Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Ukulele

Support including "strumming on a ukulele" as per Time ([1]) and NBC News ([2]). It's generally considered bad form for contributors here to overrule RS. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No one is “overruling” any source - that’s a rather odd claim (if people were saying, for example, that there was no ukulele, that would be overruling it). Mention of the ukulele is being questioned in the reasonable grounds of whether it is noteworthy or not, particularly when the question of whether the information would pass the wp:10YEARTEST is considered. - SchroCat (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand the concerns over DUE and the 10 year test, but the more this situation unfolds, the more it becomes clear (at least to me) that the song itself is going to be the most noteworthy thing to come out of this. They've included it in a knowyourmeme entry, and the song has been parodied thousands of times online, including by Howie Mandel. It's even been uploaded to guitar hero where a few streamers have played it. (some citations here, and here) I'm not precious about this at all either way, but I thought I'd chime in. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The instrument is still not particularly notable. The posting being sung is unusual enough to warrant a mention, but the instrument? I’m sure I’m likely to be outvoted on this (the internet manages to focus on the petty and crap aspects of anything - viz. the memes and parodies - and this place isn’t much different), but this is an encyclopaedia, not a collection of factoids of ‘memes that are remembered for five minutes and then forgotten. - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly agree the type of instrument isn't truly necessary to the entry. On the other hand, a ukulele is a pretty unique choice, and the fact she plays one regularly is not mentioned in the article previous to this. Anyways, again, no strong feelings either way! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that it is WP:Noteworthy to mention which instrument Ballinger played. It is noteworthy to mention that it was in the form of a song. As for adding to the article that she has often played the ukulele in recent years on her vlog channel and in live shows (though only as herself, not as Miranda), I don't know if there are WP:RSs that thought it was important. You can see her playing it here with Grace Vanderwaal around the time that Ballinger started regularly playing the ukulele. Here she plays it during her Netflix special filmed at Kennedy Center in 2018. This clip shows one of the routines that she did during her 2018 tour, when she was pregnant with her first baby. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It looks like there's not really anything in the article about her use of instruments, aside the brief mention she taught piano early in her career? Anyways, I still agree with you and SchroCat that it's not really necessary to include the ukulele, but I can see why others would think it noteworthy as it's mentioned in all the RS coverage/is a unique instrument, so I wouldn't meaningfully oppose its inclusion. Anyways, I'll leave it to editors who have firmer opinions than I. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with adding ukulele. She plays a ukulele in her apology video and reliable sources have stated she did also. Paige Matheson (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe it is of encyclopedic importance to know which instrument she played in the video. Jack1956 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s notable she played the ukulele in her apology video. I’ve never seen anyone offer a public apology playing a ukulele. Deadline has it in this article too. https://deadline.com/2023/07/trisha-paytas-oversharing-podcast-colleen-ballinger-accusations-inappropriate-conduct-minors-1235432752/ Paige Matheson (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• A controversial YouTuber's ukelele 'apology' video was so bizarre it's sparked a whole new genre of meme
• Colleen Ballinger’s ukulele ‘non-apology’ mocked on social media: “It’s beyond sick”
• Colleen Ballinger responds to accusations with a ukulele apology song

