Talk:Lindsay Ellis

Source

Don't have time right now but this lengthy article on Lindsay just came out. Could expand the article greatly :) Sam Walton (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Anyone object to just moving this article to "Lindsay Ellis"

The footballer is almost a complete unknown, whereas the media critic has been profiled multiple times and is nominated for a Hugo. I think the reasonable structure should be to have Lindsay Ellis refer to the media critic, with a hatnote at the top pointing to the footballer, something like:

For the footballer, see Lindsay Ellis (footballer).

I'll go ahead and do this if I hear no objections. I can do a formal move request if people feel that is merited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Schwarz (talk • contribs) 01:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Max Schwarz: Makes sense to me! Sam Walton (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool, I'll wait a couple days, then do it.--Max Talk (+) 04:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Expanding the section about harassment

"Throughout her career online, Ellis has been subject to multiple campaigns of harassment.[2]"
This is the only line about it here. As an ordinary viewer, it gave me quite little information. Although the reference provides some.
"a year-old tweet in which she joked about “white genocide”—a neo-Nazi conspiracy theory—was exhumed, leading to a coordinated harassment campaign against her."
"Others target her because she’s politically progressive and because she was a vocal supporter of James Gunn"
So, from these passages above it seems clear that the harassment was about the matters concerning White Supremacy! Could this be added? Because I as an ordinary, yet interested, reader could not piece it together. Maybe, it's far more apparent to the American viewers - throughout the article, I got the impression that "harassment" was a code word for White Supremacy, and everybody except me gets it.
Of course, I'm not suggesting adding huge paragraphs, just a little bit more clarity.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: Provided you're only summarising what the reliable sources have said, go ahead! Sam Walton (talk) 08:12, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, some alt-right trolls went searching through her Internet history for something defamatory and found a twitter exchange she had with some neo-nazis in which she mocked them by jokingly describing herself as being anti-white and in favour of white genocide. This was then retweeted without context, suggesting that she genuinely held positive views of 'white genocide', and that blew up. She describes the exchange in an XOXO Festival video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Alen-p6_ak Wight 13:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wight1984 (talk • contribs)

The one wired article doesn't seem to be the primary source though, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:530F:C188:69EB:1C3E:E87E:9CBB (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, she didn't quit because of the harassment but because of a tweet she made in March comparing Raya and the Last Dragon to ATLA, and this got her 'cancelled' online. Tweet screencap : https://pisco.meaww.com/0aec2fb7-40bc-41c6-9ae8-f62badd46918.png Her statement from her patreon (archived) : https://archive.fo/S71c7 Some article : https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/12/28/lindsay-ellis-twitter/ Another article : https://meaww.com/why-did-lindsay-ellis-quit-twitter-fans-say-you-tuber-was-victim-of-cancel-culture The current wording implies that the previously cited 'alt-right' harassment was the reason she quit, which doesn't seem to be the case. --121.85.0.182 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Throughout her career online, Ellis has been subject to multiple campaigns of harassment. In a 2021 Patreon blog post titled "Walking away from Omelas", she announced her retirement from YouTube and content creation, citing the harassment. What implies that this was an 'alt-right' thing? This 'cancellation' can also be harassment, too. SWinxy (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We should use the term "harassment" predominantly as "cancellation" and, particularly, "cancel culture" are vague, ambiguous and euphemistic terms which are often used (and misused) in various and contradictory ways.

I'm pretty sure that most of the harassment was cooked up by the alt-right as part of an ongoing campaign to get a specific list of female YouTubers hounded off the platform one by one. (I think I probably know who is next on the list but I'm not going to say anything that might put her name into people's minds and encourage her to be targetted.) This explains why the supposed inciting incident here is a fairly innocuous tweet comparing two American media franchises. It was just an excuse to trigger something that was already planned. Of course, a lot of the people swept up in the harassment were completely unaware that this was cooked up by the alt-right because some people just believe what it says in people's Twitter bios.

I'm not asking anybody to put any of this in the article just on my uncorroborated say-so. Let's just keep an eye on reliable sources to see if any of them cotton on to this aspect, and then use those sources if/when they become available. I suspect that we will see some more measured and in-depth coverage from more serious sources once the dust settles and the shallow hot takes are out of the way. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

LGBT?

