Talk:Gina Carano/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Strikeforce's 145 division is called Middleweight, and 135 is Welterweight, not Featherwight and Bantamweight

http://www.strikeforce.com/fighters/

CRISTIANE SANTOS - WOMEN'S MIDDLEWEIGHT CHAMPION NICKNAME: CYBORG FIGHTING OUT OF: CHUTE BOXE ACADEMY - BRAZIL HEIGHT: 5 FT 8 IN WEIGHT: 145 LBS AGE: 24 RECORD: 10-1

SARAH KAUFMAN - WOMEN'S WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION FIGHTING OUT OF: ZUMA MARTIAL ARTS - VICTORIA, CANADA HEIGHT: 5 FT 5 IN WEIGHT: 135 LBS AGE: 24 RECORD: 11-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delinquent1904 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WEC?

I read a Grappling/MMA magazine two days ago stating that Dana White was considering having Gina Carano fight on WEC "if they could find her a suitable opponent". Dose anyone know or even heard about this? --Dandvsp (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Weight class

Is there any controversy surrounding the weigh-in? Because the inconvenient-yet convenient "2.75 lbs. of clothing" sounds like a publicity stunt cooked up to capitalize on her looks and titilate male MMA fans. 71.154.4.63 (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


I agree i think the 2.75 seems a lil exaggerated 99.226.241.84 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Her first weight in was 142.75, her final weight was 141. 1.75 pounds (not 2.75 as you claim) for cloths isn't out the question when you take into count the skirt she was wearing at the weigh in. I weight 6 pounds more fully clothed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.63.111 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weight

American Gladiators reported her weight to be 155 lbs on their show that aired on 1/7/2008; should this weight be trusted? MikeDawg (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. She fights at 140 for EliteXC, the commissions give you a 1 pound allowance for non-title fights, so 141 is probably what she weighed in at for her last fight. I've heard that she has at least some difficulty making that weight, though, so I'd say 155 is probably accurate (or pretty close) for her walking-around weight. The overall trend for WP:MMA is to use their fighting weight, and most of the time someone will update that with whatever they weighed for their last fight. Given that she doesn't have to "make weight" for American Gladiators and her weight is only really important for fighting, it's probably better to leave it at 141 for now. Gromlakh (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I happened to notice the original change [1] because only the English unit was modified, giving an inconsistency. The change was unsourced and was contrary to the American Gladiators page, which lists 141 lbs. Gimmetrow 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


I added a section about her MMA weight issues and someone keeps deleting it. I tried to make it as unbiased as possible. Please watch for this and revert it back if the anonymous user keeps doing it. Dumbwhiteguy777 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

She tipped the sacle at 144.5 for her last fight, so even going by fighting weight, she's not 140. Please stop changing it back, Gery shaw ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.166.18 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the main article now locked and who's the troll that kept changing her weight back to 140 ! She hasn't made 140 in years ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitNHB (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Town of birth?

There is no town called Dallas County - that's usually used by some suburbanite who wants to claim Dallas as their hometown. So where is she from, really? 70.2.65.44 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

MuayThai.com profile has Dallas, TX as her birth place. ConayR (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Red Alert 3

Many rumors indicates she is appearing in Red Alert 3. A character named Natasha. Look at this video.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitly true. Madlozoz, 4 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.142.250 (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"the third most searched person on Yahoo![1] and the first on Google"

Should this not instead be worded as: the most searched person on Google and the third most on Yahoo? For two reasons, google is more widely used, and the higher award should be credited first. -NeF (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ring Girls was a Cult Film?

Since when is a reality show called a cult film? Secondly in the same paragraph is says the "film" is based on true events? It is a reality show. Come one who wrote this? MPA 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Mom's name

I see that her mom's surname is reported on this page as Cason and other media reports it as Teepee.Did her mom remarry or which one is the correct madien name.(MgTurtle (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)).

She's not 11

Age is wrong. Two different birthdates listed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.108.183 (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding gina carano website links

http://twitter.com/GinaCarano has over 16 thousand followers and its a verified account, http://www.facebook.com/ginacarano she puts links from her twitter account to this account thus proving its hers and she has over 57 thousand fans on her facebook, http://www.myspace.com/ginacarano she has over 79 thousand friends on her myspace account. its worth adding but if you disagree dont just delete the links please contact me first. thanks.--Pauldonald86 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gina Carano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gina Carano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gina Carano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Kickboxing record

I noticed we only have one fight in a table but apparently Gina has 12 wins or such in Kickboxing..... anyone care to go through and add the rest of her fights to that record table? Otherwise, we've already got in the infobox that she's got 12 wins and I think a record table with only 1 fight on it when there should be more looks dumb. I will remove it in a few days if no one adds all her kickboxing fights to it. I just don't have any internet access besides wikipedia to do this myself. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gina Carano/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I had read wikipedia about Gina Carano and it said she went to University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

This article, http://www.gershsports.com/Gina_Carano.htmsays she went to the University of Nevada, Reno.

I don't know much about editing wikipedia, but I wanted to bring this to someone's attention.

Thanks for looking into it,

Breakaway11 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pronouns

Carano uses boop/bop/beep pronouns on her twitter. There is no coverage of her gender identity however and I don't think she is being particularly serious. Any thoughts? Caius G. (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

On July 31st Gina Carano joined a protest to end sex trafficking. Posting a photo to Instagram Carano stated in her caption that I was proud to be a part of this today. It didn’t trend. It wasn’t apart of the right agendas apparently..[1] Carano implies that this movmenent should be gaining greater recognition than the Black Lives Matter Protest that was occurring at the same time. For this comment, she received praise from numerous supporters of the [Qanon] movement. Multiple comments using the hashtag [WWG1WGA]

Carano also received criticism for changing her [twitter] name to "Gina Carano boop/bop/beep" mocking the common practice of identifying personal pronouns such as they/them. Fellow co-star in [The Mandalorian] [Pedro Pascal] features he/him pronouns in his own [twitter] bio. Noticing this difference, Carano responded to those criticising her by starting "Pedro & I spoke & he helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios. I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose."[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrquhartInc (talk • contribs) 03:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Carano, Gina. "Sex trafficking protest". Instagram. Retrieved 25/10/2020. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "Statement on pronouns".

Article needs protection

There have been a lot of IP users removing content, deleting and changing citations or otherwise making edits that in my opinion could be considered disruptive. Subject's fans have been organizing recently on social media. It's possible this has something to do with them. As an outsider, it shouldn't be my concern, and it's not my place to accuse anyone of disruptive editing, but it may be wise to protect this article for the time being. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Locking the article or at least setting it to flagged edits would seem wise at this point. (I expect registered user will continue to fight over the article in any case but increasing the protection level may be overdue). -- 109.76.194.53 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

February 11, 2021

The article states that Carano was dropped by UTA/United Talent Agency. The reference immediately following this statement is an article from The Hollywood Reporter about Lucasfilm, it does not mention UTA. Please add the following reference instead, [2] specifically:

Replace X "droppped by UTA." with "Y"
droppped by [[United Talent Agency|UTA]].<ref>{{cite web |date=11 February 2021 |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title='The Mandalorian' Actress Gina Carano & UTA Part Ways In Wake Of Social Media Controversy |url=https://deadline.com/2021/02/the-mandalorian-actress-gina-carano-agency-uta-part-ways-in-wake-of-social-media-controversy-1234691964/ |website=Deadline }}</ref>

I leave it up to the editor to move (or remove) the Hollywood Reporter reference to a more suitable place, or not. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  •  Not done. The Hollywood Reporter ref says Carano has also been dropped as a client by UTA, an agency spokesperson confirms.? Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The reference [3][4] does not mention UTA. The article was changed since I made my request. -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Political Views?

Pro Thanksgiving Pro military Anti censorship Anti cancel Culture Anti masks voter Fraud conspiracy theory https://mobile.twitter.com/ginacaranore

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/mandalorian-gina-carano-anti-mask-fraud-trans-b1724073.html

https://filmdaily.co/news/gina-carano/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpolowing (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That first link you posted is a dead link. Her real Twitter page is at https://twitter.com/ginacarano
Her Twitter messages are not a clear indication of her politics. Her being from Texas is not a clear indication of her politics either. An encyclopedia cannot make guesses even if it seems obvious, and an encyclopedia must wait until better clearer sources are available. The standards required of biographical articles is high, you will probably need to wait until she directly states her politics in an interview. She is a sports person turned actor, she's not a politician, her political views might not even be important enough to add to the article even if she did clearly state them. -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue in light of recent events, particularly recent news articles about her contract with the Mandalorian TV program not being renewed because of an Instagram post, that her actual political beliefs are still not relevant. However, my feeling is that the interpretation of her statements by some as anti-semitic and fascist is relevant to the extent that it influenced her employment. I strongly feel that Wikipedia itself however must not attribute those interpretations to the statements, nor in any way imply that they are correct. Rendall (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional controversy information

I removed uncited information regarding the social media support for Gina Carano. If there are sources for it, we should probably find ones that mention that her support comes entirely from the same reactionary influencers who incited the harassment campaign agains Kelly Marie Tran, and the support for her is due to her propagating discredited QAnon conspiracy theories. I also added Antivax conspiracy theories to her claims, but I'm not 100% certain if they are mentioned in the source. The Mary Sue has more information about that. We should also probably mention her tweeting her support of the January 6 terrorist attack on the US Capitol. 213.233.88.151 (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The article claims she "falsely suggested the existence of voter fraud". This must be changed, since there were of course instances of voter fraud. 193.180.10.21 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Fired"

The statement by Lucasfilm quoted in most of the recent news coverage (such as CBS) says that Carano "is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future". While a number of sources interpret this as Carano being "fired" etc., a different article on Deadline says "Carano wasn’t attached to continue" with the series, and that there was no "deal" in place last fall for Carano to stay on. It's not clear how someone can be "fired" from a company they're not actually working for. I think it's best to err on the side of caution and simply report Lucasfilm's statement as saying Carano "would not return" to the role of Cara Dune pending more authoritative sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also in Vanity Fair: "Since Carano is not currently filming anything related to Star Wars, she was not technically fired" and "the Nazi post, which seems to have led Lucasfilm to end its connection with her" (emphasis added). We should avoid implying anything more definite unless a source says so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"We should avoid implying anything more definite unless a source says so."
"While a number of sources interpret this as Carano being 'fired'..."
I don't see the problem. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact, most of them only say that in their headlines – which are written by copy editors, not journalists. It looks like the copy editors got this one wrong. Besides, it simply doesn't make sense in light of the actual statement by Lucasfilm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Find one official statement from a company that literally states an employee of theirs was "fired". Granted, it wouldn't surprise me if they fired her sooner and just now confirmed it to distance themselves from her (Redacted). Considering the stuff she's been saying for the past six months, including (Redacted), which isn't even mentioned here, despite being covered by reliable sources, it's anyone's guess why she wasn't let go sooner. Talk about privilege. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion, and I remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so I've redacted some of your more inflammatory statements about Carano.
Returning to the topic, Carano was not actually employed by Lucasfilm at the time of the "firing", as indicated by the two sources I quoted above and strongly implied by Lucasfilm itself. Therefore it's best to proceed with caution and wait for more retrospective analysis and interpretation before we say she was "fired" or "dropped" by Lucasfilm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand. It was my impression that what you call "inflammatory comments" have actually been covered by reliable sources. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I note that the two most reputable sources cited so far, The Washington Post and The New York Times, don't explicitly say she was fired. The WaPo article says the company "sever[ed] ties with Carano ... after widespread backlash" to her Instagram post, but that's somewhat more vague than saying she was "fired". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

I'd like to remind everyone, fans and detractors alike, that objectivity is the guiding principle and you, yes, you reading this right now, are not objective. What actually happened is paramount, and any other interpretation, particularly weaving it into more global trends or situating it into any political framework, is original research and is forbidden. Do not allow any editor to push a political or social interpretation into the article even - especially- if you agree with it Rendall (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I include myself in those of us who are not objective. Even so, it is to be striven for, not subverted. Rendall (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That is an unfairly broad generalization. The only people here are gina carano fans pushing their political interpretation, and everybody else, striving for objectivity. The both-sidesism is uncalled for. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I was speaking generally. If you're being objective, then this reminder was not directed at you. You however might want to introspect about why you metaphorically stood up, waved your hands and said "that's me and how dare you", but I'll leave that to you.
However, if you're interpreting editors who propose edits that are neutral or nuanced, or want to eliminate interpretation, as only "Carano fans", this is exactly the problem this is meant to address.
Fan or detractors, objectivity is the standard. Speaking personally, I am a fan of "holding fast to standards" as should you be. "Fans of Carano" (and detractors) will degrade this article only to the extent that they allow their opinions to infect the article Rendall (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I did not "stand up, wave my hands and yell 'that's me and how dare you'". Also, i made no such interpretation. For days, if not weeks, Carano fans have been whitewashing facts and removing properly sourced content, while leaving long winded diatribes about how it's all lies and slander, outright ignoring any discussion on the topic. Some have even vandalized the talk page. There are no "detractors" of carano degrading this article. All such degrading has come exclusively from her fans. Your wording makes it sound like there are two sides pushing their own political narrative and ruining the neutrality of the article, when in reality, there is only one side: the people running damage control for her. Which is not surprising, because every alt-right talking head on the internet is now rallying behind her. They are the problem. Everybody else is trying their best doing what you're telling us: striving for objectivity. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The standard is neutral point of view, which means representing the views of reliable sources with due weight. You may be confusing objectivity with impartiality, which is part of NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. I would argue as an aside that impartiality and neutrality require some yardstick to measure against, but I see your point. Rendall (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
We have a yardstick. It's called "reliable sources". 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

46.97.170.253, it was an aside, but citing "reliability" is punting the question. Reliable to do what, exactly? Answer: to describes facts accurately and fairly without editorializing. In a word, objectivity Rendall (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has strict criteria for which sources are considered reliable. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2021

Replace X "she was pressured by Twitter users to support Black Lives Matter" with Y "she was criticised by twitter users for not voicing support for Black Lives Matter" This is how it was originally, but somebody changed it to push POV.

Replace X "In November 2020, there was debate between Star Wars fans who supported Carano and those who used the hashtag #FireGinaCarano to urge Disney to replace her on The Mandalorian" with Y "In response, Star Wars fans began to use the hashtag #FireGinaCarano to urge Disney to replace her on The Mandalorian". Again, this is how it was originally but was changed for false balance purposes.

