Talk:Shaylee Mansfield

Did you know nomination

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that at age 12, Shaylee Mansfield is the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the "audible" voice actors for a "sign over" performance in an animated production? Source: [1][2][3]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bartlet for America

Improved to Good Article status by Pamzeis (talk). Self-nominated at 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Pamzeis:, great article on a fascinating individual! Copyvio detector detects minor blips due to the quotes but they're adequately sourced and attributed. No glaring issues that I can point out, just a solid article overall, great work! Ornithoptera (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P2

+section

@Marie284, this is where we discuss the article.

You wrote: It is not about her interpreters and coaches, it is about a Deaf person career and it should stand on its own. As a Deaf person, some of your edits are considered culturally insensitive. Do want to make sure that it's clean from that by working with Deaf experts like myself who can support in reframing how it is structured or written. I only hope you would be understanding by removing some of the edits.

We can certainly talk about cultural insensitivity, as of course we'd prefer to avoid that when we can, but we don't actually care what an expert comes in and says. You could literally be anyone, and we don't try to operate from a position of expert authority here. Expert editors are at an advantage because they're in a position to know where to find the best sources, but that's about it.

What Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources say. I'm not sure I understand why interpreters/coaches is irrelevant here, as it's what the reliable sources are discussing. And frankly every actor has coaches, especially young ones, so I'm not sure how it's culturally insensitive, either. We can discuss how we present the information, but we can't just ignore the information a reliable source is providing. valereee (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marie284, you wrote:

@Valeree You could be anyone, too. Keep in mind that everyone is an expert - yours happen to be in this department while I am an expert when it comes to Deaf people, their language, culture, and community. The interpreters do not help with accuracy, only with accessibility. A huge difference. Unfortunately, articles/journalists outside of the Deaf community do not always get it correct. As for the ASL coaches, only one ASL coach was brought on board according to the end credits and trained the hearing actors/actresses not the Deaf actress in this case. In the industry, the term LEAD role is more appropriate than MAIN role. There are more articles about this: https://stylecaster.com/sofia-carson-feel-the-beat-netflix/ and https://www.respectability.org/2020/06/shaylee-mansfield-feel-the-beat/

Now that I've given two reliable sources, it'd be appreciated if it can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie284 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC) valereee (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marie284, yes, I could also be anyone, and that's why we don't give any authority to people who come in claiming to be experts. I don't claim any expertise in anything related to this article subject.

We report what reliable sources report about the article subject. That first article doesn't seem to say much about Mansfield (and not sure StyleCaster is a reliable source.) RespectAbility appears to be an advocacy group? I think you're saying that they're saying the coaches are there to ensure accuracy, which is what we seem to be saying already? I'm not sure what your objection is. They might be a RS for what a Deaf ASL dialogue coaches, sometimes described as “ASL Masters", are, although it would be tricky. We could maybe insert that into the ASL or related article, then link to it to explain what these coaches do. Although frankly after having gone through the article I think we may need to just remove everything that's sourced to that Forbes article, which is written by a "former contributor" which we try to avoid. valereee (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I can see that you're not 100% open-minded from seeing through a Deaf lens which requires shifting one's thinking and paradigm. Respectability is not only an advocacy organization, but holds partnerships with the world's leading film studios including Disney, Netflix, and the like. They've done a tremendous of articles that fits the criteria of what a reliable source is. Saving you time by providing the definition of reliable source:

"Widely credible sources include: Scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and books. Trade or professional articles or books. Magazine articles, books and newspaper articles from well-established companies."

Therefore, both are reliable. What are you waiting for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie284 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• I suspect that one of the causes of disagreement and misunderstanding in this subject is the US-centric nature of certain editors whenever the subject of Deaf culture arises. I have no personal experience of what happens to Deaf people in the US, but from these conversations I understand that the lucky ones have access to manufactured aids and systems, plus organised groups which assist in many ways, including supporting the growth of certain ideals regarding the respect which should be afforded to Deaf people by others.

