Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Controversy

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im challenging all those materials which are not supported by reliable sources 2601:300:4581:1540:B57A:B46B:F3D8:CF25 (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but no. It's been covered in multiple places, not just those gossip rags. Rolling Stone, Huffington Post, and The Independent have all released articles on it. Multiple YouTubers have released mini documentaries on it, with more coming out. Adam has even filed a police report due to doxxing and raids on his public fan communities so these allegations have gone *beyond* proven to being taken seriously legally, and Adam is getting more and more screenshots sent to him every day. Actual members of these group chats have been interviewed in multiple places. A section needs to be put on her article talking about this specifically. It is more than time. This isn't the same allegations being beaten to death, new screenshots that have not been released publicly are now out for the world to see.

And regarding those 'libellous' videos, the one that was referred to as being taken down was not taken down for being 'libellous', KodeeRants themselves took it down due to facing backlash for not being genuine in their intentions on originally posting it (because the general public took the video as them trying to post it to absolve themselves of guilt).

This has to be covered on her page in more than just a few sentences. Daemon.trances (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And the reason the 'doxxing' is significant is because it was fans of Colleen Ballinger that did the alleged doxxing, which led to him talking to police not only about the doxxing itself but why it was happening, which includes what his relationship to Colleen was, and what happened. He himself admitted that he spoke about this to police in two jurisdictions in the UK and Ireland.

And now with Colleen's former tour assistant coming out (and Adam too) about Colleen sending them OnlyFans content posted by another YouTube creator when Adam was a minor to make fun of said creator, there's now the possibility of serious illegal behavior, as it is *mega* illegal to send NSFW content like that if it involves naked bodies to minors. Adam was under 18 at the time. This isn't just a discussion about parasocial behavior that can be brushed off, it is serious. Daemon.trances (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-youtube-fans-allegations-1234774947/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youtuber-colleen-ballinger-accused-grooming_n_6495b07fe4b0c0ed59b22499

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/miranda-sings-grooming-colleen-ballinger-b2364039.html

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-unraveling-online-fandom-rcna89788

https://www.buzzfeed.com/larryfitzmaurice/miranda-sings-colleen-ballinger-allegations

https://www.pedestrian.tv/entertainment/colleen-ballinger-accusations/

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-miranda-sings-youtube-allegations-fans-questioning-support-20230624-bksryxqzbbg4nesb237qglycpa-story.html

https://www.pajiba.com/celebrities_are_better_than_you/who-is-miranda-sings-the-colleen-ballinger-accusations-explained.php

https://www.themarysue.com/colleen-ballinger-should-never-have-been-famous-enough-to-cancel-in-the-first-place/

And these are just SOME of the articles that are out there, from REPUTABLE SOURCES.

This is an important part of her career. And even beyond that, she does not deserve to be protected, just like anyone else with allegations of being inappropriate with fans or colleagues doesn't deserve to be protected. I'm not saying we need to necessarily keep a whole timeline yet, but a section that talks about this specifically and mentions 'this came up in 2020, it came back again in 2023, this is what got brought up, screenshots were released' and then we can cite the articles that cite the screenshots. It has to happen. This needs to be more than just a blurb. Daemon.trances (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know about adding a new section, but we definitely need to add some more information about it. Especially since her apology video yesterday. That's covered by many reliable sources.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/who-is-colleen-ballinger-allegations-colleen-vlogs-b2366342.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/colleen-ballinger-responds-allegations-rcna91707

https://variety.com/2023/digital/news/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-grooming-allegations-1235657282/

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/colleen-ballinger-yohttps://uk.style.yahoo.com/colleen-ballinger-youtuber-responds-allegations-135823724.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12246297/Miranda-Sings-fans-disgusted-YouTube-star-Colleen-Ballingers-apology-video.html Strugglehouse (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This is discussed in the section below. Nemov (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Enough. Stick to comments about the article, not other users

