Talk:Jorts (cat)

Notability tag

Before the tag was added there was significant coverage in CNET, The Mary Sue, Yahoo News, Rolling Stone. I have now added the New York Post. Does that satisfy you @User:MarioGom? CT55555 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

CT55555: The problem is that it's still a bit early to assess if this topic meets WP:LASTING or WP:PERSISTENCE. A topic which receives a short burst of news coverage and then fades away is unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. MarioGom (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I recognize the point you are making. If I read these links correctly, it doesn't need to be lasting to be notable. But persistence is seems needed. I don't think the link defines the duration, but the initial Reddit thread occurred 23 days ago and reporting is over a period 16 Dec 2021 to 2nd Jan 2022, so that's over two weeks. It's at least somewhat persistent, also ongoing, the most recent media was 3 days ago. That recent coverage wasn't late reporting, it was analysis of the event, which I think is what "persistence" calls for. Even if nothing more was reported, I think it meets the bar. I hope others will see this chat and join in. CT55555 (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. Two weeks from now everybody will have forgotten Jorts, but it was briefly funny and people needed a distraction, or at least our media saw an opportunity to make some money by publishing even more clickbait (because that's cheap) and less news (expensive). Our conception of notability is completely distorted by the blind application of "has at least two citations to otherwise generally reliable sources" (forget context). A much better notability criterion would be: greater than 50% odds that at some point in time this topis is going to be the subject of peer-reviewed scholarly work. My take on those odds: Zero. Having said that, this article will probably survive an AfD because a three of four people will show up to !vote keep. Vexations (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP etc is about living people, but Jorts is not a person, he's a cat CT55555 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, he types those tweets with his little paws, just like me. Vexations (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about a cat, not an article about a twitter account. The article does reference a Twitter account that was created and it notes that it is run by a human. CT55555 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources are not about the cat himself but the surprising amount of attention that a funny reddit post received. The cat has done absolutely nothing noteworthy, only the people who post on social media pretending to be him. Vexations (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the cat existing and being unskilled isn't noteworthy so much. But the events that surround him, the margarine application is clearly note-worthy. The news reporting is about what actually happened in the office, more than it is about a human posting about those events on Reddit. You make good arguments for an improved notability criteria, but I don't think this is the space or time for that debate, we should look at this article through the lens of actual policy, not your vision of a better one. CT55555 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC) PS I think you're too focused on the wrong social medium (Twitter). I think it's assumed Twitter is operated by a human, but the significant social medium here is Reddit and the posts are written from the human observer's perspective. Nobody is "pretending". CT55555 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, aren't arguments about descriptivism fun? A human is entering the tweets posted to https://mobile.twitter.com/jortsthecat, which are purportedly by a cat. I think everybody understands that the animal is not typing. You claim the BLP1E does not apply because Jorts is a cat. Well yes, the animal is, but the twitter user @JortsTheCat is NOT a cat, and it is that "Jorts" and their co-workers that is the subject of all the media kerfuffle. Therefor, BLP1E applies. Vexations (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I do find such debates fun, but I also recognize that they can cause bad feelings, so I'm proceeding with caution. (side note, since starting editing in earnest late 2021, I'm really pleasantly surprised with everyone's comfort with disagreement, phew) I respect your position on this, although I disagree, I also acknowledge I'm relatively new and am open minded that I could be wrong. In the interests of not creating any ill-feeling between us, because I respect your work and don't want to cause bad feelings, I'll pause here and give others a chance to opine. CT55555 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: in a conversation about Wikipedia's (often extreme) presentist and USA-based coverage bias, which is absolutely exacerbated by the "apply rules, forget context" phenomenon @Vexations describes, another editor offered "someone will make a wikipedia page for Jorts the cat and it will survive AfD because Jorts has been the sole subject of multiple articles in American newspapers" as the ultimate, completely self-parodic example of how Wikipedia's own policies create and reinforce that coverage bias. We laughed, because it was funny, but we also died a bit inside, because we knew it was true. And lo: here it is, and at least two editors have already observed that it's not worth trying to AfD. What kind of lasting change has Jorts made in the world? (Please, don't try to answer that earnestly: I might cry.) Would any print encyclopedia even consider commissioning an article on Jorts? Oy. -- asilvering (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I was debating the merits of this article in my household over the weekend actually, specifically Vexations suggested notability criteria that things should have at least a 50% chance of being the subject of an academic paper. At risk of adding fuel to the fire, the consensus in our place was that an academic paper about Jorts is inevitable, for what that's worth. I do respect those opposed to this article, but I'd say there is more than a low chance that people genuinly would like an encyclopedic explanation of what happened. cc asilvering CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope others might be as amused and delighted as me to learn that Jorts featured in an academic paper, alas, there is not one about him yet:

SHOTLAND, E. Well-Known Signs: Models of Disability in Early Modern Islamic Law and Current American, European, and Pakistani Jurisprudence. Washington International Law Journal, [s. l.], v. 31, n. 3, p. 463–494, 2022. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=157173864&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 30 mar. 2023.

I quote footnote 27: "Knowledge of need for accommodations among the public is better now than it was, but even well-meaning accommodations can be redundant or unhelpful. A conversation about helpful vs. well intended accommodations took place on Reddit and Twitter in December 2021, when a worker posted to Reddit asking if he was in the wrong for stopping his coworker’s attempts to teach their office cat (called Jorts) to open doors, resulting in Jorts not only failing to learn but being routinely being trapped in a closet (alongside his feline coworker Jean, who could open doors, but not the closet door). The man (and the office’s Human Resources department) subsequently learned that the coworker had been applying margarine to Jorts to teach him to groom himself better; because the other office cat Jean groomed him often, as cats do as part of their own social rituals, she became ill and required veterinary help. Disability rights advocates on Twitter quickly adopted “are you helping, or are you buttering the cat?” to indicate well-meaning accommodations that fail to address the issue in a workable way. While light-hearted, the story of Jorts and Jean illustrates the general public’s ignorance of when accommodations are needed and how they should be addressed. The entire saga can be read on Twitter. Jorts (and Jean), TWITTER, @JortsTheCat, https://www.twitter.com/JortsTheCat (last accessed Jan. 4, 2022"

(posted for info/amusement, not to continue any disagreement) CT55555(talk) 21:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since I wrote that Two weeks from now everybody will have forgotten Jorts.... It certainly appears that way. It was a single event, the Reddit post, that made this subject "notable". Perhaps consider the advice in Wikipedia:Recentism before writing encyclopaedia articles about current events. Vexations (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I respect your perspective and Jorts' notability isn't exactly the hill I want to die on, but the latest coverage was a week ago: https://www.sunjournal.com/2022/01/13/lets-take-a-break-from-the-bad-news-and-talk-buttered-cats/ The page is averaging 18 views a day, peaking to just above 40 twice in 2022, so clearly a few dozen people every day are wondering about why someone buttered a cat. In the context of us not being polarized in disagreement, but not having consensus, what do you propose? Are you thinking this must not exist on Wikipedia (I'm open minded to discuss taking it down, might try to get third party opinions first) or are you just asking me to wait before creating articles about current events (this was a departure from my usual content anyway, so I would take such advice sincerely) CT55555 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The sun journal reports on the reddit post. Or rather, it links to a cnet article about that post. There is no sustained, significant coverage of Jorts the cat that is about anything else than that reddit thing. Yes, I would like to make an appeal to some encyclopaedic sense. Our news media are occasionally shit. I get that we all need a bit of levity in our lives and online newspapers need clicks to sell adds, so a quick (cheap & fun) write-up on an internet meme is a way to pay for actual investigative reporting (expensive & not fun). But we're a tertiary source with plenty of money and volunteer (gratis) workers. We don't need this. Vexations (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Others have predicted that this would survive an AfD, but I think AfD is for when people fail to reach a consensus, and I think wikipedia is all about consensus. I'm willing to move this into draft and then self delete it if that is the consensus. I'd like to wait until others comment, so won't take any action immediately. I assume we agree there is not urgency here. So I'll watch this space and if there is a clear consensus that this is bad for Wikipedia, I'll move to draft and then delete it. Anyone who's read this far, here's your change to opine and change the course of history. CT55555 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a bit early yet to determine whether the interest/coverage will be persistent - perhaps assess again in a month. Alternatively, per BIO1E the article could be refocused to be about the "event", which did receive coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think today's coverage in CNN is another example that proves coverage of Jorts is persistent and the predictions that the news cycle would move on after a few weeks have been refuted. Shall we remove the notability tag? CT55555 (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Think so. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to try and get consensus. @User:MarioGom you put the tag up, are you agreeable to remove it, in the context of the ongoing, sustained coverage? CT55555 (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Just do a WP:BOLD and take it off. The purpose of the tag is to flag an article for attention; it doesn't have any effect on its own. None of us who think this isn't a useful encyclopedia article have bothered to take it to AfD, and this discussion on the talk page will be here in the future if anyone else ever decides to. No one's going to show up with sources to more clearly establish notability either - the issue here wasn't "are there sources?" in the first place. The tag has done everything it's going to do. -- asilvering (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

