Jump to content

Talk:Morgpie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 01:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Soulbust (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 41 past nominations.

Soulbust (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Forbes, highlighted in green to denote its general reliability is definitely alright here as a source here, especially since it's written by staff and not a contributor (a distinction noted at WP:VG/RS).
TechCrunch sources also check out since both the ones used in the article are written by Morgan Sung. Her bio on the site lists her as a senior writer, meaning her pieces aren't for a personal blog. The TechCrunch listing you linked says Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, which reads to me as similar or analogous to the staff/contributor distinction for Forbes pieces.
The Daily Dot is listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS, and the WP:RSP link you provided says it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact. I've tweaked the Morgpie article since reading your message here to use the source 3 total times, the first 2 of which, are definitely non-contentious (here I'm using it in the "Twitch metas" section to cite that meta is Twitch community lingo and that she used the green screen in a Fortnite stream; that this latter point inspired other streamers is also being sourced by the Daily Dot citation. I don't view that as contentious, but in the off-chance it is, there is another source present for that). The time I use the source in the "Reception and influence" section is in line with the WP:DAILYDOT blurb listing about following community consensus that attribution should be used in topics where the source is known to be biased. Since I'm citing the writer's opinion on Morgpie, I do properly attribute her. The writer's bio lists her as the Deputy Editor of Passionfruit. There hasn't been WP:VG/RS or WP:RSP discussion on Passionfruit but I believe since it is under Daily Dot, all the rules about Daily Dot here apply. I had used the source twice in the Reception and influence section to first cite that Twitch received criticism for policy updates and then cite exactly what that criticism is (unfair application of the policy updates to only female-presenting streamers). I believe this is fine for inclusion and I just tweaked the firs time I used it to be in line with the attribution clause from before or to just replace the source with another one; I replaced the second usage with Sung, so that any attribution to Passionfruit or the specific author wouldn't make the sentence clunky.
The Kotaku source has been removed and replaced both on the article and in this DYK nom's hook sourcing.
Indy100 is a sister site of The Independent, (relevant link here is WP:THEINDEPENDENT). It's highlighted in green as generally reliable at WP:RSP. I do note that the entry says some editors advise caution for articles published after the publication went fully online in 2016. I also couldn't find any assessment or deep-dive discussion on Indy100 specifically. There is a comment here from just over a year ago in March 2024 that calls it a tabloidy clickbaity spinoff of The Independent. I have removed the Indy100 source to err on the side of caution here, and while I don't necessarily think it would be assessed as reliable, I think a proper discussion on it is warranted.
Thanks for the feedback, I've made some further edits to the article that I think strengthened it considerably. And hopefully the addressing of the sourcing concerns have been helpful in regards to this article's DYK viability. Will do QPQ soon. Soulbust (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken out some out-of-date info that I forgot to make up-to-date as I was in real-time editing along with my editing of the actual article. The Daily Dot source is used 3 total times still: the one time in the Twitch metas section to cite the meta lingo. Then twice, in the reception to cite that Morgpie influenced copycat streamers and then the attribution to the writer's opinion. The copycat streamer thing should be fine to be cited by this source, but I can look to adjust that if there is any objection to it. Soulbust (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
QPQ completed at Terraria Soulbust (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full review needed. (For what it's worth, my preferred hook is the first half of ALT2.)--Launchballer 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article, created on 15 March, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and presentable. QPQ done. No copyvio or BLP issues. QPQ done. I think ALT0 is the best (and least likely to violate WP:DYKGRAT). ALT0 is in the article, cited, and citation checks out. GTG Tenpop421 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think ALT1 and ALT4 (and probably ALT3) shouldn't really violate that as well. I honestly think ALT2 should be fine but I can understand if that one does perhaps? Definitely will defer to the promoter here though. Soulbust (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Self-published sources about age and being from Texas

[edit]

@Morbidthoughts: I reverted your edits that removed the sourcing for her age and her being from Texas. I think the edit summary could have done without the "bad attempt" comment, but pointing to WP:RSPYT and WP:SYNTH is more of the issue here. Obviously, those are to be respected but they don't really apply to the sources you removed. The latter guideline you linked is followed by WP:CALC guideline later on, which says: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible". So using her appearance on Hasan Piker's podcast from June 17, 2023 (where she says she's 23), and combining it with her saying that her birthday was "earlier this week" in the June 25, 2021 tweet, to source her birthday being June 1999 or 2000 is fully in line with WP:CALC. The tweets are from one of her accounts so they should be fully allowed as per WP:ABOUTSELF. Her saying her birthday was earlier in the week doesn't violate any of the five criteria there.

