Talk:Erica Andrews

Age

There seems to be an inconsistency on Erica Andrews' birth year and age. In the article used as a citation for her birth year (http://missosology.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=184406), it is stated that she is 53 but yet in the same article, it is said she is in her 40s. So which is her age? Lightspeedx (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Most sources say she was in her early 40's, estimated around 1970 for birth. 1960 does seem too early. JanetWand (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Her birthdate was mentioned by Kourtney Devereaux speaking at the memorial event held in Erica's honor on March 28, 2013 at Crockett Park in San Antonio. JanetWand (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing & other stuff

MySpace is not acceptable. Neither is some of the over the top language such as "renowned" without a RS making that statement.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the article by Julian Ledezma. He CLEARLY states that her performances are well-known. http://sacurrent.com/arts/visualart/erica-andrews-sa-39-s-brightest-lgbt-star-is-gone-1.1460126 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightspeedx (talk • contribs) 05:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And? We still should avoid such words as "renowned" in favor of neutral phrasing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I just took a look through the sourcing and it appears we have entire sections of this article that fail to have any reliable sources backing up the information contained within. the "live performance" section is particularly bad, and we have some sections that even the primary sources don't check out "she appeared three times on the Maury show" is backed up by a few photographs. I'm not saying we need to delete this article, but some reliable sources need to be found for these sections.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Erica Andrews was on the Maury Povich show. If you bother to watch the YouTube videos of her in his show, you will see that. Now if you want to dispute that was indeed Erica Andrews in the show, then that's YOUR perception. In her interview, she clearly said she had been on the Maury Povich interview multiple times. Coffeepusher, I see from your page that you frequently engage in edit wars with people. I'm not sure what your motivations are to engage in one here. Lightspeedx (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia CLEARLY states here that while self-published sources are not the best sources, they can be used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Read the bullet point about there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. The fact that Erica Andrews DID host a Thursday show named Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews is a FACT. I have BEEN to that show as have thousands of people to the Heat and later the Pegasus club in San Antonio. This show is not some made up fictional claim.

Erica Andrews also did collaborate with the late Tandi Andrews and the late Ariel Andrews on a show named Tandi's T.E.A. This is noted in the MySpace article and the name of the show was continued by Erica Andrews in later years. Again, hundreds or of if not thousands of people knew of this show named Tandi's T.E.A. as they went to it. In the later years, Tandi's T.E.A. was more of an AKA for the show's named. The actual show's name was Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews. The MySpace page for the show is not exceptional in its claim, there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity as it was an actual fact that there was a show and the background information is well known to hundreds of people.

   * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Given such, citing the MySpace article as well as the Montrose Star's event listing is a source and their authenticity is not in doubt given that THOUSANDS of people have been to the actual shows to see Erica Andrews in performance. You obviously need to read Wikipedia's rules about sources in this matter. The information about Erica Andrews show needs to be replaced back into the article. Lightspeedx (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

you need to strike your accusation about me engaging in edit wars because it is incorrect, that template was given to me by a now banned editor because of that incident. So what you have found is I don't blank my talk page. So look through my archives and see how many warning templates I have received and kindly strike your false accusation.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not interested in an edit war with you. I had based my words on what I saw on your page. Now, if all that was said of you by others is untrue, then I apologize. I am keenly aware of sourcing correctly. I would prefer to use strong 3rd party sources for any article but at times, there are none to be found but the information known is factual as witnessed by hundreds and/or thousands of people who have been to the events. Just because an event was not well mentioned does not make it untrue. Again, read the Wikipedia rule about "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). MySpace, Facebook and other social media or Web sites can be used as long as they are not the primary source for an entire article. The Erica Andrews article does not solely rest on such sources. It does source 3rd party articles/publications as well as actual video footage found/shared on YouTube. The information about Erica Andrews' shows in San Antonio needs to be reverted back based on its source verification off MySpace and Montrose Star. Event playbills by a 3rd party publication like Montrose Star is a source as it proves that there was such an event as opposed to pure fiction (no such event). Lightspeedx (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to your claims about Erica Andrews' participation in the Maury Povich shows. She was in his shows. The footage is on YouTube. She can be CLEARLY seen in the show as a guest. She was also a make-up consultant on the show. This is an ACTUAL fact as mentioned many times in articles about Erica Andrews. She mentioned in her interview that she had been on his show 3 times - this is where I had noted the number of times. I have been able to find 2 out of the 3 video footage of her in his shows. I have written to the Maury Povich show to request for help to locate the 3rd. Lightspeedx (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