Wary of your edits since you were very quick to dismiss and side with Colleen. Isn’t wikipedia supposed to be neutral? Despressso (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Of course it is. What are you trying to achieve here? If you have behavioral concerns about editors, please take it up with them on their user talk page. Article talk pages are not the place. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 22:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC) I’m not trying to achieve anything. It just seems to me like Ssilvers is a Colleen superfan, seeing their previous replies in this topic. I don’t have behavioral concerns but bias concerns. Calling a grooming accusation “silly”, regardless from who it is, does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia, and is very clearly biased and misleading. I don’t have any qualms with them outside of this page, only with the tone of the content they have provided to this page. If anything, shouldn’t you be asking Ssilvers what they were trying to achieve by calling ANY form of criminal accusation “silly” and providing their extremely biased unsourced info at the top of the topic? Despressso (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC) No, because I'm not concerning myself with poorly sourced accusations. Again, article talk pages are not the place to vent about an editor's purported bias. Either address the editor directly via their user talk page or consult a noticeboard. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 13:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC) The thing is, the accusations are only poorly sourced *as of now*. I think it would be best to wait before making a final decision since it is a current event unfolding. To make a decision right now wouldn’t make sense, since poorly sourced articles are usually the quickest to publish topical subjects, so it makes sense that as of now, only those have mentions of this controversy. Despressso (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Nobody is arguing for a "final decision". The thread began with an editor's proposal to add information to the article that can and could only be supported by unreliable sources. That is what editors have argued against. If new, reliable sources are produced, inclusion will obviously be reassessed. Even then, this talk page is not for discussing the validity of these accusations or any of the circumstances surrounding them. This talk page is for assessing the reliability of sources that contain these accusations, and how to properly integrate the text into the article. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Despressso, That's now three editors who have asked you to focus on the article, not the opinions of other editors. That, I hope, will make you reflect before leaving another posting about SSilvers or anyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC) My posting is not about Ssilvers. It is about the content they decided to contribute to this discussion. I am all for bettering the article, but my recent replies have just been me EXPLAINING my reasoning. I have not used any personal attacks or used anything that doesn’t have to do with the Controversy topic, and I have not been passive aggressive or anything like that. I do not have an agenda, I don’t feel any ill will towards Ssilvers. I was just reasonably inferring that someone who calls an ongoing discussion point “silly” with no context besides anecdotes, *may* make biased edits. The talk page is to DISCUSS, not to DISMISS, and if you want MY opinion, stating any point as fact in this controversy is not in the best interest of the article. Despressso (talk) 14:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC) You display an evident lack of familiarity with Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. I urge you to stop going down this thread and familiarize yourself with them, or there will inevitably be repercussions. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Throast, all of my replies have just been me explaining. I fully understand the point of the discussion, I did not mean for my point to drag on, I was just replying to multiple people (which was probably excessive). I do not support the inclusion of the controversy for the time being. Despressso (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Agree with Throast, several editors here have made sound policy based arguments which are neutral. Stick to the topic and leave the other stuff out. Nemov (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC) My arguments are all neutral and my intent is removing bias. If you scroll up, you can see Ssilvers using biased language and adding personal opinions on unverified matters. Despressso (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC) You should concentrate on the topic. Your thoughts about the editor's motivation are irrelevant and lean closer to WP:ASPERSIONS. Nemov (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC) It is literally all about the topic? My “thoughts” are just me pointing out what is VISIBLE on this same page for everyone to see. The whole topic is about a controversy. To deny or support it would be bias. And Ssilvers vehemently denied the controversy. I’m not using personal attacks nor off-wiki behavior for you to claim aspersions. Don’t know why the issue lies with me trying to make the article neutral… Despressso (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Despressso, your comments are aimed at another editor, that goes against WP:TPG. You should be commenting on the article text, not people's opinion's here. (Specifically "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article." - emphasis in the orginal). Please could you focus on the wording and thrust of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC) Gosh. I've never seen my username mentioned so many times in one talk page. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 and have edited thousands of articles. I have been editing Ballinger's article since 2009, and so I know a lot about her career. For that reason, I believe the article is written neutrally, but if you see something that is not neutral, please correct it. Yes, I am skeptical that the accusations of the young YouTuber who is the source of these accusations against the subject of this article (and has received much attention and profit by making those accusations) are true, but this skepticism does not and will not affect my ability to edit the article neutrally. I was merely reacting to the initial statement above by another editor: "Seems she been having inappropriate relationships with fans" and later "Sorry, but she did have an inappropriate relationships and conversations with her fans." These talk page comments, together with the addition to the article of the big Controversy section, seemed to be a rush to judgment based only on these gossip sources. Obviously, if reliable sources investigate seriously and verify any of the accusations, we would report that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC) What is the value of making (UNSOURCED) accusatory remarks here then? How come the mods haven’t jumped once on you? “and has received much attention and profit by making those accusations” is a really bold statement to make for someone repeatedly citing WP:RS and asking people to type using surnames as if this was an article. Despressso (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Despressso, yet again, please focus on the article, not the opinions of other editors on the TP. It’s the article that should be focused on, not the talk page. If you have concerns about the article text, please raise them, but please don’t keep commenting about other editor’s opinions. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC) It seems like when people focus on the article here they are met with “stop wasting people’s time”. Any unnecessary remarks from Throast, Nev, and Ssilvers go unnoticed and are fine though right? My issue is something that I can’t discuss outside this TP, it has to do with the TP. I just can’t help but see the blatant disparity between me raising a valid concern (bias) being met with a “focus” response, yet someone ADDING their bias to the talk page (as a first response mind you) to push their point gets 0 negative feedback… Despressso (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC) Where have we made an unnecessary remarks? Again, that's another baseless accusation that has zero to do with the topic. If you think there's a bias please proceed to WP:ANI. If not WP:DROPTHESTICK and concentrate on the topic. Nemov (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) “The 2023 additions to this gossip by these two social media influencers, which allegations are being repeated over and over again, *are entirely fake and libellous*. None of this should be added or cited in a WP:BLP. One of these *libellous videos has been taken down from YouTube*.” Direct quote from Ssilvers with biased sections in asterisks. The second one is in fact just a flat out lie, one of the people took down the video by their own volition, so why claim otherwise? Is lying on a talk page allowed? And yes it has to do with the topic. Completely dismissing someone using your own opinions as a basis is not talk page etiquette either. If you can tell people to stop wasting time, I can bring up the point I am making about bias, they both have as much to do with the article and talk page. Don’t cite that essay at me again. I am defending myself from your claims that my claims are “baseless”. Despressso (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