The YouTube video was the one I had to tweak after reviewing the WP:RSPYT link you provided. Normally, it would again be completely fine under WP:ABOUTSELF but WP:RSPYT does mention we shouldn't link to an unofficial account's upload of content. I do get that because of the copyvio concern, but imo making the content itself unusable as a source is silly, since it doesn't change the fact that the actual source still exists in some form. That said, WP:RSPYT and the related WP:COPYLINK, WP:VIDEOLINK, WP:YOUTUBE don't place a blanket ban on YouTube (or other) videos from being used as sources and instead, the spirit of their wording seems to allow for evaluating things on a case-by-case basis; in this case the usage of her appearance on Hasan's podcast should be fine as per WP:CALC and WP:ABOUTSELF, in the scenario that the link is an official one. So, I believe this can be remedied by still citing Hasan's podcast without using the link to the unofficial mirror upload on YouTube. I used the Cite podcast template (think this would be more fitting than the Cite interview one here), to make the linking here official. The only loose end here is that while all the info is correct (date, timestamp, etc.), the template needs a link and for now, I plugged in the link that goes to his channel page. Without a mirror upload and since Hasan's podcast is streamed, as opposed to uploaded via YouTube, I am unsure if I'd be able to find a link to the exact June 17, 2023 stream, though I will be looking for that. Soulbust (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Piker's podcast does not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF exceptions for Morgpie. She is not the publisher. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an issue with the guideline then. If we don't have a guideline that allows for a person's statements about themselves (given they don't violate those five criteria listed in WP:ABOUTSELF), on someone else's podcast (or interview platform, etc.), then that seems like a massive oversight and should maybe be addressed in some sort of official capacity. Idk if that's an RfC question or what, but using her saying she's 23 on Hasan Piker's podcast as a source for her own age definitely should be allowed in some way, and I think obviously falls within the spirit of ABOUTSELF.
Same goes for her interview on CamGirlAllAccess. I get that isn't an RS, but "questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". I would consider Morgpie's interview with CamGirlAllAccess a "questionable source" here, where she gives information about herself, in this context. Soulbust (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can confirm my intepretation of the WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSPS as not being satisfied when the subject participates with but does not publish the source at WP:BLPN or Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have questions on if your interpretation needs to be confirmed as valid or not. I get that she said it on his podcast, but really that just seems like a bureaucratic hold-up. That criteria/portion of WP:ABOUTSELF should be upheld to disallow blatant inaccuracies, cruft, or otherwise unencylcopedic information to be added, but I just have the viewpoint that using the Hasan podcast shouldn't be disallowed as a source entirely (and that some guideline or policy should be in place to allow) for something as simple and standard as her age being sourced when she herself was the one to share that info, particularly because it would otherwise be allowed as per it being in line with the 5 bullet points listed in WP:ABOUTSELF. Soulbust (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interview source

[edit]

@Morbidthoughts: The Cam Girl All Access source should be fine to include (WP:INTERVIEWS), if worded along the lines of: "She is also a pornographic film actress. In an interview, she stated she entered the industry as an amateur in 2019." WP:INTERVIEWS reasonably says that "No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material". Given the links to Morgpie's social media provided in the source are or were at the time legitimate links (i.e. her Twitter account at the time has since been suspended, though can be accessed through archived URLs, and her Reddit link still checks out, for example), there is confidence that the interview was legitimately conducted. I also don't think Cam Girl All Access being a questionable source comes into play here; again, WP:INTERVIEWS reasonably outlines the way in which interviews can be suitably treated as self-published material. Since, in my view, the information that would be cited doesn't violate the five criteria on WP:ABOUTSELF, paired with the fact it is an interview, this makes the source in line with that suitable treatment and I'll be restoring it. If you disagree with any of that, then obviously feel free to revert and further discuss.