This article is in category "LGBT YouTubers" and has a link to List of LGBT YouTubers but I see nothing to reference this either here nor on that article, in fact Ellis isn't even listed there. She is friends with some high profile LGBT YouTubers, and she wears a t-shirt with the bi flag on it during her video about queer theory, but that's not the same as having an RS reference. I did a very quick Google and found some references to her as bisexual in some non-RS sources but that's far from solid. Can we reference this properly or should it be removed? --DanielRigal (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

She identifies herself as bisexual in this article from her old website. "Bisexuality has always been a part of my identity. I was probably in my mid-twenties before I came to terms with the fact that you can be something other than absolutely gay or absolutely straight, which is sad in its own right, but there it is. And now that I’m in my 30’s, have been single for almost a year now (and to those of you who find this surprising, again, it was none of your business) and the LGBT movement in America has been handed its greatest victory yet, I’m coming to a point where I wonder – why don’t I allow this to be a part of my identity? Is it still out of a subconscious fear of being fetishized? Like, dude, I’m 30-years-old. I’m starting to look like your dumpy aunt who’s an adjunct at the local community college. I’d like to move past this thing where I let fears of how the worst of the worst will respond dictate my place in the public discourse. I’ve guarded my bisexuality pretty closely, even denied it at times, and therefore I’ve never been discriminated against, or suffered for it. I’ve kept it from my older and male colleagues because I didn’t want to deal with being corrected and told that it was a phase, or, worse, being fetishized for it. I’ve been aware of my own silence, and excused it because I told myself that it wasn’t worth it to deal with. After all – there are far, far worse things in the world than being a bisexual person whom everyone assumes is default straight for lack of being corrected. Battles must be chosen, and moreover, it never really bothered me. Internalized bisexual erasure."★Trekker (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, categories need to be supported by the body of the article, which needs to be supported by sources. If we accept this source is reliable, it should be included before being included as a category. It may also be helpful to review WP:LGBTCAT. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

So we add the info then. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.★Trekker (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Its now stated in the article.★Trekker (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Age

I don't see the tweet explicitly noting her year of birth anywhere? Am I missing something? SSJ 5 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Me neither, removing date of birth until 1984 is sourced. Sam Walton (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• RE: this new change on 6/13/2020 citing IMDB instead of approximate age.

  Template:Age as of date accurately, and updated to the present, gives the year range of a start date given an age at a point in time. If she was 34 on March 3, 2019 then she must have been born in 1984 or 1985, and at this moment is either 35 or may have turned 36. A year from now the article will continue to read accurately with this template, assuming we don't have a verifiable birth date by then. We have a reliable source that she was 34 on 3/8/2019, and the no original research policy explicitly allows this type of simple calculation to determine a fact, per WP:CALC.

  The IMDB bio is not a reliable source, and is very likely crowdsourced. IMDB is reliable when it is conveying things like published movie credits, since it rests on publications from the MPAA and WGA, but much of the content is not, particularly BLP information, per WP:IMDB/BLP.

  I'm removing the IMDB citation, given established consensus that it's inappropriate for BLPs, and relying on Template:Age as of date which is a widely used, high profile calculation grounded in BLP and RS policy. And there's no benefit to having her exact birth date: readers are helped by knowing an author's approximate age, what generation or era they belong to. If anything, an exact birth date only helps stalkers and doxxers, maybe superstitious astrologists, without adding anything encyclopedic. If we must have it, we can wait for a reliable source, and IMDB isn't for these cases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of well-cited facts because an editor "feels" it is minor

"Throughout her career online, Ellis has been subject to multiple campaigns of harassment."

"I feel this was minor event"[1]

Throughout her career. How can an ongoing series multiple campaigns of events throughout her career be a minor event? This doesn't even scan. If you had said "I think these multiple events throughout her career" were minor, you'd at least indicate you understood the material.

"I feel..."

No one cares about your feelings. Sorry, that's rude but Wikipedia isn't a collection of things editors feel. We summaries content from reliable sources. We have an independent source that verifies this. It's not disputed. If it was disputed we could pile on with more sources that can verify, indeed, this actually happened.[2][3][4] I don't like to do that because when you add 15 footnotes to a simple fact it takes an undisputed fact and makes it look like a disputed fact.