your comment stands unstruck.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Kindly strike through your comment.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have performed a strike through of my comment on your page. I am going to replace the information about Erica Andrews' Thursday show back into the article noting citation from MySpace, Montrose Star following Wikipedia's citation rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). I am not interested in engaging in an edit war with you or anyone. Further 2nd and 3rd party citation sources for this information would be welcomed but not a requirement according to Wikipedia's citation rules. The information does not conflict with Wikipedia's citation rules. Social networking sources like MySpace, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter and even Web sites are allowable.

Don't do that. You have two editors objecting to this source because it is not verifiable. Find some reliable soures and it can stay.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm also objecting to this information because of WP:WEIGHT, while the T.E.A. party may have been a reoccurring event, if we cannot find references in reliable sources then it was just a local event which never entered into the larger conversation considering the Andrews. We don't need to puff up this article with a bunch of un-encyclopedic information.Coffeepusher (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it was NOT called the T.E.A. Party. The revival of the original show was a weekly Thursday show went on for YEARS at the Heat nightclub and later, it was moved to the Pegasus. T.E.A was the alias name of the revised show. The revised show's name of the show was Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews. That is FACT. The Montrose Star published the weekly listing of the show and called it by its original name T.E.A. Contacting the Heat nightclub and the Pegasus nightclub in San Antonio can give you that real life detailed information if you dispute everything that is mentioned. Though this article here does not mention the name of the show, it states clearly she held a weekly show in San Antonio. That weekly show took place on Thursday evenings. http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Female-illusionist-a-star-who-paved-way-for-others-4352846.php

Though you may argue that this is just YouTube, this clip shows/documents Erica Andrews and the rest of her cast for the Thursday night show (Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews) at the Heat. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlHcedNRGn4

In this interview, Erica Andrews mentions (very last paragraph) about a Thursday evening show at the Heat. This show was the Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews. http://www2.sacurrent.com/arts/story.asp?id=71244

Lightspeedx (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake it isnt' the tea party. Now again my main concern is WP:WEIGHT here. If the only sources that talk about it are not reliable sources and are all self published then the event didn't make enough of an impact to merit inclusion into a encyclopedia article.

Right now it appears that there is a lot of information that isn't backed up by reliable sourcing, and by WP:BLP this needs to be removed.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Some comments to Lightspeedx

