Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ballinger's response

Here is Ballinger's video response, posted today, June 28, 2023, on her YouTube vlog channel. She does not address the accusations point by point, but in a song, "Toxic Gossip Train", she says that she has made mistakes in the past but calls the accusations "misinformation". She sings that the accusers "monetize their lies" and that she is not "admitting to lies and rumors that you made up for clout". She also notes that her character Miranda Sings has always been PG-13, as her website states, and is not on any kids' app. She says that it is parents' responsibility to decide if their child should be watching the Miranda Sings videos or attending her live shows. She expressed disappointment that people have believed, despite "these things [being] not true" that she is "the type of person who manipulates and abuses children". She sings that she is "not a predator... because five years ago I made a fart joke", apparently referring to the Becky accusation about the onstage volunteer bit in her live show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

...and there's already corresponding coverage. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

and Los Angeles Times has a pretty detailed piece, as does NBC. If no one else suggests a draft by tomorrow lunchtime, I'll put one together. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to this, but would an addition to her page about this response song (I'm not sure if I'd call it an apology since she doesn't really apologize? I don't want to sound biased, I just don't know how to phrase that) to actually include what she's responding to? She implies that the allegations are lies, but also acknowledges that parts of it are true by directly mentioning group chats, so it's unclear what she's exactly calling "rumors". She mentions a "fart joke", but I feel like the context of the actual event that people speculate she's alluding to, which was her pulling a 16 year old fan up (who, to be fair, did stand up to be part of the bit, although as far as I know she wasn't aware that it would be a bit that included lying on her back with her legs in the air) on stage at a live show and spreading her legs as part of a yoga bit in front of the crowd, is important when explaining why it was part of the larger controversy. If her response is going to be included, the things she's responding to, even vaguely, should be as well, for context. Also, "Haters Back Off!" is on Netflix Kids, at least last time I checked, so that might be something to include when mentioning the bit about Ballinger stating that Miranda is "not on any kids app". Hopefully I've phrased this well, again I'm not trying to come off as biased one way or another I just think it's important to include the context of the things Ballinger is responding/alluding to in her song/response. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course. What we eventually add to her article should include a brief recap of the allegations and mention her response, citing the best sources. If you look at the next paragraph, you will see a proposal by Diceroller00 which is a starting point for a discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I see that User:Diceroller00 put this up, and I'm moving it here:

The allegations resurfaced when Kodee Tyler, popularly known as KodeeRants on YouTube, posted a detailed video on June 3 recounting her experience with Ballinger and expressing concerns about Ballinger's "toxic" fan base. Additionally, Tyler shared screenshots she claimed to have obtained, which seemed to indicate that Ballinger had asked minors in a group chat if they were [[Virginity|virgins]] and requested them to disclose their preferred sexual position.<ref>{{Cite web |last=https://www.latimes.com/people/jonah-valdez |date=2023-06-29 |title=Colleen Ballinger denies claims of 'grooming' minors — by singing a song |url=https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-28/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-grooming-response-minors |access-date=2023-06-29 |website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> In a follow-up video, McIntyre claimed that he was the recipient of those texts in the group chat, adding that he was 15 at the time. After a month long hiatus from social media, Ballinger responded to the allegations with a ten minute apology video, performed on the [[ukulele]] as a song.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Spangler |first=Todd |date=2023-06-28 |title=Colleen Ballinger, Creator of YouTube’s Miranda Sings, Denies Grooming Allegations in Musical Video |url=https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-grooming-allegations-1235657282/ |access-date=2023-06-29 |website=Variety}}</ref> The apology video was widely mocked on [[social media]] for being out of touch and not specifically refuting any of the allegations laid out against her.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Keller |first=Erin |last2= |first2= |last3= |first3= |date=2023-06-29 |title=YouTuber Colleen Ballinger denies grooming allegations with song |url=https://nypost.com/2023/06/28/youtuber-colleen-ballinger-denies-grooming-allegations-with-song/ |access-date=2023-06-29}}</ref> [posted by Diceroller00]

Please discuss below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe this information should be included. Especially with lots of attention given to her poorly-received Ukulele apology video. Not the best source, but E! News reported that Adam McIntyre, the guy who alleged that he was groomed by Ballinger, made a response video after her apology video. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Saw this in the news today, came here to see what the article was like. The coverage on reliable sources is pretty undeniable. Zaathras (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, what we eventually add to the article should include a brief recap of the allegations and mention her response, citing the best sources. If you look at the above paragraph posted by Diceroller00, it is a starting point for a discussion of the actual language that we will add. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Are the citations here meant to be visible as hyperlinks? As it appears now this paragraphs is a little hard to read, the links are written out and the actual text is lost. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

He cites Los Angeles Times and Variety, which are both good sources, and the NY Post, which is not an acceptable source. Other good sources include NBC News and Vulture ( of New York Magazine). In my opinion, by the way, the whole thing should be very concise. Compare how much ink (per WP:DUE) is included in Donald Trump's article concerning the things mentioned in this CNN piece (the answer is none). -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This seems good so far! The information around Becky should probably be included, as it one out of two specific issues mentioned by Ballinger? Not sure where it would fit in the current draft! Perhaps "After McIntyre's video, further allegations of mistreatment came out, including from a young woman, Becky, who stated she had a traumatizing experience during Ballinger's live show. She recalled wearing a short romper in hopes of being asked onstage for a skit centered on provocative outfits. Allegedly forgetting her attire, Becky volunteered for the "Yoga Challenge" skit that includes Ballinger spreading the young woman's legs open and playing a fart sound. During the skit, Becky feared that due to the romper she was not properly covered, and felt exposed, embarrassed, and on display sexually for men in the audience." https://www.intheknow.com/post/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-allegations-adam-mcintyre-becky/, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-unraveling-online-fandom-rcna89788 I'm hesitant using "In the Know" as a source, but the only thing cited are direct quotes from Becky? This still feels long, but I'm not sure how to condense it further without losing some necessary context. Maybe the sentence on the reason for the skimpy attire could go? Any suggestions would be much appreciated! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's worth including. Someone who wanted to go up on stage went on stage and got mildly embarrassed? That's not encyclopaedic. The rest is worth inclusion, but not that. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