• Per WP:BLPREMOVE, this content should not be included until there's much better sourcing. I support removing it as well. Nemov (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Considering this is one of the biggest things to ever happen in her life and is currently being spoken about like crazy, it’s time you add this section. 31.94.4.149 (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  As has been pointed out above, we already cover the encyclopaedic information in a broadly appropriate manner. If there is anything specific you think should be added, please state what that is, and the reliable source we need to conclude it. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty much every major news source is now carrying the story. That good enough sources for you? 49.185.190.117 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  You’re a very long way behind the times: once it was in multiple reliable sources (as policy states it has to be), it was included. Did you not look at the article or the rest of this page? - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  Don’t know why people are trying to protect her when there’s clear proof of wrongdoing lol people need to stop being simps. 2601:405:4003:CC60:B8D9:6E83:C70E:EE13 (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Given the sources above something about recent events probably deserves some mention, but I don't really know much about this person to put it in with the proper weight. It might make sense to wait a few days to get a full picture. Good to remember that Wikipedia is not the news. We don't have to rush in new information. Nemov (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
• There are a few aspects to the allegations I think would be relevant to include for a fuller context, but I defer to the judgment of more knowledgeable editors as to which/how, taking care to avoid charged or biased language in the mainspace.

- The June 2023 allegations not only led to further scrutiny of her past content but also to further evaluation of her past behavior with/by other fans.

- The group chats included messages where Ballinger shared personal details of her relationship and divorce with the minors.

- When the 2020 allegations involving McIntyre first came to light, fans allege she used these inappropriate connections with them to galvanize her fanbase in order to attack McIntyre and defend her from the allegations. Retrospectively looking back at their behavior, many expressed feeling of having been misled or manipulated.

- The response song was widely mocked as tonedeaf, and dovetails with general allegations of gaslighting detailed earlier.

A neutral-worded restatement of the above facts can be sourced from the reputable sources available (chiefly among them, HuffPo / Rolling Stone / NBC News) if someone feels any of this merits inclusion. Her ex-husband's reaction was also covered in the LA Times, this may also be a good source. Criticalus (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a sourcing issue, it is a balance issue. See WP:BALASP and WP:DUE in general. I think we have given the most encyclopedic facts, and cited the best sources, and anyone who wants more information can read them. Really, the whole thing is laid out from tip to tail in the Vulture article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023 (3)

Take the Vanity Fair article off her page or put all the articles on her page. Gross Wikipedia supporting groomers and news outlets that support the child groomers. Not sure who is reading these edits I hope it's one of Colleens people tell the groomer the world has seen what she has done the while world not just America has seen you gross. 174.215.220.18 (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: No-one is doing anything of the sort: we are reflecting the comments in a reliable source, and the section in question has numerous sources already used to support the information there. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Vanity fair didnt interview any of the victims so how are they a reliable source when they clearly dont have all the information 174.215.220.18 (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