All that is fine, and such people are fortunate. However that does not mean that any Deaf person who has such good fortune is a world expert on what it is like to be non-hearing. My case is the opposite of yours, Marie284. I probably became roughly three-quarters deaf around 1955 when I had measles and pneumonia and nearly died. I also lost approx three-quarters of my sight at the same time. I have never had any support or acknowledgement of this, due to the attitude of my mother, to whom disability was something to be denied. Thus I learned to "pass" as a hearing and seeing person.

But can I really understand as much as a quarter of speech on radio and tv? Actually, no. If I stop using the techniquies that I have learned since 1955, and consciously listen to, say, a political speech on tv, what I hear is the musicality of a muffled humming sound, with no consonants, and only some recognisable vowels. So I cannot expect to consciously work out any words. I have to make my mind blank in order to allow my subconscious to guess any meanings, using long experience which allows an element of prediction.

Although the country where I live has a long-established tradition of organised assistance for the deaf, and probably has the same manufactured aid systems that the US has, I have never accessed them, having learned to live my life in this way. Now, for sure I am not the only person in the world in this position - in fact I would guess that many of Wikipedia's readers have not had access to US hearing assistance systems, or to the US ideals as to how Deaf people should be treated or want to be treated. My lifestyle demands that I be treated just like everyone else.

So, to my understanding, it's fine if you have learned to live your life according to US Deaf politics, but many of those who don't understand your ways may be just as non-hearing as you are. There is no worldwide Us and Them between deaf and hearing people. There are just people with many kinds of experiences, and there are no experts who can understand or represent all of us in any way whatsoever - to assume such status would be arrogant. Storye book (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Marie284, please WP:assume good faith. It is one of our most basic policies. You can sign your posts by ending them with four tildes like this: ~~~~ It helps other editors follow the conversation.

Just because an organization does good work/has connections does not make them a reliable source for everything they write. Stylecaster appears to be a blog, which is usually not RS. So that's what I'm waiting for.

Now, if you'd like to propose a change and provide the source for that change, I'm happy to look at it (although I'm quite busy this week, so you'll need to be patient). Please don't just point me at a website; I don't have time to try to figure out what you think is the statement you believe is supporting your proposed change. Ditto an article unless it's short and very clearly supports exactly what you're asking for. valereee (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon Valeree. What about Respectability's article that I shared with you? - they are reliable and have writers writing about disabled actors. It would be more than appreciative if that specific sentence to be revised to an ASL consultant from many interpreters and coaches when you have a moment. Marie284 (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Marie284, what about RA's article? On a quick reskim, it doesn't even mention Madagascar or consultant. It seems to be talking in general terms about what best practices are. You want us to replace:

The production hired multiple ASL interpreters and coaches to ensure accuracy.

with

The production hired an ASL consultant to ensure accuracy.

Is that correct? And you believe this can be sourced to RA, even though they never mentioned the movie or consultants? They do mention coaches, btw, eight times, although (again from a quick skim) not for the show we're talking about. I'm a bit at a loss to understand what it is you're trying to accomplish. valereee (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"Former YouTuber" in TFA blurb

Today's TFA blurb uses the phrase "former Youtuber", but this article does not use the phrase or put that in past tense. Which is correct? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The word "former" was removed by Vaughan J. about an hour before you asked.[4] A few minutes earlier, the sentence had been tagged as needing a citation by Great Mercian.[5] Neither changes came with any additional explanation. I have put it back into its original state, asking for it to be discussed here. I don't know which is correct, but either way, this needs to be clarified, so I tagged it as "clarification needed" and linked here. Renerpho (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If "former" is correct then the article has to say something about her (no longer existing?) YouTube channel, and what she did there. If "former" is wrong then the article needs to explain in what way she is a YouTuber. Her parents are, according to the early life and YouTube videos section, but that's not what the lede claims. See also User talk:Pamzeis#shaylee mansfield for previous discussion of this question, from a few days ago. As mentioned there, the source [6] calls her a "former YouTuber". However, against the conclusion reached in that discussion, I don't think that's sufficient, and more explanation is needed in this article. Renerpho (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@Renerpho, here is the ASL Nook YouTube channel for reference and in case someone needs it. [7] She appears in the videos, and their last video was published in January 2021. [8], thanks for all of you for being part of this discussion. Per the above YouTube links, she used her family's YouTube channel. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 03:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