“On display sexually to the men” is mildly embarrassing now? Despressso (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We have no proof or evidence that was the case, just one person's description, particularly as they were hoping to be on stage for "a skit centered on provocative outfits". Embarrassment isn't encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a video of her legs being spread. Whatever the case an adult should never be doing that to a minor, even as part of a joke, and is bordering on criminal activity, which Ballinger equated to “fart joke” in her response. And this isn’t just embarrassment, Becky said it was traumatizing. Despressso (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not criminal activity, nor is it bordering on it. I'll remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, so if you're going to accuse a public figure of law-breaking, I hope you have good lawyers. She volunteered to go on stage, wanted to go onstage, went to the gig dressed to go on stage and was embarrassed about what happened when she went on stage. This isn't encyclopaedic, but the other parts (and Ballinger's response) are, and should be there once the wording is agreed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be necessarily encyclopedic to refer to the onstage bit with Becky as a "fart joke" when the reason Ballinger received criticism recently for it was because the fan she brought on stage stated that it made her feel exposed and uncomfortable. As the onstage adult, many have criticized Ballinger for not keeping the minor's comfort and safety in mind, as although Becky was a volunteer, Ballinger did not have to select her. Most of the criticism is not about the fart aspect of the joke. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned it in my first comment, but the reason I was suggesting it be included is because it's a prominent aspect of the apology, so because Ballinger responds to it directly in the apology (as one of two specific mentions of the allegations out there). I thought it would make sense to include as if anyone watched the video the comment she makes would be extremely confusing without the context? Maybe that's more of a journalistic approach! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be condensed to simply say that: "After McIntyre's video, a fan came forward and claimed to have felt traumatized after participating onstage in a joke at her live show."? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic, but this could also apply to criticism of the way Ballinger broadly handles having children onstage in her Miranda Sings Live shows. Although she states that parents choose to bring their children, it's important to note (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know the scripts of her live shows) that at least for a time, there were planned bits in her show that always involved children, such as the one where Miranda requests that they reach into her pants for a snack, as part of a bit about Miranda taking the child on a date and sneaking snacks into a movie theater. It's the parent's choice to bring their children to the shows but many have criticized Ballinger specifically for the way she includes children as part of her act. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that may be going too far away from the point. The fact that one person felt mildly embarrassed when they wanted to go on stage and ended up going on stage is one thing (honestly, what on earth did they expect?!), but this seems to be drifting towards quoting people saying 'I don't like her' and ensuring that gets included too, which certainly isn't encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that including the overarching criticism would be undue and if included opens the article up to an absolute avalanche of extraneous information. While I have my own conflicting thoughts on Becky's complaint, I do think at least a passing a mention is warranted in light of the wide coverage it's received (Becky's quoted in nearly every major publication I've seen) and Ballinger's response to the "fart joke" in the song. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If it became a large enough part of the controversy for her to mention it in her "response" (I guess now it's appropriate to toss in passive aggressive comments and opinions on the situation?), then it's necessary to include why she's responding to it and what it is she's responding to. The controversy is not about people coming out of the woodwork to say they "don't like her", it's more about the way Ballinger handles the dynamic between herself and fans. If her response is encyclopedic enough to add, the actual reasoning for the controversy should be too. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm undecided on this. I see both sides as very relevant .

However my kids were big fans…

Bad judgement or Grooming I just do not know…damn should it be this hard if people feel victims? My kid ooh wow I would be upset but at me the parent or her the Person behind the Character? Should she have known better being the adult? Or the parent handing over the device… 2601:205:301:B600:29A8:A847:E89E:5610 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Trying to write this in a way that isn't confusing to someone who doesn't know anything about this person is tricky. I've summarized the quote above down to this:

Kodee Tyler, a popular YouTuber, made a video detailing her negative experience with Ballinger and expressing concerns about Ballinger's fan base. Tyler also shared screenshots that suggested Ballinger had asked minors in a group chat about their virginity and preferred sexual positions. Another YouTuber, McIntyre, claimed to have been a recipient of those texts when he was 15. After a month-long break from social media, Ballinger posted a ten-minute apology video in which she sang a song on the ukulele. The apology video received widespread mockery on social media for being disconnected and not directly addressing the allegations against her.

Is there anything missing from this summary that should be added? Nemov (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Trimming and adding date for context

In 2023, Kodee Tyler, a YouTuber, spoke of her negative experience with Ballinger and expressing concerns about some of Ballinger's fan base. Tyler shared screenshots that suggested Ballinger had asked minors in a group chat about their virginity and preferred sexual positions. Another YouTuber, McIntyre, claimed to have been a recipient of those texts when he was 15. After a month-long break from social media, Ballinger posted a ten-minute video which denied the accusations made against her. The video was poorly received on social media for being disconnected and not directly addressing the allegations.

It's mostly the same, but a few tweaks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like quite a challenge to describe such a sprawling niche event! This is great imo! I just wanted to add that there were some issues sourcing the "poorly received" statement, but the BBC includes the following quote on the reception: "Many on social media criticised and ridiculed its apparent flippancy and lack of sincerity." Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is better, but perhaps just "video"? She did not apologize nor acknowledge wrongdoing, instead dismissing all claims. None of the sources describe it as an "apology video", but instead as simply a video. Zorblin (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you may be right, concerning the "apology video" misnomer. Maybe "response video" works? Most coverage I've seen uses words like, "Ballinger denies", "responds to" or "addresses" allegations. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

On second read, I think the fact that the 10 minute video is a song is pretty important here. Seems to be the reason the video is getting as much coverage as it is. Maybe something like: "Ballinger posted a ten-minute response video wherein she performs a song..." Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact it is 10-minute ukulele number denying grooming allegations is part of the notability here. Zorblin (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked slightly to remove the "apology video" name, but left in the dismissal (which we have to do per BLP guidelines). I'm not sure about the ukulele aspect - I'm not overly sure that's relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In most of the coverage I've seen the "song" aspect of the video is featured prominently in the headline and/or the byline. It's also receiving coverage by Billboard music news. I'll also say, as just a person on the internet, the musical aspect is pretty remarkable! I can't think of another public statement that's ever taken the form of a song. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You've obviously not seen many British political conferences then! :-) It's a trick they do sometimes, but you'll not find it in any of their articles here. That's just my opinion, but obviously others will likely disagree with me. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ha! No I haven't, but maybe I should? Anyways, re: song inclusion, perhaps it's best to wait until more editors weigh in. I do think it warrants a mention for the reasons I've already stated, but I'm open to suggestions! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"maybe I should?" God no: don't put yourself to the pain and tedium just for the sake of that! LOL! - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The ukulele aspect is relevant because one of the main reasons it has been criticized as "disconnected and insincere" is because it's in the form of a rehearsed performance of a song on a ukulele. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason she's been criticized is because her response was in the form of a song. She could have played the guitar and coverage would be the exact same. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources focus on the song aspect; which instrument that song is performed with and how long the video is to the minute is utterly irrelevant and unencyclopaedic. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, "After a month-long break from social media, Ballinger posted a response video in which she performed a song denying the accusations made against her."? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I am working on something (with citations to the key sources), and will post it soon. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Here is my draft, which I think covers the most noteworthy points. This would follow the current paragraph about McIntyre's 2020 allegations, perhaps both under a heading or subheading like Fan accusations:

In June 2023, adult YouTuber Kodee Tyler Dahl posted a video, which Dahl soon deleted, showing "purported screenshots"[citing Los Angeles Times] of a group chat of Ballinger participating with minors, including McIntyre, then about 15, where he asked for suggestions for an upcoming Q&A on his YouTube channel.[citing Vulture] The shot shows Ballinger suggesting "Are you a virgin?" and asking McIntyre his favorite sex position.[citing Vulture] Ballinger later posted a response video, in song, admitted that she had made mistakes, but she called the accusations "misinformation", denied being a groomer or predator, and did not "admit[] to lies and rumors that [these YouTubers] made up for clout".[citing Variety and the video] She stated that Miranda Sings has always been marketed as PG-13 humor and is not on any kids' app, and that it is parents' responsibility to decide if their child should be watching her videos or attending her live shows.[citing Vulture and Variety] The video received negative comments.[citing NBC News] and Billboard -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is another great draft! I'm not sure if mentioning her comments about the PG-13 rating for her channel makes sense without including the concerns that lead to it (which were not related to the group chats, and more concerned with the Becky allegations)? I also think perhaps using 'would' instead of 'did' in regards to "...not 'admit to lies and rumours'" is a more faithful recounting of what she says in the video. I'm also not sure if there should be direct quotes from the song, but I'm open to being wrong about that? Just my two cents! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Or if the quotes are being included, perhaps for a more complete synopsis, her description of the mistakes she's made should be included as well (over sharing in group chats and not having boundaries with her fans early in her career)? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The PG-13 rating is important to explain Ballinger's response to the general charge of "inappropriateness", and the sources that are cited provide more color if people want to read them. But I think the Becky stuff is not encyclopedic. She "feels" traumatized because, as he admits, she went to a show knowing that audience members would be invited to be part of a skit, and she even dressed skimpily in the hopes that she would be chosen for the "porn" skit (the Miranda character is a super prude who calls anything suggestive, or any show of skin, "porn"). But, instead, when she volunteered (screaming and jumping up and down to get noticed, as happens at every Miranda live show), it turned out to be the Yoga skit. The volunteer in this skit would do various "yoga poses" with Miranda, and the punch line was the fart joke. This is described in the Vulture source, and I don't think we should spend the ink to describe it here, per WP:DUE. Same with the specific things she did admit to, as the sources mention them, and we will also cite the video itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand, but that general charge isn't mentioned in this paragraph. The focus is on very specific allegations that occurred privately. Perhaps if the PG-13 quote is included, there could be brief mention, like: "The allegations lead to scrutiny of the suggestive humour present in Ballinger’s content." [citing NBC]? Also, if the quotations regarding her denial aren't WP:DUE as they're already described to in the video and the provided sources, I'm curious why the other quotations aren't? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that. It is a fine line. We don't want to repeat her whole song, but we want to convey the gist of the key things she said/sang. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I will say, I'm still partial to Throast's suggested edit. But, if the majority of editors decide it's best to include the full draft with direct quotations, I'm glad that line works! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I second Goodlucklemonpig's comment about the PG-13 part; I would just leave it out entirely. For brevity, I would also strike admitted that she had made mistakes, but she called the accusations "misinformation", denied being a groomer or predator, and did not "admit[] to lies and rumors that [these YouTubers] made up for clout". and replace with simply denied the "lies" and "gossip" about her[also supported by Variety]. The "grooming" allegations aren't explicitly mentioned in the first half of the paragraph, so I think it would be strange to only bring them up in her response. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, the draft above in green by Ssilvers is exactly what is needed. It should be adopted word for word. Jack1956 (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I like Ssilvers's version, but I think the cut by Throast should be taken into account - there's good reasoning to take out things that haven't been mentioned or are not germane. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

We should mention the allegations, but not that she denied grooming or harassment, given that she never mentions the specifics of the "lies" and "rumors" surrounding this event. Zorblin (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

She did explicitly deny grooming in the video ("the only thing I've groomed is my two persian cats"), but the rest of the individual allegations aside from Becky's complaint are not addressed although, I assume, are what she is referring to as "lies" and "misinformation". There's a lot of fairly heated discussion around how, what, and if details on the broad scope of allegations should be included, and I'm personally unsure what the most encyclopaedic approach is. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• Second draft, based on comments so far. This would follow the current paragraph about McIntyre's 2020 allegations, perhaps both under a heading or subheading like Fan accusations:

In June 2023, adult YouTuber Kodee Tyler Dahl posted a video, which Dahl soon deleted, showing "purported screenshots"[citing Los Angeles Times] of a group chat of Ballinger participating with minors, including McIntyre, then about 15, where he asked for suggestions for an upcoming Q&A on his YouTube channel.[citing Vulture] The shot shows Ballinger suggesting "Are you a virgin?" and asking McIntyre his favorite sex position.[citing Vulture] The allegations led to scrutiny of suggestive humor seen in Ballinger’s content. [citing NBC] Ballinger later posted a response video, in song, admitting that she had made mistakes, but denied being a groomer and called the accusations "lies" and "gossip".[citing Variety and the video] She stated that Miranda Sings is marketed as PG-13 humor and is not on any kids' app, and that parents should decide if their child should watch her videos or attend her live shows.[citing Vulture and Variety] The video received negative comments.[citing NBC News] and Billboard -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Great compromise. I would add this as is. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd oppose this version, it goes to far into the sanitizing and whitewashing direction. Too much air-quoting, not enough emphasis on the tonedeaf video response. These are serious accusations of child grooming. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Too much "air-quoting"? Which quotes do you take issue with? I think the "grooming" part is somewhat overblown. Whatever she's been accused of does not match the definition of that term, but I digress... Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Grooming is when someone builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them.[1]

This fits with McIntyre’s allegations. Don’t minimize grooming; it isn’t always sexual. Despressso (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Discuss the article, not editors

What Wikipedia policy dictates dismissing allegations? I keep seeing this for Ssilvers and sometimes Throast, to a lesser degree. I think personal opinions should stay in your head-unless you happen to be lawyers or psychologists, you probably don't understand grooming and definitely shouldn't dismiss victims' statements. I'm not trying to take a side, but someone has to state this as this talk page is a mess. The same message goes for those very pro-Adam who only wish to include opinionated statements. I won't comment again, but I'm pretty disgusted reading these comments. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC) I fully agree with you, it seems like a bunch of editors using WP:CRYBLP to assert their refusal of inclusion, even when users are citing directly from multiple trusted news sources. Something needs to be done here. Despressso (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Agree. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Apologies-my last comment's text has everything removed except me stating I "agree". Weird. Here it was: " Usernamecreatedz (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Well, nevermind. For some reason it removes my comment everytime. Depresso, if you contact me somehow I will pass it on. Thanks. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I’d support that last version too. - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of fairly emotionally loaded disagreements around how encylopaedic the allegations are and what should be included in the article, which has been an issue since the "Controversy" topic was added here and led to a lot of conflict. Personally, I feel like this draft does a good job at balancing the allegations and Ballinger's response (literally almost a 50/50 split of sentences), and I have no issues with it. The 'tone-deafness' of the video is subjective and the article, especially as the biography of a living person, needs to be neutral. That being said, I can understand it may seem as if the crux of the public criticism isn't given the weight it has been in the media. As a compromise, can I suggest an edit of: "The public reaction to McIntyre's video lead to scrutiny of the suggestive humour in Ballinger’s content, and further allegations regarding her treatment of fans." [Cite: NBC, HuffPo]? In my view, that accurately summarizes the notable content of most, if not all, of the reliable sources cited here, as well as the full context of the public backlash. As the specific information can be found in the cited sources, it also avoids detailing each allegation and creating a quagmire of contentious information/a needlessly bloated article. I just want to reiterate that this is an attempt to strike a compromise between some of the people posting here, as I understand tensions are riding a bit high! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

and further allegations regarding her treatment of fans. I don't think we should include vague statements for the sole purpose of pointing readers to specific news articles. If we're going to mention "further allegations", we ought to specify them, but that would lead us into WP:UNDUE territory. Overall, I think we're starting to get a bit too much into the weeds here. We should focus on keeping these recent news sufficiently concise. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. Hmm. The issue I'm butting up against is the sheer volume of details, and that some of the most widely covered and publicly discussed allegations (here comes Becky again) have been decided as non encylopaedic. It also strikes me as a like death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts situation, where a lot of the information would be unremarkable if not for the public backlash. In some ways, it seems like the public backlash is the most notable event here. I do feel like if there was an efficient and concise way to include this without risking a novella of contentious individual claims, it would be worth adding. I'm not sure how that could happen though, and I'm fine with Ssilver's draft. I just have a feeling it will lead to more heated discussion, which is probably fine as this is called a "talk" page! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Oops did not see the conclusion on omitting them! I thought you had suggested extrapolating on them, which is the context for my "butting up against" comment! Anyways, I do still think there's something to be added about the subsequent pile up of allegations, but not sure what it is, so I'll bough out unless inspiration strikes ha Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw that NBC news has made a video about Colleen Ballinger. One of her former employees speaks out so I’m posting the link in case someone here wants to watch it and wanted to add anything to Colleen Ballinger Wikipedia article. https://www.nbcnews.com/now/video/youtube-star-colleen-ballinger-facing-backlash-over-alleged-fan-relationships-185923653690 Paige Matheson (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Former employee? It says former fan... - 23:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you even watch the video? Johnny Silvestri was a former EMPLOYEE of Ballinger, and is featured in the video. Despressso (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