  Yes it is notable, as there has been direct commentary on the instrument-playing by reliable sources, particularly that her plying an "apology" in a light-hearted manner is offensive. NBC picking up on this is particularly damning. Zaathras (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The question for content within Wikipedia articles is not whether it is notable, but whether it is WP:Noteworthy. Please familiarize yourself with this guideline. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I will not be spoken down to by someone who has bludgeoned and camped out on this article for the entirety of these discussions, so kindly adjust your attitude before you find yourself taken to ANI, for starters. I am dead fucking tired of it. Second, when a person has been mentioned in reliable sources, we can and do include that material, even if it is critical. This personal has seen notable, sustained criticism in reliable sources. You don't get to steer a BLP into a Wiki Fandom article. Zaathras (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL and do not Threaten others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope we can tone down the level of vitriol towards others. I can sense the heated nature of the discussion and suggest taking a step back to cool down. Regardless of whether you feel frustrated or spoken down to, don't amplify the temperature. I can see a case for replacing in song with playing a ukelele but the most important point is that she responded with a song, not what instrument the song was played with, and that point is carried. The offensive nature, light-hearted interpretation, etc., all of that is encapsulated in the following sentence The video received negative comments. -- we don't need to outline in detail what those comments said. The more we can divorce ourselves from emotion, the easier it will be to come to consensus on these issues. Criticalus (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to say we should or shouldn't include the ukulele thing but I wonder if people are perhaps missing two key things here. Several people have already commented that playing a ukulele in general is uncommon, it may be something Ballinger does regularly but it seems clear this apology has spread far beyond just her fans no matter if it was mostly intended for them. As the apology was poorly received even among her fans given the perceived excessively light-hearted nature this has made it a bit of a meme and subject of mockery. It seems entirely possible that this has been amplified by the rarity of the use of the ukulele in general, let alone for an apology.

In other words, while her using some other instrument may not have altered how poorly perceived it was, it may have changed how memeable it was. Memes of course aren't always, for lack of better descriptions, 'fair' or 'rational' or whatever, but they can mean something is remembered years later and so can be a reason we need to cover something. Consider Friday or 'a series of tubes'.

(The 'series of tubes' thing is particularly on point here IMO. Several commentators have pointed out it wasn't that unreasonable a description/simplification. There were far worse things in the comment like the talk of "an internet" demonstrating the speakers lack of understanding of how the internet works. Yet these aren't what people remember.)

The other point though is are we really sure it is only the song nature of the apology that has made it poorly perceived? Is this definitely what sources are saying? Because I had a look at the 3 we currently use [3] [4] [5] and I don't see how editors are coming to that conclusion. All three do mention the ukulele. None of them seem to clarify that it was only because of her singing that it was poorly perceived and nothing to do with her using an instrument. In fact, I wouldn't even really say they are that clear that her singing was one of the reasons it was poorly perceived.

While I'm not saying singing an apology was ever going to go down well, it may be the case that her playing an instrument including the limitations etc this imposed on her performance, increased perceptions it was excessively light-hearted compared to just singing. (Let's also remember that singing covers a wide variety of performances arguably including rapping, to nursery rhymes.)

In other words, even what instrument didn't matter, perhaps her playing an instrument did and the simplest way to convey she did is to simply mention what instrument. (I actually wouldn't completely rule out the ukulele itself playing a part, as despite the popularity of more serious songs like Israel Kamakawiwoʻole's ones, there is IMO something of of an association of the ukulele with more humorous, light-hearted or child-oriented songs. E.g. our article mentions use by George Formby in the UK and let's not forget Ballinger's performances are often in a similar light-hearted or humorous vein and she uses one. Still I have no sources for this so won't comment further.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