CT55555: I'm ok with removing it. MarioGom (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Choice of image

Separate from free use issues, there is the question of whether this is the best image to represent the subject of this article. An upside down image that includes only half of the cat's head is clearly not appropriate, and even the owners of the twitter account use a different photo. The way I see it, one of these would be our best option:

1. https://twitter.com/JortsTheCat/status/1487353635000356864
2. https://twitter.com/JortsTheCat/status/1474213251495837699/photo/1 and https://twitter.com/JortsTheCat/status/1471534348012691458/photo/1
3. https://twitter.com/JortsTheCat/status/1485770864561823744
4. https://twitter.com/JortsTheCat/status/1490417588475551744

I have a preference for #2, which shows the entire cat looking at the camera with its eyes open. This photo is also used for the profile picture of the twitter account.  Mysterymanblue  00:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with #2. You could overwrite the existing file, but remember to resize to 250px wide. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I think any of these would be an improvement and I would support any of them, with no strong preference between any of the four. CT55555 (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to make the change User:Mysterymanblue if you still want to? CT55555 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555: Thanks, I will make the change soon. In accordance with WP:OVERWRITE, I will upload the image to a new file.  Mysterymanblue  21:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I will also probably use https://mobile.twitter.com/JortsTheCat/status/1509019200949420033/photo/1, which was just recently uploaded, because it is the highest quality image yet.  Mysterymanblue  21:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential influences

At the moment, there are no independently-published sources / news coverage of the following phrases, but I suspect they may be used in the future:

• "Buttering the cat" = is this a useful accommodation?
  • Robertson, Fiona [@FionaSnp] (December 19, 2021). "I am loving that #DisabilityTwitter is using 'are you helping or are you just buttering the cat' as a phrase for 'is this a useful accommodation'.
    
    And a friend recommended the Tamarian 'Jorts, his fur unbuttered' for 'this person's access needs have been met'
    
    @JortsTheCat" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  • Robertson, Fiona (December 16, 2021). "Jean And Jorts: the extended metaphor for workplace accommodations nobody asked for". Granite and Sunlight [blog].

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

In-Universe Style

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.