So random. The written pieces do a much better job at recapping/analyzing what's been going on. This particular thread is supposed to focus on Ssilvers's draft. Don't know why this has been inserted here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean, McIntyre has posted 12 videos in the past month attacking Ballinger. Silvestri is a former fan who Ballinger hired to be a tour helper (when he was 22), so he was both at some point. How about we add a cite to the NBC video as an additional cite at the end of the sentence about negative comment to Ballinger's response video? User:Goodlucklemonpig, are you in agreement now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I really don't have an issue with the draft presented! I am just trying to engage with the dissenting editors concerns. Personally, I do think the existence of multiple allegations warrants a mention as it seems integral to both the reporting and reception here, but I'm definitely not precious about that. I would be fine with posting what's been written and continuing the discussion if further edits are needed! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, further edits can, of course, continue to be made. In favor of posting the current text, I count me, Throast, Goodlucklemonpig, Jack1956, and Schrocat. Against are Zaathras, Despressso and I think Zorbin. Not sure about Paige Matheson -- would you be satisfied by adding the link to the video? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The current text is a sufficient compromise to start if it should be in a subheading and not relegated to just the end of ‘Reception’. ‘Fan allegations’ seems vague, but ‘grooming accusations’ might be a violation, I imagine there is something between.

I do think it is a bit too detailed of a play-by-play if that one specific incident and not a more holistic but broad overview of the pattern of incidents mentioned in the reputable sources (RS and HuffPost being two of the solid primaries). But that can evolve over time. Criticalus (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I've posted the above (with one tiny alteration) - it has a rough consensus and any further discussions can focus on improving what is there. I've dropped it into the suggested place following the first major criticism, but not into a separate section (which is in breach of WP:CSECTION). - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Further discussion

As the coverage expands to the likes of the BBC and the LA Times, it may be time to place something brief in the lede of the article. Zaathras (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

L.A. Times is already cited. Per WP:10YT I think it is premature to add anything to the Lead section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone has deleted the entire Philanthropy section, which discussed Ballinger's annual fundraising for child cancers. Considering the accusations against the subject, this seems like a bad time to delete positive information about her. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The timing is awkward indeed (though I don't mean to suggest bad faith on anyone's part), but I do agree with Drmies that the section stuck out as particularly poorly sourced. Perhaps reduce it to a line or two in the personal life section if RS can be found? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Throast, would you do that please? I would argue that some of the sources used are acceptable for this info, since the fact that every year she raised funds in a similar way is not contentious. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers, you really should not be coming to BLPN arguing that positive content sourced to Twitter and YouTube should be reinstated because there is (well-verified) negative information. I mean--are you serious? No, that sourcing was not acceptable, certainly not for an entire (obligatory) "Philanthropy" section, even though that seems to be du jour, not just for rich businesspeople but also for social media stars. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Did I post there? I don't see a post by me there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's right above mine, where you say "I would argue that some of the sources used are acceptable for this info". Sorry, I thought we were at BLPN--it certainly is a BLPN matter. Drmies (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve yet to see any source or receipt of the amount she donated that has evidence. Despressso (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is the amount she raised on Fundly. The other sources that were deleted stated additional amounts raised. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That link only states she donated $1,407, out of $743,971 raised. Is there an updated link or no? Despressso (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if it's even worth including since it seems to have received relatively little coverage, mostly in low-quality/niche sources. Perhaps sit on it for now and circle back once things have died down a bit. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Would it be fair to include information that her content has been marketed as kid-friendly/TV-PG before? She states that her live shows are PG-13 on her website and that it has always been that way, but Waybackmachine shows that this was not added until early 2018. Additionally, her Netflix shows are marked as TV-PG, not PG-13. I can see the point that this might be too minor to include in the article though but there is some contentiousness around her claim that her content was always marketed as being for PG-13 audiences. -- Andthereitis (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You're right, the Netflix show, Haters Back Off is rated TV-PG, so I removed the statement about PG-13. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Her content is also found on the YouTube Kids app, another direct contradiction from Ballinger’s claim her videos were not on the platform. Despressso (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you please link to your source, User:Despressso? Was it posted there by Ballinger or by someone else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I checked (made a youtube kids account for my dog lol). Anyways, the Miranda content on the app is not posted by an official "Miranda Sings" channel, she appears as a guest on other channels, which does back up her statement imo. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how verifiability works when it's a claim cited verbatim from her response, and then repeated in RSs--it's not a factual assertion from secondary sources? That being said, I think there's a case to be made that the PG-13 comments might not fit, as the line regarding suggestive humour is no longer included. I suggested it initially as a gesture at Becky's story, but that's now covered by the "other allegations" statement. Although, perhaps there's another way to add necessary context? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

All of this is original research unless it's been noted by reliable sources. Note that maturity ratings on Netflix are set either by Netflix itself or by a local standards organization, so she couldn't have possibly had control over her show's rating. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

As I note above, I removed the statement about PG-13, since we can see, per WP:BLUE, that it only applies to some of the content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Other allegations, including Becky

That makes sense to me, happy to leave as is! Though, as an aside, I'm stuck on how and if the allegations outside of McIntyre's should be included (the section is called 'Accusations from former fans' and aside from a re-cap of the content in Dahl's video, McIntyre's the only accuser mentioned). I know the other allegations have been dismissed by a few editors as un-encyclopaedic, but I've been looking back through the coverage and they're mentioned in every single article, and when it comes to Becky, mentioned by Ballinger herself.

I get that the Becky account is particularly contentious, but I wonder if the subjective appraisal of her reaction as disproportionate is a good reason to exclude it whole-cloth when it's been so heavily reported on throughout the 'controversy'? If presented neutrally, readers can come to their own conclusions about someone being traumatized by their voluntary participation in a comedy show. Silvestri's account is more complicated imo, as the only evidence that's been reviewed are screenshots of video chats. EDIT: Checking the HuffPo article, there are text messages reviewed directly on his phone, but they're about an issue regarding an unnamed fan.

In any case, even if Becky and the other accusers aren't included specifically (which I think would significantly lengthen the already lengthy subtopic), I do think it's important to at least acknowledge the existence of multiple allegations. Earlier, I suggested "...led to scrutiny of the suggestive humour in her content, and further allegations from fans.", with the rationale that the specifics could be easily found in the cited sources (taking inspiration from Ssilver's explanation on what song quotes to include in their original draft). Throast pointed out that it was bad form to phrase something that points readers to the coverage, which I totally agree with in regards to my wording there. Would "...further allegations of mistreatment from former fans", be more clarifying (I have a feeling no)? Or: "Further accusations allege Ballinger engaged improperly with multiple fans, and one former fan reported feeling violated after participating in her live show." [Cite: Rolling Stone, HuffPo, Daily Dot]? (I know DD is yellow lit, but only sourcing a direct quote from Becky)