All interesting points. I will just add though, that why it was poorly perceived is a matter of judgment that is beyond the scope of the wiki. The main, salient points about her reponse are that: a) she responded; b) the response was a song; c) in the response she denied and deflected the allegations against her; d) the response was poorly received. I think the ukelele part is an interesting detail that adds context and value, and could easily be put into the text by replacing in song with playing a ukelele. But I also think focusing so much attention on this minor detail is missing the forest for one small tree and it is not worth this much consternation. There should not be strong opinions either way, it's just a damned ukelele, and if there are, perhaps we should focus on the more important aspects of the article (making sure the complex situation is fully represented in the article) and leave such an ancillary detail to later, after things have cooled. Criticalus (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Are the three words "strumming a ukulele" WP:DUE in an article about pop culture that contains over 136000 characters? Again, WP:BESTSOURCES are the key. Here is the executive summary that begins the BBC article: YouTube star Colleen Ballinger has addressed accusations of toxic relationships with fans by posting a video in which she defends herself in a song while playing the ukulele. It's mentioned in the title of this CBS article and this (French edition) Vanity Fair article. I noticed there were erudite, even Scholastic, debates concerning "notable" as opposed to "noteworthy". Keeping it simpler, what about just "noted" (in: Vanity Fair, BBC, CBS News, Insider, Deadline, NBC News, Time, Vulture, LA Times, Billboard, Sydney Morning Herald, BuzzFeed News, the Independent, Euronews, etc.)  ? At the risk of introducing more visions of lost angels whirling on pinheads: this, I think, may be the difference between a "fact" and a "factoid". -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SashiRolls above. The instrument was basically reported in all the reliable sources covering the video, and in most sources covering the cancelled tour. I am not impressed by the WP:Noteworthy argument, what is noteworthy is determined by the sources, and mentioning the ukulele (which actually means adding one or two words) does not violate the due weight or the neutrality of the page, it only provides a more accurate description of the facts. About the wp:10YEARTEST, it is well in the realm of possibilities that MOST of the page would fail the test. Do "gave private voice, movement coaching and piano lessons to children" pass the 10 years test? Do "she was interviewed on the podcast RuPaul: What's the Tee" pass it? I am not asking for their removal, but if you want to remove stuff which fail the 10-year test, the page is plenty of pointless and obscure CV factoids which are very likely to fail even the 10 days test. Cavarrone 00:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm convinced. In support of ukelele inclusion. IMO easiest way to do this is my proposed text above. Criticalus (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I had no real opinion either way, but the arguments presented make a lot of sense, so another "yea" for inclusion. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the mention of the instrument being trivial, note that the commentators have mentioned the ukulele playing to characterize Ballinger's response as frivolous. If you watch Ballinger's channel, she usually plays the ukulele (though I do not believe that this is stated in RSs), and she often does so while discussing serious topics. The press and other commentators have made an editorial choice to characterize it in this way without any evidence at all, other than the idea that the ukulele is an "unusual" instrument. Many artists do use the ukulele in serious content, such as Grace Vanderwaal. See: 16 Of The Greatest And Most Famous Female Ukulele Players. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's exceedingly rare to respond to an outpouring of serious allegations with a ukulele song, in fact this is probably the first time. It looks like she's written ukulele songs about serious topics, as most musicians do (inluding Vanderwaal), but that's not the same as the video in question which, again, is a public statement on allegations of inappropriate behaviour. I can't find any examples online in which she makes similarly important statements while playing a ukulele? I do think if Ballinger's frequent or primary use of the ukulele was previously noteworthy, then perhaps the discussion would be different (I can't find any supporting sources on this though). Also, this is conjecture/analysis so I know it's O.R., but it seems like Ballinger intended the song to have an air of frivolity (maybe to reflect her views on the allegations? who knows) and I assume the choice of the ukulele was a small part of that. Even if the jokiness was meant to couch the seriousness of her message it still was not, musically, a serious song (see the "creepy aunt" gag, "boney little back", "fart joke", "two persian cats”, etc). EDIT: Also, Nil Enne brings up a very good point regarding your previous comments contradicting themselves regarding the significance of the ukulele in context. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

No it is not a good point. If someone disagrees with me about what some articles said or meant early on and later one, go ahead and disagree with me. I am not responsible for your understanding of the sources. It could be considered a personal attack to say that I misled someone by arguing my understanding of some sources vs. others at different times during an evolving recent incident. Besides WP:Noteworthy and WP:BALASP, see these parts of WP:NOTNEWS:

2. News reports. ...While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style.... Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information....

4. Celebrity gossip and diary. ...news reporting about celebrities... can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not say you intentionally misled anyone, nor did I mean to imply it, so I apologize if that wasn't clear. I just reiterated that your comments were contradictory. If your understanding changed, which is totally reasonable and probably inescapable (mine has too because as you say this is an evolving incident), then that's something for yourself and other editors to consider in regards to including the information at hand. If you think Nil Enne crossed a line in their response, that is for you two to discuss. I was specifically agreeing with one detail they expressed, which is why I used 'point' instead of 'points'. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

