Talk:Colleen Ballinger

Controversy

It may be time to add a controversy section about Colleen Ballinger. Seems she been having inappropriate relationships with fans that were under 18. https://thetab.com/uk/2023/06/08/colleen-ballinger-drama-scandal-explained-adam-fan-miranda-sings-underwear-311558

https://holrmagazine.com/colleen-ballinger-reddit-what-happened/

https://centennialworld.com/kodeerants-adam-mcintyres-manipulation-colleen-ballinger/

Paige Matheson (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The article already covers this issue [at the end of the Reception section] in more detail than it deserves, and Ballinger most certainly did NOT have an inappropriate relationship with any fans, minors or otherwise. A "Controversy" section would be completely appropriate [adding: inappropriate]. Note that none of these gossip "sources" are WP:RS. It's just some people on Reddit dredging up mostly silly accusations by one troubled teenager from 2020. See also WP:CSECTION and WP:BALASP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

You agree a controversy section would be appropriate? That’s what you wrote above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paige Matheson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but she did have an inappropriate relationships and conversations with her fans. Who are you to say she didn’t? You just need to go to twitter and see the things she said to these kids. They have screenshots of conversations. More entertainment websites are reporting on it, I just googled her name and more articles came up. So more will probably be added as the days go on. Paige Matheson (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Found another magazine article about Colleen that is in print and online that explains the inappropriate messages and grooming behavior. [1] Paige Matheson (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are you calling grooming a “silly accusation” though? Despressso (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to list every piece of gossip from tabloids and random people online. This is not relevant. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Jjj1238. ‘Controversy’ sections were deprecated years ago, (see WP:CSECTION) and the information is already covered in the text. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The 2023 additions to this gossip by these two social media influencers, which allegations are being repeated over and over again, are entirely fake and libellous. None of this should be added or cited in a WP:BLP. One of these libellous videos has been taken down from YouTube. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn’t be on WP, but for you to come on this page to unverifiably dismiss serious allegations without proof is odd. Despressso (talk) 07:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see this attempted addition appears to be based on the allegations of a couple of people on social media. Not remotely encyclopaedic. The only verifiable points are already discussed in the last paragraph of the Reception section. Tim riley talk 16:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers has addressed the issue above. WP is not the place to air the accusations Jack1956 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers also said that the accusations were “silly” and that the accuser was “troubled”. Labeling an accusation as fake and libelous is also not meant for WP. Despressso (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Just because fans don’t want it on WP doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be there. These are very important and serious allegations that are very relevant to her life and career Almostangelic123 (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

We don’t repeat unproven allegations. And this isn’t about what her fans do or don’t want (I’ve never seen any of her stuff), it’s how we treat unproven allegations on a WP:BLP. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The wording of some of the text in the controversies sounds like it was written by a fan Almostangelic123 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree WP needs unbiased viewpoints. Despressso (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s not just gossip though. This is a very important part of her life that should be on WP as her career is probably going to be over and ruined regarding these accusations. No one is saying that it’s true but I think there should be it’s own section regarding this. Maybe don’t title it “controversies” then but title it “grooming accusations” Almostangelic123 (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ssilvers How do you know they are fake? It doesn’t matter if it’s two people or a hundred accusing her. Now the US Sun and the Daily mail have articles about it. Paige Matheson (talk) 19:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Neither WP:THESUN nor WP:DAILYMAIL are reliable sources. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that coverage has not extended beyond publications like The Sun and Daily Mail should tell you just how much of a gossipy nothingburger this is. Plenty of fodder for spiteful Redditors; certainly not for Wikipedia. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Then shouldn’t the citations to “PopBuzz” in defense of Colleen be removed as well. Despressso (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably. As Ssilvers said above, the article already covers this issue in more detail than it deserves, so a major rewrite and a second look at available sources is probably in order. Sources like PopBuzz don't strike me as suitable for contentious BLP content. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree, but Ssilver’s point reads extremely biased (Pro-Colleen) and dismissive. Would be wary about biased edits. Despressso (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides, and I think it's foolish for anyone to do so. I certainly support Ssilvers' sentiment that the bar for inclusion of possibly libelous accusations, especially those coming from highly biased sources (like disgruntled superfans), should be exceedingly high. Gossip sites and tabloids certainly do not meet that bar. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this, but I find it confusing that this Wikipedia page cites many sources that aren't reputable. For example, Sportskeeda has written 2 articles on the current controversy and is a cited source for this page. Popbuzz still is a cited source. Even smaller, heavily biased sources are cited. I think these should be removed for consistency then. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't make sweeping statements about all sources like this. Some sources, like Sportskeeda, are fine for uncontroversial information like the names of Ballinger's siblings or TV show appearances. Looking at some WP:RSP discussions, however, I wouldn't use it for controversial claims about living people. I count three editors in agreement about the unreliability of PopBuzz now, so I'll go ahead and remove it from the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 08:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