I'm really stumped on what to do here. if you can't tell from this veritable essay of a comment lol. Anyways, there's no rush to make these changes and I'd think it best to wait until there's sufficient feedback! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers Not sure why, but the site won't let me reply to your comment! Anyways, I totally get the skepticism around Becky's reaction, and I think it's warranted tbh. That being said, I'm not keen on litigating the merit of her feelings here, as it seems mostly unrelated. The issue I have is around the sheer volume of reliable sources that give Becky, and the existence of multiple allegations, significant weight in their reporting. In UNDUE, it states: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" and in BALASP: "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." I would argue that Becky's story being described as a central complaint, in multiple, if not all, of the reliable sources here (HuffPo, Rolling Stone, NBC, Vulture, The Independent, USA today and the LA Times both mention it albeit in less detail, and Ballinger addresses it as well), plus her appearance as a featured interview subject in both the HuffPo and the Rolling Stone articles, would qualify it for inclusion, no matter how ridiculous the claim may sound to some. I do think it would be undue to get into the details of each allegation and I agree the article would be overwhelmed quite quickly if we did-- but currently no reference to any outside accusations exist at all, which isn't representative of the coverage or content of this event (the Dahl section states that she released screenshots, not why or what she was alleging). I mean, honestly it seems unlikely this would have been widely reported on if it was just McIntyre and Dahl. Imo a summarizing sentence or two that can at least gesture to the existence of multiple accusers/accusations is necessary (which is why I attempted to write one haha). The current addition is quite impressively efficient, but I'm sure there's an elegant solution here! I wonder what other editors have to say, and I absolutely won't go in and change anything unless it's green-lit here first :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Becky's story is not a "viewpoint". It's just an example of an accuser that is attractive to newspapers. WP is not a newspaper. A major newspaper would not print a story that said "Ballinger called so-and-so on stage, and they had a blast", because it wouldn't be a viral story. But find a few people who say "this celebrity was mean to me" and you've got a story. It's like saying that the Wikipedia article about Christmas needs to have a big section about Santas in department stores, because so many major newspapers have written a story about Santas in department stores every Christmas and there is even a major movie about it. But if you look at the article on Chrismas, instead there is a discussion of the history of Santa in there that doesn't even mention Santas in department stores. Because it would be UNDUE for the Christmas article. We are not writing an article about the accusations, we are just summarizing the most noteworthy accusations in an article about Colleen Ballinger; the Becky story is not an essential part of that top-line summary, but if you read the sources that we cite, you will get the Becky story, and all the other accusers who have followed after Dahl, as part of the complete reporting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree with having a sceptical view of the how these stories come to be-- it's a weird world we live in right now when it comes to the accessibility of online celebrities, fandom, parasocial relationships, and twitter (a cursed website I'm happy to have never really used haha). But, as you said, "...and you've got a story", and the story is the matter at hand. Honestly, I agree that detailing all the allegations is a slippery slope, and McIntyre's accusations warrant the detail they've been given already as they're the hook on which everything hangs, but the fact there is a "bandwagon" is what it all appears to be about? Like mainstream coverage began with the Rolling Stone article where the headline/article focussed on interviews with multiple fans "speaking out", followed by HuffPo and NBC doing the same, after which the story was picked up by other sources. Again, I truly can't imagine things would have gotten much traction if it were just McIntyre and Dahl, it really is that "bandwagon" pulling everything down the road (idk what bandwagons actually are... do they pull things?? lol). The subtopic is Accusations from former fanS and not fan for a reason! Anyways, it's an ungodly hour for me so I should go to bed, but I'll check back in tomorrow! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

”the story is the matter at hand”: except it’s not. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper and we don’t cover “the story”. We’ve already got more wordage in the section than I am comfortable, and any more and it will dominate and breach WP:DUE. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I have made some tweaks to indicate that other fan accusations followed (including about the live shows) and to improve the flow. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We have to be careful not to be too liberal with the material. The claim that the allegations led to "scrutiny of off color humor in Ballinger's [...] live shows" is technically not supported by the NBC article that's currently cited (I don't think it mentions her live shows at all). Other sources largely focus on that one single account by Becky regarding one of her live shows; I haven't seen any coverage regarding the inappropriateness of her live shows in general. Correct me if I'm wrong. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've removed that, although various expletives are shown, and some innuendo is used, in her live shows (often to highlight Miranda's prudish nature), as Ballinger acknowledged. This does not mean they were "inappropriate", but parental guidance was suggested, and children (under 13?) needed an accompanying parent or guardian. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. I really think the Becky stuff is not WP:NOTEWORTHY and would simply clutter up our rather efficient paragraph. Becky describes an experience that, she claims, made her feel bad, even though, she says, she specifically dressed skimpily to attend the show in hopes of being chosen for a skit with Miranda. Ballinger, by the way, has to squint out into the audience to pick volunteers from among the hundreds of screaming, jumping audience members in the orchestra section of each theater (In working on Miranda's and Ballinger's WP articles since 2009, I've seen a few of these shows in person over the years and watched videos of many more). Hundreds of other Miranda volunteers (of all ages) have gotten on stage to be sassed and criticized by Miranda, and then they went home deliriously happily to their beds after the shows. If you watch videos of the full Miranda shows, you will see that even though her live shows change from year to year, the basic schtick is the same, so volunteers know what they are getting into before they go to the show, and Becky even knew which skit she wanted to volunteer for (she says that she wanted to be what the ultra-prudish Miranda calls the "porn" example in the "porn" skit, but she inadvertently volunteered for the "yoga" skit). Moreover, what Becky describes as so traumatic should not, objectively, be traumatic to a person actually volunteering for a Miranda show. She did several "poses" with Miranda similar to, but, in Miranda style, not very good imitations of, the "YouTube Yoga Challenge" (like this). The punch line was a pose in which Miranda was supposed to balance on the other person's legs, but when she spreads the volunteer's legs to get into the pose, a loud "fart" sound plays over the loudspeakers, and Miranda runs away.

Also note that we discuss Dahl's accusations as well as McIntyre's, and these are the original, and two most repeated, sets of allegations that the best sources all refer to. Adding the other pile-on allegations would just be longer and not add much to a reader's understanding of the nature of the allegations that have found the most traction in the higher-quality sources and, again, if someone is interested in this topic and wants to read the sources, they will get a much more nuanced understanding than if we just said that "other ex-fans soon made similar accusations". I also think that the sources we cite are much better than RS and HuffPo, which give the topic more sensationalistic coverage. Per WP:DUE, I think we have given the accusations all the coverage that they are due at this point. There could be further developments. -- Ssilvers (talk) :09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