@TechGeek105: Thanks for the links. Considering this has now caused confusion several times over the past few days (once for The_ed17 here, once on Pamzeis's user page, and once for me when I came here to ask the same question), I think the article needs to mention all of this explicitly -- that she did her "youtubing" on her family's channel, that the channel has been inactive for a number of years, and that there are sources that explicitly describe her as a former YouTuber. Maybe we should also consider having a citation at "former" in the lede (cinemablend seems a good choice). I am not very familiar with the exact definition of "YouTuber", but I find it odd that she would be considered a YouTuber (rather than her parents who have been running the channel). If the term is usually understood to include such cases then that's not an issue. Renerpho (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

To add to that last point: YouTuber defines it as an influencer who is typically posting to their personal YouTube channel. There is nothing in that article to further explain what "personal YouTube channel" means or what qualifies as "typical", but I find it not obvious how it would include the channel run by someone's parents (regardless of the importance of Shaylee's work, which is not in question). Maybe this is an edge case, possibly due to her young age, but it needs to be made clear what this is supposed to mean. I was considering to just write that she is a YouTuber who posted on her parent's channel, but honestly I think that's already WP:SYNTH without a reference. Renerpho (talk) 05:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I would consider the YouTuber the personality of the channel, even if it's run by someone else, since viewers would be familiar with the face of the channel. However, I don't know what the sources actually say. May be worth discussing over at Talk:YouTuber. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Passerby comment: I'd say that she is a YouTube personality, since her parents run the channel (as evident by the new current name), and that she is merely the icon. A YouTuber "creates and uploads videos", and if her parents run the channel that means Shaylee does not upload the videos. Similar to how she is a TV personality, not a TV series creator. GeraldWL 09:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Birth date?

This article mentions its subject was born deaf, but does not say when. It only hints at the year. Surely this information for a living American is out there. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia says 6th April 2009; and indicates sources Roseberyxxx (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Date of birth was removed from the article here. The citation of MOS:DOB seemed odd to me because it says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" and the information cited came from Ms Mansfield, while WP:BLPPRIMARY deals with public records that include personal details, not with someone who themselves chooses to put the information out there, almost certainly with parental consent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and so I've restored the information. WP:BLPPRIVACY speaks directly to this situation, as the Instagram post is clearly a "source linked to the subject" and shows that "the subject does not object to the details being made public." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we really not do better than Instagram as a source for a crucial biographical detail in a featured article? If that's the best source we can get, I'm inclined to say the information should not be in the encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, people have been found not to publish accurate age data on personal webpages multiple times. We should only include this based on independent reliable sources. Tvx1 08:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If we remove it from the lede because the source is considered unreliable, why don't we remove it from the Life and career section, too? Renerpho (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) I went ahead and removed it boldly. Renerpho (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC) I just noticed that The_ed17 had added the DOB to the lede and infobox again on 23 September. Since discussion about this isn't over, and the most recent responses tend to removing it, I have done just that. Renerpho (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Is that based in a policy, guideline, or elsewhere? I'm not sure I'm inclined to follow that without a demonstrated consensus that contradicts WP:BLPPRIVACY, which is policy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Well of course, WP:Reliable sources. Tvx1 08:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

All the wikipedias that Shaylee Mansfield has says that she was born on April 6,2009.The Famous Birthdays says this too.Can it add that she was born on April 6,2009? Soy Pau ♥️♥️ (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

FA concerns

First of all, I have no wish to denigrate the subject of this article, nor the author of it who has put together a very well written piece based on the information available. However, I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria, particularly 1b, c, and d.