Finally, replace X "Conservatives on social media responded to Lucasfilm's decision with the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus. In addition, Senator Ted Cruz defended Carano on Twitter, praising her as a strong female role model and criticized Disney's decision" with Y " " (blank). This is WP:FRINGE. And doesn't belong at all. Anyone who looks up the conservatives' astroturfed #CancelDisneyPlus hastag can confirm that 90% of the tweets come from people making fun of the boycott campaign. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For the first, the source says "pressured", so watering down what Twitter people were doing is what's POV. WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The second matter appears to be moot now. For the third, the first sentence thereof, it's reliably sourced to the New York Times; we don't change it based on personal original research. The second is sourced to a Houston paper; I am not feeling inclined to remove it but don't feel strongly in favor of it either. Crossroads -talk- 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No, we go by reliable sources. If reliable sources say she blocked people for pressuring her, which she didn't, she was salty that BLM received more attention than her fundraiser for Operation Underground Railroad, and what they don't, then saying she did is POV pushing. Her being pressured is your interpretation. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Her being pressured isn't an interpretation, it's what's in the source. If you have sources to counterbalance the claim, or sources to counterbalance the section you want excised, post them here. Otherwise, altering a sentence that is true to the source and a section that's reliably sourced is silly. Wertwert55 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Carano was fired without consulting Jon Favreau

"the decision to ultimately fire her came swiftly from the top, without need to check in with Mandalorian creator Jon Favreau." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.233.120 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

https://collider.com/the-mandalorian-cara-dune-controversy-recast-gina-carano-fired/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.233.120 (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Red Alert 3 was an acting role

When you have a minute, someone with editing access can remove "Voice role" from this line? It was video (Redacted)

> Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Natasha Volkova Voice role — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.3.160.194 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've redacted the YouTube URL because the clip violates copyright. The "voice role" text was unreferenced, so I've removed it as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

X Some conservatives on social media responded to Lucasfilm's decision with the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus.

Y Fans on social media responded to Lucasfilm's decision with the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus. 2001:8003:2376:F700:D9F:4FCA:AE88:38AF (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Parler

WP:NOTFORUM. The only reference to Parler in the article only says "social media platform"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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.

Parler is not "far-right." it is a free-speech platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:5C27:756F:E0FC:691A (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but you will need to restate your point more clearly if you want it to stick. Some editors are unwilling to separate the platform from the content that often appears on the platform. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2021 (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.

Please note that my comment above actually made sense before Special:Contributions/207.255.20.39 vandalized the comment from Special:Contributions/2601:701:C002:FD40:5C27:756F:E0FC:691A changing the meaning of the original comment [5]. It is unfortunate that User:RandomCanadian locked the section without first reverting the vandalism.
If you examine the edit history, and even comments on this talk page you can see it has been an issue recently and there has been back and forth over this for a while. The article was only recently restored to a neutral wording[6] ("social media platform") but there are people who keep forgetting that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and are not even trying to be neutral and objective. Anyway the article has since been locked which hopefully should calm things down a bit. 109.77.207.102 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to the initial comment by another user. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)}
I don't understand why this discussion was closed. Parler being a far-right platform is key to the controversy. Just saying she opened a parler account without clarifying what parler is is missing the whole point. Calling parler what it is, a far right platform is neutral and encyclopedic. Obscuring that fact leaves out key information. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Look at the Wikipedia page for Parler. Look at how it is described firstly as "a social network service". Then after that it says "Posts on the service often contain far-right content" but to be objective those two things have to be stated separately and you do not get to summarize and call directly call it a "far right social media platform"[7] because that fails WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia and it tries to be objective, so it must separate the social media platform from some of the subject matter that happens on it. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I looked at the article. The first thing that sticks out is the infobox saying "Part of a series on Antisemitism". Wether Parler is far right or not, has been a subject of lengthy debates. Regardless of what reliable sources say, one has to be either blind or willfully ignorant to read that article and not come away with the impression that Parler is a far-right social media platform. The whole reason it was created, like Gab or BitChute, is to host far-right content that would get anyone banned from any mainstream website that gives a damn about it's public image. Anyone who's too right wing for Twitter (a website that took over four years to ban Donald Trump despite his flagrant violations of their TOS) or Youtube (a website that still hosts and promotes alt right content and creators, in spite of many years of calls from journalists like Carlos Maza to fix this problem) is too far off the deep end. But none of that is relevant. This article is about Gina Carano. The article on Parler does a good job explaining that the website is a far right cesspool. The fact that it doesn't state it explicitly, because reliable sources on Parler avoid being too direct, is a technicality. The controversy section for Gina Carano on the other hand, doesn't have to split hairs. Gina Carano was criticised for opening an account on the far-right platform Parler. That is what she did, that is what she was criticised for that that is what the article needs to reflect. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Parler is not far-right. Stop lying. Just because the radical leftist Democrat propaganda media claims it is doesn't make it true. Twitter, in fact, is a far-left cesspool that's filled with totalitarian leftist lunatics who place pronouns in their profiles and get people fired from their jobs merely for being conservative. Twitter also bans people for stating scientific facts such as "men aren't women," it bans Jews for criticizing Islamic anti-Semitism (I'm speaking from personal experience), and it bans the president of the United States for calling for peaceful protests. You far-left extremist Democrats smear all conservatives as far-right. You Marxists need to stop lying. Parler is not far-right, and there is no such thing as "hate speech." There is only free speech. You leftist freaks think facts are offensive, so of course you deranged Marxist lunatics smear Parler as "far-right" without any evidence. You need to stop lying now. The only reason the Parler article contains an Orwellian "anti-Semitism" warning at the top of the article is because Wikipedia is dominated by far-left activists such as yourself who hate free speech and tell lies about conservatives in order to silence and oppress us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.214.32 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Lol. This above post is beyond parody. Clearly you took a wrong turn while looking for conservapedia. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's clearly us "lying', "extemist" "freaks" who are guilty of smears [insert eye roll]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone has since changed the text to from "social media platform" to read "conservative social media platform". Again this fails WP:NPOV, a platform does not have any inherent political alignment is merely a platform. A car could be extremely popular with conservatives but that wouldn't necessarily make it a far-right automobile. The nature of the platform and the comments and users are separate things. It shows a lack of objectivity to conflate the two separate matters. -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means we follow the majority of published, reliable sources. If they call Parler "conservative", "right-wing", "a cheese sandwich", etc., then that's what we say too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

12 February 2021

Parler is a far-right platform. Not a "conservative" one. Also, "hatred levied at american conservatives"? Since when did Hannity become a wikipedia contributor? 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The disputed wording has been removed. I'm not sure any WP:RS describe the platform itself as "far-right" though, just that it's intended as a safe space [irony] for right-wing content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see the difference. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Lucasfilm didn't tell Carano they fired her

“That was heart-breaking, but I didn't want to take away from the hard work of everyone who worked on the project, so I said ok. That was the last time I was contacted about any type of public statement or apology from Lucasfilm. I found out through social media, like everyone else, that I had been fired.”

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/gina-carano-and-crowd-sourced-mccarthyism

As discussed above, this is a self-published source by someone other than the article subject, and therefore not usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not true, see above. Gershonmk (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hard disagree that it is so clear cut. Note that WP:USINGSPS says "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable"." particularly "If you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.". That applies here. The *intent* behind not including a "self-published" source about a subject not by the subject is that it can include unverifiable claims, libel, bias. The example given in the docs for unacceptable is a personal blog post about a "neighbor, business partner, or friend". This does not apply to Bari Weiss publishing what Gina Carano said to Weiss on the record as a journalist. No one would reasonably dispute that it happened; not Weiss, not Carano. It is a reliable fact, "editorial oversight" notwithstanding Rendall (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not the issue. The point of contention isn't whether Bari Weiss' interview with Gina Carano happened. The only thing in that blog to support that Gina Carano wasn't told that she was fired are her words and nothing more. It would be as reliable as citing a twitter post she made. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Where an explanatory supplement contradicts policy, we defer to the policy. But in this case even WP:USINGSPS is unambiguous: Self-published sources can be used, "but not for third-party claims about living people" – Self-published sources are unacceptable as "third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". Supporting a direct quotation seems to be about statements by the author of a self-published source that have since been quoted in reliable, independent sources. It doesn't mean bloggers are suddenly reliable for interviews. In fact it's reasonable to be cautious of any journalistic claims until confirmed by outside sources. Remember Johann Hari? Any doubts should be raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, It doesn't matter because Deadline has picked it up https://deadline.com/2021/02/gina-carano-the-mandalorian-firing-actress-responds-social-media-1234694755/ Gershonmk (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording re Holocaust comments

@Jake453: I'm not sure why you reverted ([8]) my edit changing the wording about her recent comments about the Holocaust. You didn't leave an edit summary, which is generally good practice when dealing with non-vandalism edits. I see you earlier altered the text of the article to say that the post was made on Twitter, is that the issue you had with my wording? The cited article says she received criticism on Twitter, but the first paragraph says she garnered backlash on social media Wednesday after sharing several controversial posts on her Instagram story. Srey Srostalk 22:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence too, I don't think the wording Jake used was clear enough. I don't think summarizing it all as Republicanism and the Holocaust is in any way clear enough.
What I do think is clear is that Gina Carano would be better off if she hired a publicist and didn't comment on social media, and although I was skeptical before I think this also makes it clear now that this must be included in the article. I do think the change of section heading was an improvement. -- 109.76.194.53 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If she had hired a publicist this never would've happened and people would remain ignorant about what kind of a person she is. I want these sort of people, and those endorsing them (I'm looking at the Comicsgate movement here) out in the open where people can see them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Turns out her publicists parted ways with her months ago.[9] -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Imagine my shock. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I believe the current wording is misleading, and there seems to be an attempt at whitewashing her words under the guise of neutrality. "Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing political intolerance to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany" does not accurately reflect the content of what she said. She equated republicans, and specifically Trumpists being called out for their conspiracy theories and hateful, divisive rethoric with the persecution of jews during the holocaust. There is no such thing as "political intolerance" here. And let's stop pretending that this isn't antisemitic. It is. It's what it's being called, and wikipedia should not be muddying the waters around it for the sake of false balance. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Variety magazine quotes the since deleted instagram post from Carano [10]
You can suggest a better summary if you don't like the current one. The article is locked, so propose a specific edit of the form change "X" to "Y" and add the tag {{Edit semi-protected}} with your comment. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The current summary makes it look like she's making some general statement, but her comment is just a generic alt right talking point. Nobody is being "hated for their political views". That's a very dishonest way of framing criticism you're getting for spreading misinformation, promoting q-anon conspiracy theories, supporting the terrorist attack on the capitol comparing Black Lives Matter to nazis and calling them "tyrants and bullies", and spreading straight up unscientific and dangerous nonsense regarding covid lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccines. She was criticised for this, and she compared the criticism she was getting to the greatest atrocity in all of history. She isn't condemning "political intolerance" (which doesn't actually exist outside of alt right echochambers - it is the right who's willing to pay the bail of a murderer like Kyle Rittenhouse because he killed people who don't align with them politically), she's pushing right wing victim-mentality, by dishonestly claiming that free speach means the hateful rethoric of the far right should be uncritically allowed.
My recommended summary would go like this: "She made a poat on Instagram comparing criticism of republicans to the persecution of jews in nazi germany. The since deleted social media post was widely criticised for being tonedeaf and having antisemitic undertones." 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
That's not following the specified format if you are serious about making a real edit request. The source did not actually mention "republicans", and it did not state that her comments were "tonedeaf" so if you want to add anything like that you will need to find reliable sources that say it first, you can't just add your own words. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@109.77.207.102 Agreed. Original text does not mention Republicans and it is improper to editorialize the language like that. MarioCerame (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I expect plenty of reliable sources to cover this in the near future. Her post is easily recognizable as a textbook example of well documented gamergate/ comicsgate/ qanon gaslighting tactics. She's been spending a lot of time on social media cozying up to those people in the mast two months, and now she's using their tactics. If reliable sources ignored that so far, they most certainly won't be able to ignore it now. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Mr. 46.97.170.253 (Oops, did I just commit a thought crime by assuming your gender?), Linda Ronstadt recently compared the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States to the Holocaust, but she was never canceled for her obscenely inaccurate and offensive statements. Do you agree that we should add Linda Ronstadt's alt-left anti-Semitism to her article, or are you just another leftist hypocrite with double standards against conservatives?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.214.32 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
False equivalence and whataboutism (also, pathetic attempt at trolling). Being called out for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, and promoting hateful divive rethoric, is not comparable to the holocaust. But many people, including historical scholars and holocaust survivors have drawn parallels between nazi germany, and the trump administration, especially trump's practice of putting immigrants' kids in cages. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
And let's stop pretending that this isn't antisemitic. If the above is the quote under discussion, I don't believe it's coherent to call that anti-semitic. Clueless or tonedeaf, sure, but an anti-semite would not hold up the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany as a bad thing, but as a good thing. Let's look at what the ADL defines as anti-Semitism: The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. [[11]] By this light "We should not treat conservatives the way that Nazis treated Jews" (if that's even a fair paraphrase) is an hyperbolic and insensitive statement, but not anti-semitic. That said, it is indisputable that some have interpreted this as anti-Semitism, and that might or might not be WP:DUE, but Wikipedia must not take the stance that Carano or the statement is an example of anti-Semitism Rendall (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned that the post she shared came from the The Warrior Priest Podcast Instagram or that it contained the song "Nazi Punks Fuck Off"?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.233.120 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Instagram post