I know you mean well, but please settle down. No one is on a venentta against you or Andrews. While I appreciate the fact that you are reading wikipedia policies, you need to understand that this is a collaborative project and that we all need to work together. You can't just say "this is the policy, and this is how it's going to be" and then edit how you please. You need to convince others that your position is the correct one. Suffice it to say, you are really off base with your interpretation of what sources are acceptable. Please read WP:RS which describes reliable sources in detail. Also please read WP:SPS which describes self-published sources. Blogs, 3rd party websites, etc. all fall under WP:SPS. Furthermore we can only use SPS from the subject herself if we can be reasonably sure that the SPS actually belonged to the subject and any claims that are made are attributed to the subject. Using the subject's sites to claim that she did A,B and C, should only be used in very limited circumstances. Why? Because people often make claims about their accomplishments that aren't accurate. I'm not claiming that Andrews did anything of the sort, but it is all too common. This is the same reason we can't use someone's cv as a SPS, other than for very basic "facts" like the spelling of their name and other minutia. Unfortunately many of the sources I've glanced at do not meet the definition of a reliable source. Sources like the NYT are almost always reliable. CarrieField.com is not. Neither is 28dayslateranalysis. Nor draghistory.webs.com. All of those have to go and be replaced by a WP:RS, and lieu of that the information it references needs to be deleted. I'm sure if you are willing to work with Coffeepusher and myself you will find this experience more rewarding and you will come to realize that we have built an article you can be proud of.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Off-base? Citing a Wikipedia article of its own rules in plain black and white is off-base? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Did you bother to even read that citation rule? In the spirit of Wikipedia, please stop with the name calling. Please follow #2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). I pointed you back repeatedly to Wikipedia's own rules. You have yet to present back with a valid argument based on Wikipedia's own rules. You seem to be hung on insisting that the information Erica Andrews is deleted DESPITE someone telling you that the type of source is allowed. Given your actions, there must be additional reasons beyond the source type. Or if the source type really irks you, then separate the 2 and argue your dislike of such source types as social media/blogs/Web sites to the Wikipedia citation committee. Get them to change their rules holistically for ALL Wikipedia articles. This Erica Andrews article is not the ground for an argument of this nature about citation source types. It merely follows rules set forth by Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules change frequently and most times, it changes to fit contemporary needs. Years ago, there were no social media sites or blogs, so such source types may not be usable. Today, usage of social media as a source is extremely pervasive and is used by main stream news outlets and even "leading" publications like the New York Times, etc. Wikipedia's rules no doubt reflect these contemporary changes. I play no part in making such Wikipedia rules up. In fact, I am not even interested in arguing about the types of sources they they allow. I merely follow their rules as indicated on their citation rules pages such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). I have also pointed back to you of Wikipedia's suggested rules on removal of information. You deleted information without even bothering to discuss first of why you did it. See rule #7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). As point #7 clearly says "bear in mind that others may find something useful in what you remove". The information you removed were data points that the late Erica Andrews' fans and strangers interested in her background would have found interesting as it gave context to the origins of her Thursday evening show. It described of her partnership with her late drag mother, Tandi Andrews and her late drag sister, Ariel Andrews. It sets up the context as to why Erica Andrews reprised her Thursday show. This is background information that you may perhaps not realize the significance of unless you followed Erica Andrews' career and life online and offline. Wikipedia is a living entity, not some printed archived entity that is detached from real life. I can tell you that in real life, for those that did know Erica Andrews personally intimately and from afar that the significance of her relationship with Tandi Andrews and why she continued with the show years later is there. Can I prove the importance of that show in writing with written sources all over to you? I don't think I or anyone can. It's just knowledge you have when you knew the person's professional and personal background offline. It's a known thing through social research and social knowledge of the Tandi Andrews-Erica Andrews relationship. Is social research and information known from offline sources important? Yes, it is as it can be the reason why you go find sources to prove the point. The MySpace article PROVES this point and it validates the offline knowledge possessed by hundreds or if not thousands of people who knew the late Erica Andrews. You mentioned about collaboration. Perhaps you might intend to collaborate but the approach you took is very wrong when you delete information without really understanding why the information was noted there by the author - Point #7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). When I take steps back to look at the bigger picture, I cannot but help see that the arguments has nothing to even do with the Erica Andrews article, or Erica Andrews the entertainer's data points. The argument centers on usage of source types. Given so, I will request that you argue the point about source types with Wikipedia's citation committee. This is truly not the battle ground or precedent case for the usage of such source types as blogs, social media sites, etc. Present your personal views about what you feel about the validity of such source types to Wikipedia. See if they will listen to you or perhaps if you will listen to them. Either way, this is not the article for a battleground discussion between me and you about source types. It is not a topic I am interested in arguing about. Source given for information on the page, issue closed. Your disagreement about the allowance of such source types are use. Noted. Citation of Wikipedia's rules governing usage of social media sites are given, issue closed. Now let's move on to other stub articles that are in dismal state that truly require LOTS of help to construct. There are TONS out there that can use your time or my time constructively.

Lightspeedx (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightspeedx, we are trying to work with you within the regulations of wikipedia. please read wikipedia's original research policy. It isn't wikipedia's job to bring together information from personal friends and testimonials from people close to her, we are here to build an encyclopedia. We have both read the policies you have put forth, and both agree that within reason those things can be placed inside an article, the problem we are having is that a significant amount of material in this article relies entirely on blogs, and primary sources. This isn't acceptable. Her myspace is there to give the personal information so that these things can be on the internet, but wikipedia holds a different standard for which information should be included.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The SPS MySpace ref is self serving because it is being used to cite accomplishments of the subject. Whether or not these accomplishments are known by thousands of people is irrelevant. We need a RS to make these claims.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ALL Web sites, ALL social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace are self-serving. No one puts one up about themselves or their companies without it being self-serving. That's just the nature of social media sites. They are used by people to disseminate information about themselves. So the point of arguing on self-serving or not about such sites is really pointless. The bottom line is Wikipedia allows for usage of such source types. You have can keep arguing in round robin fashion pressing point by point to refute this but until you get the Wikipedia citation committee to change this, such source types can and will be used and not only by this article but by hundreds and thousands of others. Question for you - have you bothered to fight as furiously to disagree about the usage of such source types on those hundreds or thousands of other Wikipedia articles? Lightspeedx (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