As has been covered a couple of times above, the VF article was one which reviewed the situation in context a week or two after the accusations. Most of the articles used in that section have not interviewed the people involved, but repeated what has been reported elsewhere (or seen through SM channels), so this article is no different to the others in that respect. We have policies and procedures in how to treat publications and sources, and Vanity Fair is one deemed reliable. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I did my senior paper was on how the media can slander people with telling half truths cuz it's just entertainment news and love to use the word we just "reflecting" on the comments of someone who doesn't even have all the information. So you are just mirroring false information is what you sai by "we reflecting on the comments" 174.215.220.18 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion on the matter, but we are expected to provide a balance of views on the topic, and this one article provides that against nearly all the other articles in that section. - SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

A balanced view on sending naked photos to a minor and asking minor inappropriate questions thats wher you stand ok 174.215.220.18 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Rather obviously, no-one has said that, and if you continue in an uncivil vein, this will not end well. - SchroCat (talk)

Didnt answer how are the deemed reliable you just keep saying they are reliable. Who is this God that decides what news outlets are reliable. 174.215.220.18 (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I linked it up above for ease: reliable source. If you have questions or want to challenge the reliability of a source, please use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. At the end of the day, it is the community as a whole who decide on the reliability of sources, not any "god". - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There ya go you did it!!!!!

THE COMMUNITY WE THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHATS RELIABLE SOURCE....and we the people are telling you is not vanity fair. The definition of vanity inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance : conceit. 2. : something that is vain, empty,

Fair means a gathering of people

Out them together and you get a vain and empty gathering of people sounds very reliable 174.215.220.18 (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek article

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sorry but this isn’t trivia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I have to argue that point?

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

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

Issues with lingerie accusation

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

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

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

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

I think this has a few issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTROVERSYYYY!!!!!!!

... just kidding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know it's been a few days, but it seems like there's a bevy of articles from reputable sources slated to be released about the current allegations, and Rolling Stone just published a fairly thorough and seemingly fact checked piece. Although it may be too early to add anything, perhaps the hypothetical section could be titled "Fan Interactions", "Relationship to fanbase" or something along those lines? I'm spitballing here, but this could offer a space to cover Ballinger's notable inclusion of the fandom within her work and content (which is covered by a few articles prior to 2019), as well as the issues surrounding those who have spoken up about their negative experiences. As an aspiring editor, I've been following this saga to see how controversy is handled by wikipedia, and I thought maybe I would chime in! That being said, I'm not planning to make any edits as I'm definitely not experienced enough to do so confidently haha Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You might be right. It's still not that much coverage, but we do have articles in Rolling Stone (a culture feature—Rolling Stone is greenlit for culture under WP:RSP) and discussion on a Slate podcast. Certainly those are more reliable sources than what was around last time I participated in this discussion.--Jerome Frank Disciple 23:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Goodlucklemonpig, if you could start a new section and compile a list of reliable sources about her fan interactions pre-2019, that would be a good starting point. I think a (sub)section centered around her fandom sounds very compelling, and it would be a good solution to the issue of where to place the information in the article. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

On second look, a lot of the articles I found pre first round of allegations (Spring 2020) mostly reference Ballinger speaking about her relationship to her fans in a general sense, not necessarily referencing specific or news worthy encounters. There are some opeds and scholarly articles on the nature of fandom and online fame that reference her, but aside from an essay in an RSP unlisted publication, she's used as an example not a stand-out case study. She does discuss the dynamic with her fans quite frequently in interviews, and apparently fan interaction is a common theme for her videos (taking calls from fans, reading fan fiction, reacting to fan art, etc.) and the same could be said for the live show from what I've gathered. It seems like it could be noteworthy, albeit not sure if it would actually warrant a sub topic sans backlash, which makes the noteworthiness questionable to me? If other people think it's a go, I'm happy to draft something but cannot over emphasize how much of a newbie and non Ballinger Expert I am here haha! Edit to add: All that aside, I still think it could be a suitable heading if other editors wanted to section the allegations out of the general "Reception" topic! Anyways, thanks for the help! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Whether it be a list of useful sources or a draft, there's no harm in posting here first if you don't yet feel comfortable enough editing the article directly. That way, other editors can give their input and improve the draft before it's added. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 06:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colleen is losing sponsors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t care for your tone with me.

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

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

at least I’m not just adding info.

Im asking to see what others think.

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

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

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

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

Why should I drop the stick?

What bad direction?

I’m not trying to vandalize the article, I always ask here first if something is ok to add.