I think the best way to handle this is to give the quote Variety uses in her Instagram post - avoids having to discuss the description of it, and it is no so long that it raises copyright issues etc. Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The criticism section was nothing but walls of direct quotes from her, until another IP user trimmed them down to the essentials. And I agree with the reasoning they gave. There is no reason to include the entire quote when the the core of her argument is very simple. She's comparing the scrutiny republicans, and specifically trumpists like her are getting for their behavior on social media (and in real life - see also, January 6 terror attack on the US capitol), to the dehumanization of jews proceeding the holocaust. That is what her argument is. The rest are just ww2 history, and doesn't change the essence of her comment. A comment which by the way is thoroughly ridiculous, insulting, and yes, antisemitic. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I maintain that the inclusion of the whole quote is unnecessary and doesn't add any new information. Just makes the paragraph longer and harder to read. In addition, this summary makes absolutely no sense: "comparing political polarization in the US to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany". How do you compare political polarization to the holocaust? She was comparing the backlash to her behavior on social media to the holocaust, not "political polarization". This wording is neither impartial, nor encyclopedic. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Almost every quality RS (from the WPO to the NYT) on this event includes that specific quote from her Instagram, so it is notable and central to the event. Anybody reading this section about this major event in her career will look for the quote. It also resolves issues around having to introduce or explain it, which can introduce POV. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the entire quote is WP:UNDUE. Just being included in news stories doesn't make it encyclopedic. Articles are based on evaluation, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation by published sources, not indiscriminate quotations. As to what Carano really meant, the sources just say: "[Carano] implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" (WaPo); "One of the posts she shared compared today’s divided political climate to Nazi Germany" (Variety); "The actress shared a TikTok post comparing the current divided political climate in the U.S. to Nazi Germany" (Deadline). Any further interpretations need a published, reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (edit: see also Reuters and NPR for similarly terse summaries. 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC))
It is hard to see it being UNDUE when it is the specific sentence that created the event, which is quite a material event in her career ? Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
OK then, find a published source that says so. Most of the cited sources refer to a whole series of controversial remarks. The Lucasfilm statement doesn't single out just one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The specific tweet is reprinted by Washington Post, Reuters, Rolling Stone, The Guardian (I could go on and list off the long list of WP:RS/P sources who felt it important to specifically re-print the tweet)? I can't see how a reader of her BLP would not want to read the specific sentence which has caused so much drama in her career? Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
It's more than one sentence. We don't repeat every newsworthy detail because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. See additional reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Use the quote itself if it's going to be discussed at all. Any other action is original research. Some readers will interpret it as anti-semitic, others will not. It's not for Wikipedia or its editors to control how it is taken. Just the facts, please. Objectivity is the standard, not one or the other interpretation. Rendall (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm with Sangdeboeuf here. "Carano implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" (WaPo) - that is an accurate and properly cited summary of what she said. Everything else is filler. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a journalist's interpretation of what she said. However, the quote plus "...the statement was interpreted as implying that conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" would be an accurate and properly cited summary of the journalist's view. I would accept that as objective.
As a minor point, the controversy is not over her saying this, but over her sharing an Instagram story written by someone else.  Rendall (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Multiple sources say something similar: "[Carano] compared being conservative today to being Jewish in Nazi Germany" (Global News); "implying that being a Republican today is like being Jewish during the Holocaust" (Hollywood Reporter); "comparing the persecution of American conservatives to the Nazi persecution of Jews" (Daily Beast); "posted on Instagram that being a Republican in America is pretty much the same thing as being a Jew in Nazi Germany" (TheWrap). Adding weasel words isn't going to clarify anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) edited 06:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Not sure really, the quote highlights what was said, there are of course some who probably feel it provides a rationale, or context, for her position, but in actuality it serves to concretize the idiocy of her statement, while demonstrating her ignorance of history. Saying she "compared being conservative today to being Jewish in Nazi Germany" kinda misses the mark. Acousmana (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
How does it miss the mark? It accurately conveys the idiocy of her statement and demonstrates her ignorance of history. It's an accurate summary of her statement and it speaks for itself. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Weasel words Could you be more specific? I don't understand how those are weasel words. To be clear, I'm proposing that the statement should accurately separate the quote from it interpretation. It sounds like you want to say in effect "Carano implied that conservatives are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany", which IMO is editorializing. It is an important interpretation to understanding the conflict, which is what matters, ultimately, I agree. But "Carano said x, interpreted by many sources[ref] to mean A" is fair and accurate. What is your objection to including the actual quote with the interpretation? Rendall (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"The statement was interpreted as" - those weasel words. The statement wasn't "interpreted as" saying what it did. The reliable sources directly state that that is what her statement is, and that's what we go by. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
See MOS:QUOTE ("It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words") and WP:IMPARTIAL ("Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute"). There are few more heated arguments than comparing your opponents to the Nazis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Weasel words attempt to convey the impression of authority where none exist, as stated in the link.  If you show how quoting Carano followed by a cited, prominent interpretation of that quote is a weasel word, I'll listen.
Moving on to the discussion at at hand, I oppose any wording of the sort "Carano implied...". Wiktionary thereby engages in the controversy, not simply describing it as per policy. Principled people can disagree on the interpretation of that statement, but inserting a single interpretation in the article is editorializing. Eugene Volokh, for instance, could read that wording and disagree that it implies any such thing: [[12]] Rendall (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good. Wikipedia doesn't comment on what the reliable sources say, but simply pass on the message. We are not writing an essay on how different reliable sources interpreted her words. The article needs to DIRECTLY convey what the reliable sources say, then make proper attributions, without bloating the article with filler text that only serves to muddy the waters around what is a clear-cut black and white issue. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Britishfinance, Rendall, Acousmana, and myself all favor inclusion of the quote, with only Sangdeboeuf and the single-purpose 47.x IP against. Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. [13][14] WP:QUOTEFARM does not apply to one encyclopedic quote. MOS:QUOTE does not forbid quotes and is not a reason not to do so. It has the support of sources. I am not debating you, Sangdeboeuf. Start an RfC if you really think all 4 of us are wrong about content policy and would be overturned by an RfC. Crossroads -talk- 18:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think it is appropriate to use the quote of the tweet for this case purely because it would probably diminish edit warring of any pov paraphrasing of the tweet. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there's been any edit-warring over the content of the tweet post itself. And the community has ways of dealing with disruption that don't entail punting the question to our readers as if to say, "Oh well, figure it out yourselves". All we need to do is summarize the sources analyzing the tweet post (see below). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) edited 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that is a good rationale. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
+1 The quote is only one line, and is arguably going to have a very material impact on her career (and life); makes no sense not to include it, and then waste further time debating how to describe it.  WP:UNDUE cannot apply to a quote that has had so much impact on a subject's career (i.e. if it is not DUE, what is?). Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
DUE doesn't mean anything you are I might personally think is important. It means proportionately representing the viewpoints of published sources. A verbatim quote doesn't really count as a "viewpoint" of the person quoting it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
But when a list of WP:RS/P sources (per my reply earlier with Reuters, WPO, Guardian), reprint the quote as being important to understand the event, then we have to go by what sources say? I can't see how UNDUE would apply? Britishfinance (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
See my reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Crossroads: Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like. I never said MOS:QUOTE "forbade" quotes, and lots of things have "the support of the sources" without belonging in an encyclopedia; should we quote all her social media posts in full that have made the news? Aside from that, your argument basically boils down to "Nuh-uh". Feel free to respond to the actual substance of any arguments you disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
And I'll definitely be remembering this personal attack and misrepresentation, given that I am supporting the consensus of other editors. As for MOS:QUOTE, you brought it up as a reason not to have a quote in your 14:44, 12 February 2021 post. As for argumentation, I am not obligated to WP:SATISFY you. Crossroads -talk- 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I did, and even cited the exact sentence where it says we should generally paraphrase material rather than quoting it directly. Consensus is not a vote. If you have any policy-based reasons for including the quote, as opposed to mere wikilawyering about what is and isn't "forbidden", this would be the place to say so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
And I've argued with you enough to know not get into these further; WP:SATISFY applies. Crossroads -talk- 23:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
From what I've seen, sources are split on whether Carano compared "being conservative/Republican" or "the US political climate/polarization" to being Jewish in Nazi Germany. The New York Times says Carano "compared 'hating someone for their political views' to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust". Carano didn't explicitly mention conservatism, even if it's obvious what she meant. The Washington Post elaborates: "As Carano has been an outspoken supporter of former president Donald Trump and has often complained about the backlash against her conservative opinions, many critics took the post as her equating Republicans with Jews in Nazi Germany."
Using these two reliable sources as a foundation, we can convey what the post was about and the reaction to it without needing to quote the entire thing. (@Rendall: the weasel words in question are "was interpreted by", as explained already.) Here's my proposed compromise:

The hashtag #FireGinaCarano resurfaced in February 2021 after Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing "hating someone for their political views" to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust.[1][2][3] Many critics interpreted the post as comparing American conservatives with Jews in Nazi Germany.[4][5][6] Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them ...

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support that as it is to the point, succint, and seems to offer a fair summary without being overly bloated. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Your own statement says the NYT and other sources compared it to political polarization instead, and that sources are "split"; but then you focus on one interpretation in the proposal. The quote is still pivotal and something readers will want to know; and better than a single interpretation. A group of 4 or 5 editors is also not obligated to "compromise" with one if WP:DROPTHESTICK applies. We'll see what other editors think. Crossroads -talk- 22:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposal actually contains both of the common interpretations of Carano's post. They are simply framed differently, according to the two most reputable sources available, namely the NYT and WaPo. Nor is it "4 or 5" against one at this stage. I think it is you who needs to drop the stick. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I am rather indifferent on the inclusion of the full quote (but perhaps lean on the summary version as the full quote is admittedly a little long and can be seen in the sources), but I think something needs to change in the current wording on the article. As Sangdeboeuf pointed out, Carano made no reference to conservatives in her post, so the current wording "...after Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany" is a little misleading. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a good reason to avoid quoting it. I don't have a stick since I am explicitly wanting other editors' input rather than insisting on problem-tagging or demanding others satisfy me with their arguments. Maybe the new proposal will be accepted, maybe not. Crossroads -talk- 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The onus is on those favoring inclusion. If you want the post to be quoted in full in the article, it is on you to satisfactorily provide reasons for it. "I don't see why not" is not how we write an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I said why above; don't act like my last post was the only one. Crossroads -talk- 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The quote is still pivotal and something readers will want to know; and better than a single interpretation ... Crossroads -talk- 22:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC) – policy explicitly contradicts this: per WP:V, "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible". Per MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words". Per WP:NOR, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources ... A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." For our purposes the quote is a primary source, while the analysis of the NYT and WaPo are secondary. We rely on sources to tell us what's "pivotal", and it's way too soon to know that this one deleted Instagram re-post from a different account is going to be of lasting significance. Readers who are just dying to see the full post can do so by looking at the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Misusing policy. V and NOR don't forbid an encyclopedic MOS:QUOTE. V isn't talking about quotes for quotes' sake; it's talking about ordinary referencing. NOR does not apply because this quote appears in the secondary sources and is sourced to such and presented in them, whose example we can follow. The quote in such a source is not a primary source. Do try to stop WP:WIKILAWYERING by quoting policies for things they obviously do not apply to. Crossroads -talk- 01:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The definition of a secondary source is that it provides analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. A direct quotation is none of those things. It is you who are Wikilawyering by harping on what is and isn't technically "forbidden" by policy. Saying the quote is "encyclopedic" over and over, without giving policy-based reasons for it, doesn't make it so. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, which is why we don't follow news sources in everything we do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
A quotation is not a source; a source is what the quotation is from. The news media source does indeed engage in analysis, etc. Stop repeating your false "no policy-based reasons" claim, and stop with the WP:LASTWORD-ism. Crossroads -talk- 02:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course the source contains analysis, as I've already stated. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that a source engaging in some analysis and evaluation automatically makes everything else in the source fair game for inclusion? Because that's certainly not what WP:SECONDARY is about. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For a similar incident regarding some social-media posts that attracted intense controversy, see Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 7 § Proposal to include quotes in the article. Consensus was that quoting the posts verbatim went against a range of principles outlined under WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:COATRACK, and WP:UNDUE, despite the fact that the media widely quoted them. The same reasoning applies here, I think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the reason why both interpretations need to be included. The way I see it, the two interpretations are how Gina Carano's damage control brigade is framing it, versus how everybody else understands it, including reliable sources like WaPo. One of these is not like the other and should not be treated on the same level. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No two situations are alike. Crossroads -talk- 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. So far no policy-based reasons for inclusion have been put forward that I can see. Waving away all comparisons to other articles is not helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Per my reply earlier in this section, we have a long list of WP:RS/P sources who specifically reprint her quote in covering the event. We have to go by what the highest quality sources say and chronicle that. Given the volume of high-quality sources reprinting the tweet, I can't see how UNDUE applies? Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a diary, chronicle, or newspaper. Our job is to summarize the sources, not just pick out the juicy bits verbatim (see WP:IMPARTIAL). We already have the analysis and interpretation of reliable sources to go on, and more recent sources are already moving past the immediate details of the controversy; Reuters for instance gives the event a single summary sentence: "Walt Disney Co's Lucasfilm studio said on Wednesday it would no longer work with her after she posted on Instagram drawing parallels between persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and the treatment of people who hold conservative political views today." Something like that should be sufficient. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a specific tweet, reprinted by a long list of WP:RS/P sources around the world (and led to over 600,000 hits on her Wikipedia article alone), and has had a major effect on her career (dropped by the studios and agency). It can't be categorized as NOTNEWS, or selective picking of information. Wanting to replace the specific tweet (which the many WP:RS/P sources reprint), with an interpretation from an individual source (as you mention above) on the tweet, also makes no sense, and will only open further extended issues over POV and selection of which individual source to use? I could not support that I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Once again, the fact that you or I might personally think it's significant is beside the point. I never said we can only use one source. As the story develops I'm sure there will be more we can draw on. We have policies on which sources to use. The fact that users may disagree on which ones are best is normal and to be expected. It's not a reason to bypass the normal process of summarizing and contextualizing that makes an encyclopedia different from a newspaper. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
No, I have listed off several WP:RS/P sources (and could probably give circa. twenty, just looking at a google search of the sentence), that have all decided to reprint the sentence in full as they consider it notable for their readers; what we do is chronicle what they do? To decide not to reprint it is a personal view, which I think is in the minority on this thread. However, I could be wrong, so perhaps consider running an RfC to resolve? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past one another. I haven't disputed that the post was widely quoted. It obviously was. But Wikipedia is not a news aggregator; we don't simply "chronicle" what newspapers print. Today's weather was also printed widely; that doesn't make it encyclopedic information. Editorial opinions about what is and isn't encyclopedic may indeed be personal interpretations of WP policy, but are not equivalent to personal opinions about the event itself or its real-world impact. Finally, consensus is not decided by majority vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
just use a f***ing [nb] to supply the full quote, and keep precious paraphrased version in the text, problem solved. Acousmana (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Victor, Daniel (11 February 2021). "Gina Carano Is Off 'Mandalorian' Amid Backlash Over Instagram Post". The New York Times.
  2. ^ "Gina Carano fired from 'Mandalorian' after social media post". PBS NewsHour. Associated Press. 11 February 2021.
  3. ^ Moreau, Jordan (10 February 2021). "'Mandalorian' Star Gina Carano Under Fire for Controversial Social Media Posts". Variety.
  4. ^ Bella, Timothy (February 11, 2021). "Gina Carano is off 'The Mandalorian' over 'abhorrent and unacceptable' social media posts, Lucasfilm says". The Washington Post.
  5. ^ Parker, Ryan; Couch, Aaron (February 10, 2021). "'The Mandalorian' Star Gina Carano Fired Amid Social Media Controversy". The Hollywood Reporter.
  6. ^ Elliott, Josh K. (February 11, 2021). "Disney fires Gina Carano from 'Mandalorian' over Holocaust remark". Global News.