that is the point we are making. The requirements you have laid out to us on multiple occasions start with "1. the material is neither unduly self-serving or an exceptional claim." That is why social networking sites are not usually used on wikipedia. The only times I am comfortable about using them is when it deals with minor details, not when it is being used to transpose promotional information from a social networking site to an encyclopedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We (Coffeepusher & I) understand your frustration at how the "rules" appear to you, and how we are interpreting them. I can assure you that other experienced editors will sing the same tune about soucring requirements. If you like, you could ask for assistance from other editors and get their opinion. Neither Coffeepusher nor I would be offended. A good place to start would be over at the WP:Teahouse. There are only a few outcomes to this "problem" we are having. Either we gain wp:consensus (please read that!) or we go to some form of dispute resolution to get others to sound off on this article. But the one thing we can't do is edit-war. I noticed that Coffeepusher gave you a warning already on your talkpage. If edit wars continue, then at some point an administrator (neither Coffepusher or myself are admins) will step in and he/she may decide to block editors who are being wp:disruptive to the editing process. Let's try to avoid that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely concur, but I also believe that, especially in cases like this, if we go to dispute resolution the party who is in the "minority" (please read that as three editors are active and two are in agreement about a situation, so the other editor is in the "minority" I mean nothing else by it) should do the request. The reason for this is because I want to make sure that you are satisfied with the way your voice is heard, and I think it is important that everyone feels it is being handled properly. I noticed that you may not have done dispute resolution in the past, we are happy to help you in this process.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thursday Evening Show at the Heat (later Pegasus)

This section below should be returned to the article as it gives context as to how the show came about and who founded it. Erica Andrews had significant presence in San Antonio as that was her home town. The Thursday evening show was quite well known among the LGBT community in San Antonio. Not giving content or historical background as to how the show came about is an error. The section cites the MySpace page on the Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews as well as the Montrose Star's event listing showing the alternate name for the show. Historical background information for the show gives context to its present day value. Citation usage of MySpace and the Montrose Star falls in line with Wikipedia's rules. See: Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves).

She had hosted her own show on Thursday evenings at the Heat Nightclub and later at the Pegasus Nightclub in San Antonio called Thirsty Thursdays Trashy Trannies with Erica Andrews (aka Tandi's T.E.A.) which began on February 19, 2008. Andrews had carried on the tradition of the Thursday evening show from Tandi Andrews. In 1990, Tandi Andrews teamed up with Erica Andrews and Ariel Andrews (Tandi's other drag daughter and Erica's drag sister) and jointly held a Thursday evening show at a nightclub in San Antonio. At the time, their Thursday evening show was called Tandi's T.E.A. The T.E.A. stood for Tandi, Erica and Ariel.

