow the link and any others you see.) Because somebody disagrees that the slur is pejorative, this means that it is not 'self evident' that the slur is pejorative. By noting that the slur is pejorative, we help inform our readers, which is the goal of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia (the site we are editing) is an encyclopedia. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I see. So when I agree that "tranny" is pejorative, then it becomes self-evident, and then we can leave it out? That seems like the opposite of the consensus-rule. Look, in the discussion above I quoted five (5) dictionaries that called the word "sometimes offensive" at worst, thus concluding that it the word tranny is considered pejorative beyond reasonable doubt (except for some "brain geniuses", or a "Logic master 3000"), is simply not true. Maybe everybody can reread all the discussions to come to a better conclusion. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedic entry on Laci Green, not the term “Tranny”.LedRush (talk) 15:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

If she's half Persian, why is she white, why is her family Mormon and where did the English surname "Green" come from?174.65.45.152 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For question 1, she's half white and in her case the white genes happened to express themselves moreso than the Persian genes. For question 2, it's been documented that her father converted to Mormonism after he came to the US. I don't know where the surname "Green" came from. Ryanisbetter (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Her birth last name is Cyrus. It comes from the Persian word Kūruš, which was then used in the Greek language as Cyrus. Leewilliam236 (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Mental Health Counselor is her official title, but she also calls herself a therapist as well. On one hand, I think it could be appealing to the general audience and they would know exactly what is meant to be a therapist. But the other hand, it's important to distinguish what she actually does from, for example, a physical therapist. What do you guys think? Leewilliam236 (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)