Edit war over Fox News source

To prevent an edit war over something small, I decided to come to the talk page, since Gershonmk keeps deleting my sentence. I'm not giving Fox News undue weight with that sentence, I'm summarizing what Fox News is saying conservatives are saying, which I feel is obvious because of how the sentence starts. There was another source saying the exact same thing, but it was deleted at some point. As far as I know, there's no source defending Pascal's comments, and it doesn't matter because I'm summarizing what Fox News is saying someone else is saying. Wertwert55 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to edit war -- I'd be OK with "what they thought was a similar post" or even maybe "what Fox News called a similar post," but this kind of thing shouldn't be sourced to Fox and put in the article's voice. For example: re the last point: here here here here here here here. Gershonmk (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure any of those are reliable sources, since The Sun was deprecated and the Forbes link is a contributor. If you want to include a reliable source saying they're not comparable, fine, but deleting my contribution seems odd. I'll rephrase it to your suggestion as a compromise. Wertwert55 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Wertwert55, I think we agree on this -- Fox isn't a reliable source either on political issues, the article expresses one viewpoint on a controversial issue. See WP:RSP. Gershonmk (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
It's reliable for the reason I put it in there: to aggregate conservative commentary on her firing and Pedro Pascal's posts, since quoting twitter posts is unacceptable. I'm not using that source for Fox itself's commentary. Wertwert55 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree, haven't challenged the sourcing of what's currently there. (Though there's a epistemological bias here in media generally; you would hardly expect the WSJ/NYT/whatever to put out "most conservatives actually don't agree with this hashtag Fox calls popular" even if it was true, because the relative popularity is so much harder to establish than the existence of some people saying it + in partisan media these claims become self-fulfilling, as they're designed to.) Anyway, happy editing. Gershonmk (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
To which I feel the need to ask: do we need to aggregate conservative commentary on this situation? It strikes me as WP:FRINGE. Plus, why should we give any undue attention to their whataboutism regarding Pedro Pascal. Anyone looking objectively understands that the reason they were treated differently is because 1) It's not the same situation - Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character; 2) It's not the same tweet, or even similar - Pedro compared modern concentration camps to ww2 concentration camps, and modern nazis and white supremacists to historical ones, and save for a few right wing talking heads raising stink about it, his tweets were not controversial, and do not reflct poorly on the company in fact, they reflect the popular consensus while Gina compared being a republican to being a jew in nazi germany, which is indefensible by all metrics; and 3) even if he did tweet something controversial, Pedro is not a repeat offender, while Gina has been doing this for almost a year, even after being told multiple times to stop. That conservatives are trying to spin this story to push their nonsense narratives and advertise their upcoming propaganda flick, which will undoubtedly be a massive financial flop, even with her on board, is not something wikipedia should contribute to. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • the entire thing is WP:COAT bullshit, we don't detail the peripheral consequences of some celebrity muppet's stupidity, focus on subject of article, what they said, and what the direct consequences were for them personally, all this other crap is incidental and tangential. Acousmana (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    I tend to agree. Naturally there are political opportunists who want to use the incident for their own purposes. My guess is that a lot of recent coverage will not pass the ten-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd tend to agree. It's going a bit too far into the weeds on back-and-forth political bickering. Quoting Chait in particular seems undue (he has no relevant expertise and seems to be quoted here solely because his opinion is hyperbolic, which is exactly the wrong reason to quote someone - it's the sort of thing that leads to WP:QUOTEFARMs as editors fire snappy retorts by pundits at each other via the article. Quotes should be because they're by experts or because they're extremely significant, not because they're snappy.) But even the larger focus of the section feels like it's gone beyond the biographical focus on Carano, especially since coverage of the "backlash" doesn't seem to have been WP:SUSTAINED - it's already mostly evaporated, mere days later. "Hashtag exists" is something that requires more sustained coverage than this to be worth mentioning in a biography. --Aquillion (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Independent

I'm not sure about the status of the Independent as a reliable source, but it has to be better than Fox. I would recomend replacing it with a mention of this: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/gina-carano-mandalorian-lucasfilm-b1803281.html What we learn from this is that 1) Lucasfilm didn't simply characterize Carano's tweets as denigrating groups of people based on their identity, but specifically called them "abhorrent and unacceptable" in their official statement. I suspect this is what the used reliable sources say as well. 2) Carano's removal from the mandalorian was received POSITIVELY by fans, while OTHERS called it cancel culture. Not a word of these elusive "conservative fans" everybody keeps talking about. Unless somebody wants to argue that Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz are Star Wars fans. 3) Carano herself called for the boycott of Disney Plus, and started the associated hashtag, again, not conservative fans (though this being a claim about Carano herself, needs better confirmation), and most importantly, 4) The request for the boycott was largely mocked online. No sign of this big support coming from "conservative fans". Furthermore, during the last day internet trolls have been dislike-bombing the Oscars' video on Kathleen Kennedy, and brigading Gina Carano's IMDB page to make it look like she's the most popular actress ever, which is laughable. Let's be real here. We don't need to document the alt right's every single attempt to turn her into a martyr. DOing so will only validate the trolls and encourage them further. I'll say it again. Until reliable sources expose the conservative support for Gina Carano for the alt right astroturfing that it is, wikipedia should not comment on it. If that never happens, just pretend it not real, because let's face it, it isn't 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

doesn't matter, it's all fluff, peripheral cultural war nonsense we shouldn't be detailing, our only concern here is what the subject said and what the direct consequences were for her, this twittersphere drama - even if reported in RS - has no place in a subsection covering her social media activity and her political views. Acousmana (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand. I too am opposed to giving undue attention to the conservative support for Gina Carano, and have made multiple posts objecting to the usage of the term "conservative fans" when referring to it, but Sangdebeuf doesn't seem to listen to me. The article from the Independent, I shared here specifically to show that there is no substantial support for Gina Carano, and the astroturfed hashtags calling to boycott Disney Plus are irrelevant. The Star Wars fandom is not split in this issue, regardless of what the alt right grifters wants to convince their subscribers.
The reason why I can't let this issue go is because this new cult of personality forming around the subject is a direct continuation of Gamergate/Comicsgate, which in turn WERE notable issues, covered by multiple reliable sources. Gina Carano is directly involved with these grifters, as well as the QAnon movement, and I don't understand why it's taking so long for journalists to uncover this, when the whole thing is happening in plain sight.
Incidentally, user Crossroads keeps reverting your deletion of the relevant paragraph, but wasn't given and edit war warning. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
it's not worth engaging in, even to improve a citation, removing said content is a better solution. Acousmana (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It's better to leave out the "abhorrent and unacceptable" wording per WP:IMPARTIAL. While the statement was widely quoted, phrases like that tend to inflame passions rather than impart useful information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Inflame passions in the conservative talking heads, maybe - the same people who like to parrot "facts don't care about your feelings". This was the official statement by Lucasfilm, and it's how reliable sources reported on it. I see no reason to edit it out. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
IP, I give up on that paragraph, but you shouldn't be reasoning about the topic based on your own WP:Original research. The source makes multiple references to conservative or right-leaning fans. The idea that the entire fandom is of a single mind on this (or anything) is exceedingly implausible. Humans aren't a hive mind. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, as does WP:SOAPBOX. Crossroads -talk- 23:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Conservative pundits and on-line grifters, maybe, but not "fans".You are putting words in my mouth as I never said the entire fandom is of a single mind. Quite the contrary, the Star Wars fandom is diverse, and has only become more diverse in the recent years. Sure, I'm even willing to grant them that there are SOME conservative fans, as long as we use "conservative" in the sense europeans understand it, or in the traditional sense, meaning fiscally conservative people who want lower taxes and small government. But that is NOT what people thing of when speaking of "conservatives" in america. Saying that one specific group of people, american conservatives do not have members among the Star Wars fandom, isn't the same as saying "humans are a hivemind". That is a strawman argument. Conservatives have a long history of being antagonistic towards mainstream popular culture. Large mainstream franchises, as well as their authors and fans have always been liberal, and that's not a controversial statement. Alt-right concern trolls, and social media grifters are not part of any fandom. Ther are just the useful idiots of the dying trumpist movement that lost all relevance it had left. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Conservatives"

@DabYeetDab: the source (NYT) says "Some conservatives, who viewed her posts as a matter of free speech, countered with #CancelDisneyPlus." Omitting "conservatives" is simply whitewashing.

Ditto for "Conservative fans expressed support for Carano" per Vanity Fair: "After her announcement, right-leaning fans filled Carano’s thread with supportive comments". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. User reported. (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is DabYeetDab still allowed to edit this article? He has a history of making arbitrary edits, going in long tirades in the edit summary and ignoring any and all discussions on this particular article. Are there no consequences for this sort of behavior? 46.97.170.253 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
See this AN/EW report (now here). DYD was previously reported here, but that got archived without any result, I'm not sure why. Srey Srostalk 18:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that referring to Gina Carano's supporters as "conservative fans" (they're not fans of anything, they're internet grifters), what I like to know is, why was the statement referring to conservatives decrying "cancel culture" changed? "Cancel culture" is a term used by right wingers for gaslighting purposes. Who else would be using the term, and most importantly, what reliable source would claim that somebody other than conservatives is calling something "cancel culture"? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
The source is cited at the end of the sentence mentioning "cancel culture". I'm not sure about its reliability overall, but it has an editorial staff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're not sure about it's overall reliability, than it would be prudent to treat them with a healthy dose of skepticism. Even reliable sources should be questioned should they claim the sky is limegreen, and this idea that the star wars fandom, any fandom in popular culture has a sizeable enough number of conservatives to be considered their own category is in stark contradiction with everything we know for fact about history. Conservatives are mainly outside mainstream popular culture. They have their own alternative news sources like fox and OAN, their own alternative "sciences" like creationism (or evolutionary psychology for those who are more clever), their own alternative music (heck, they didn't even like Stryper and that band was specifically pandering to them) and their ond hollywood alternatives like Pureflix or Ben Shapiro's new studio.
Every time conservatives have shown interest in mainstream popular culture it was an antagonistic one, from blacklisting hollywood actors and directors during the McCarthy era, to going after bands, boardgames and videogames during the satanic panic. One cannot make the claim that there are suddenly conservative Star Wars fans, or Star Trek fans, or Marvel and DC fans, without being willfully ignorant of all of the above. I said this before and I'll say it again. These so called "conservative fans" amount to a few dozen internet grifters and their social media followers, who add up to a few hundred thousand at most if you account for them overlapping, which they do. I'm fine with not saying this in the article because it's WP:OR, but can we at least not validate their talking points? Just because a reliable source says something, it doesn't mean it needs to be included. I give it two months and this conservative support for gina carano will either cycle out of the news completely and fade into irrelevance, or investigative journalists will expose it as a continuation of Gamergate. Can we at last wait until then, instead of spreading misinformation about the existence of these supposed "conservative fans"? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Also in the Vanity Fair article is "While her defiance alienated some who previously looked up to her, the scores of supportive replies to Carano’s recent Parler message suggest she has also drawn new admirers from the right side of the political spectrum." I think that shows that she still has non-conservative fans. I read that part of the article as saying that she drew in additional supporters from the right/conservative part of the spectrum due to her speech, rather than her performance. I would support dropping the conservative before "fans expressed support." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused; wouldn't that suggest that non-conservative fans expressed support for Carano on this specific issue? The source seems to be saying the opposite. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It says she alienated some, and then she received scores of supportive replies from new admirers on the right. Are we assuming the some that were alienated were the totality of her non-conservative fans? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully we're not assuming anything, just summarizing what published sources say. Writing fans expressed support (as opposed to conservative fans) goes beyond the meaning of the source. It also doesn't make sense in light of the preceding statement critics began urging her removal from The Mandalorian cast, some using the hashtag #FireGinaCarano. Said "critics" certainly included some fans, as the VF piece and others point out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself: the issue is not CONSERVATIVE fans, but conservative FANS. We know conservatives are rallying in support of Gina Carano. There is zero evidence that these conservative voices are coming from within the Star Wars fandom (and plenty of reason to assume the contrary). 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Currrent Text:

"Following a series of controversial posts she made..."

Proposed Amendment

Following a series of what some considered to be controversial posts that she made... 202.190.17.157 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: if the posts generated controversy, they are by definition controversial. And several independent, published sources refer to them as such. "Some considered..." does not tell us who did or why. There may be room for a more detailed explanation of the controversy, but I'm not sure how much space in the lead we want to devote to such scandals-of-the-week. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hi, I believe that the "Social media and political views" section could be greatly improved if more conservative views were represented. Existing sources are largely left-wing biased, so many possible edits should include unbiased or conservative sources in order to stay in line with WP:STICKTOSOURCE. However, it is a good idea not to simply delete left-wing views, but also include right-wing ones. Also, statements made by Gina Carano herself about the issues in that section may be valuable. Thank you for considering this. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 01:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a false balance. Sources aren't chosen because of their political leaning, but because of their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Carano's own statements are not comparable to the views of independent, reliable sources, especially regarding criticism or controversies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe I was not clear enough in what I said. To clarify: I did not intend to propose a false balance; representing the views of conservatives is not a false balance; conservative views are not fringe theories or pseudoscience, but they are the views of half the population of America. I did not intend to recommend choosing sources based solely on political leaning; I intended to recommend choosing reliable sources that represent opposing viewpoints on highly controversial issues, in order to achieve balance. Regarding your last point, perhaps you are right. However, I still believe that it would be valuable to include quotations of Gina's from reliable sources. Maybe like this: "Gina Carano has said 'Actually, I am very fond of puppies' in an attempt to clarify her position.[Citation from a reliable source]" However, I realize that it is not essential to the integrity of the article, and am willing to concede this specific point. Thank you. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It makes no difference whether they are the views of half the population of America or 99% of the population of America. Due weight means considering a viewpoint's prominence in published, reliable sources, not among the general public. Per NPOV, achieving balance entails using sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, not looking for sources that represent opposing viewpoints, whether on this or any other issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid. Also, all the more reason why wikipedia must not entertain giving attention to this sort of nonsense. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
we don't detail the peripheral consequences of some celebrity muppet's stupidity, focus on subject of article, what they said, and what the direct consequences were for them personally, all this other political crap is incidental and tangential, appropriate WP:WEIGHT already given to incident. Acousmana (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Appearance on the Daily Wire