The other citation is a 35 minute talk at the XOXO Festival where Ellis tells us that these multiple campaigns of harassment throughout her career were not "a" minor event. They were in fact serious events that had a profound impact. Anyone who has reviewed the other sources cited this bio would know that.

"I’m willing to debate it though"

No. You should stop. Unless you can cite an independent reliable source that disputes the multiple sources that tell us that these multiple campaigns of harassment were minor, all you're doing is pushing your personal opinion about something with no verifiable basis. No sources, nothing to discuss. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• The harassment she received was unacceptable and speaks to a larger problem of systemic misogyny in the film community. However, following her for years, she's only received 2 instances of harassment, those being GamerGate and that tweet she did a couple years ago. There might be more but I felt the career aspect of her should reflect her success and positivity. I also acknowledge that these are opinionated and I should have included sources. If the harassment mention must be included, I feel it should at least be in the Personal Life section. I do apologize foe me being rude about this but please don't assume the worst about me with your dismissive attitude (there are better ways to do this than "No one cares abour my feeings") and non-apology. -- HenryBarnill 11:26, 10 January 2021 (PST)

  In case you're not aware, across many articles about women, there is a persistent effort to minimize or completely suppress mention of harassment campaigns against them. Since you deleted the content with no edit summary, then offer a very weak and non-fact based explanation, it looks on the surface like yet another instance of this type of POV pushing. Citing reliable sources that match your edits would have been a way to avoid this.

  The harassment is the result of her professional activity, and the harm it caused directly affected her work and career. It's not some private dispute because her neighbor blocked her driveway one time, so moving it to the personal life section would inaccurately trivialize the importance of it.

  When you say there were "only two" instances, it makes me wonder again if you've taken time to read the source material: The “Manufacturing Authenticity” video was released right after she experienced a brutal, coordinated online harassment campaign—the worst she’s ever endured. It led to her briefly considering taking a step back from her videos, just as her work was reaching its widest audience yet. And it made her all the more protective of her personal intel—where she lives and with whom—to avoid further harassment.[5] The XOXO talk recounts many separate incidents, not two.

  I don't know if you're sincere or if I'm feeding a troll here. I'm not going to sit here point by point listing and citing one incident after another to dispute this claim that there's "only two" incidents, or that they were only personal in nature and not relevant to her professional career.

  The ball is entirely in your court. The onus is on you to start providing citations to support your claims, rather than you throwing out unsourced opinions or speculation, and then expecting others to debunk them for you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not in the mood for you to accuse me of being a troll. I was naive to think there weren't suppressions on harassment here and I thought I wasn't doing that. Clearly, I've got to look at the mirror. But don't accuse me of being something I'm not for a misguided edit. You are being far too angry about this. I apologized to you on your page but you like to see the worst in people. I won't edit the page any further. It's done. -- HenryBarnill

Infobox caption field

Please see WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, MOS:CAPTION, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. Not every image requires a caption. Template:Infobox person repeats for several times that not every field should be used, and many fields should be left blank if they aren't needed. It's not a goal to check every box. The caption field is there if needed. The year of a photo may be desirable, but only if it gives the reader information that isn't obvious. When the text one line away from the photo says the author is in their mid thirties now, and the photo is of someone that age, the information that the photo was taken very recently is not missing. It's obvious. The purpose of captions is not to tell readers what they can see with their eyes. MOS:ALT explains that there is a place for a literal description of what is in the photo, the | alt = field. We very much accommodate readers who can't see the image, but the flip side is that we can presume that everyone else can see it and does't need us to waste their time filling up their screen with useless dreck. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Twitter drama