• 1b requires that the article be comprehensive and that "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". I would argue that it's not actually possible to place a 14-year-old Internet personality in context. But if it were, this article does not. It is heavily bulked out with quotes but says very little about the subject. When the quotes are taken out, its essentially a list of her roles. Even a detail as basic as her date of birth is being disputed because the only source we have for it is an Instagram post. The article does not say whether her deafness is hereditary or what the cause is; whether her parents were born deaf or lost their hearing later in life; her opinions on/membership of the deaf community/use of hearing devices; whether she considers deafness a disability. There's no mention of whether she or her parents make money from their activities and how much. There's no information on most of the parts she's played or documentaries she's featured in beyond a cursory description.
• 1c requires that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" (emphasis mine). I don't see any of those in this article discussing the subject more than in passing. The article is based largely on tabloidy entertainment websites; there's not a single book or journal article cited. There aren't even any national newspapers other than what looks like a passing mention in the New York Times. E!, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Entertainment Weekly, etc have their place but they are not, in my opinion, the high-quality sources a featured article should be based on.
• 1d requires neutrality but because there is so little to say about the subject the article is entirely uncritical, almost hagiographical, because most of the sources boil down to "look at this cute little girl signing".

As I say, not a criticism of the subject or the author but there simply isn't enough here to sustain an FA in my view and this should have been picked up at FAC rather than the article being waved through. I will leave this for a little while to hear other opinions but I will probably take it to FAR. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, I have to agree with you. I don't know if the article just didn't get the necessary care at FAC. Maybe there are lots of good sources. Surely there are journal articles about someone as notable as her? She has been active long enough to make it into books, too, not just tabloid newspapers. In that case it is as simple as replacing the sources we have. An FAR may be productive, and may result in the article retaining its status. I'd like to read Pamzeis's opinion about the sourcing issue. Resolving the content issues (especially neutrality) would have to follow from resolving that. I see no way to make the article neutral with just the kind of sources that are currently used. Renerpho (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the general question of whether this meets the FA criteria, but it does seem like a good time to note that the first line in WP:NPOV gives its definition as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If there are no uncritical sources out there, we are in line with NPOV. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The article itself says that some of the things she was in attracted less-than-complimentary reviews. Including criticism of a show in general would probably be disproportionate in such a thin article but that's partly my point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

"Hearing" vs. "able to hear"

There's an apparent edit war going on right now, about whether the word "hearing" can be used as an adjective (an antonym of "deaf"). Relevant revisions: [9][10][11][12][13][14] I would strongly suggest that we, especially Tvx1 and HJ Mitchell, discuss it here before making any more reverts. Renerpho (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted once because I thought Tvx was misunderstanding. I don't feel qualified to comment beyond that and it's clear that Tvx understands but disagrees. A discussion would be good but I have very little to contribute to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As you say can, this a very uncommon usage though and not what most people would assume it is. To most it looks like nothing more than a continuous verb tense construction, which is incorrect for what is attempted to be told here. Hence I changed it to something that use a correct tense and has no potential for confusing. I honestly cannot understand why this is made to be such a drama. Moreover, I had aleady woked things out with the user who initially reverted me on their talk page, so HJ Mitchell’s invention was completely unnecessary. Tvx1 11:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Did not see this until after the edit I just made (which split the difference and went for "not deaf" which I think reads better), but I need to note that "hearing" as an adjective is not uncommon in the Deaf community (though the potential for confusion among someone unfamiliar with that usage made me not want to use it without an adequate linked explanation--hearing (person) exists and is linked from the hearing disambiguation page, but it redirects to the full article for deaf culture which I didn't think would be elucidating for that purpose). It looks like the edit war from September died, but I wanted to note that I did this without realizing this section was here, anyway, even if I don't know that "is not deaf" would receive the same divided reception the two terms being discussed here did. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shaylee Mansfield/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Idiosincrático (talk · contribs) 03:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to quick pass this article. I've monitored the FAR & TFA from YouTube WikiProject and it is a more than satisfactory article for GA status. That being said, I imagine the article still probably remains unsatisfactory for FA status and will need a more thorough review if nominated. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.