I know we shouldn't be giving free exposure to partisan rags like the DW, but if reliable sources talk about it, most likely to fact check her claims and deconstruct the false narrative Shapiro was trying to build, then it might be necesarry to report on what those sources say. The Mary Sue had an article on the interview. Also, while not related to the interview itself, DiscussingFilm had an article debunking the conspiracy theory on anti-conservative bias in hollywood, using Chris Pratt as an example. This sounds like something worth mentioning. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

tangent, not notable, more peripheral fluff. Acousmana (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Uhm, no it's not. It has to do with her and stuff she said and did. Especially if it's covered by reliable sources. That interview is something she did. Articles on it concerns her actions directly. Not to mention Gina Carano does not exist in a vacuum. She's being used as a prop by the alt right to push the right wing narrative. It is the responsability of the free press to debunk this nonsense and it is the responsability of wikipedia to put it on record that is was debunked. By your logic, everything about the social media section is just "peripheral fluff". 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
she did an interview on Daily Wire, so what? giving oxygen to this bs drama prolongs it, not notable. Acousmana (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You keep changing up the arguments. First you say we need to focus on the subject and what they did/said. The moment I point out that the DW interview is something the subject did, and the things she said there are being rebuked by reliable sources, you say this is "giving oxygen to the bs drama". I'm sorry, but the "bs drama" exists regardless of wikipedia. We don't decide if it's notable or not. Reliable sources decided that for us weeks ago. This argument lost relevance the moment consensus was born that the Gina Carano drama is notable. If you don't like that, you should be arguing against the existence of the entire article itself, because this "bs drama" is the single most notable thing the subject is known for right now. If you don't like that, that's understandable. Focus on something else. "I don't like drama" is not a valid argument for anything. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
We really need to wait a while and see how all of this pans out, then cover it based on the totality of coverage, rather than covering every part of it as it breaks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
"This argument lost relevance the moment consensus was born that the Gina Carano drama is notable." the relevant section details subject's bigoted statements and the direct consequences for subject professionally, the "drama" is the peripheral fan-based politically motivated crap that you feel is notable. See WP:DIARY. Acousmana (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
You keep repeating that, and you keep missing the point. The interview wasn't "peripheral political crap", it was her trippling down on her bigoted statements. Her association with the DW and the alt-right is HER own action. Her becoming a propaganda figure for the alt-right is a direct consequence of something she did or said. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
you do realise the world doesn't revolve around bit players in America's never ending political psychodrama? If this affair becomes a matter of encyclopedic merit it might then be included. Acousmana (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has devolved into insanity. It doesn't matter if she is a bit player or a huge player in American politics. Her biography page will always revolve around things she does and says. And it already does. Please keep in mind, if your political feelings about this issue are so strong that you have to attack her character at every turn, you should not be editing this page and it may lead to sanctions. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 18:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
see WP:NOTNEWS. Acousmana (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
You have a good point. This Wikipedia page is not a celebrity gossip column, and should not be treated as such. Fan opinions and conservative opinions about her actions are no less relevant than the opinions of other communities. If this section reads as a gossip column, it should be promptly deleted. Thank you. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 19:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, they are not relevant at all. What reliable sources say about her is what's relevant, and the problem with conservative opinions is that their sources are not reliable. Fan opinion is generally unfavorable of Gina Carano. The support for her is right wing astroturfing.
I see Gina Carano's Daily Wire appearance as relevant only to the degree it was covered by reliable sources, and only as yet another dumb thing she did that she was criticised for. It is relevant in the same way her making trnasphobit tweets is relevant. It is relevant in the same way her spreading conspiracy theories is relevant. It is relevant in the same way her holocaust tweet is relevant. The only reason I disagree with User:Acousmana, is because he seems to want to arbitrarily exclude it. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 24 February 2021

Replace X= "Carano later clarified that she was mocking online users accusing her of transphobia for refusing to put pronouns in her bio." with Y= " " (blank) This claim is attributed to Bounding into Comics. Bounding into comics is a far right propaganda site associated with the Comicsgate hate group and not a legitimate reliable source. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That can be sourced to dozens of places. "She also defended the joke, saying: “Beep/bop/boop has zero to do with mocking trans people & everything to do with exposing the bullying mentality of the mob that has taken over the voices of many genuine causes.”" for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 19:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Bounding into Comics is not a reliable source. It is universally known by anyone even the slightly familiar with internet culture as a false rumour mill ran by alt right trolls, and the reference was added to whitewash Gina Carano's actions. Site policy says it needs to go. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I removed that source and left it sourced to the following three sources which covered the same info as Bounding into Comics. I also added that she removed the offending pronouns upon speaking with Pascal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust comments

I have heard a lot of people point out that even without the ludicrus paralel with the supposed treatment of republicans, Gina Carano's holocaust comment is wrong. The post she shares claims The nazi government indoctrinated germans to hate jews, so they would eventually support their extermination. This is completely false. The nazis didn't invent antisemitism, they simply took advantage of antisemitic sentiments already existing in european christian countries for centuries, in their bid to rise to power (exactly how trump took advantage of white supermacy to secure his presidency in 2016). Which means it isn't just an ill-conceived comparison, but a dangerous whitewashing of history. Any thoughts? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
When I asked for thoughts, I didn't do it to start an off topic discussion. What I'm interested to know is, if anyone is aware of any reliable sources criticising Gina Carano's holocaust post from this angle. Because if so, then it should be included. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
It's already covered in the article. How much more detail do you think that single post online should have in the article without being WP:UNDUE? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
If her post was indeed criticised from this angle, and that criticism is reported on by reliable sources, then it should be mentioned. Leaving it out would be arbitrary cherry-picking. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
So we need to include every single angle that someone criticized the statement, otherwise it would be cherry picking? I disagree. I believe the current prose in the article covers that she said something and a lot of people criticized it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The criticism is incomplete and doesn't address the bigger issue, namely that it's whitewashing history. The way it reads now, makes it look like it was criticised for one thing that doesn't even directly come from the quote itself, and less informed readers will walk away with the impression that without the comparison to modern politics, the characterisation of the holocaust as a direct consequence of years of nazi indoctrination is historically accurate. It isn't. The nazis didn't invent antisemitism during the third reich. Christians did that centuries ago. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. I guess we'll have to see if others think that there needs to be more in depth coverage, assuming sources can be found that specifically outline your criticisms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't want it included unless it's covered by reliable sources. As the story seems to grow out of control, it's almost inevitable for actual scholars on the holocaust to speak out. This isn't simply about comparing republican to being jewish in nazi germany. This is about implicit denial of antisemitism from before nazi germany. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Inverse article

At the risk of beating an undead horse that simply refuses to die, I feel the need to point out that a recently published article by the online newspaper Inverse details the events of Gina Carano's firing from the fandom's perspective, and how star wars fans mobilized to get her removed from the show. The article confirms what was I've been saying, and what has also been confirmed by the Independent earlier this week. Gina Carano's firing was done at request of Star Wars fans, Star Wars fans' reaction to her firing was POSITIVE, not "mixed" as some people here want to claim, and conservative support for her is coming entirely from Ben Shapiro fans and from outside the Star Wars fandom. How many more reliable sources need to say this before wikipedia admits that these "conservative Star Wars fans" do not exist? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And we have reliable sources Vanity Fair and IndieWire sourced stating that the fanbase is divided into those who see her firing as an example of cancel culture and violation of free speech, and others who support the move as they heavily disagree with her views and online behaviour. Star Wars has an enormous following; you really think everyone who's a fan is only on one side of the political spectrum? You've provided nothing to back up your claim that everyone who supports Gina is not part of the fandom. Just because you're either ignoring or unaware of articles like these, doesn't mean they don't exist. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Vanity Fair and Indiewire write about this subject from an outsider's perspective. They look at the astroturfed right wing support claiming to represent conservative fans, and simply report on it without digging too deep. When Gamergate first broke, some reports were favorable or at least neutral towards them, until their true nature was exposed. By contrast, the Inverse article actually provides proof that they have done their homework, and are reporting on people from within the fandom. Newer reports with more accurate information shouldn't be ignored just because other reliable sources reported on the topic. Especially if those reports are less accurate.
Also, you are the second person to put these words in my mouth. I made no claim that star wars fans come from only one side of the political spectrum. I'm saying that one specific fringe section of the political spectrum, american conservatives, are NOT part of the Star Wars fandom, or any mainstream fandom for that matter. THese "conservative star wars fans" only started appearing after The Force Awakens, and their first act as "star wars fans" is subjecting John Boyega and Daisy Riddley to racist and respectively sexist online harrassment. Reliable pop culture journalists accurately identified this as a dirsct continuation of Gamergate, and reported on it as such. Stop feeding the trolls. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you talking about the "army of twitter stans" article? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That is what I'm talking about, as a matter of fact. Why? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Because it's talking about obsessive online "stans" rather than the general fanbase. It's not saying what you say it's saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about splitting hairs over semantics. The Independent also stated that the Star Wars fandom's reaction to Gina Carano's firing was positive. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Which Independent article are you talking about in particular? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The one I linked above under it's own subsection called "The Independent". The article also states that Gina Carano herself started the "Cancel Disney Plus" campaign, and that said campaign was met with ridicule from the Star Wars fandom. I don't know how many more proof people here need that the support for Gina Carano is a result of right wing astroturfing, rather than the work of any star wars fans who liked her in the Mandalorian. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The one that includes this quote? "Following the news, fans of Carano called for a boycott of Disney’s streaming service using the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus. However, the request was largely mocked online." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
So they changed it to sound more vague. Note that the wording says "request", because it originally referred to a singular request by Gina Carano. It looks like they issued a stealth correction to avoid liability, by adding "fans of". Nevertheless, the fact that the "cancel Disney Plus" campaign was largely mocked online is still there. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
"Largely mocked online" != "All real members of star wars fandom were happy she was fired and all supporters are conservative shills." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Because her supporters really WERE conservative grifters. These same people, are ON RECORD calling her an "ugly SJW feminist" when her character first appeared on the show. If you cannot recognize that they are grifters, then the issue is your ability to accurately perceive reality. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Please provide sources for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Uhm... their own social media posts from a year ago? Ethan van Sciver's own words? I'm not arguing for detailing the history of the astroturfed right wing campaign to prop her up as a hero, I'm arguing for not including a specific term that is verifyably false. We're still reporting on what reliable sources say, even if we use "conservatives" instead of "conservative fans" which is all I'm arguing for. In a year or so, the Fandom Menace will be exposed by journalists for the alt right grift campaign that it is, and then we will have plenty of sources. For now, all I'm asking is that we ommit one tiny detail that we can all see is false. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe the article was corrected to fit the available facts better. Quality outlets do that all the time. Although it's odd they didn't note the correction. As for the Inverse article, several of its quoted sources are anonymous. There's not too much we can do with such info per WP:BLPGOSSIP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Social Media and Political Views" Section

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. First of all, I would like to thank you for your continual civility regarding disputes over this page, and for your constructive and well thought out comments and edits. Regarding your reversion of my edit that deleted this section, I agree with you when you say that there is room for significant trimming. I also agree with you in that these events are notable in respect to her life. However, I don't believe it to be an elegant solution to severely trim the section and have a small section that doesn't flow with the rest of the article. Instead, I propose removing the whole section, and perhaps adding a few small details to where this is covered at the end of the "Television and film career" section. Thank you. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I just don't think there will ever be consensus to remove it wholesale, even if it's just while the section is being rewritten. I think a more workable approach is to leave it as is for now and hash out a new section here or in a sandbox and work on getting consensus for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  • It's sourced to a huge range of sources, many of them high-quality. I don't think the section can be removed - at this point her views and the firing are a significant part of her notability - but which specific aspects do you think are a problem? FWIW the basis of this section (although it was a "controversy" section at the time) was added back in November. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This section needs to be changed so that it doesn't sound like a gossip column and a one-sided hit piece on a celebrity in her own biography (See also my edit summary when I deleted the section). If significant improvements to this section make it small enough not to warrant it's own section, then it should be incorporated into the rest of the article. (Also, If it was this bad back in November, I wish I had known back then, as it should have been changed right away.) — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 20:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I just looked back at the history for this page (November specifically), and from what I can tell, people have been fighting over NPOV and Notability from the very start. But I digress. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 20:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
The whole controversy was designed in a lab to create the maximum amount of angry discussion on wikipedia with the intent of filling the servers and shutting down free knowledge. Really though, its a perfect storm of what people argue about on wikipedia, so its going to be a fight until the next big controversy rolls along and it'll settle into something stable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish, someone should put a template on this section, so that people know that it needs improvement. I'm not quite sure which template though. Maybe one of these? {{unbalanced}} {{partisan sources}} I'm not quite sure they fit though. It would be good to have a better one. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
If there were one pertaining to BLPs, gossip, or politics, it might be perfect. If a good template can't be found though, probably it should simply be omitted. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 02:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing "partisan" about the majority of sources cited. NYT, WaPo, and the BBC are all reliable mainstream news outlets. Vanity Fair, Vox, and Vulture are fairly liberal in the American sense, but most of the claims for which they are cited are supported by other sources. All are generally seen as reliable for pop-culture topics. The rest are either general news or entertainment-focused publications. If a cleanup template is absolutely needed, one like {{undue weight}} or {{recentism}} might be appropriate, if only because of the disproportionate focus on recent controversies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Let us be real here. (BLP violation removed) If there wasn't the social media section, I would argue whether she should even have an article at all.
Incidentally, Sangdeboeuf, is there any reason why you removed her conspiracy theory posts, in particular the anti-mask and voter fraud ones? Those were kind of a major part of the controversy, if not the biggest until she made that holocaust tweet. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Please be mindful of WP:BLP. We don't make disparaging comments about people. It's clear you have a personal dislike for her so perhaps you should remove yourself from editing the article? She was clearly notable before the recent social media controversies which made her well known to the twitter/instagram/other online crowds. Before that she was well known to other crowds. Much the same as almost anyone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I was already briefed by Sangdeboeuf on WP:BLP, which is why i'm avoiding bringing up her january 6 comments, or calling her a you-know-what. You may think she was notable before this incident but that doesn't make me wrong about her track record. I do not have a personal dislike for Gina Carano in particular, I have a general dislike for the alt right, just like people in general. If anything, I'm getting the impression that you are the one who's biased in her favor. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Shucks, you got me. That's why I reverted the removal of the Social Media and Political Views section. I play a long game to keep critical material about her in the article for as long as possible with the end goal of...? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
There's no point in wasting time arguing about this. We both agree the criticism section needs to stay. I just happen to also argue that without the criticism she got for her social media behavior, the subject isn't notable at all. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This section needs to be changed so that it doesn't sound like a gossip column and a one-sided hit piece on a celebrity Be specific - which parts of it do you feel are worded that way? Which language in the section do you object to? The first paragraph mostly covers accusations (as mere accusations); these got a lot of coverage and are cited to relatively high-quality sources, plus we include praise from conservatives. Everything concerning her firing from The Mandalorian seems like it has to stay because it's actually a major part of her biography, and what we say about it is both carefully-worded and cited to high-quality sources. You're making fairly sweeping statements about the section, but I'm not understanding why you see it that way at all - it reads to me like a neutral and accurate summary of what has become a significant aspect of the subject's notability. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue I see with it is that the section says that it's "conservative fans" that support her when the sources don't actually specify that the only fans that still support her are conservative. The way it's written feeds into the highly online social media culture war that most people don't take part in or care about. However the amount I care about the verbiage is pretty low so I don't really find it worth my time to argue about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I guess here's another example. From the Vanity Fair article "In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance. “In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I’m sorry, these people are not ‘educators.’ They are cowards and bullies,”" This is summarized in the article as "In August 2020, Carano was pressed by Twitter users to support the Black Lives Matter movement.[68] She labeled critics "cowards and bullies""
We went from some activist twitter users, some of which were polite while others were hostile to "twitter users," which slants the coverage to appear that it was just the general user base, not sometimes hostile activists. Then to "balance" this we says she labeled critics as cowards and bullies. It's clear from the full quote that she's responding to the hostile activist users, calling them cowards and bullies for the way they approached her. That's a pretty clear example of the slant that has been put into the section. A rewrite to something along the lines of "In August 20202 Carano was pressed by activist Twitter users to make support the Black Lives Matter Movement. In response to antagonistic messages she responded, "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I’m sorry, these people are not ‘educators.’ They are cowards and bullies”" seems like a more neutral fit that matches the source without slanting the information as we are now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish's comments cover my main concerns. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
And more from our current sources that show the slant. We refer only to conservative support, and conservative websites, but from the Indiewire source we're using we have the following, " But at the same time, #StandWithGinaCarano has also begun trending on Twitter in response from fans who feel the plea to cast Carano out of the show is another example of censorship, and cancel culture gone too far." Note that it is "fans" not "conservative fans." Another quote from the same article "Still, plenty of “Mandalorian” faithful remain in support of Carano throughout a show that has seen other controversies." I think it's obvious the section is cherry picking to present the controversy in a certain light. All that said, I still don't really care about the tags. I'm sure we can work something out here either way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so now I've gone and put energy into discussing this I may as well follow through with what I thought about trimming. I submit that the section should be relabeled "Social Media Controversy" and be trimmed significantly. Here's a basic draft I just threw together.