So it’s a Sportskeeda is a reliable source as long as it’s harmless information, but it’s not a reliable source if they report anything negative about Colleen Ballinger.

sorry, but I don’t think that’s right. Paige Matheson (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is right. WP:BLP says: "...All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." (emphasis in original). So, if something is potentially contentious in a BLP, you always need a WP:RS. However, if it is just background info it could be a WP:SPS or other less rigorous source. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Wary of your edits since you were very quick to dismiss and side with Colleen. Isn’t wikipedia supposed to be neutral? Despressso (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course it is. What are you trying to achieve here? If you have behavioral concerns about editors, please take it up with them on their user talk page. Article talk pages are not the place. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not trying to achieve anything. It just seems to me like Ssilvers is a Colleen superfan, seeing their previous replies in this topic. I don’t have behavioral concerns but bias concerns. Calling a grooming accusation “silly”, regardless from who it is, does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia, and is very clearly biased and misleading. I don’t have any qualms with them outside of this page, only with the tone of the content they have provided to this page. If anything, shouldn’t you be asking Ssilvers what they were trying to achieve by calling ANY form of criminal accusation “silly” and providing their extremely biased unsourced info at the top of the topic? Despressso (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, because I'm not concerning myself with poorly sourced accusations. Again, article talk pages are not the place to vent about an editor's purported bias. Either address the editor directly via their user talk page or consult a noticeboard. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, the accusations are only poorly sourced *as of now*. I think it would be best to wait before making a final decision since it is a current event unfolding. To make a decision right now wouldn’t make sense, since poorly sourced articles are usually the quickest to publish topical subjects, so it makes sense that as of now, only those have mentions of this controversy. Despressso (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for a "final decision". The thread began with an editor's proposal to add information to the article that can and could only be supported by unreliable sources. That is what editors have argued against. If new, reliable sources are produced, inclusion will obviously be reassessed. Even then, this talk page is not for discussing the validity of these accusations or any of the circumstances surrounding them. This talk page is for assessing the reliability of sources that contain these accusations, and how to properly integrate the text into the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Despressso, That's now three editors who have asked you to focus on the article, not the opinions of other editors. That, I hope, will make you reflect before leaving another posting about SSilvers or anyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

My posting is not about Ssilvers. It is about the content they decided to contribute to this discussion. I am all for bettering the article, but my recent replies have just been me EXPLAINING my reasoning. I have not used any personal attacks or used anything that doesn’t have to do with the Controversy topic, and I have not been passive aggressive or anything like that. I do not have an agenda, I don’t feel any ill will towards Ssilvers. I was just reasonably inferring that someone who calls an ongoing discussion point “silly” with no context besides anecdotes, *may* make biased edits. The talk page is to DISCUSS, not to DISMISS, and if you want MY opinion, stating any point as fact in this controversy is not in the best interest of the article. Despressso (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You display an evident lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. I urge you to stop going down this thread and familiarize yourself with them, or there will inevitably be repercussions. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Throast, all of my replies have just been me explaining. I fully understand the point of the discussion, I did not mean for my point to drag on, I was just replying to multiple people (which was probably excessive). I do not support the inclusion of the controversy for the time being. Despressso (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Throast, several editors here have made sound policy based arguments which are neutral. Stick to the topic and leave the other stuff out. Nemov (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

My arguments are all neutral and my intent is removing bias. If you scroll up, you can see Ssilvers using biased language and adding personal opinions on unverified matters. Despressso (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