Rolling Stone had a story about Colleen Ballinger yesterday.

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-youtube-fans-allegations-1234774947/

Paige Matheson (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft for subtopic in 'Reception'

Howdy y'all! After reading an earlier discussion on where to fit the contentious material, I floated the idea of a subtopic title of "Fan interactions" or something similar. I just started with a very basic overview as I wanted to step back from engaging with the contentious info because I'm super new to editing. I'll post what I have so far! Notes: Sub heading title is definitely up for discussion! I'm also not sure how to source some of this info as it's cumulative information -- like the frequent call out at the end of her videos, the 'following through on popular requests', and her interactions via social media. Very open to critique and advice!

Interactions with fandom

Throughout Ballinger’s career, fan engagement and fan related content has played a large part in her work — both as Miranda and herself. Ballinger actively solicits an interactive dynamic, often ending Miranda videos with a call for viewers to comment what they’d like to see next, and following through on popular requests. She communicates with fans directly on social media via her Miranda and personal accounts, and used to regularly answer Miranda fan-mail by hand.

Referred to as ‘Mirfanda’s, Ballinger’s fans make appearances in video and on-stage. Fan-art is featured in the opening sequence of Haters Back Off, and in many of her YouTube videos. As Miranda, Ballinger has posted YouTube videos reacting to fan-fiction and answering fan calls. At her live shows, fans often volunteer for skits. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, some of the sources for this are already cited and I don't know how to include them in the text! Help would be much appreciated! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

For discussion here, just use links such as [https://www.example.com/page example] which looks like example. It is unlikely that reliable sources exist that make the statements above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your feedback! I guess it's back to the drawing board haha! In the meantime, if other editors want to use the subtopic title idea to slot in the allegations, go for it : ) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, second draft with sources included! Hopefully I formatted this correctly! Again, super open to critique and advice!

Throughout Ballinger’s career, fan interaction and fan related content has played a large part in her work. Referred to as ’Mirfandas’, Ballinger’s viewership is mainly comprised of 13 to 21 year olds.

As Miranda, Ballinger has posted YouTube videos reacting to fan fiction, opening fan gifts, reading fan mail, and calling her fans. In her home office, Ballinger has dedicated half the room to fan-art, telling the Los Angeles Times “it’s important to have them be a part of the videos and journey”. She communicates with fans directly on social media, following many of them on Twitter and keeping her DM’s open to everyone. Ballinger also regularly answers Miranda fan-mail by hand. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I use the word 'has' waaaayyy too many times here haha! If the addition is greenlit, I'll definitely re-word :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks great, imo. The claim about the age of her viewership is attributed to Evans in the source, so we could add according to her ex-husband Joshua Evans. They way you use her YouTube videos to reference info in the second paragraph is, technically, original research, so, unless you can find secondary sources supporting the same info, I don't think we should include that. Aside from some minor tweaks, I think it serves as a great prelude to the current allegations regarding inappropriate behavior towards her fans. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Amazing! Re: the Youtube Videos, I found out about their existence through a piece in a publication not rated by Wikipedia. The article itself seems unbiased and well researched, but I chose not to include it because of the lack of info about the publication. Perhaps it can be used here, as the material in question isn't related to a contentious topic? That being said, I defer to you all! You can read it here. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Inverse is a magazine owned by Bustle, whose reliability is unclear according to WP:RSP. I don't see any issues with that article in particular, so I think it can be used here since the information it supports is not contentious. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 18:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Good to know! With that in mind, here's a third draft of the subtopic (now with 50% less 'has's lol)! I've also added the paragraph on the lingerie situation, just to give people a sense of the flow. Let me know what y'all think, and if I should go ahead and add it to the article!

Ballinger's fans, referred to as ’Mirfandas’, regularly play a roll in the creation of her work. As Miranda, Ballinger asks her viewers to recommend ideas for content, and has posted YouTube videos reacting to fan fiction, opening fan gifts, reading fan mail, and calling her fans [6]. According to her ex-husband Joshua Evans, Ballinger’s viewership is mainly comprised of 13 to 21 year olds.

In her home office, Ballinger has dedicated half the room to fan-art, telling the Los Angeles Times “it’s important to have them be a part of the videos and journey”. She communicates with fans directly on social media, following many of them on Twitter and keeping her DM’s open to everyone. Ballinger also regularly answers Miranda fan-mail by hand.