Starting in August 2020 backlash to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian. She was also dropped by United Talent Agency. This started after clashing with activist users on Twitter about support for the Black Lives Matter movement and worsened after changing her Twitter profile in a manner that some though mocked preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. She later adjusted her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & [support] freedom to choose.” In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that her critics interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat[ed] people based on their cultural and religious identities".

That's obviously a starting point, but it's shorter and I believe more neutral. Thoughts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How is any of this an improvement? If anything, it makes it worse. This is what I would recommend:
Gina Carano has been criticised for her controversial social media posts. In August 2020, she received criticism for "liking" posts criticising the Black Lives Matter movement. She labeled critics "cowards and bullies", which led some fans to accuse her of racism. She later modified her Twitter profile in a manner that appeared to mock preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. According to Vanity Fair, Carano's responses generated praise from conservative and right-wing publications such as Breitbart.
In November, after opening an account on far right social media platform Parler. She began making tweets mocking Covid-19 mask mandates and postal voting, and perpetuated debunked conspiracy theories about wide spread voter fraud in the 2020 elections. In response, Star Wars fans began urging her removal from The Mandalorian cast.
In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post with an image taken during the Lviv pogroms that compared criticism of comparing American conservatives to the treatment of Jews during the holocaust. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat[ed] people based on their cultural and religious identities". That same day, Carano was dropped by United Talent Agency.
Carano's social media posts were received positively by conservative pundits, who claimed her firing was an example of Cancel Culture. The hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus began trending, but was mostly mocked on-line. Later, ijn an interview with Ben Shapiro, Carano claimed that she was bullied by Disney, while also announcing that that she would be working on making her own movie with the Daily Wire.
It's not shorter, but this is the accurate summary of the entire controversy. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
That doesn't address concerns outlined above about how we're already misrepresenting sources. Also I think it's even more undue weight to the whole controversy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
And as I stated above, if the controversy is undue, then Gina Carano herself is undue. If the single most notable thing about a person is not notable enough for wikipedia, then the person herself is simply not notable. Like it or not, her dumb tweets and their consequences are what Gina Carano is best known for right now. There is no such thing as giving undue weight to them. You'd have to argue that she herself is irrelevant. But since consensus seems to be that she is notable, I'd say the controversy is also notable. And I don't see how we are representing reliable sources by leaving out the pointless fluff like her explanations and theweasel words that muddy the waters around what she actually did/said. There are far too many "her critics said that..." and "her post was interpreted as..." as it is. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, so I guess we'll have to see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
If you're interested in what others think, you can refer to prior consensus on this very talk page. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:CCC ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC about Criticism Section

This request for comments has two parts; (1) does the information in the criticism section merit inclusion in the article at all and (2) if so, does the current presentation give WP:UNDUE weight (multiple paragraphs under its own heading titled "Criticism")?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • It's not great to have a separate "Criticism" section (see WP:CRITS), and we want to avoid recentism, but I feel like in this case the events have been covered widely enough that they merit inclusion. Given the length of the article I don't think that the two paragraphs about the controversies give them undue weight; it's a relatively small portion of the article. I wonder if there's a better section heading, maybe "Political views" or "Social media activity"? Srey Srostalk 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 1. Yes. The information can be in its own section or merged into any pertinent other section. 2. No. Two paragraphs on different events do not overwhelm the rest of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To answer the questions in reverse I do think it is giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to trivial social media happenings. The section as it is phrased now seems misleading to me, (maybe that's WP:NPOV or WP:TONE) Carano is a fighter turned actor, not a political figure, but people were trying to compel her to make political statements and get behind causes which she wasn't going to do. She received abuse on social media (and unfortunately who doesn't) and she's perfectly entitled to call out that abuse from "cowards and bullies".[15] It is quite something to misrepresent that as her having called her critics cowards and bullies. The suggestion from User:SreySros to present her "Political views" seems more reasonable, present her views first then responses to them, not the fireable-offences that social media imagines she has committed. (Given the previous criticisms of her acting, I'm surprised the article doesn't have any comment on how her acting in The Mandaloriain
    It does seem to have received coverage from reliable sources so while I think sources are being poorly presented I accept that in principle a better version might be justified. There are some people with an ax to grind here and a lot of caution needs to be shown because of WP:BLP (specifically: tone and balance and attack, all seem to apply). So I guess I should try to make this easier for anyone reviewing the discussion and summarize that as: 1. Maybe 2. Yes (undue, needswork). -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
We need to stick to the sources here. Our own interpretation(s) of what happened is irrelevant. We must summarize the reliable sources about her, covering each aspect and viewpoint proportionally to how much it is covered. The two paragraphs seem to me to be appropriate summaries of the sources cited. As for this edit summary, we must remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We report what the sources say, not what we think they will say.
Are there specific words or phrases whose tone is objectionable to you? To me the tone seems pretty neutral. It seems that you specifically disagree with the framing of she called her critics "cowards and bullies" but denied accusations of racism. The source that is paraphrasing says (with an ugly comma splice) Carano was asked to show her support for BLM, when she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist. She responded saying: "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I'm sorry, these people are not 'educators.' They are cowards and bullies.". I think it's pretty reasonable to paraphrase that the way the article currently does. Her cowards and bullies comment seems aimed at the people calling her racist, not specifically at online abusers. Srey Srostalk 04:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The tone was actually less neutral, and the paragraphs longer before I truncated the long quotes to simple paraphrases. Having escessively verbose quotes from Gina Carano explaining herself puts too much emphasis on her side of the story.
I disagree that the section should be renamed "political views". Her "political views", are notable only because the criticism she received for using her platform as an actress in a popular series to spread thoroughly discredited conspiracy theories and misinformation - things she doubled down on in interviews with right wing outlet The Federalist, and some Gamergate youtubers.
In a similar vein, her opening a Parler account is notable only because she was criticised for choosing parler of all options, a far right platform. Yet someone is insisting on removing "far right" despite the fact that that is what the site is.213.233.88.151 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It is an editorial decision to include it all, (1) those decisions matter, that is the starting premise of this very discussion. People with an ax to grind are subjectively interpreting the sources,(2) in ways that I do not believe are objective, not properly following the policies of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. You can call it summarizing but it takes selectively quoting to present people screaming on Twitter as if they were reasonable critics or serious commentators. This is a biographical article about Carano, of course it should have "too much emphasis on her side of the story" it's literally supposed to be her story. (I'm not convinced joining or leaving a social network is newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic or notable enough to include in a biography. If Parler is worth mentioning at all then you should look closely at the Wikipedia article for Parler which does not call it a right or far-right social media site, but very carefully calls states instead that it "Posts on the service often contain far-right content".) The edit by RCarter to remove vague phrasing and weasel words[16] is a good start, the section needs a lot more cleanup if it is to stay. You're perfectly entitled to think what you will about Carano or her politics but that doesn't make any of it encyclopedic.
By all means include more criticism of her stiff acting, but don't feed the social media trolls and armchair activists desperately trying to cancel Gina Carano. It was disingenuous when they tried to do it to Rosaria Dawson[17] and it is lame that they are trying to do it to Carano too. (Actress is not politically aware! News at 11. Actress repeats dimwitted conservative talking points that millions of American voters also believe. Stop the press!). It's another social media tempest in a teapot that just barely managed to get mainstream media attention. It is not an important part of her biography, it is not a defining part of her life. It is something might barely merit a mention if it was written a bit more objectively. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Rosario Dawson didn't express any opinions on social media. A civil lawsuit against her family, that was dropped months ago, was dug up on twitter, caused a minor stir and was forgotten in a couple of days. The controversies surrounding Gina Carano have been ongoing for several months, and covered by multiple reliable sources. The two are not comparable. Also, wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not "social media trolls and armchair activists". That being said, if you can find any reliable sources that show the criticism agains Gina Carano comes from internet trolls, feel free to find it and add it. So far, the only people I saw making this claim are Ethan Van Sciver and his Comicsgate crew. I hope you understand why they are not considered reliable sources. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
People on social media purporting to be fans of the show tried to cancel Dawson based on nothing more than entirely unfounded allegations. People on social media have been trying to cancel Carano based on dim tweets she has made. It might be a reason to lose some respect for Carano but it is crazy that people think it is appropriate to try and get her fired over her lack of savvy.
Yes Wikipedia relies on WP:RS reliable sources to WP:VERIFY and help show that things are WP:NOTABLE but Wikipedia is still under no obligation to give WP:UNDUE weight to the latest social media kerfuffle. The reliable sources are talking about criticism (from unreliable anonymous sources) on social media. Twitter types are blinkered and think the world revolves around other people like them, but it really is not important it's been blown out of all proportion. Some people got annoyed on Twitter but this campaign to cancel Carano hasn't gained any traction, it is not as significant as you seem to think it is. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The controversy has been deemed notable enough to be included by regular contributors who's word has more weight than either of ours. The consensus to include it is clear and you have failed to provide a single convincing counterargument. With Rosario Dawson, there was no controversy. The controversy surrounding Gina Carano has been going on for months and was covered by reliable sources. Based on that, it was deemed worthy of inclusion. What you believe about her critics is unimportant. Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say.
Also, it looks like while you are here arguing for the removal of the criticism section, using talking points taken word for word from comicsgate youtubers, other anonymous users have been deleting entire sections and references, and adding uncited claims. I see signs of a coordinated effort here. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @DabYeetDab, 2604:2d80:6d80:a900:ad46:d022:bb01:1c5, 74.98.217.210, and 2603:8080:3a05:5900:140a:ff90:321f:ebee: There is an ongoing RfC about this section. Please stop removing it. Edit-warring won't get anything done and just wastes everyone's time, including yours. If you think the content is undue, say why here but don't remove the content until we reach a consensus. This is the whole point of RfCs. Additionally, a lot of the conversation here has focused on our own interpretations of what counts as legitimate criticism versus abuse, or concerns about the inclusion of criticism of her being unencyclopedic. Our job, and our only job, is to read the reliable sources about the subject and summarize what they say in this article. Each aspect and viewpoint in the article should be represented proportionally to its coverage in reliable sources. If someone has a Twitter dispute and that dispute is covered extensively in reliable sources, then we must include it in the article. This controversy seems to be one of the most notable things to happen to Carano, and just because we think it's petty or transient or meaningless doesn't mean we exclude it from the article. Every editor has their own POV, that's inevitable. We must prevent our own POVs from spilling over into the article, and the way we do that is by simply relating the reliable sources. Srey Srostalk 20:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Her blocking Twitter accounts is not needed o n here. If I was to put "Stop animal abuse" in my Twitter bio, then go on a celebrities' Twitter account and spam them hurtful things, and I was blocked, does tat mean that celebrity then supports animal abuse. Likewise, if a Twitter user puts "BLM" in their bio then spam's Gina's comments, and she blocks them, that doesn't make her racist. If someone is going to then accuse her of racism because of that, they are clearly not being neutral or objective, and are trying to point blame and negativity. Therefore, whatever source is saying that, should not be used on this article because it very clearly has a negative bias. Likewise, Gina opening a Parler account, where all she did was repost her Tweets, is nothing "controversial" or notable. A source saying that it is, is also clearly trying to push an agenda because they have a negative bias. In itself, opening a Parler account, objectively just another social media platform, and doing nothing worthy of note with it, and only using it to repost Tweets, is extremely biased. Lots of celebrities will repost Tweets to places like Instagram. Is THAT controversial? No, because there is nothing wrong or bad about it. That is all Gina did with her account on Parler, so to put that in this section also carries over the negative bias form the source and puts it on this article.DabYeetDab (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
For the last time, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Not your personal feelings. The consensus on keeping the criticism section is clear. You're the only one going against it and you jave yet to give one objective reason why people should listen to you. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
So... a lot happened over the weekend, I take it? Looking back, I'd say "our own POV spilling over into the article" is a generous way of describing it. To me, this looks more like fans of Gina Carano taking it on themselves to defend her honor, rather than any genuine attempt at building an encyclopedia. 213.233.88.151 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • (1) Neutral on whether the information should be included, but (2) if it is included, not in a "Criticism" section. See the points made in the essay WP:CSECTION. I would suggest combining the "Criticism" and "Accolades" sections as "Reception". —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Thoughts: I was asked, as a contributor to this section who pared down the wildly POV essay into something approaching neutral, to weigh in. For the sake of collegiality, I'm responding. I've been off Wikipedia since Jan. 20 because it's hard for me after brutal biographical discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia by people who aren't journalists/biographers, aren't trained in writing bios, and are "going by their gut" to reach conclusions any professional would find objectively wrong. I don't mean to drag on anyone here — the people here seem intelligent and are trying hard, politely and in good faith to reach consensus — but as someone who writes this kind of stuff professionally, biographical discussions on Wikipedia have gotten dispiriting and depressing.
'Anyway, now that I've settled the acid in my stomach by venting a little, I'm not going to take a side but simply offer my professional view. Generally, the political opinions or medical opinions or quantum-physics opinions of an actor/athlete are not notable. But when reaction to such opinions reaches a critical mass in the media, resulting in a significant number of major outlets covering it, then the reaction to the opinions, not so much the opinions themselves, becomes notable. We need to ask ourselves if that critical mass has been reached. Has the criticism been written about in the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter? Then the criticism is notable. If it's just niche publications the general public doesn't see, I would say it's less notable or non-notable.
Conversely: People in the public eye, including actors/athletes, do have the power to help shape public opinion. I think of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when a portion of the public was vicious toward suffers. Actress Elizabeth Taylor showed compassion to Ryan White, a kid who contracted AIDS through a transfusion, IIRC, and that helped steer the national conversation to a more humane place. So we can't immediately write such things off as, "Oh, it's just an actor's opinion." What is the reaction to that opinion? These are all things to consider.
I'm logging out and leaving Wikipedia again for a while, so I won't see any responses to this. As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you want.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a developing topic; in a few more days this RfC may be moot due to expanding coverage. However, I think we should certainly avoid "Controversy" or "Criticism" headings per WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Such sections are invariably POV magnets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Post firing update