You should concentrate on the topic. Your thoughts about the editor's motivation are irrelevant and lean closer to WP:ASPERSIONS. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is literally all about the topic? My “thoughts” are just me pointing out what is VISIBLE on this same page for everyone to see. The whole topic is about a controversy. To deny or support it would be bias. And Ssilvers vehemently denied the controversy. I’m not using personal attacks nor off-wiki behavior for you to claim aspersions. Don’t know why the issue lies with me trying to make the article neutral… Despressso (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Despressso, your comments are aimed at another editor, that goes against WP:TPG. You should be commenting on the article text, not people's opinion's here. (Specifically "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." - emphasis in the orginal). Please could you focus on the wording and thrust of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Gosh. I've never seen my username mentioned so many times in one talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and have edited thousands of articles. I have been editing Ballinger's article since 2009, and so I know a lot about her career. For that reason, I believe the article is written neutrally, but if you see something that is not neutral, please correct it. Yes, I am skeptical that the accusations of the young YouTuber who is the source of these accusations against the subject of this article (and has received much attention and profit by making those accusations) are true, but this skepticism does not and will not affect my ability to edit the article neutrally. I was merely reacting to the initial statement above by another editor: "Seems she been having inappropriate relationships with fans" and later "Sorry, but she did have an inappropriate relationships and conversations with her fans." These talk page comments, together with the addition to the article of the big Controversy section, seemed to be a rush to judgment based only on these gossip sources. Obviously, if reliable sources investigate seriously and verify any of the accusations, we would report that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the value of making (UNSOURCED) accusatory remarks here then? How come the mods haven’t jumped once on you? “and has received much attention and profit by making those accusations” is a really bold statement to make for someone repeatedly citing WP:RS and asking people to type using surnames as if this was an article. Despressso (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Despressso, yet again, please focus on the article, not the opinions of other editors on the TP. It’s the article that should be focused on, not the talk page.

If you have concerns about the article text, please raise them, but please don’t keep commenting about other editor’s opinions. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like when people focus on the article here they are met with “stop wasting people’s time”. Any unnecessary remarks from Throast, Nev, and Ssilvers go unnoticed and are fine though right? My issue is something that I can’t discuss outside this TP, it has to do with the TP. I just can’t help but see the blatant disparity between me raising a valid concern (bias) being met with a “focus” response, yet someone ADDING their bias to the talk page (as a first response mind you) to push their point gets 0 negative feedback… Despressso (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Where have we made an unnecessary remarks? Again, that's another baseless accusation that has zero to do with the topic. If you think there's a bias please proceed to WP:ANI. If not WP:DROPTHESTICK and concentrate on the topic. Nemov (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I second Ssilvers's comment above. That said, looking at this recent RSN discussion, consensus for Sportskeeda actually leans generally unreliable/deprecate, so it probably shouldn't be used in any context in BLPs. Will go ahead and remove... Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPREMOVE, this content should not be included until there's much better sourcing. I support removing it as well. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Issues with lingerie accusation

So, there are three allegations here, but two relate to an original allegation, which is already covered by the article. I don't think it's a particularly call that those two shouldn't be mentioned in the article—the sources covering them aren't reliable enough to warrant inclusion on their own, and there hasn't been widespread coverage of them.

BUT ... I do think the first controversy—or, how the article handles it, needs to be addressed. In 2020, a 17 year old alleged that Ballinger was inappropriate with him, most notably by sending him lingerie when he was 13. Ballinger made an apology video in which she addressed, amongst other issues, that allegation (admitting that she inappropriately sent the fan underwear). The apology video was covered by several sources, including some fairly reliable ones, like Business Insider. [2]

The article describes the incident as follows, citing the Insider story:

In April 2020, a 17-year-old fan accused Ballinger of "[enlisting] his unpaid help" for social media content he had suggested for her Miranda Sings social media accounts and of sending him lingerie that he had selected from a set of gifts Ballinger presented in a livestream.... In May 2020, Ballinger apologized on YouTube for having posted the older videos, agreeing that they were insensitive and that it had been a mistake in judgment to send the gift to the fan.