From my understanding of NOTNEWS most of these concerns are about what events to include, not the factual details of events deemed encyclopedic. Stating she used a ukulele is an established fact reported in the majority (if not all) of the RSs cited. Per BALASP, content should be presented with “…a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.” And “…in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.” Per UNDUE, if we look at sources reporting on the ukulele as "viewpoints" in which the ukulele is considered important, it should be described: "in proportion to the prominence...in those sources". As SashiRolls stated, this may be the difference between a factoid and a fact. No one is proposing a lengthy screed on the ukulele, as that would be an inaccurate representation of the RSs. The addition in question would add a few words, which would neutrally state a relevant fact (as decided by RSs). Similarly, per UNDUE, no one is proposing a detailed inclusion of how the ukulele was perceived (as Criticalus said, that's all covered under "negative comments"). I echo Cavaronne's view that including the ukulele simply presents a more accurate description of the facts. Anyways, it seems like including the ukulele is consensus, albeit with some disagreement, so it's probably not worth discussing further, although that could change at some point. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

There is an inherent contradiction between saying something is trivial and saying commentators are making a big deal over it, but they've misunderstood the context. I mean maybe they have misunderstood the context, but if it's a decision which in certain circumstances could have meant a big deal, even if in this case it didn't, that mean it's not simple trivia but in fact something that readers might want to understand why although in under circumstances it was a significant and highly reflective decision, it wasn't in this particular case and so the media etc got it all wrong. Although of course we need sources to say, initially people made a big deal over this, but then with careful consideration, we realised we were wrong (or something similar). And I have to say I am deeply trouble that I was at first told stuff like "None of the reliable sources about Ballinger's response video stated that the use of the ukulele, as opposed to any other instrument, was meaningful in any way" only to now be told by the same editor, well actually "The press and other commentators have made an editorial choice to characterize it in this way without any evidence at all, other than the idea that the ukulele is an "unusual" instrument. Many artists do use the ukulele in serious content". Also, any experienced editor should know except for cases with a clear or obvious error, e.g. the recent case of it being claimed a lawmaker was banned from Wikipedia for a CoI when the block was simply because they had not verified they were actually said person we do not decide that sources are wrong. We especially do not do so when it is a complicated matter that requires careful consideration of the context, history etc. (By definition if you're saying that Ballinger's historic use of the ukulele should be considered, which I entirely agree with BTW, you are saying this is not something simple.) When it's something complex, we hope that if we are stringent on relying on quality RS, they have done a proper analysis rather than expecting them to publish a detailed report of all the evidence they have considered in coming to a conclusion, something which in some cases could easily be an order of magnitude or more longer than this article. So instead we summarise what the sources with careful consideration of WP:WEIGHT which mostly comes down to stuff like how many sources talk about it especially if sources are still talking about it a significant time after the event (which unfortunately is not possible here) and whether is or relevance to other stuff about the subject. If there is significant dispute between sources on something, then we summarise that dispute. We do not arbitrarily decide one side is right and exclude coverage of the other side. We do have to consider stuff like the quality of the source and again the depth of coverage, hence why we do not make it sound like there is a dispute between fringe theories and actual science, but ultimately editors views on which side is right is generally largely irrelevant. This no evidence nonsense made against RS, is the sort of stuff editors who argue we cannot mention racism allegations against Donald Trump, or mention someone's far-right views etc. If you want to argue something is undue because it isn't sufficiently covered in RS and in those that it is only in passing or trivially mention fine, but don't argue we need to exclude something because basically 'sources all say this but they're wrong, my interpretation is the correct one'. Hence why "no evidence" arguments against RS are generally automatically discarded. Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Another agree on inclusion from me, very good points. Despressso 0(talk) 00:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• If we must have this factoid, even though it carries a biased and misleading implication, then let's at least state it clearly: Ballinger later posted a response video partly in song, accompanying herself on the ukulele, citing Variety [adding: and The Conversation]}} (The Conversation (website)), a respected non-profit news and analysis source . -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think it’s a bit wordy, perhaps it borrows too much direct phrasing from the source, but sure it works. I don’t see the biased or misleading implication though. It’s just stating what she did in the same way as the volume of sources that SashiRoll noted above. Criticalus (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  I still posit that the choice of instrument is not important, but if we have to have it (and I accept that the consensus suggests it should), then Ssilvers's wording seems appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  No comment on any specific wording but I'm coming off the fence and fully support inclusion now considering that I was seriously misinformed by one of the opposers (as per above). Nil Einne (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's been a few days and there hasn't been any alternative wordings proposed, so I'm just popping in to say this version is fine by me! I agree with Criticalus that it's a bit wordy, but it's also accurate. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 July 2023