Lightspeedx (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

as stated above, in addition to having no mention in reliable sources, it doesn't appear that this event was anything more than a local promotion. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As you are no doubt concerned with authenticity, you can also do research to find more sourcing. Repeatedly, I have told you that while you personally may disagree with the type of source, the type of source (social media, Web sites, blogs) are allowed by Wikipedia. If you hate the type of source, then take your grievance up to the Wikipedia team responsible for making such rules and argue it with them, insist on the changes and see if they agree with you. Should they do, no doubt that the effects would be expansive as hundreds, if not thousands of Wikipedia articles would be heavily affected. When this argument started about type of sourcing, you insisted that you were right that social media sites like MySpace was not allowed and I proved you wrong by quoting verbatim back to you of Wikipedia's rules. Now you are doing another loop by insisting that there are other sources. Wikipedia's citation rules do NOT request for multiple sources if a leading source has already been given/proven to you even if it's personally something you may prefer. What you personally prefer is DIFFERENT from what Wikipedia's citation rules state. I pointed to you that you have been wrong. Please kindly abide to Point #12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot). We learn every day about what's in or out from Wikipedia and while I too may personally prefer other sources beyond social media or blogs or Web sites, it does not mean they are not allowed by Wikipedia as a leading source and I am NOT going to argue with Wikipedia's rules on this matter as I have no interest to change Wikipedia's citation rules. In bullets #1, #3 #4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves) it clearly STATES that as long as there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the information; does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; then the said information can be used. The information about this show isn't self-promotional. The individual Erica Andrews is deceased, there is NO more commercial value to promote this event other than stating it on record in her biographical Wikipedia entry that she did perform such a show on a weekly basis and it was an important show for her and of how the show originated. The information has VALUE about her because of her presence as an entertainer in San Antonio's LGBT circuit. If this were a show in any other town (and she did perform at many shows in other towns), I would fully agree that the information has no real value beyond just padding. Why are you stuck on objecting to this information? If the basis for your argument is the source type, then I repeat yet again - read Wikipedia's citation rules. Lightspeedx (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightspeedx, just like ‎Little green rosetta said above, this is a collaborative project and no one is trying to undermine your efforts, but there are things that are concerning with this article, one is the sudden reliance on the policy you quoted above to insert a lot of information about the artist. Little green rosetta stated it clearly above why this is objectonable, and I am not convinced that a lot of this information holds up to WP:WEIGHT, particularly the T.E.A. entry which may be significant in the San Antonio queer scene, but it failed to generate any WP:RS which shows that its impact was minimal and does basically pad the article. pleas work with us on this, and bring this article up to wikipedia's WP:BLP standards.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Coffeepusher: I have repeatedly been trying to collaborate with you. In fact in good grace, I had even apologized to you even though you have not done the same to me when you accused me of things I am not or haven't done pertaining to my intentions (this is off the statement you wrote on your personal Talk page). You made this very personal. I mentioned about an edit war which I repeatedly said I wasn't interested in with you or Little green rosetta. The point you repeatedly FAIL to hear is I do agree with you on a personal basis that it would be great if we can all find much better sources of information beyond a Facebook page or MySpace page or whatever social media page for any given article. The reality is sometimes there's just none other but a social media page to be used for information. The information is sourced to that MySpace page and I'm sure you will agree with me that anyone who reads a particular article does look at the source info and if they saw that it came from a Facebook or MySpace or Tumblr or whatever blog or Web site that might choose to doubt it or may choose to believe it. Even information published in New York Times can be doubted by anyone who wants to doubt as you know. The discussion we should all have here is not about the type of source used because I have showed you that Wikipedia allows it. So it's a pointless argument to make here. As mentioned, make your grievance about usage of such source types to Wikipedia holistically. I would rather have a discussion if the information has context to Erica Andrews, adds value and if it were false information. I would argue that the information has tremendous context to the individual Erica Andrews. It adds value to a readers who reads it as it gives historical context to the origins of her Thursday show. And is the information false or lies or exaggeration? No it is not. If the information has no value and no context, then really, I wouldn't even bother to argue with you as I'd likely be the first to say strike it - no matter even if its source is from from so-called notable source. Lightspeedx (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually struck the comment so I am not sure what kind of an apology you need to be satisfied. Would you please address the problem of WP:WEIGHT since we have been working on sourcing above but the weight concerns stands unanswered.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

the thing is that sourcing isn't the only thing on wikipedia, the WP:WEIGHT requirements give us information on how much space we should allow for in each article. Right now this information is not in any reliable sources, so wikipedia shouldn't give it the same importance as information that is in reliable sources.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

In regards to WP:WEIGHT pertaining to if this view of the Thursday evening show's background information is a minority view or extraordinary claim. It is not. The information clearly builds data points as to how Erica Andrews' Thursday show (before her death) came about. Her Thursday evening show was very notable in the San Antonio LGBT circuit. She had her show at The Saint, then the Heat, then at the Pegasus. The locale changed but the concept of the show remained the same. It is NOT a minority or my personal view that her Thursday evening show is significant. The Thursday evening show was very popular, attended by hundreds, if not thousands of people over the years. Thousands of people made it to her shows over the years. Thousands of people attending Erica Andrews' show over the years does not equate to a minority view or minority event. The SA Current and the Montrose Rose did mention in their event listing of her Thursday show. These newspapers would not be publishing insignificant shows in any locale. The information I tried to publish gives historical background as to how it originated and its link to Tandi Andrews, her late drag mother. Current existing online information on Tandi Andrews is very scarce. It does not mean Tandi Andrews the person was insignificant. Such online information may have been taken down over time since it's been more than a decade since her death. Tandi Andrews died circa 1999. Tandi Andrews was a very significant influence in Erica Andrews' life. See http://sacurrent.com/arts/visualart/erica-andrews-sa-39-s-brightest-lgbt-star-is-gone-1.1460126 Tandi Andrews was also a very known individual in the San Antonio LGBT circuit when she was alive. Mentioning of the T.E.A. show and how it came about and why Erica reprised the show is important as it gives historical context to Erica Andrews' career, to the live performances she held and it is considered part of the San Antonio LGBT history. Tandi Andrews, Erica Andrews, that Thursday evening show (T.E.A. and its change of name later) is part of San Antonio's LGBT history. Lightspeedx (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