I think this has a few issues:

1. It's a bit odd that it's in the response section. It's strange to group the 17 year old's conduct allegation with ... reactions to Ballinger's videos.
2. The article doesn't mention how old the underage fan when Ballinger sent him underwear—when I first read it, I assumed "17" ... per the Business Insider article, the fan said he was 13 at the time.
3. Most seriously, unless there's another source (which should be cited), the article attributes Ballinger's statement to the 17 year old. The article says: "In April 2020, a 17-year-old fan accused Ballinger of ... sending him lingerie that he had selected from a set of gifts Ballinger presented in a livestream." But the Insider article doesn't say that. It says that Ballinger claimed the fan had selected the lingerie in a livestream. In fact, though the passage is somewhat confusing (and I'll include the whole part here), it says the fan denied asking for the lingerie. "According to Ballinger, when her friend Kory Desoto modeled the lingerie set in a 2016 livestream, McIntyre said on Twitter that he wanted them. In McIntyre's account of the situation, he did not say that he had asked for the lingerie, but he did later tweet reminding Ballinger that she had to send the gift."

I'm happy to address these issues myself, but I get the sense that there's enough sensitivity around the issue that it'd be better to start a convo here first--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's my bad actually. I must've misread the article when adding that he had selected the lingerie. You're right that the insider article attributes this claim to Ballinger instead of treating it as factual. I'd be fine striking In April 2020, a 17-year-old fan accused Ballinger of [...] sending him lingerie that he had selected from a set of gifts Ballinger presented in a livestream. I also agree that his age at that time is important context, so I would support adding, [...] presented in a livestream when he was 13 years old. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Jerome Frank Disciple, I've taken the liberty of splitting off and renaming the section in order to keep the above discussion focused on the current set of allegations. I worry that new editors might have trouble navigating that discussion, which is already all over the place, otherwise. I hope that's ok with you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes of course! Sorry, I, at first, was writing a post objecting to the inclusion of the new allegations, and I had merely noted the old allegation (since the new allegations were heavily related to the old allegation), but then my concerns with the phrasing of the old allegation ended up taking over :)

I agree with all your suggestions. The age qualifier is slightly ambiguous (did she present it when he was 13 and send it when he was 17?) I think taking this out of the Reception section (where it doesn't really belong) might help this, since we won't have to intertwine the content reactions with the allegation. Plus, I do think that mentioning Ballinger's explanation of the context is important.

In April 2020, a 17-year-old fan accused Ballinger of [...] sending him lingerie when he was 13 years old. The following month, Ballinger posted a video to YouTube in which she said that the fan had asked for the lingerie after seeing it displayed in one of her livestreams; she also said it had been a mistake in judgment to send the underwear to the fan.

(I think "gift" might be a little strange in light of the nature of the allegation.)-Jerome Frank Disciple 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with your proposed phrasing, and I actually prefer how you're contrasting their accounts of the situation. That last paragraph could be split off into its own subsection under the reception section; I guess we just have to agree on a title. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

CONTROVERSYYYY!!!!!!!

... just kidding.

We could put it in the personal-life section. That still feels a little weird, but it avoid giving an entire section to two sentences, which I think would be a bit undue.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with JFD's suggestion, except I think we need to keep "one of several gifts for her fans that Ballinger presented in a livestream". I do not think it ought to get its own heading unless the WP:RECENT allegations are verified by WP:RSs. Like a lot of YouTubers, Ballinger has frequently offered to send various items to her fans to encourage fan engagement with her YouTube channels. Sometimes these are things that she has bought to use in a Miranda Sings show but never did use. One could call them gifts, prizes or some synonym, but in this case, it is important to point out that there were several items offered to fans. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the personal life section, I feel like it would feel equally out of place there, if not moreso. Maybe insert it somewhere in the career section? Or split off the lingerie part and add it to the philanthropy section since it relates to one of her fundraiser livestreams? I guess all options are kind of awkward.