In the allegations section of the reception section add a link to the article Toxic Gossip Train where it says "a response video" 173.168.100.26 (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done That link comes back to this article, which we don’t do. - SchroCat (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please explain, "Toxic Gossip Train" is a separate article from "Colleen Ballinger". What do you mean by "that link" and "comes back to this article?" 173.168.100.26 (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you’ve capitalised it this time, so the link does go to a different page. Probably best to wait for the deletion discussion to close before requesting again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

My concern is that the fact that the article is currently an orphan could be an used as reason for deletion per notability, even though it could have links due to being mentioned here. 173.168.100.26 (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Being an orphan has no bearing on whether a subject has notability. :3 F4U (they/it) 08:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I should clarify that I mean toxic gossip train in all caps is a seperate article, not in lowercase. 173.168.100.26 (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per SchroCat, that article looks like it is heading for redirect or delete. If it gets kept, then please reopen this request and I will add the link — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Separated accusations under new subheading

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.

---

The accusations never belonged under the "Reception" heading, and to continue keeping them there is now approaching intentional obfuscation and thus non-neutrality.

No new info has been added, just a new heading to make the info for which many will likely be visiting this page easier to find. Dowiha (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• See WP:CSECTION: that's not allowable. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect. They're allowed, just discouraged Dowiha (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  "The word "controversy" should not appear in the title". Just sayin... - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine; next time, I'd encourage you to just change the section title rather than delete it altogether. I've added it back with a different title. Dowiha (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Dowiha, given much of the talk page is about the controversy, and it took a lot of work to get to a broad consensus on the wording of the new text, I think it probably best if the positioning is also discussed more fully by everyone (including you), rather than a unilateral action. (This was what I was getting at in my last comment in the previous section). If you want to put forward a proposal of where a section split could be made and what it should be titled, then please go ahead and let everyone else have a say in it too. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  There have been repeated calls for a separate section from many editors; these have been held up by a small number of editors (2-3, as far as I can tell) who have been dismissive of these accusations from the start. At this point–two weeks into this discussion—they are running afoul of the Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content for their own ends.

  This is a simple navigation question to help people find the information that is probably bringing most people to this page. Dowiha (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's not "a simple navigation question", despite the implications of your bad faith comment. It's about achieving a balance within the WP:BLP policies. There has been long discussion over the week about adding the new information, which has been there for less than 12 hours, and now we can have a discussion about how to position it. Again, if you want to put forward a proposal of where a section split could be made and what it should be titled, then go ahead and propose one for discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is no "obfuscation". Negative info is supposed to be interwoven with positive info; grouping them into their own sections is what we're trying to avoid because that would make the article non-neutral. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That only applies to instances in which there is positive info; that isn't generally appropriate for allegations of wrongdoing: 'Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". ' Neither of those sections are likely to have "positive info", and trying to force them to do so is unbalancing the article for the sake of false neutrality. Dowiha (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to a general "controversies"-esque heading. I am and have been in favor of moving these allegations to a more appropriate location or possibly separating them into their own subsection. As SchroCat notes, the title of that heading is subject to prior discussion because it's inevitably going to be contentious. Discuss instead of making unilateral decisions. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

• I have no objection to adding a level 3 heading like Accusations by former fans. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