you read past it "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" that is actually the policyCoffeepusher (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And now you're looping back to the SAME argument. This is really ridiculous to go in circles. It may be YOUR POV that Montrose Star (http://www.montrose-star.com/) is insignificant and maybe their circulation is not in numbers that the New York Times has but they are still a newspaper/publication and they are significant to the LGBT community. They published a listing of that show. You can keep arguing the insignificance of the information and I will keep arguing for the significance. There is no obviously no end to this. There is no spirit of listening or cooperation or even joint research. You clearly want other authors to agree with me before you will hear. This is not difficult to achieve if that is your measure and terms of agreement. I am done arguing with you on this matter. The article is not owned by you or me. The information is significant as it bears weight on San Antonio's LGBT history, not my POV, not based off lies, type of source is allowable by Wikipedia. Issue closed. It's pointless to be in a looped discussion or argument as it goes nowhere. No one wins. The article loses. The context and issue at heart is obviously lost in all this argument as never once have I even heard you repeat back to me that you understand what I am trying to communicate to you regarding the significance and context of the information. Repeatedly, we are looping around type of source needed argued in multiple directions. Yes we should challenge sources and ensure Wikipedia articles are written well. But even Wikipedia itself has its fluidity in rules because it understands context, background and more than anything, it understands that there are lots of influence and background information that cannot be given to you in printed black and white but it does NOT mean the information is insignificant. Information known real life plays a huge part in building that context. There's a lot of gossip information out there about Erica Andrews I have not suggested to be included because it's obvious such information is pure gossip, likely even malicious and dubious at best as to their source and yes, it's all on blogs, social sites. There needs to be logical trust here made that the information published about Erica Andrews' Thursday show does not fall into that kind of category. Seriously - If you want to help edit other stub articles or challenge their sources, let me know as I can give you a listing of a few that desperately need help. Lightspeedx (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. I read with great interest of the discussion here about Erica Andrews' Thursday night show's origin. I knew Erica Andrews before she passed away. I can attest to that this Thursday show and its origins played a significant context in Erica's career and should be mentioned in the article. This is most definitely not a point of view from one person and it isn't marginalized or insignificant information. All the nightclubs that Erica performed in at San Antonio can readily share detailed information. Unfortunately, the information is not published by is captured in bar brochures, leaflets, Facebook, MySpace, etc. Erica Andrews spent a significant amount of years in San Antonio. The LGBT community in San Antonio knew Erica Andrews as well as Tandi Andrews. I personally knew the bar owners who hired Erica Andrews. As a Wikipedian and contributor, I am in support of adding the background information of the foundation of the Thursday evening show as it relates to Tandi Andrews (T.E.A show). It creates for good supportive background information about how the Thursday evening show came about. Over the course of a 20+ year old career, Erica performed across the country in many renowned nightclubs but her focus and priorities were always on the Thursday evening show at the Saint, later the Heat and then Pegasus. Outside of the confines of Wikipedia, you can EASILY cross-verify all these data points from interviewing or talking to people who owned or managed these nightclubs of how the shows came about. While you may consider such sources as "hearsay", they do lend their weight toward verifying the content, the context and the truth behind the information. If you are looking for hard core printed source verification, you will never really find it and it's not just for Erica Andrews but a lot of other LGBT performers. Most LGBT publications are small, sometimes blog-based today and rely greatly on social media sites. Unfortunately the LGBT community's activities do not garner headline news from mainstream news sources. It does not mean that the individual's life or events about them is insignificant. You would be wrong to think as such. You have to look at things from a case by case basis. Erica Andrews was a very significant figure within the LGBT drag world. Her achievements are very well-known by thousands of people, even if there aren't always a lot of printed material that can be sourced. This is the a result of the short-comings of the LGBT publication coverage. That's a whole other topic to discuss about. You should not repress information that is significant just because the information doesn't meet up to your standards of renowned sources like the New York Times or Washington Post. I am not interested in an argument. I am here to contribute my opinion and views about the information that is being discussed here. Please include it. If you want others, I can find others within the LGBT community who knew Erica to chime in. I don't want it to be where it sounds like information is forced in by friends of Erica's. It's not. I'm not interested in lies or hearsay in any article. IMO, there is no harm in including the Thursday night show current and historical information. It has meaning. Please add it back. Braveyoda (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Braveyoda has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Lightspeedx. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Interested Editor Monitoring Your DRN Notice