Regarding the gift part, Insider actually uses the term themselves, so I think it would be fine to include it here. Maybe add seeing it displayed as a gift for her fans in one of her livestreams? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with that!--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that wording would be OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Did this really receive enough attention to warrant inclusion in the biography? I'm not so sure this passes the ten year test. I don't think it should be included. Nemov (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would not mind that, if others agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a decent question. I'd probably say yes, though I agree it's a close issue. We do have the Insider story, but we also have stories covering the event from less-reliable (though I wouldn't say unreliable) sources, including some of the sources mentioned above (Celennial is probably the most reliable) that, in addition to covering the new allegations, cover this one (and in fact spend most of their time on this one). There was a also a Refinery 29 article [3]; a People Magazine (which, somewhat to my surprise, WP:RSP has greenlit) article [4]; and a Jezebel article [5]. I think the volume of coverage is probably sufficient for inclusion—frankly that's more coverage than some of the other facts in the article have received.--Jerome Frank Disciple 19:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For me it has to be something that received coverage by multiple reliable sources for more than a couple of days to justify inclusion. This just doesn't seem like something that is an important enough event to warrant a mention in the biography. Nemov (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

But is that true of other facts included in the article? Like, In 2019, she joined The Game Theorists to raise more than $1.3 million dollars for St. Jude's. Did multiple reliable sources really cover that for more than a couple days? What about her 2020 birthday fundraiser? It seems a bit strange to segment out any potentially controversial information and apply a different rule, assuming that is the principle you're suggesting. --Jerome Frank Disciple 20:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This all said, I don't feel strongly on the issue at all, so if you want to excise it, you won't see a revert from me!--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to start a separate topic about other items in the article we could discuss it further, but there's plenty written in WP:BLP about contentious material. Nemov (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's fair! But I don't think the "more than a couple days" segment is in there. But as I said two seconds before you responded, I'm certainly not going to fight for the passage.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I could be wrong. It's a tough call on some of these biographies sorting out what should be included with due weight. This is even becoming more difficult in the internet age when stuff that wouldn't have been covered 30 years ago is pubishlish by multiple outlets on the same day. I'm not familiar with this person so I'd defer to the experts on the subject. Nemov (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Great point: The proliferation of media, in general, has made so much information meet WP:V—it seems like there are a few of these new "magazines" that—to their credit—do a few interesting genuinely reported pieces ... but devote most of their content to stories that are just meant to attract clicks by restating allegations on social media. If they only did the latter, it'd be like "oh you're not reliable" ... but the combo makes these issues tough.

I'm consider myself fortunate that most of the articles I usually edit involve subjects old enough that, if there was a general population reaction, it's like, "There were reports that the arm rests of a few chairs were tightly gripped across the country." Almost quaint.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Could not agree more with this. Wikipedia policy should start addressing this type of excessive "infodumping" in contemporary media for lack of a better word, especially online-only news sites focused on pop culture. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been grappling with that ever since I became involved a few days ago. I do feel like it should probably be lent less weight than it currently has, but I'm not sure what we would remove without leaving out important context. Maybe wait and see if and how these recent allegations are covered? If there are no additional reliable sources covering them, wholesale removal should probably be reconsidered. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek article

Is Newsweek a reliable source? A woman who was 16 years old and is now 21 was at a Miranda Sings concert and feels she was traumatized by Colleen for having her lay on her back in a show and spread her legs for a bit in the show.

https://www.newsweek.com/miranda-sings-youtube-tiktok-colleen-ballinger-children-1806615

Paige Matheson (talk) 20:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It's yellow-lit. I think we'd probably need more than that for inclusion. (Not that it's up to me alone!)--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What is described in the article is, IMO, trivia. It alleges that this "Becky" volunteered to go onstage during a comedy show in which Ballinger performed as Miranda Sings in one of her usual comedy bits of that year's tour, the YouTube-familiar "yoga challenge", in which the punch line is a fart. Audience volunteers who go onstage with this clown-like comedian (this happens in all of her live shows) have purchased tickets because they know her schtick. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry but this isn’t trivia.

this is an interview with a woman who said she felt traumatized and exploited by what happened in the show.