Now that Carano has been let go from Lucas Films, should the information be merged into the “Film and television career” section as the controversy has had a direct impact on her career?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it works reasonably well as it is and should remain a separate section for the moment. There is a certain indirect quality to the Lucasfilm statement, as if they had not kept her on any kind of contract after The Mandalorian season 2, which you might have expected if they had planned to include her in the show again or in any of the spin-offs. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Carano's motivations

On the social media and political views section, it captures the views of her critics and the timeline of the events really well. One thing I will have to point out though, is that we don’t really get to read about Gina Carano’s motives. She recently did an interview with political pundit Ben Shapiro on the Daily Wire, and in this interview she states that her controversial tweet was not to compare republicans to Jews from the Holocaust, but actually a call for unity. She went on to say that when she was calling to stop the hatred on those who differ on political views she meant hate on both republicans and democrats. When she was stating that the Holocaust happened from people learning to hate their neighbors, she felt that this was thing as people were learning to hate each other based off policy preference. If this clarification from Gina Carano is sincere or not is up for debate, but I do believe her input needs to be added. That way the readers of this page can get more background on this situation and determine the sincerely for themselves. Masterzat (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We have to use the weight of sources about the topic to come up with our prose, and in general not a lot of reliable sources are covering that, as much as what led to her firing. Currently, in the section above, is a discussion about overhauling that section. That said, if you have reliable secondary sources that cover her response and motivations you can post them here to see if they can be of use in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The Daily Wire is generally unreliable. Interviews in general are primary sources and should be used cautiously if at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Not only is the Daily Wire a hyperpartisan rag, peddling nonsense propaganda on a regular basis, but an interview with her specifically made to paint her the victim, using her own account of the events is unencyclopedic. wikipedia isn't here to validate your POV. That being said I, like most people believe Gina Carano's willingness to associate with someone like Ben Shapiro speaks miles about her character and the validity of the criticism she got. This is why I've been trying to argue that at the very least, the Daily WIre interview should be mentiones as reported by a reliable secondary source, because Carano's role as an alt right propaganda figure is becoming increasingly obvious and wikipedia should report on it. Unfortunately, consensus is not on my side. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Jewish bankers tweet

@Vaselineeeeeeee: What is your issue with this addition to Gina Carano § Social media and political views? How would you improve it?

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." In the image, the Jews sit in front of an Illuminati pyramid; a second pyramid sits on the board, surrounded by gold, cash, a skull, Saturn, and the symbols of various trades, including medicine and law.[1] Like the similar Freedom for Humanity mural, the image has been condemned as anti-semitic.[2] Some have speculated that she did not know the men pictured were Jews.[3]

Gershonmk (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gershonmk. I don't think this is WP:DUE - we don't want this section to become an overly detailed collection of every one of her tweets. Let's see what others think as well. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, understood, I disagree. Unfortunately even reliable sources have been forced to speculate because of Disney's vague statement, but this was likely part of the reason for her exit and has been covered by mainstream outlets. I'll ping Sangdeboeuf, and Rendall, and Acousmana, who have been most actively contributing here. What do other editors think? Gershonmk (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Not exactly an editor, but Sangdeboeuf most likely already knows my opinion, which i cannot post without violating BLP. Suffice to say, this news does not surprise me at all. The speculations are probably more due to the lack of concrete evidence and the journalists trying to avoid a defamation suit (which at worst would waste their time), than any real ambiguity. "Anti-globalism" and "anti-elitism" are well documented antisemitic dogwhistles of the alt right, and feigning ignorance is a weak defense. If enough reliable sources cover this, maybe even the ADL gets involved, then I say it needs to be mentioned. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Based on the given sources, I do not think this is DUE. Ref #2 has nothing to do with Carano, so that part is improper synthesis. Newsweek is not the quality publication it once was, and Reason is mostly commentary with a libertarian slant. (I'm surprised to see it listed as generally reliable at Perennial sources; personally I would only use it with attribution – and The Volokh Conspiracy is evidently a blog with no oversight by the magazine's editors.) Given that this is a BLP, I would err on the side of caution and wait for more authoritative sources. Hollywood drama is generally of little real-world import; there's no deadline, and no need to include every newsworthy item. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC))
That is a disappointing tweet by Carano. I agree with the others that it does not yet rise to the level of WP:DUE. Perhaps with more sources. Rendall (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to my fellow editors for weighing in. I've inserted a pared down version in accordance with the critiques here, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. Gershonmk (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I've removed it. There's no basis in either policy or this discussion to include any material based on a self-published blog such as Volokh's. All the users here besides yourself said the material was WP:UNDUE – that means it should not be included without substantially more support from reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf There's definitely no call for rudeness. Reading Volokh's section on editorial policy, I agree. I don't know the process but we should try to get a perennial sources note on this. At the same time, reconsidering the reliability of sources, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the Newsweek article and we are told to evaluate case-by-case. A second possible source is this which is self-published but by an editor at Reason and subject matter expert. It doesn't seem that any reliable source has brought up the mural, which is a shame. I didn't mean to get over my skis on this; here's another proposed edit:
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1] Some have speculated that she did not know the men pictured were Jews.[4]
Gershonmk (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
We have much stronger sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. Not only is a tweet not a reliable source here, the statement "Some have speculated..." is pure original research. Who speculated? The author? Someone the author is referencing? (See also Unsupported attributions.) If this material is DUE, then more mainstream sources besides Newsweek will have covered it, which is why I suggested we wait for "more authoritative sources". See WP:REDFLAG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf I'll say again: a confrontational tone runs counter to our shared goals on Wikipedia. Self-published sources can be reliable sources when they are by recognized subject matter experts. I accept your critique of the second line, which better reflected the content of the Volokh piece. Another round:
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1] Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism on the basis of this tweet but that most people would not have realized it was anti-Semitic.[4]
Gershonmk (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Apologies if I seem confrontational, but I really don't think you're listening. BLP policy is clear: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." I don't see anything to suggest that Robby Soave is an expert on anything to do with anti-Semitism, but it doesn't matter; the "subject matter" here is Carano herself, and his self-published opinion is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I understand our issue. This source makes no claims about the BLP and is not represented to. Soave is an expert on Internet controversy, writing and editing many (hundreds?) of reliable articles for a reliable source. His comments here refer to the controversy, about which they are reliable. Gershonmk (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Your proposed text mentions Carano by name. That is a statement about a living person. It mentions her in connection with a tweet by a different person. A tweet by a different person is not a usable source in a BLP. Even in an article about an "Internet controversy", an opinion from a single tweet would be WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
We would not cite a tweet by Soave in which he said "Gina Carano's birthday is March 5," because that claim is about the BLP. Citing a tweet by an SME for information not about her, that contains no claims about her, but only about the image and the reaction, is in absolute accordance with the BLP guidelines.
The challenge here is that including just the Newsweek article's information -- despite it making no controversial claims and, to my judgement, appearing reliable -- is a clear WP:NPOV issue because we know she has been widely defended, including by a subject matter expert. Obviously I welcome the input of other editors, as we seem to gotten a bit bogged down. For ease, I reiterate that my proposed insertion is as follows:
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1] Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism on the basis of this tweet but that most people would not have realized it was anti-Semitic.[4]
Gershonmk (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism is a claim about Carano. You seem to starting with the material you want to include, and then looking for sources to justify the inclusion. That's the opposite of due weight, which involves finding the most reliable sources first and then adding material according to the views presented therein. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Tell me what the claim about Carano is, that is contained in that sentence? It is about the group that accused her. It doesn't, for example, say that she is an antisemite, or that she isn't, both of which would be claims about a BLP subject. I didn't mean to imply that was my method; what I mean is that we have a reliable source that says it was one of her controversial posts, and a second that explains the controversy, so I'm leery to compromise and only include information from the first, because it may without the help of expert analysis lead to a particular, controversial conclusion. But I think I can clarify further:
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1] Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that many had shared this tweet as evidence of anti-Semitism but that most people would not have realized the image was anti-Semitic.[4]
Gershonmk (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If the tweet isn't about Carano, then why would we include it in her biography? It's obviously about her, in that it implicitly states she was accused of anti-Semitism. Her name is right there in the first sentence of the tweet. Whether she's the subject or object of the sentence (or of a dependent clause) makes no real difference.

I'm leery to compromise and only include information from the first – then we don't include either one, because the whole incident is WP:UNDUE, as I and several others have stated already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about the intent of the policy, and even more so about your application of the ethical obligation the policy protects, but I'll keep trying.
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an anti-semitic image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1] Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that the anti-semitism in the image would only have been obvious to the alt-right.[4]
I have edited the claim cited to Soave further, hopefully so that no one could mistake it for a claim about Carano, and added the descriptor "anti-semitic" to the image, cited to the Newsweek article which describes it that way (to my ears on this page, uncontroversially) for context now necessary to his comment. If you don't like it and don't think it's necessary for context, I'm ok with leaving it out. I encourage you to suggest language that you think might be acceptable to both of us, as I have been (so far I have been wrong). Gershonmk (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand) what I was saying, and what several others have said in this discussion already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC) edited 17:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Personal attacks are not productive here, but I actually think we've made some progress. Rendall Acousmana Vaselineeeeeeee Crossroads Ghy201 Caius G. Morbidthoughts 73.197.233.120 Britishfinance I've been trying to address WP:UNDUE concerns about a proposed edit, which would insert the following language into the social media controversy section:
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1] Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that the anti-semitism in the image would only have been obvious to the alt-right.[4]
You guys are recent contributors, and I'd like some feedback. Some of you have already provided input but, as I say, the language has evolved dramatically to address concerns. Gershonmk (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll say what I said before. We'll include this story as soon as it goes mainstream. Until then, there's not much to do. There's plenty of stuff Carano did that are seemingly overlooked by reliable sources and this is unfortunately one of them. As support for Carano grows in the ranks of the alt right, i expect this tweet to gain more traction and THEN we can mention it. Right now your only source is one guy trying to excuse her actions. That is not up to standard. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The Newsweek article is a reliable source, which definitely does not excuse her actions. A separate reliable source defends the image Gershonmk (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Newsweek is no longer considered to be a reliable source in Wikipedia, see WP:RS/P. To include a controversial quote like this in a BLP you would need to have multiple quality sources, preferably WP:RS/P standard given controversial, re-printing it (i.e. they deem it sufficiently notable to chronicle it). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
I thought your compromise that you added was decent but I am still leaning towards what I said before and the side of Sangdeboeuf in that the whole thing is probably UNDUE. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
As others have stated, the WP:UNDUE concerns are that the entire incident fails to rise to the level of being noteworthy or encyclopedic. Not that this or that sentence could be phrased differently. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Principled, non-anti-semitic people could reasonably dispute that the bankers portrayed in that tweet are Jewish. I don't think it would be fair to include the description "Jewish bankers, sitting at a table", nor even "bankers". To me, I thought they were just "oligarchs" until I read about the controversy. "Carano tweeted an image of oligarchs playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." This was criticized as anti-Semitic by x, y, and z. would be fair, to my mind. Rendall (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is more information, in which Bari Weiss just went ahead and asked Carano what she meant: [[18]] Rendall (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Rendall: Weiss is definitely a subject matter expert in anti-semitism, though also a heavily opinionated one. This is an interesting source, and I think it accords with guidelines. It's also been covered here and here, Vaselineeeeeeee which are obviously opinion pieces. BTW the only ones I recognized initially are the guys in the middle: Bernie Madoff (who, come to think of it, wasn't rly a banker) and Lord Jacob Rothschild. I think Bernanke and Soros are on the right, though. A Safra? Adelson? on the far left. How about:
On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[5] Carano told Bari Weiss, "I was in utter shock and confusion when certain people said it was antisemitic," and "The image for me was a statement that people need to stand together and rise up, stop being so manipulated by the powers that believe they know what's best for you and play games with our lives." She affirmed, "My heart has only ever had ultimate respect and love for the Jewish community."[5]
Gershonmk (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more. Bari Weiss's blog is another self-published source and therefore not usable in a BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I remind you, again, about Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Not sure about policy re: the quote from Carano, but I think it's responsive to their intent to include it. Weiss is a subject-matter expert and a reliable journalist, subject I would think to a case-by-case test for bias. Gershonmk (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
And I remind you again that a person's subject-matter expertise is irrelevant. This is a biography, not an article on anti-Semitism. If you think I've got the policy wrong, the place to continue the discussion is at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing in the policy which distinguishes based on the nature of the article, but rather the nature of the claim. A claim about Carano would not be acceptable in an article on anti-semitism, and a claim which is not about Carano is acceptable here; assuming from a subject-matter expert. Re: the quote, all guidelines are subject to individual exceptions, what matters is the underlying principle, and it's pretty hard to say that a friendly interview with Carano isn't OK just because Weiss moved to Substack. Gershonmk (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Substack appears to provide no editorial oversight. Weiss was an opinion columnist at WSJ and opinion editor at NYT; by all appearances this is another (self-published) opinion essay. The proposed text says, Carano tweeted an image ... Carano told Bari Weiss ... How exactly are these claims not about Carano? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument you keep making here doesn't convince me at all; I think other editors are going to have to pitch in. There's nothing wrong with citing experts who comment on the primary sources. The only claim about Carano made in any edition I've proposed is the most recent, which claims that she said things to the interviewer, but the interview is friendly, the content uncontroversial, and her comments invaluable to understanding the issue. But, I just noticed that the first source cited in the section actually does mention this tweet[6] -- "posting a meme that all but comes out and says that Jewish people control the world order and must be overthrown, as Carano has done." Vox/Soave/Newsweek/Weiss/Volokh/Defector/AwfulAnnouncing are enough, it's been covered widely enough that we can provide a fair summary of the content and the controversy over it, and she's commented on it herself at length.Gershonmk (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not my job to convince you. If you think the material belongs in the article then the onus is on you to make convincing arguments for it. Opinion pieces like the ones you mention are not reliable for facts. That the Weiss interview is "friendly" is all the more reason to be suspicious; we're not here to promote advocacy for Carano's personal point of view, let alone Weiss's. The Vox piece doesn't explicitly say what the meme is. An earlier reference in the article to "anti-Semitic memes" links to a tweet that is unavailable; maybe it showed the image in question. The author only mentions it in passing in the context of making a larger point about American conservatism and the entertainment industry. As it stands, it would be improper synthesis to use this source in relation to the image mentioned in the Newsweek article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The only claim about Carano made in any edition I've proposed is the most recent ... If you don't understand that Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism ... Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Spencer, Samuel (2021-02-11). "Why Gina Carano has been fired from 'The Mandalorian'". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
  2. ^ "Council candidate sets personal Facebook page to private". The Harrisonburg Citizen. 2020-09-21. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
  3. ^ "Redefining "Anti-Semitism" in the Gina Carano Controversy? Or Just Inaccurate Reporting?". Reason.com. 2021-02-11. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
  4. ^ a b c d e f Soave, Robby (12 February 2021). "Lots of people sharing this as evidence of Carano's anti-Semitism". Twiiter. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
  5. ^ a b Weiss, Bari (15 February 2021). "Gina Carano and Crowd-Sourced McCarthyism". Common Sense with Bari Weiss. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
  6. ^ https://www.vox.com/culture/2021/2/12/22280565/gina-carano-fired-star-wars-mandalorian-social-media-conservative. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I hope we can all agree this settled the matter? https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/entertainment/2021/2/17/22287226/star-wars-gina-carano-exit-comments Gershonmk (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