Hello-I noticed this discussion on the DRN Board. Although I am not qualified at this point to become involved in the dispute as I am not familiar with the subject of the article, I am monitoring the results of this in an effort to see what if any of the so-called, "not-up-to-BLP-standards" material will be accepted for the article. I also wonder why BLP is being used as a standard since this artist is apparently deceased, and will have no further opportunity to produce works which could be more acceptably sourced in the future. I was surprized that Playbills were not considered "up to standards", and frankly, it is my opinion that there are certain unwritten standards and practices which conflict with what is posted in the officially posted guidelines. Perhaps someone is already or has written/published something in a more acceptable source of reference, such as a newspaper, to validate some of these facts in a better source? If this has been resolved-nevermind but the DRN is currently still open from what I can see 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the DRN is still open: I've volunteered to help. I'm really waiting on Lightspeedx to answer a couple questions there, though. Howicus (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to both living and recently deceased persons. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty

Qworty (currently a banned editor) and including Little Green Rosetta (also a currently banned editor) removed a great deal of material from this page. It is now known that Qworty sought out the pages of those he disliked for such content attacks. There was argument about the removed material's sources. While sometimes the sources are not from major mainstream press (NY Times, Washington Post, etc.), the information is true, verifiable, and useful to a reader. No information mentioned in the article slanders Ms Andrews' life or career. Given such, we should restore the information. Per Project Qworty - Non-contentious information should be reinstated. If additional citations are requested, please tag with a instead of deleting information.

Please review Project Qworty for additional information about the content clean up effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NaymanNoland/Qworty_Clean-up_Project&rcid=580503890 The project is intended to clean up some of the editing performed by Qworty and his sock accounts. Lightspeedx (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason. First, the material here is contentious. Second, the info you added has also been removed in the past by User:Coffeepusher. Third, you were told here [1] that the information was not adequately sourced. You're just using Project Qworty as an excuse to re-add the info you want in the article. Howicus (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

p.s. my iPad is almost dead, so I won't be able to add any more comments for a while. Howicus (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok now, as per Project Qworty, the information has been reinstated, reviewed by someone not Qworty, and removed. I think this matter is closed. Cheers!Coffeepusher (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Lightspeedx missed the first part of the sentence on project Qworty which states "Edits made by Qworty should not simply be reverted, and unsourced contentious information should not be added back into biographies, especially BLPs."Coffeepusher (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Explain to me and everyone who reads or knows of Andrews' career achievements in detail as to how is the information reinstated contentious?Explain how mentioning her last film which she acted in violated BLP? Explain how mention of her stage work violates BLP? Explain how mentioning her pageant titles violates BLP. You have removed pertinent career information concerning Andrews. First of all, are you even familiar with Andrews' career and life? Do you know of who she was through research outside of this Wikipedia article? Deletion of pertinent information on her is a faux pas for Wikipedia since that truly is her career achievement and is part of her bio. Her list of pageant titles are non-disputable as they happened in real life. They are factual. They are well documented by reputable sources and eyewitnesses. Anyone who knew of Andrews' career knew of these titles. Her film credits (2 movies) are also well-documented. Her appearance on stage and on the TV talk shows are also documented and proven both by video, and mentions in newspapers as well. If the only reason why you refuse to accept content is because you dislike expansion of content on any article, we can discuss about that as that is a whole other topic about bio content on Wikipedia. Qworty and Little Green Rosetta removed chunks of information pertinent to a bio about Andrews. Nothing of the information restored tarnishes Andrews' reputation because everything factually occurred. What really distorts and tarnishes her reputation is the deletion of her career achievements. When a reader comes to read about Andrews, they should read about her list of major pageant titles. Arguably, that was what she was most famous and accomplished for. Deletion of that list diminishes the impact of a so-called encyclopedic bio article about Andrews. In fact the content that you have deleted if you bother to read properly are data tables. The information contained in the data table is already mentioned in the article. Most bio articles on entertainers do have sortable data tables to make it easier to glance through the information. Allowance of such information is hardly considered contentious information. In fact you have erased pertinent information about her last film. How is the listing of her very last film considered contentious or libelous information to her? Explain. So far no editor can back up with sourced evidence as to why the information should be deleted. All I keep hearing is people parroting Qworty that it should be deleted. If there is a content limit rule of x words on a page and the article violates that rule, then say so and at least we can finally agree on something. I'll follow whatever rule about limit of content/words on a page. If you say it is contentious, then prove it with source that it is contentious or libelous. For example, if I placed information that Andrews acted in a particular film or won a particular pageant title, prove that I am making up lies because she did not win nor acted in any of it. You can never find that the information is contentious because she really did act in the film and she really did win the titles. They are not lies. What's damaging is your constant assertion that it's contentious but cannot prove it.