In April 2020, a 17-year-old fan accused Ballinger of "[enlisting] his unpaid help" for social media content he had suggested for her Miranda Sings social media accounts and of sending him lingerie when he was 13 years old. The following month, Ballinger posted a video to YouTube in which she said that the fan had asked for the lingerie after seeing it displayed in one of her livestreams as one of several gifts for her fans; she also said it had been a mistake in judgment to send the underwear to the fan. She noted that she often uses comedy ideas suggested by fans but admitted that it had been a mistake to allow the young fan to post directly to her Twitter account for a day without carefully vetting the content that he posted. Ballinger also addressed criticism of some of her older videos satirizing Latina and overweight women, agreeing that they were insensitive and apologizing for having posted them. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References

...regularly play a roll in the creation of her work, do you have a source for that? Also for the Twitter/DM part? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I figured that was clear from the following statements on her videos, but I can change that wording to a more singular statement or remove the first paragraph altogether as recommended by SchroCat? The Twitter/DM source is in the article linked at "social media". Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) "Ballinger has posted YouTube videos reacting to fan fiction, opening fan gifts, reading fan mail, and calling her fans": is this really encyclopaedic content? I'm not sure any of that paragraph is particularly beneficial for inclusion (she keeps "her DM’s open to everyone" is that really so noteworthy?) To my mind this fails WP:NOT, not least of all because it's based on the primary source of a YouTube channel, which means that its notability isn't really there. I'd prefer (and the MOS backs up the position) of wanting to have reliable secondary sources that say not only a. that it happens, but b. that it's important. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair point! That was a concern I had when writing this, as the idea was just to create a smoother transition for the addition of contentious topics re: how she engages with her fans. I think in an earlier comment I added that I wasn't sure if the contents made sense outside of this specific situation and I'm more than happy to not include it in the article. I'll leave the draft here and wait to see what other editors have to say! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, that was my concern as well, but even before SchroCat left that comment, you provided the Inverse article to replace the primary sources. Much of recent reliable coverage focuses on how Ballinger has built, engaged with (and allegedly abused) her fandom, so I do think this is important context. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

All YouTubers, to be successful, must build and engage with a fandom. It's the job. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The context is that a mother of three small children, who has been performing the same comedy schtick since 2009, is being accused by another YouTuber of some very nasty conduct, and that YouTuber (Adam McIntyre) is now getting loads of exposure for making the accusations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The context is that this “mother”, has been accused by several people, including now her ex-husband according to HuffPo’s interview: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/youtuber-colleen-ballinger-accused-grooming_n_6495b07fe4b0c0ed59b22499/