---

I realize that this is typically applied to works of fiction, but we're currently writing in-universe about a cat as if they are consciously taking the actions of encouraging the organization of labor. It's a cat. The twitter account related to Jorts (and/or Jean) is clearly run by a human, but we often refer to the account as if it is run by a cat. This needs to be rewritten so that we're not putting that a cat is literally taking policy positions and making tweets in Wikivoice. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you know a human is running the Twitter, or is this original research? (I'm joking). You make a fair point, but I don't know how to resolve that. Should this article be about the Twitter account affiliated with the cat? CT55555 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I would also agree with the recent edit. Please, rather than stick on a tag, propose or make a change. CT55555 (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, we are also writing about a work of fiction (I’ll be dead and buried before considering an AITA post of this magnitude genuine) as if it was real. I find it odd that the article doesn’t even consider the veracity of the story, but I imagine that’s a problem with no one else considering it either. MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 23:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I’m not sure if I believe it’s strictly fiction, but psuedo-anonymous internet stories are usually inherently unverifiable and thus difficult to prove as true or false, so it’s odd the wording in this article treats everything claimed in that story as fact. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with MRN2electricboogaloo. While I feel certain these cats exists and likely are even office cats, it's beyond the stretch of reasonability to think that the events related on the account pages and transferred here as fact actually happened. It's a work of fiction. Social media pages are not reliable sources, and so far those are the only sources for any of the antics. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:27, 25 November 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.

Farm worker bill

The Influence section currently mentions the Jorts Twitter account's advocacy around AB 2138, a pending state bill in California regarding unionization votes for farm workers.

I see a couple issues:

1. The current wording is not WP:NPOV

2. Does this specific piece of advocacy warrant mention? The account does a lot of pro-union advocacy, which is already mentioned in the article, but no specific pro-union causes are explicitly mentioned besides this one.

3. Should this go under the Twitter advocacy section instead?

Sjedits (talk) Sjedits (talk) 01:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

1. Can you be specific about what changes you think would make it more neutral? I'm not seeing the POV issue
2. The specific advocacy got more media attention than other advocacy, so this seems balanced.
3. I'm neutral on that issue, it's a fair suggestion; I would not object. CT55555 (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

"provided counterpower" isn't a neutral characterization of the advocacy, and also I can't find any coverage that says Newsom has explicitly refused to sign the bill; I'm not an expert on the process but it sounds like the bill is pending and he hasn't taken any action on it, or made any public statements on what action he intends to take. I'm making some slight tweaks to the language. Sjedits (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This source says he vetoed the bill "Newsom Vetoes Union Vote-by-Mail Bill for Farmworkers." The American Prospect Blogs, 6 Oct. 2021, p. NA. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A678051947/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=ebsco&xid=5bc7c8a7. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.

Counterpower is the exact working from the article, it uses the term twice. internet cat may seem like a gimmick or a side note in a serious legislative fight, but Chávez said it best: “Somehow, the guys in power have to be reached by counterpower, or through a change in their hearts and minds, or change will not come. Jorts is counterpower for UFW, which needs all the help it can get. And internet cats are really good at grabbing hearts and minds because they tend to keep things simple and cute, even if they’re not.

I ask you to reconsider if you think I've introduced bias here. The content in the article is absolutely supported by reliable sources. I had never heard of this term "counterpower" before writing this, but felt that using the exact word was the most neutral thing to do. CT55555 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop editing until a consensus is achieved. CT55555 (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

On the veto issue: Newsom vetoed a similar bill in 2021, as that article notes, but there's currently a new bill pending that he hasn't taken action on; the latter is what the Jorts account was specifically criticizing.

As for "counterpower"—just because someone is quoted in a news article using a certain term to characterize something doesn't mean Wikipedia should. I argue it's not appropriate in this case because it explicitly casts the Jorts account as speaking truth to power, which is a value characterization. I edited it to say that the account "criticized" Newsom because that's value neutral and doesn't characterize whether the criticism was a good thing or warranted or not.

I think it would be reasonable to include the quote from the article—I think a union organizer saying a cat Twitter account had a meaningful impact on a political fight is notable—but Wikipedia's own phrasing needs to be NPOV. Sjedits (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

In the context of one being a cat (lacking power) and one being an elected official (holding power) are you really claiming it's a value judgement? The beauty of having human editors is that we are allowed to dispense a little common sense here. But please feel free to make the edit, I have bigger concerns with the world that this. CT55555 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)