Should the page mention the recent drama that led her to delete her twitter account?
--2804:431:C7C7:27A4:30EE:9C5E:D67A:D344 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it covered by multiple reliable sources? If so, it could be mentioned very briefly. I doubt this will happen though. So far, the only thing I can find in Google News about it describes the event as "a troll fest" and, while I'm not sure if it is RS, I suspect that they are correct about that. Ellis has been subjected to organised internet harassment in the past and this seems to be more of that. If we do cover it then we have to take great care that we are not unwittingly joining the dogpile. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like a passing event. I would prefer if we waited a bit to see if more develops, or if it just dies down and goes away, before including it in the article. The current citation is from meaww.com, which seems real sketchy. A plugin I have warned me when I visited, which almost never happens. SWinxy (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. There's nothing more dog-bites-man than Twitter drama. Saying drama after Twitter is kind of redundant; Twitter is drama. It's hard to imagine anybody who is notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio who hasn't also been associated with Twitter's endless drama at one time or another. It says more about Twitter than the person. And that's all before even considering the Biographies of living persons policy that sets a very high bar for both the quality of sources and the inarguable relevance of any potentially negative content about any living person. On top of all that, even if the drama in question was covered by multiple respectable, high-quality sources, and even if those sources said unequivocally that the drama was something that mattered -- not merely the kind of sideshow that can appear even in good sources -- it would still amount to party A having an opinion about party B. Opinions almost always belong over on a page about party A, not party B, unless some actual event or change directly related to party B happens. If the subject was not a living person there would be a lot more leeway but if BLP applies then you need very good reasons to cast anybody in a bad light anywhere on Wikipedia.

I wouldn't even go so far as to be waiting to see if more develops; I'd put it out of my mind and forget it unless several good sources force me to pay attention. These are just general principles that save you a lot of bother over content that is very likely never going to see the light of day in a BLP article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage bar some lesser known rag mags/gossip sites like Meaww: [6] or HITC: [7]. She made a video on the matter, Mask Off, and deleted her twitter over it, so if other sources pick up on it (which I suspect they probably will) I think it can be added. But as of now, when only gossip mags are "reporting" on it, no. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• I deleted [8][9] mention of the Raya/ATLA stuff again, for reasons given above and in the edit summaries. It would be great to cover this, and you probably could summarize some of the content in her video on the subject[10] per WP:ABOUTSELF but I'm reluctant to do so without any reliable third party sources. And so far zero sources that meet the BLP standard have covered this, and the bind is that any source which meets the criteria at WP:BLPSOURCES wouldn't touch something like this with a 10 foot pole. Please note: Even if distractify.com, filmdaily.co or meaww.com were to meet the criteria at WP:RS -- and the WP:RSN says they don't -- they are all still tabloid sites, i.e. celebrity gossip, and the policy forbids using them on biographies: "The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Until reliable (secondary) sources report on this, it doesn't have much of a place in the article. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Truth of the Divine

Is there a reason why no one's created a separate page for Truth of the Divine yet while there is one for Axiom's End? I'm just curious about whether it was the notability guidelines or if people just hadn't gotten around to it yet. I might create one if no one else is interested. 2600:1702:2A30:A40:1D44:CCB5:40D3:FBF2 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I dunno if it'll stand up to WP:NBOOK, but I haven't done a source search for it. It's not unusual to have sections on sequels in the article for the first of a series. SWinxy (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Alternate history?

I know these things are fraught, but Axiom's End is clearly science fiction and not alternate history, right? 67.71.198.194 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The whole trilogy is clearly Science Fiction. It’s also Alternate History, granted. Tuvalkin (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yoko Ono

She has a new video out, about Yoko after John’s murder. It’s on Nebula, but the 1st (less than) half is also on Youtube. Tuvalkin (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Birthday

So apparently someone removed her birthday back in 2020 because one 2019 tweet by her isn't a reliable source, but I found another tweet made by her friend Angelina Meehan in 2020 on the same day. Plus, IMDb (although not a reliable source) has listed her birthday as November 24th since all the way back in 2012 (https://web.archive.org/web/20120719133847/http://www.imdb.com:80/name/nm3805989) so I think that settles it? ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this topic up because Meehan's tweet (WP:TWITTER) and the LoC source (a database) are both not suitable for a BLP. So what we can do is WP:CALC and get her age that way. Wired with her own tweet can be used for this calculation, which I have updated the article with. SWinxy (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sure. She was definitely born in 1984 though. I have a copy of Axiom's End (North American version) and if you flip to the page where the publication information is, it says "1984-". I wasn't sure how to cite that (the version on Internet Archive appears to be the UK edition and didn't have it) but there was also a link printed on the page directed to the Library of Congress page so I cited that instead. But thanks for the clarification though because I'm not too familiar with all the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)