This can be WP:ICHY territory as you have been presented multiple sources that state otherwise. Despressso (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that the Reception section already states that Ballinger's fans are mostly teenagers and gives a better discussion of the history of that. I have been covering Ballinger since 2008, and I have never thought that mentioning the fan name "Mirfandas" would be encyclopedic. The fact that a YouTube creator asks for and incorporates fan suggestions in their videos is not of encyclopedic importance. Nor is the fact that a YouTuber mentions and reacts to their fans in their videos. The fact that a celebrity reads and responds to fan mail is most certainly not encyclopedic -- it is nearly universal. The fact that she has a home office is not encyclopedic. Is "The Outline" a WP:RS? "keeping her DM's open"? These statements are not non-contentious, as they are being proposed to support the narrative about the accusations being made and to create an implication that something sinister has been going on. Quoting her ex-husband as part of a discussion about the accusations is not neutral. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We are going to need to summarize the accusations as reported in the major articles, but I disagree that we need to build a narrative that implies that it is our conclusion that the accusations are true, except to the extent that Ballinger says so. These are essentially criminal accusations, and nobody has been convicted, or even charged with this abuse. Per WP:BLP, this is way out of line. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just as a reminder regarding the possible drafting of a new paragraph: we do have to be careful of the WP:BLP aspect of this and not just try to link these accusations to a very small pool of RS. WP:BLPPUBLIC is worth bearing in mind for some of the accusations: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out" (emphasis in the original). - SchroCat (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we would be creating the impression of a "narrative". We've been discussing how/where to appropriately implement this new information surrounding her fandom, and Goodlucklemonpig suggested a sort of set-up to that to contextualize these allegations. I thought it'd be a great idea, but I see that I'm in the minority there. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the "new information" isn't covered sufficiently by "multiple reliable third-party sources", so it shouldn't be included (unless there are reliable sources who do gie the story credence, in which case that can obviously change). Unfortunately the contextualisation does, to some extent, provide a narrative backdrop to the allegations, and is largely unencyclopaedic in content. - SchroCat (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I can see how one could read it that way now. From a quick Google search, at least some of these recent allegations seem to have been covered by multiple reliable third-party sources, see The Independent, Rolling Stone, HuffPost, The New York Daily News, and NBC News. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Having seen the proposal by Goodlucklemonpig, I think the proposal sets the stage for the implication that Ballinger's fan interactions "throughout her career", like responding her fan mail, and putting up fan art in her office have been unusual and sinister, when, in fact, all YouTubers cultivate their fans to grow their subscriber base. I don't think the sources that you cite (RS, Independent, NBC, Huffpost, etc.) support the conclusion that such fan interactions are unusual or notewothy, and if we are going to provide any "context", I think the key context is that the accusations are against a mother of three small children who has not been arrested or even sued civilly for any of the conduct that she is accused of. As I said above, we do need to give the key facts supported by the reliable sources in a concise and encyclopedic way, and if Ballinger responds to the accusations, we can also cover that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ssilvers! I'm not sure whether your comment about context is meant literally or as a rhetorical suggestion. If it's literal, I'm unclear on how the information regarding her children could be included properly in 'Reception'? In terms of finding a place in the article for the key facts, I'm wondering if it's best to trash the new subtopic idea and simply add the information in with the rest of the section? Or perhaps there's another subtopic heading that could be used that wouldn't de facto act as a 'Controversy' section? Just want to help find a solution that can be agreed upon by a broad consensus among the people here! Interested what other editors think! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The article already notes that she has three children. Again, all that needs to be added to the article are the key facts reported about the accusations in the reliable sources, presented in a concise and encyclopedic way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok that's what I thought. It would seem strange to repeat that info or move it! Anyways, I don't mind at all if the accusations remain in 'Reception'. There was a discussion above in the Lingerie topic about creating a subtopic, so I thought I'd take a shot at coming up with something that offered a space to interweave non contentious information with the contentious information. Grateful for all the spirited discussions here, it's been educational as a new-er editor. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Once we know what we are going to say, I have no objection to moving it all to the Personal life section, unless people prefer to leave it all in the Reception section or another idea is agreed on. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, and probably something for a new talk page topic! I'll leave it to the doyens of Wikipedia to do the drafting! It'll be fun watching how it all comes together :) Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, I'll let the more experienced editors discuss what information should be included or not, but I will say the statement from Joshua Evans was made during their marriage, although I can see how the 'ex husband' qualifier alone does seem biased. I also want to clarify that the information included was not meant to support the allegations at all, it was an attempt to avoid a subtopic solely devoted to them! Perhaps there's another way that can be accomplished? Anyways, I'm going to step back from this conversation and check back later for updates! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Colleeny's weenies

Hi all, just wondering if we could add information about the group chat with underage fans? Rolling stones have verified it's existence and details of messages she sent. 77.102.186.3 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello! There was some discussion in the lingerie thread about where to fit the allegations outside of "Reception" and I floated the idea of a "Fan Interactions" or "Relationship with Fandom" sub-topic. It would maybe make sense to fit the Weenies in there? I'm a bit slow but am working on a draft rn that includes the non-contentious stuff. Not sure how other editors feel about sources re: contentious topics though! It may make sense to wait for more articles to come out (which I'm p sure are supposed to be published sooner than later)? Just my two-cents! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is behind a pay wall. What do they say about the group chat(s)? Did they verify that it is not a ChatGPT-style fake, or are they just repeating what these accusers told them in the interviews? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone goes off of screenshots that have been provided by the accusers. When discussing each allegation, the article adds the following phrase, according to screenshots reviewed by Rolling Stone. They don't clarify whether they checked for authenticity, or what this "review" entailed. What would really help here is either confirmation or denial by Ballinger that these texts are real. Until then, these screenshots, whether authentic or not, are all we have. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Just popping in again with a question for the more experienced editors, as I'm a bit confused here about @Ssilvers statements re: vetting reliable sources. If a source is already green-lit, does it fall on individual wikipedia editors to validate the fact-checking done by those publications? If yes, how and are there any available guidelines? If not, according to what I can glean from the BLP page, it's still best practice in this situation to wait for further coverage! Thanks y'all! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Green-lit only ever means "generally reliable", i.e. reliability can still differ on a case-by-case basis. The way publications describe specific fact-checking measures in their articles is a great indicator. Rolling Stone is being very transparent here; if they went beyond just looking at these screenshots, they'd have probably said so. I'm not sure that just looking is enough here. That being said, there are other allegations in that article that don't involve text messages but real-world experiences (e.g. "Becky"). Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Could the addition not just add a similar caveat to the rolling stones article? 77.102.186.3 (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s a grey area with WP:BLPs, where the policy prefers information is left out until it’s solid, rather than taking a punt with a caveat. Don’t forget this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker, so if the information is a little behind the times then it’s not a flaw. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a journalistic outlet to rely on screenshots as evidence. (And, absent those screenshots being saved on a phone ... there are very few ways to check screenshots of text-messages.) But it's not just the existence of the screenshots that we're discussing ... rather, it's the existence of the screenshots plus an attempt to contact that the subject and allow that person to respond. Rolling Stone did contact Ballinger & others (who declined to respond). We do give sources that reach out to article subjects credit for doing so—after all, it's a pretty standard journalistic practice at traditional media institutions.--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