re: Becky, the Rolling Stone piece portrays her story less as another accusation of inappropriate behavior on Ballinger's part (the article concedes that the joke was innocent), but moreso as a testament to Ballinger's "toxic" fandom and pressure to retain her parasocial relationship with Ballinger despite feeling the urge to voice her embarrassment. It's an anecdote that's supposed to illustrate how unhealthy parasocial relationships can be and how much power fandoms can wield. For that reason, I tend to agree with Ssilvers that it's not worthy of inclusion in this particular context. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I think Ssilvers addition of the short sentence regarding other accusations is enough! Imo adding the details of Becky's story could open the door for Silvestri et. al., and the subtopic would get overly long. I apologize for going so hard on the Becky example when I was mostly trying to illustrate the need to include some reference, no matter how brief, of other accusations. Taking it as a learning experience and giving myself a slap on the wrist for being unclear and "extra". Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No worries. We're all just trying to get to the best encyclopedia article we can write, which is always harder when news coverage is swirling around. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I feel like what Becky said should be in the article. It doesn’t matter if she went to one hundred Miranda shows and knew the skits or not. If Becky said she felt mortified at the show she attended and said as much to Rolling Stone, it should be included. It doesn’t matter if Colleen had to squint to see people in her show to pull on stage, (which sounds like original research and seems like a defense for Ballinger and seems biased) the comments about Becky by Ssilvers seem like victim blaming. And as far as too much wordage? You can’t be serious? Colleen Ballingers article is excessively long to begin with and I don’t think including Becky’s account of how she felt and what she said to a reporter is going to ruin the article. Paige Matheson (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Mild embarrassment isn’t encyclopaedic. We also have to remember WP:DUE. - SchroCat (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Original research applies to content in a Wikipedia article. It does not apply to explanations on a Talk page to try to help editors understand the context of an article being discussed. WP:FOCus on the article content, not on editors. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Mild embarrassment?? The context is that Becky has gone on record to say the words “TRAUMATIZED”. The sources corroborate that, and you adding your little opinion pieces is not encyclopedic. Focus on the actual sourced material, not your opinions on the matter. Despressso (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The sources don’t “corroborate” anything of the sort: they parrot the claim, no more. All we have is that someone dressed in a way to go on stage, volunteered to go on stage, wanted to go onstage, went to the gig dressed to go on stage and was embarrassed about what happened when she went on stage. That’s what various sources say and none of them provide anything encyclopaedic in the nature of the reports. Embarrassment isn’t encyclopaedic, particularly if you’ve tried to get yourself on stage to take part in a comedy sketch where you know in advance that audience members are embarrassed. Again, this is covered by sources. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned this earlier in more detail, but Becky's allegations are covered by the "other allegations" statement in the second paragraph of the subtopic, which works imo. That being said, SchroCat, Can an RS fact-check/corroborate feelings in some way that isn't taking the primary source at their word, and is it appropriate for editors to challenge them if it's not happening in any of the RSs themselves? It seems like a really interesting epistemological issue, so it would be cool if Wiki had a best practices recommendation I could take a look at? Despressso, do you have a draft/could you put one forward of what you think should be changed in the current text? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

This is part of the problem. Anyone can claim any feeling and it’s unprovable whether they do or don’t feel that emotion. This is one claim from someone who tried very hard to be on stage and then said they were embarrassed about it some years later. Is that encyclopaedic? As editors we also have to take into perspective the fact that this was a skit that has been repeated many, many times and no-one has said anything similar. So we have one person saying they were embarrassed against a whole host of people who haven’t said anything. We can’t presume whether all those others were fine with it or were also embarrassed, but one claim of someone who didn’t enjoy being on stage despite trying very, very hard to be on stage doesn’t merit inclusion.

There shouldn’t be anything else added onto the section based on the current sources: we already have something that is probably breaching WP:WEIGHT by the percentage of words in the article against the rest of her life and career, so adding to it goes against many of the policy restrictions of WP:BLP. If more allegations or news comes out that may change, but at the moment, we’ve probably already got too much on this already. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That does make a ton of sense! I guess the confusion is coming from how widely it's being reported on-- which leads me to a lot of hypothetical questions, but I'll ponder them on my own haha. I personally agree that the subtopic doesn't need or warrant any additional detail then what it already has-- but I do think if Despressso wants to make alterations they can always put forward a specific draft to discuss? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of this particular topic has been discussed ad nauseam. I doubt that a draft will sway enough editors, but of course anyone is free to try. I do wonder if there is a case to be made for inclusion of the "inappropriateness" of some of her live show segments generally. That would tie the whole PG-13 thing together, too. I currently don't have the time and energy to go over all of the sources to see if such a statement would be supported, but if anyone wants to, I'm open to proposals. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing re: the inappropriate humour, and I haven't been able to find anything in a RS aside from Becky's claims (which I assume is what Ballinger is referring to with those comments anyways). There do seem to be reams of social media posts cataloguing objectionable content, but nothing's been reported on. Honestly, as you mentioned, the section is pretty long, perhaps the PG-13 statements could be something to trim? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe add The allegations led to accusations by other former fans, including of inappropriate behavior during her Miranda Sings live shows. The last bit would be supported by the Vulture article, which discusses the allegations by Becky, Grace, or anyone else alleging inappropriate behavior during any Miranda Sings tour show. It's essentially the same bit Ssilvers added earlier, but now with a source that (hopefully) supports the statement adequately. That way we could keep the PG-13 bit. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I just made a frankenstein-ed version of the drafts by SchroCat, Ssilver's current version, and Throast's above addition. It replaces most of the direct quotes from all involved with synopsis, maintains the PG-13 quote, shortens the details around McIntyre and Dahl, and presents the other allegations with a touch more context. I also strove to keep the word-count around or below what it is now and all the sources are nearly identical to Ssilver's. I added Throast's source, and my own with NBC, to support the comedy claims. I want to reiterate that I'm totally fine with what we have! In fact, I think it's quite good! I thought I'd try my hand at tackling some of the concerns regarding extending the length, including the PG-13 comment, and how to create a more holistic/less detail heavy text.

In June 2023, YouTuber Kodee Tyler Dahl, another former fan, posted a video, which Dahl soon deleted, showing "purported screenshots" [LA Times] of a group chat that suggested Ballinger had asked minors about their virginity and preferred sexual positions [Vulture]. McIntyre claimed to have been a recipient of those texts when he was 15 [LA Times]. Soon after, a number of former fans appeared in the press [NBC, Rolling Stone, HuffPo] with further allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Ballinger, including at her live shows [NBC, Vulture]. After a month-long break from social media, Ballinger posted video response in the form of a song. She admitted to having made mistakes, but denied accusations of grooming [citing Variety and the video]. She stated that Miranda Sings has always been marketed as PG-13 humor, is not on any kids' app, and that parents should decide if their child should watch her videos or attend her live shows [citing Variety and Vulture]. The video received negative comments [NBC, Billboard]. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Goodlucklemonpig, I'm afraid that I don't think this is better. In the group chat, McIntyre had asked for questions to use in his YouTube Q&A, and Ballinger is supposed to have suggested that HE ask: "Are you a virgin?" She did not ask it of the people in the group chat. She then supposedly asked McIntyre what his favorite sex position was. So I object to saying that she asked "minors" these things. Punctuation always goes before refs, not after. We should not say "a number". See MOS:WEASEL. I still think the Vulture, Variety, NBC and L.A. Times sources are better and more precise in their descriptions than RS and HuffPo. I would not cite the last two. I disagree with "with further allegations of inappropriate behaviour". For example, what Beckly described was not inappropriate behavior. She claimed that her feelings were hurt by a comic bit that was not inappropriate if one knows exactly what happened. I think it is best as is, but I could live with "Several other former fans soon described interactions with Ballinger that they felt were inappropriate." The period of the break was less than a month, and who cares? It was not 10 years later, it was pretty soon. As I said, I don't think we need to mention the PG-13, since it is not entirely right (though not entirely wrong), and therefore doesn't inform the reader of much. So, I think that what we have is best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean about the clarity missing regarding the messages. Re: the Q&A, he was asking for questions about himself, if I understand what "Q&A's" are as a YouTube video trope, so it could be claimed as a roundabout way that she did ask him. But that's not anything I feel strongly about, and I have no issue if the full context remains. The specific reason HuffPo, Rolling Stone, and NBC are used is to point to where the accusers actually "appeared" in the press and gave first-hand statements. What about: "(maybe: Several) former fans soon appeared in the press alleging separate negative experiences with Ballinger."? The "appeared in the press" aspect, to me, is when and how this even became a encyclopaedic event. I also agree the month long break part is unnecessary! I think with the trimming of the PG-13 comments and the 'month long break' qualifier, the section could hit a length SchroCat is more comfortable with? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"appeared in the press" is redundant, because none of this would not noteworthy if the press had not picked it up. And we *do* already cite NBC. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah! That's very true! How about: "[Several?] former fans soon came forward alleging their own negative experiences with Ballinger."? "Negative experiences" seems like a useful phrase to describe the separate allegations, while including Becky? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Their *accusations* would not be about positive experiences, so, again, redundant. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I figured "negative experiences" was a specific enough phrase to encompass the breadth of claims, but I guess it could be seen as redundant under the subtopic title. Your suggestion above of "Several other former fans soon described interactions with Ballinger that they felt were inappropriate." could work! I would perhaps change "described" to "alleged", or add "alleged" before "interactions". Just like McIntyre and Dahl, many of the further allegations are based off screenshots. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, just a suggestion, but perhaps the "asking...his favourite sex position" should be clarified as the second question she suggested for his Q&A? It's phrased a bit strangely in the Vulture article, but I believe the continued context of the Q&A is inferred. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the current language, which is, IMO, most efficient way to include the most WP:Noteworthy info about all of this. The other language you quote would be a slightly worse fallback, IMO. I think we should sit with the current language until all this settles down, and I do not think there is a consensus to change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm fine with that and see the wisdom in waiting. I do echo the concerns around including Ballinger's comments re: the appropriateness of her content, which I believe were made by Throast here and in a few other threads (with suggestions for a solution). It seems like we're the only two editors here atm, so the discussion can't reach a meaningful consensus anyways. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