[Deseret News] is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, a holding company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To me that doesn't scream "reliable". Note that the article never mentions the Monopoly tweet; instead, it presents Carano's statement to Weiss as being about the backlash to her Instagram post comparing conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany.
More recent articles from Newsweek and Entertainment Tonight include snippets from the Weiss interview, along with references to Carano's other social-media activity. Both are focused on the fact that Carano learned of her "firing" through social media and only mention the Monopoly tweet near the end. Lacking focused coverage in more reliable, mainstream sources, I'd say this is still pretty WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf, Deseret News is considered reliable for non-LDS issues, please see WP:RPS. I'm going to let other editors weigh in, I'm pretty sure the consensus is for inclusion at this point. There's been a lot more coverage of this, just for example, than of the change.org petition, which I don't think has ever been mentioned by a reliable source. Gershonmk (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather wait for an uninvolved editor to judge consensus, thanks. I think the Change.org petition is probably UNDUE as well, but it doesn't involve any claims about Carano personally, so it's less urgent IMO. Per RS/P, Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. How is this a local story? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Sangdeboeuf I'm going to post to a board. How would being owned by the LDS affect coverage here? Gershonmk (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Gee, I don't know, maybe the church's socially conservative views might slant the paper's coverage a teensy bit when it comes to hot-button culture-war topics? Shocking, I know. Why are we still discussing this when (1) the Deseret News is obviously mixing up the two social-media posts, and (2) I already cited other independent coverage? It's not like the Deseret News gives the quote any more weight than the ET article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Not going to continue to discuss this with you. Gershonmk (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about banker tweet in the social media and controversy section (superseded by RfC below)

The following addition to the Gina Carano Social media and controversy section, is it WP:UNDUE:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1][2] Carano told Bari Weiss, "I was in utter shock and confusion when certain people said it was antisemitic," and "The image for me was a statement that people need to stand together and rise up, stop being so manipulated by the powers that believe they know what's best for you and play games with our lives." She affirmed, "My heart has only ever had ultimate respect and love for the Jewish community."[2][3] Gershonmk (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-tweets-fired-mandalorian-star-wars-lucasfilm-1568538. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ a b https://www.etonline.com/gina-carano-speaks-out-on-mandalorian-firing-160648. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-found-out-she-was-fired-via-social-media-1569614. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • I suggest this RfC be closed or withdrawn as premature. Any potential limitations of the new sources should be hashed out through normal discussion: Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. There's been no significant discussion of the ET Online source at all; I merely brought it up recently as an example of how the material is not emphasized even in such marginal sources. Failing a procedural close, oppose per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, etc. (See discussion above.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Nota bene* Note that the RfC was altered after users had already responded. To be clear, my "oppose" !vote refers to the proposed text itself, not the idea that it us UNDUE, which I agree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    This is not true, as anyone scrolling up will see. I've spent three days discussing it with you, but you've rejected every source, including that one. Several other users have weighed in supporting the compromise but I want total clarity on the consensus. Gershonmk (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    As I suggested earlier, it looks like you first decided what content you wanted to include, then went looking for sources to support it. That's not good practice. Where was there any proposal to use ET Online as a source before this RfC was posted? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    You about that source: "Lacking focused coverage in more reliable, mainstream sources, I'd say this is still pretty WP:UNDUE" though, if you've changed your mind and have a proposal, I'm all ears. Other editors, please weigh in about the RfC. Gershonmk (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly. As I said, Newsweek and Entertainment Tonight include snippets from the Weiss interview, along with references to Carano's other social-media activity. Both are focused on the fact that Carano learned of her "firing" through social media and only mention the Monopoly tweet near the end. The material is WP:UNDUE and the Weiss interview is a minor event that will not pass the ten-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Needs to be way shortened due to WP:UNDUE. The last 3 quotes are unnecessary. Not sure if this fits the scope or format of an RFC given the long intro per WP:RFCOPEN Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Morbidthoughts Several preceding versions were shorter; it got longer in negotations with one editor here. Would you support a version without the last three quotes?Gershonmk (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You shouldn't be removing the intro after people have already commented. Instead strike the old one out and move the header to the new proposal. That's why a long intro that can be revised is not appropriate for an RFC. If you envision more edits after feedback or there were multiple versions in the discussion, then you should be presenting options for people to choose like: A. Version 1 B. Version 2 C. Version 3 D. Shouldn't be mentioned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't want to but you were the only one who commented and I tagged you. I don't really. I went through about a dozen versions with another editor and this happened to be the most recent, but your comment made me realize it wasn't actually the version I/anyone would want. Unsure of the process here -- what do you suggest? Gershonmk (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
If you have multiple options, reset the RFC by striking the previous intro, post the new RFC below these now moot comments and move that RFC template, {{rfc|pol|soc|bio}} down to the new one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Morbidthoughts No, I don't have multiple options. OK, I think I did it right, so please comment below. Gershonmk (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about banker tweet in the social media and controversy section

Is the following addition to § Social media and political views WP:UNDUE?

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over."[1][2] Carano told Bari Weiss, "I was in utter shock and confusion when certain people said it was antisemitic."[2][3] Gershonmk (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-tweets-fired-mandalorian-star-wars-lucasfilm-1568538. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ a b https://www.etonline.com/gina-carano-speaks-out-on-mandalorian-firing-160648. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-found-out-she-was-fired-via-social-media-1569614. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • It's UNDUE. This can be reduced down to a variation of: "Carano had previously tweeted a meme using artwork similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, which was criticized as being anti-semitic" in the third paragraph. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Morbidthoughts, Is it really better to not quote her defense? I feel a little cheated, in that I responded to your critique above and you came up with a new critique of the version you yourself suggested. I am trying in good faith to reach consensus. Gershonmk (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
This is why I mentioned previously that it's better to hammer down the various versions in discussion and then present them as options in an RFC. Her response can be paraphrased too or reduced down to that she was surprised at the criticism. Remember that this meme example is discussed in the context of her later comments about Jews and the Holocaust and her firing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Morbidthoughts, OK. I guess if this fails I can try again. This has already taken an obscene amount of time/energy, that's all. Gershonmk (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes UNDUE, exclude. Sources #2 and #3 are focused on the fact that Carano learned of her "firing" through social media and only mention the Monopoly tweet near the end. Overall the incident was ignored by major media outlets, suggesting extra caution is warranted. As such the material is WP:UNDUE. The Weiss interview is a minor event that will not pass the ten-year test. Additionally, there was no proposal to include either source before the original RfC above was posted, suggesting this fails WP:RFCBEFORE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    It is not true that it was not suggested. As readers will see if they scroll up, I spend three days suggesting various source combinations, some of which received support here but all of which were rejected by Sangdeboeuf, who insists no mention of the event appear on the page in any way. Sangdeboeuf rejected these sources specifically, which he confirmed in the closed RfC in response to my quoting his original critique of them. Gershonmk (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    That's a mischaracterization. You did not suggest these sources before the RfC was posted, or attempt to convince anyone they should be used. Once again, best practice is to find the most reliable sources first, then summarize what they say. Not to start with the content you want and then try various source combinations in an attempt at post-hoc justification.
    Regarding the above proposal, image of Jewish financiers is POV, and the utter shock and confusion quote is UNDUE. When a reliable, secondary source offers some analysis and interpretation of her statements in the interview, then it might be good to include. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    Again, not true. I encourage anyone curious to scroll up. Gershonmk (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    First of all, when editing disputs arise we dont scroll up, we look at history. Second, Gershonmk added one Newsweek article as a source from when RfC was posted and before Sangdeboeuf suggested "That's a mischaracterization".  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Undue as written. I like Morbidthoughts' proposed sentence above. WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:MANDY apply here, but even without those her comments to Weiss haven't been covered enough to be quoted or really even mentioned; they're simply undue. If some quality reliable sources comment on the interview, then we can consider including it. Srey Srostalk 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • UNDUE, exclude and definitely not the proposed one-liner per Sangdeboeuf and my previous comments. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude, undue and did not get enough coverage. Crossroads -talk- 04:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Exclude per UNDUE, certainly not enough coverage to include that much prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • UNDUE - Wikipedia is not a repository of every stupid or controversial tweet that was ever posted. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lucas film's alleged hypocrisy regarding pedro pascal.

Apparently pedro pascal made some similar nazi-related social media posts, including comparing united states in 2018 to being similar to nazi germany, using Palestinians behind barb wire as props apparently to apear as if Jews in concetration camps. Then in 2020 posting a image that compares trump/and or trump supporters with nnazi germany as well as the confedderacy. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mandalorian-gina-carano-fired-pedro-pascal-lucasfilm https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/fans-raise-pedro-pascal-tweets-amid-gina-carano-firing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:NYPOST is generally unreliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This also isn't Pascal's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

it's connected to the firing of Carano, which is what this wiki is about. 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that it is quite notable enough to put in without it sounding gossipy. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 01:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This bit of nonsense has already been slipped into the article and promptly removed. Not only is it not notable, it's blatant trumpist whataboutery. Pedro Pascal's posts are not comparable. Gina Carano has a history of making dumb political takes on social media abd hurting Disney's PR. Fans have been calling for Gina Carano's firing over her ignorant tweets. Pedro Pascal is universally loved and uncontroversial. Disney dropped the actor who was causing controversy. That was Carano, not Pascal. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Under the Social Media Controversy it is mentioned that she insinuated that American Conservatives were Nazis but it’s the opposite. She insinuated American liberals are Nazis after taking up in the habit of absolutely destroying people who shared conservative values. You need to change that statement 70.50.72.61 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section

As much as I personally don't agree with Carrano's views, User:DabYeetDab seems correct in that the newly placed "Controversy" section violates WP:BALANCE. Taking a larger perspective, virtually every public figure is subject to Twitterverse critics. Unless the issue being criticized becomes independently notable, it seems like gross overkill to create an entire "Controversy" section because a few people were offended by her comments.

I would also note that User:Koreanidentity10000 added another controversy today, to David Cross, that was remarkably overstated, non-neutral and unbalanced. It involved another celebrity referring to Cross specifically, so that would reach the level of independent notability and not "some tweeters criticized the person." I trimmed the Cross content to the raw facts as best I could. I would suggest that an editor inserting highly non-WP:NPOV content in incendiary language perhaps has an ax to grind and is not editing responsibly.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well Tenebrae, thanks very much for editing this David Cross controversy section. But don't make these assumptions towards me next time; I have no "ax to grind" because I don't have an ax. I'm just posting the facts and remained neutral as much as possible so that people like you can edit this. People with reputations like Cross need to learn to watch what they say, and it's all for the greater good for people to learn from their mistakes.-User:Koreanidentity10000 Reedited 2:36pm Nov 27th, 2020
You say you have no ax to grind. Then two sentences later you start grinding it: "People with reputations like Cross need to learn when to keep their mouths shut ... to learn from their mistakes." Wikipedia is not a place for you to work out your grievances toward "people like David Cross" or anyone else. If you continue trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your personal feelings about people who "need to learn when to keep their mouths shut," then admin intervention will be called for.
Your edits also do not show you as anyone who "remained neutral", and editors are not supposed to write any personal essay they want and expect others to "make these balanced edits."--Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Once again Tenebrae, thanks for everything, I'll ask you for help if I need it. -User:Koreanidentity10000

Carrano's views has garnered significant media attention from major news outlets as Forbes, Telegraph, and Newsweek. If the "Controversy"section violates balance, it should not be deleted en masse, but edited to improve any biases.146.151.113.93 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to rework the section as written to make it read more neutrally and encyclopedically. I'm a journalist and editor for a living, and I couldn't do it. The "Criticms" section needs a complete top-to-bottom rewrite, including making it much shorter. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty unfortunate that the Wiki article doesn't include one sentence about these controversies. I have little interest in the subject matter itself, and am more concerned of censorship. 146.151.113.93 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The controversy section is entirely one sided with some glaring omissions (including her activity on parler).Jeffery Thomas 02:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's one sided with glaring omissions. The section used to have mentions of her covid-19 and voter fraud conspiracy theories and her opening an account on parler, and I also tried to convince people that her association with the Fandom Menace and other fringe right wing elements should be mentioned, but it was decided that these things are "not notable". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Senator Heidi Heitkamp

It is worth noting that former U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp referred to Gina Carano as a Nazi while on Real Time with Bill Maher. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, not really. It's pretty WP:UNDUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure it did happen, though. 92.5.188.248 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It's trivia. Not worth mentioning. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gina_Carano/Archive_1&oldid=1030304329"