An easy thing to do beyond just looking at the images themselves is checking metadata or something to that effect to make sure they haven't been edited. When the central piece of evidence for an allegation is screenshots, that's the least that a publication of that stature should do, imo. I assume that the screenshots they saw are the same ones floating around online; those are heavily compressed and have clearly been edited (to censor usernames etc). Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's commonly done, or, if it is, it's not commonly said. I feel like it's pretty commonly accepted that, in terms of news media, for better or worse, the Times is the gold standard. So, I searched for Times articles that included "reviewed screenshots" to check if metadata checks are explicitly referenced.

• This piece on Ryan Adams: The Times has reviewed screenshots of these interactions. No mention of metadata.
• This article on Richard Lu: The New York Times reviewed screenshots of the messages. No mention of metadata.
• Highly lauded piece on NYU's ER: according to screenshots taken by frustrated doctors in recent years and shared with The Times. (this one I got from a redirect). No mention of metadata.

Again, it's not just the screenshots—in fact, I even understated it last post: Rolling Stone: (1) interviewed the accuser (McIntyre), (2) examined screenshots the accuser provided, and (3) contacted Ballinger (and others) and gave them time to respond. They also (4) noted that other persons had confirmed the existence of the group in question. I don't think this is a particularly close call: I agree that the Rolling Stone piece is reliable.--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that they reached out for comment is certainly a good thing. If Ballinger refuses to communicate her side of the story, I guess that's on her. To me, it's all a matter of how the source is utilized, so it would be great to see a draft at some point. I think Goodlucklemonpig mentioned they're working on one. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The rolling stone article is not behind a paywall.

When I google Colleen Ballinger the rolling Stone article comes up, and I can read it, I don’t have to log into rolling stone or anything. Paige Matheson (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Like many news sites, Rolling Stone sets a limit for the amount of free articles you can read. If you approach that limit, there is a big bar at the bottom that says "You're running out of free articles". Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 17:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.

I don’t think this is behind a paywall

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-unraveling-online-fandom-rcna89788

Paige Matheson (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the article is behind a paywall does not mean it cannot be used. Again, throwing sources at the wall is not helpful. Proposing a draft would be much more productive. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don’t know how to propose a draft. I just feel like something needs to be added about how Colleen Ballinger has treated her fans. I understand about reliable sources. So I guess NBC and Rolling stone could be used?

Also,I think a buzzfeed article came out too,I don’t know if that is a reliable source.

I also don’t understand why there are line breaks when I comment.

in the box everything looks compact, I’m not hitting the return key for a break or anything. That another reason I can’t do a draft.

I will try to take a screenshot of what it looks like when I comment, and maybe you or someone can tell me what I’m doing wrong. Paige Matheson (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Her is a link to a screenshot I made when I comment.

I don’t understand why I’m getting line breaks.

https://ibb.co/XL45sc3

Paige Matheson (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposing a draft isn't a formal process. You can just do a quick write-up as you would when editing the article directly, with references of course. Rolling Stone and NBC are generally reliable, Buzzfeed is not. Again, you can check these yourself at WP:RSP. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 23:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice. Paige Matheson (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

In her response she does verify engaging in a group-chat, albeit does not mention the name "Colleen's weenies". She also comments on lies and misinformation currently being spread about her, although does not clarify which specific allegations are untruthful, or if they include screenshots. She does offer a blanket denial of grooming or having any sinister intentions when interacting with fans. I would think the group-chat confirmation by Ballinger herself, in concert with the coverage, is enough to verify its existence? Not sure how this will all figure into in article text or a proposed draft, though. There is a new topic on the talk page regarding her response, so perhaps the discussion should be moved there? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)