In YouTube Q&As you don’t ask questions. You answer them. It’s like an AMA, you answer the questions asked by people. In this instance, she directly asked him to answer that question in his video. Despressso (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Reviving this conversation as I posted the same concern in a new topic for discussion, and so far no one has offered an opinion on the substantive content of that particular concern. As the line referring to the general charge of inappropriateness has now been replaced, the statement Ballinger made about Miranda Sings not being marketed to kids has no context. I suggest removing it, or adding Throast's sourced version. I've been really trying to get this concern addressed, and I'm not quite sure why there hasn't been any engagement on the talk page as it seems like the edit history is quite active. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. There are a few editors whose comments have successfully driven me off of the article in recent days. I obviously still support the little addition I proposed above; as you say, the bit about Miranda Sings not being marketed to kids requires context, which it's currently lacking. That said, I won't be commenting here anymore, so (contrary to my signature) no need to ping. Cheers Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 22:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi SchroCat I'm wondering if we can reach a compromise on how to include the statement. Throast offered a sourced suggestion above which I am fine with, although some surrounding phrasing would need to be reworked. I stand by the view that without the necessary context the information is out of place. It's inclusion at the moment relies completely on readers accessing outside sources, which strikes me as a reason to excise it from the text unless it's anchored by something. The allegations in this paragraph are extremely specific and detail private communications with no mention of Ballinger's content. I do wish discussion was had here before reverting the edit, as I did make a new topic on the matter, and re-engaged in this thread. It's discouraging to have an edit reverted (twice including reverting Zaathras's re-inclusion) after a good faith attempt at discussion, including tagging you in this thread after the first revert, has been met with no response. Editing to add: I would argue that as it stands Ballinger's acknowledgement that there were times she "overshared" in "DM's" is more relevant to the actual text in the article, which is almost completely about her messages to a fan and contains zero mentions of her videos or live shows. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paige! There was a ton of conversation in the previous thread about how/if to include the details of the other allegations, and while the article might be quite long already, it's probably best to avoid making it any longer. If you have suggestions on what needs to be pared back outside of this subtopic, that's probably something to discuss separately. Personally, I think the compromise reached of including the fact that there are further accusations (with detailed descriptions in the cited sources) is reasonable. In wiki articles I've read that discuss an initial allegation spurring a number of subsequent allegations, all occuring in a short span of time, the specifics of each accusation aren't included, rather they are addressed as one event. This seems to be the case with the current situation surrounding Ballinger and, imo, the reason it's notable in the first place. There's been a lot of loaded discussion here, but I believe that's all the more reason for everyone to assume good faith, remain impersonal, focus on the facts as they're presented in reliable sources, and provide actionable suggestions/drafts when a disagreement crops up Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Full protection

Please draft a proposal to be resolved with an RfC. The full protection can be removed by any admin without consulting me as soon as it appears there is an understanding that edit warring is not productive. I haven't followed all the back-and-forth since noticing this a few weeks ago at a noticeboard but it appears that a lot of the turmoil is due to attempts to tell the world about sins by the subject. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Would participants please become familiar with the details at WP:BLP and WP:DUE and propose text compatible with standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the content that @SchroCat added that's in dispute. Before opening a RfC I would like @Morbidthoughts, @Zaathras, and @Goodlucklemonpig to talk through the objection. This doesn't seem like something that we need a RfC to resolve. Thanks. Nemov (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, I am dropping my objection to omitting the sentence, but I am dismayed that Morbidthoughts and Zaathras got their way by Edit Warring rather than through discussion and consensus here on the Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I've been clear about my objection at BLPN[2] and in the edit summaries. There should be consensus for inclusion (WP:ONUS) for the specific content and that should be obvious from previous discussion rather than arguing STATUSQUO. I do not have any opinion on whether Ballinger's arguments that supposedly support that she's not a groomer are WP:DUE or otherwise appropriate for the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence that the two editors were repeatedly removing, over the objection of other editors, had been discussed under the Arbitrary Break heading above, and a consensus had been reached to retain it, at that time (or at least no consensus had been reached to remove it). So it seems to me that their repeated deletion of it from the article, instead of joining the discussion, was clearly a violation of WP:EDIT WAR, and the onus was on them to join the discussion before making the edit again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