As a side note, I think in theory, the Hasan stream can be perhaps considered an "interview"—at least for her age, since she shares it when prompted by Piker on how old she is; she shares she is from Texas but not in response to a question—though I wont restore that since I already brought that up as its own topic over at the WP:BLPN you linked me. I also think since it was a podcast/stream guest appearance and not truly a formal/standard interview like the Cam Girl All Access source is, that treating it like an interview would probably be stretching the spirit or intent of WP:INTERVIEWS. Soulbust (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

INTERVIEW is an essay, not wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:BLPSPS are. Further, INTERVIEW qualifies: "Publications with a reputation for reliability can usually be trusted to report their interviewees' words accurately and without embellishment, but there is no guarantee that other publications will do the same. For example, an interview posted on a blog could have altered the interviewee's words, or even be completely fictitious" and "If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties, and to cite opinions". CAMGIRLALLACCESS is not a RS and Hasan is at most WP:RSSELF. You need to stop reinstating BLP disputed edits you disagree with without correcting the issue or gaining consensus per WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am well aware it's an essay. Draft version of my comment actually noted that, along with my view that is reasonably outlined. Should still be considered because of how reasonable it is. I also read the further qualification, which I figured was pretty obviously in my statement "there is confidence that the interview was legitimately conducted". Your mention of the essay's "If the material is secondary..." sentence is irrelevant here, because facts about third parties nor opinions are being sourced.
My reinstatement was made well within the WP:CYCLE I linked. I'm actually putting in a lot of time and effort here to meet the "burden of proof" mentioned at WP:BLPUNDEL; and if you wanna in good faith suggest it, then sure, but "You need to stop" is a borderline command and I don't quite appreciate that to be honest, particularly being I'm not doing something malicious or out of bounds. You seem to be very keen on the most explicit and strict readings and implementation of WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:RSSELF, etc., which is fair enough, but then there doesn't really seem to be much flexibility here or much else I can do. I appreciate your points and disputes are in good faith, and that they have foundation in policy and guideline to them, but you're talking to me like my points are totally unfounded and that things like emphasizing "the spirit of the rule" or WP:5P5 don't exist. They do. I'm not adding some insane out-of-left field sourcing here about trivial fan cruft. It's direct quotes from interviews and from her own appearances about her age, where she is from, and her entry into adult industry that we're talking about here. There is nothing undue or self-serving there. Soulbust (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also brought up WP:QUESTIONABLE in your edit summary, saying that WP:INTERVIEW doesn't counter it. But, like I didn't bring that up. Nobody was trying to counter WP:QUESTIONABLE. By the way, that guideline does have some flexibility here: "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited" implies there is in fact some proper uses of a questionable source. I think this would be one of those cases, because of WP:INTERVIEW. Cam Girl All Access being "not RS" doesn't really matter if it's an interview, in the same way that Hasan Piker (and his stream) not being a reliable source doesn't matter if the intent here is to source something that would be in line with WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:INTERVIEW reasonably outlines and supposes that material originating from interviews can be regarded as WP:ABOUTSELF within reason, with care applied to the source. Yes I get it's an essay. But WP:BUREAUCRACY is policy. Ignoring rules is policy. So what does it matter if it's an essay? It makes sense, it's reasonable, and I only went looking for something like it because I couldn't find anything of substance pertaining to suitable usage of interview sources in the the current WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:BLPSPS, or WP:BLPSELFPUB policies and guidelines. And again, there's nothing undue nor self-serving being sourced from CGAA or the Hasan stream. So honestly, WP:IAR does really apply here, because the article is being made actively less comprehensive when we're removing sources that are citing her statements about herself either via interview or stream appearance. I don't really wanna get into this any further for the moment. I do think I'll let the BLPN discussion play out as it will, and perhaps this maybe becomes an RfC topic later on, but it's really late (early I guess now) where I am, and this just feels like having a bunch of blue links shoved in my face, and then in response, me having to go search for other blue links that might get my point across better than I can. Wikipedia is at its core just a hobby for me, and this type of back and forth makes it feel outside of that scope. Soulbust (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Morgpie&oldid=1287193332"