If I recollect, one of the disputes/arguments was the name of her Thursday show in San Antonio. The name of the show was not false. That was exactly what it was. The origins of the show was not false either. Can all of that be verified through a source like the NY Times? No because the NY Times did not print such information. So if you want to tag with a "citation needed", that's fair. Maybe some other editor who has the time and can research dig up source information can do that. Or you can do that too. I should not be the only editor doing any research. If you want to delete, then defend your edits/deletions by backing up with factual citations/information to show that all the information you have deleted meets your claim that it is contentious and should be removed, pronto. You should do your research and discovery on Andrews outside of Wikipedia. Otherwise, you're just following the same path and argument that Qworty performed on this article which was someone out of the blues coming on to an article but know little to nothing about the person. The content became contentious because Qworty, Little Green Rosetta decided to partake in an edit war with me. I then filed for the Arbitration Committee to step in to bring some sanity to the situation. Qworty and Little Green Rosetta were all over arguing for their views on that ArbCom dispute. I had thought the process would bring some resolution but I learned it became yet another forum for them argue with them and it brought no peace or resolution. I gave up using that channel. If you know Andrews' career/life through reading/researching about her, you would be outraged that Qworty and Little Green Rosetta were allowed to distort this article by so much deletion of pertinent information.

I should not be the only person here requesting for the content to be replaced because it is pertinent information to Andrews's life and careeer. If you as a Wikipedia editor spent time doing research on her career, you will see the same reason for doing so. It is very ridiculous that we are wasting time arguing about pertinent career information that is not libelous, not contentious and is FACTUAL. Andrews' bio should be formulated like other entertainers' bio for consistency. Other entertainers have their career achievements, filmography, discography, stage credits listed in tables and some pages are very detailed. Some entertainers have achieved so much that their filmography or discography sections have broken into separate Wikipedia pages. Look at Cher, Jennifer Lopez as examples. I'm not asking for anyone to compare Andrews to Cher or Lopez. I'm not here, and nor are you here to judge anyone's career achievements as large or small. We will get nowhere on Wikipedia if we tried to judge like that. We are here to research and edit.

Andrews was a master of ceremonies. She was often hired as an emcee for her shows and for others. Now, can that be sourced as in NY Times, etc? No. So on that matter, one can decide if one wants to include real life information or stick to strict sourcing. I can see and agree with both sides of the argument. Lightspeedx (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I gather that the issue here is more about proper sourcing, not just BLP issues, which are of much less weight now, IF properly sourced. I suggest you start a new section and deal with each item you'd like to add/restore. Then editors can discuss them. Wholesale restorations just don't work in situations like this. Follow WP:BRD. You have been reverted, so now you must discuss. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Lightspeedx, you took this to dispute resolution. Three editors explained to you why those citations didn't meet BLP standards, you have taken this problem to three other forums with the same results. I think this is a textbook case of WP:IDHT.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

MOS-TW

Excuse me Sportfan, why did you remove the MOS-TW Template? I didn't see any discussion about that. If you want to make changes to this article or talk, have a discussion first. I recommend that you use this talk page for that. I will be reverting your edit. JanetWand (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't removed at all. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

That is fine, I see that you put it back. In future please use the talk page first for edits to the template of this talk. JanetWand (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You may have missed that it was never removed, no discussion is needed here. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI, The description of a minor edit includes "formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content." If Sportfan5000 had no reason to expect a dispute because it was a minor edit, there was no need for discussion prior to the move. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erica Andrews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100425004641/http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2010/mar/26/dallas-filmmaker-israel-luna-premiering-new-film-n/ to http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2010/mar/26/dallas-filmmaker-israel-luna-premiering-new-film-n/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)