Paige Matheson (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That Newsweek article does nothing more than re-print the accuser's allegations, with no clear effort to verify the claims. The community agrees that post-2013 Newsweek is "not generally reliable", so I wouldn't assume that they'd care to verify anything in the first place. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

It is an article about how someone claims to be traumatized and exploited by something that they volunteered for (even if the person in the video is, indeed, "Becky") and is well known to be part of this act. It's like if someone competed on Jeopardy and then was interviewed about how they felt traumatized and exploited by doing badly on the show. Everyone knows that can happen, and their alleged feeling is not of encyclopedic interest, even though it is the subject of a news article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I’m starting to feel that anything negative is not allowed to be mentioned about Colleen Ballinger at all.

Her Wikipedia page is ridiculously long, and has 215 sources, some don’t seem very reliable to me, BuzzFeed is reliable but Newsweek isn’t?

Throast claims Newsweek didn’t verify anything, which seems unlikely and SSilvers defends Colleen Ballinger at every turn.

Also, Colleen Ballinger has lost 30K subs in a week according to https://thetab.com/uk/2023/06/13/colleen-ballinger-youtube-subscribers-drama-grooming-bullying-fan-allegations-312271

I bet the tab isn’t a reliable source too, right?

Paige Matheson (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's plenty of what you would consider "negative" information that is already included; there's an entire paragraph dedicated to it in the reception section. Plenty of editors have explained above why sourcing must be absolutely solid when it comes to contentious claims about living people. If you're going to make statements like Throast claims Newsweek didn’t verify anything, which seems unlikely, you have to actually argue that point. Have you even read WP:Reliable sources or WP:BLP for that matter? If not, I strongly suggest you do before making any more proposals here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do I have to argue that point?

The reason I made the comment- “Throast claims Newsweek didn’t verify anything, which seems unlikely” is because you (Throast) commented- “That Newsweek article does nothing more than re-print the accuser's allegations, with no clear effort to verify the claims.”

Paige Matheson (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Colleen is losing sponsors.

Colleen is losing sponsors do to her “fart stunt”. https://www.tmz.com/2023/06/16/miranda-sings-colleen-ballinger-loses-sponsorship-teen-fart-video/ Can this be added, that she is losing sponsors now? Paige Matheson (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Instead of wasting everyone's time by throwing sources at the wall to see what sticks, you should take a look at sources listed at WP:RSP beforehand to evaluate which sources are appropriate. There, it says that most editors consider TMZ a low-quality source, and that TMZ frequently publishes articles based on rumor and speculation. Considering that the information contained within that article is, again, highly contentious and involves living people, I would not use it here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, consider WP:NOTEWORTHY, WP:RECENT and WP:10YT. The net result of all that is that people's number of followers, sponsors go up and down. If Ballinger's numbers decline significantly, we will update her numbers elsewhere in the article with the official sources. BTW, why do you keep using this subject's first name? On Wikipedia, we should use surnames. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think I’m wasting everyone’s time and I don’t care for you implying that I am. The talk page is fine for asking questions and discussion. like I stated earlier, I’ve seen sources for stuff in Colleen Ballingers article that don’t seem reputable, for example Teneightymagazine.com. Or HiddenRemote.com is used as source for something but a publication like Newsweek isn’t allowed. Paige Matheson (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I know we use surnames in articles, I thought it was ok to just use her name Colleen on the talk page. Seems like a trivial thing to point out. Paige Matheson (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The right way to handle poorly sourced content in BLPs is not to add even more, but to remove it immediately per WP:BLPSOURCES. How many more times do you need to be told that contentious claims about living people require a higher sourcing standard than uncontroversial information? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t care for your tone with me.

first you accuse me of wasting everyone’s time and now it’s “How many more times do you need to be told that contentious claims about living people require a highersourcing standard than uncontroversial information?”.

I don’t see what’s wrong with me asking questions on a talk page.

at least I’m not just adding info.

Im asking to see what others think.

I just find it odd that if you google Colleen Ballinger, all these news articles are all over google and yet they can’t be added to the article.

Paige Matheson (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you see a source in the article for contentious material that you do not think is a WP:RS, please point it out, and we'll discuss it and possibly replace it with a better source. Please keep your talk page comments more compact, in a paragraph format, so that it is easier to follow the talk page. That is good Talk page etiquette. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It might be a good idea for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this topic. Several experienced editors have attempted to steer you in the right direction. If you continue to ignore direction and make accusations that are not in good faith this is headed in a bad direction. Nemov (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)