And this is what we're observing here. Material you like gets included, and you revert-war attempts to remove it. Material you don't like gets removed, by you, and you edit-war to keep it removed, claiming we need consensus to include. Until the WP:OWN issues are addressed, this article will remain a cozy hagiography, with mild lip service paid to valid, sourced controversies. Today, there are allegations of racism and performing in blackface regarding the subject, which will be an uphill battle to even begin a conversation on, seeing how even the main stuff is whitewashed. Zaathras (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand the OWN reference here, but do you have an argument to oppose inclusion? As was pointed out, there was support to make the addition and I also support it. If you're going to remove it over and over, at least attempt to keep up with the current discussion. I can understand why some editors could feel like they're being stonewalled if content is being removed without participating in the discussion. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Especially if material was only recently added, then there is a very very big difference between there being no consensus to remove, and there being consensus to include. BRD doesn't mean bold, revert, discuss, ignore objections and say you have consensus and then require consensus to remove. As I said at BLPN, editors really need to try to achieve consensus rather than just claiming there is consensus because they're ignoring objections then when these objections get loud enough that they can't be ignored, claiming that there now needs to be consensus to remove when there was never consensus to include in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally don't see anything wrong with the inclusion of her comment, but if we're worried about UNDUE weight and the section being too long such that we're excluding stuff like the Becky thing, I think we have to seriously consider which is more important. I have not checked the sources myself, but from what others have said I think there may be more merit to include the Becky thing based on coverage in sources etc, than the comment on where Miranda Sings is posted which sort of seems irrelevant really. (AFAICT, the primary concerns are with her interactions with fans outside the videos she posts, as well as what she does on her live shows. And in any case that's what we currently cover. So her comment comes across as an example of okay but so what does that have to do with anything?) Please do not take my comment to mean you now have consensus for inclusion since that's still not how consensus works. In particular, I would like to hear more details on Zaathras and MorbidThoughts objections to the sentence. Nil Einne (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Despite what Ssilvers pointed to in the arbitrary break section, I don't see a clear consensus on that sentence. I see opinions all over the place on aspects of the paragraph. As far as I can tell, Goodlucklemonpig removed the sentence because it seemed like an UNDUE red herring without the appropriate context.[3] That got reverted with WP:ITSIMPORTANT.[4] Zaathras reverted on WP:ONUS and possibly WP:BLPRESTORE.[5] You two, correct me if I got your arguments wrong. My objection is also on ONUS, but I agree with you, Nil Einne, that the sentence is irrelevant and doesn't directly address what she allegedly did aka an UNDUE red herring. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Also one thing I would emphasise is that as always in these sort of cases, it's ultimate impossible for editors to truly evaluate the 10YT when it's currently day 30 (or whatever) of those 5/10 years since none of us have crystal balls. So we need to concentrate on things like level and depth of coverage in RS as well as precisely what the coverage says and any noted effects on her or her career. For the latter, from what I can tell, the only thing we seem to have at the moment is the response videos and negative reception to it. Despite some commentary on her allegedly losing subscribers and losing sponsors, this doesn't seem to have been significant enough for RS to comment on so it's irrelevant to us. This does temper any 10YT assessment i.e. at the moment it seems less significant. However even without such an effect we also need to consider the former i.e. level and depth of coverage and what the coverage says. Editors personal assessments of allegations, be they that something described as traumatising is only "mildly embarrass"ing or the opposite i.e. suggestions that it is "bordering on criminal activity" are at best unhelpful, and at worst BLP violations that shouldn't have been mentioned. (Please remember BLP applies to both Ballinger and her accusers.) We need to stick with what the sources say, not our personal views or assessments of any allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is accurate. The sentence "scrutiny of off color humor in Ballinger's [...] live shows" was deleted from the paragraph on July 1. That change was not proposed, and only you and Throast agreed on it. That removed sentence was a variation of what you and I agreed upon when discussing the original draft that reached consensus. I and (inferred from their suggestion) Throast thought it necessary for the inclusion of the "PG-13" comments, as illustrated by their proposal of a sourced version after you deleted it. When you responded to the concerns, you stated you were already going to remove the aforementioned PG-13 comments. On my end, and apparently Throast's, it was assumed that included the statement whole-cloth, not the section you actually deleted which was a minimal trim due to semantic issues around TV-PG and the literal use of PG-13 (again Throast's suggestion infers this). I replied with some concerns on July 2nd, and the substance of this concern remained unaddressed, so I started a new subtopic on the 3rd in which you responded to one issue but not this one. I asked you directly under that topic and again it was not addressed, so in hopes of getting direct feedback I revived the previous thread on the 5th. After the three days with no engagement, Throast replied and reiterated their support, so I removed the sentence in accordance with what had been previously agreed upon at the time of the consensus draft. It was perhaps a Bold Edit, but there was no consensus on that sentence, in fact there were concerns raised by two editors (myself and Throast), which Schrocat agreed should be looked at when the first draft was proposed on Jun 29th, stating: "there's good reasoning to take out things that haven't been mentioned or are not germane". Perhaps this is the result of a messy talk page, a misunderstanding, or something else, but from what I've seen and described above, there was no consensus. Regardless, this has all been discouraging. First, to have a deletion reverted without any explanation aside from it being "important" after detailing my concerns multiple times on the talk page. Second, to witness the edit warring, and see that none of the editors involved came here to engage the edit directly. Anyways, sorry for the novel, I just wanted to say my piece. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yikes. This is like that Community scene where Danny Glover goes to grab the pizza and ends up in the worst timeline. The fact an edit war got so heated full protection was necessary, come on. And over a) the inclusion of the word "ukelele" (!!) and b) an edit that seems universally opposed by all other involved editors that could have easily been hashed out with a discussion. I hope sense can prevail and this edit war can be solved with reasonable heads. There is a significant amount of relevant, reliable, well-sourced information that is missing from the article, and I think a lot of that stems from the fact it seems some editors involved have positive familiarity, perhaps even nostalgia, with regards to this YouTuber's work. I saw someone refer to it as a hagiography, it does certainly seem written with passionate hands. Others perhaps seem influenced by anger at the event that occurred. I am not singling out any individuals, I am just noting patterns across the edit history. I implore all editors to try and put aside their personal feelings and desires to shift how the subject of this article is perceived, and to embark upon the rote and perfunctory task of approaching this neutrally and properly providing the level of context that is merited without going beyond what is necessary.

Now, regarding the two issues that led to the protection. A) Ukelele: it does not seem necessary to include the mention of the ukelele where it was proposed to be included, it feels forced and hamfisted, so I am not in favor of including it there. That said, there is likely a more gracious location that is a more apt fit for mentioning the instrument in question.

B) The "parental guidance" sentences: these feel unnecessary too. They read as if they are taking a position. There are 7,000 other words in the article describing her content and past career. For the mainspace to assert that her content was "not meant for kids" (paraphrasing) sounds like original research, and also unencyclopedic. Also, if they were to be included, then you would also want to include any evidence to the contrary if it is reliably-sourced, which also feels unnecessary. Ultimately, none of it adds enough value to merit inclusion. Criticalus (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 July 2023

It’s needs updating to say groomer 🤷🏻‍♀️ 2A00:23EE:1970:186F:CD39:B988:5958:C244 (talk) 12:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. See WP:BLP for a start. We don't throw labels around, particularly for living people and particularly when you are trying to base something on unsubstantiated allegations, rather than anything concrete. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Blackface

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.

---

YouTube video singing "Single Ladies" in blackface. NOT COOL.

WE NEED THE CONTROVERSY TAB NOW. Blue Ridge Goddess (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Where is a video that Ballinger posted with her doing blackface? Please cite a WP:Reliable source that says this supposed blackface video real, and not an AI fake. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! It's actually viewable on her verified youtube channel, but is currently "unlisted" as reported by, and linked in, Variety. I am not getting involved with whether to include it, but thought I would offer the requested source. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Goodlucklemonpig How can one view the original video on Ballinger's channel? Variety posted someone else's version of it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It's here on the Miranda Sings channel. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember this concert. She has green make-up on her face, because she had just sung a number from Wicked. See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ooooh, that makes sense. It definitely looks brown from the lighting! Hopefully there are some retractions! Is original research acceptable here as basis for not including the material? EDIT: there's reporting on the green face-paint here although it's not framed as a retraction or definitive answer. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Is original research acceptable here as basis for not including the material? Lol, what? No, of course it isn't acceptable. The personal opinion of a Wikipedia editor does not trump reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I felt silly writing that, idk I assumed that Ssilvers was mentioning it as a suggestion on how to handle the text. Consider this a formal retraction and confirmation that there are occasionally stupid questions. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Update from Yahoo! BTW, while OR is not a basis for editing the article, mentioning it on a Talk page may help editors find useful sources, as it did here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Also reported in People.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Wrong (but similar) incident. NY Daily News[7] Huffington Post[8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's another controversy, this time involving her podcast co-host: Buzzfeed The Independent Insider Huffington Post E! News EntertainmentTonight

Shane Dawson has a Controversies section (at the time I'm writing this), I don't see why this article can't. Some1 (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC) Edited comment since Nemov, who commented below, removed the Controversies section from Dawson's article after my comment. Some1 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I oppose those sorts of headers because is is just lazy editing. Just use what the controversy is as the header, e.g. Hilaria_Baldwin#Allegations_of_cultural_appropriation. Zaathras (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I would support that approach too. The last sentence of the first paragraph of the 'Accusations...' section (regarding Latina and overweight women) seems out of place at its current location. Some1 (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Controversy sections violate WP:CRITS. The content can be included, but sections devoted to controversies should be avoided. Nemov (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2023 (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.