  Totally fine with "Accusations by Former Fans" as a section title. At the end of the day, I'm happy to move forward with whatever the majority consensus is. Although I do agree that using the word "grooming" is dicey, even if it's the term being applied most often publicly-- it's a legal phrase widely interpreted to infer sexual predation/pedophilia. It would not only gesture at criminal activity, but the legal and colloquial meaning doesn't seem to be at the heart of the allegations from any of her accusers, rather exploitation for personal and financial gain (albeit including inappropriate sexual jokes/innuendo). Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that headings are supposed to begin with an initial cap, and then all lower case, unless the words are proper nouns. I think we need to use the word "grooming", as that is really the most serious accusation that was leveled against Ballinger and, as you say, that is how nearly every source tags their coverage of the accusations. Again, I think if people read the sources we cite, they will see more precisely what the accusations are. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I swear I knew that ('o_o)! Capitalizing each word in titles is a force of habit tbh. Anyways, I wasn't disagreeing re: using "grooming" within the text, just in the subtopic title itself. I definitely think it's important to include in the article, but it seems iffy to use without the surrounding context of the paragraph? I also thought I saw a comment earlier stating a similar opinion, so I was seconding that. Looks like I was mistaken! Sorry if that wasn't clearly communicated! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I agree that the heading must be "neutral" and should not contain a provocative word like that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was trying to communicate in the previous section re: "grooming", but I didn't put it as elegantly as you did here, which is probably why a few editors jumped on me for that. A hard no on including it in the header where it would lack necessary context. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 19:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok so, just putting this out there! In an earlier thread, @Criticalus mentioned a concern around whether "Fan accusations" may be too broad of a title, which I think was echoed (not explicitly) by @Dowiha in this thread. I wonder if it could be changed to "Accusations (or Allegations) of improper behaviour with fans"? That would communicate the gist of this specific situation and the context of the present accusations. It also avoids terms that could be misinterpreted such as "relationships", "grooming", "inappropriate" (although I think inappropriate is the correct description fwiw), etc. I'd also put forth that Ballinger herself has admitted as much, both in her 2020 video and the most recent song. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the need for a more specific heading. It's not like we have paragraphs upon paragraphs of different accusations that we need to distinguish and organize. I say leave the nature of the accusations to the body and keep the header general. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I was just typing a similar reply: Headings should be kept concise. I think it is sufficiently precise to inform readers that this will be the section about all the accusations that you may have heard about. We don't need a long heading specifying the nature of the accusations (which is a contentious topic in itself), as this is the only section heading in the article about accusations. As Throast noted previously, it is better to simply let people read the section to get a reasonable amount of context than to characterize the accusations in the heading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 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.

Next steps and Lead sentence

• Just waiting a few more days for people to weigh in. So far it does seem we’ve achieved a calming and a consensus on many issues. If nothing else comes up then I think we should combine the final text of the edits under sections Ukelele, Quioh, Cancellation of tour, and Paytas, and collate them in a new section with a request for an admin to make the changes and then remove the full protection. The only outstanding issue is a lead sentence, which at this point definitely feels necessary. Pinging @Ssilvers to see if they have any opinions on the matter of a lead sentence, or how to resolve the full protection. Criticalus (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Criticalus, below Johnuniq said that once we have consensus on "all the active proposals", we can ask him to step the article down from the full protection. For the WP:LEAD sentence, I propose: In 2023, after accusations of inappropriate contacts with young fans and other inappropriate conduct against Ballinger were widely reported, she cancelled her <forthcoming 2023> live shows." This will evolve, of course, as the content of the article evolves, but the first step for now is to find a sentence we can agree on, so if you want to suggest changes, you can do so here or start a new section. Once we have agreement on this sentence, I think the way to proceed is: (1) begin a new section under a heading like "Vote on proposals" that presents the Lead sentence and the sentences or phrases we appear to have arrived at in the Ukelele, Quioh, Cancellation of tour, and Paytas sections (showing in each case what sentence they will follow in the current text), including the wikilinks and refs, plus the proposal to remove the subscriber info from the infobox; (2) explain that these appear to have gained a consensus in the various sections above; (3) ask for a plain "yes" or "no" vote on language presented the final text of the edits under sections, asking people to place any further discussion, other than the Yes/No vote below in (4) another new section immediately below the Vote section, called "Discussion on the Yes/No vote above". If we get a strong majority on all of it, we then ping Johnuniq and ask him to step down the protection. I don't think he will want to add it himself, but once he steps down the protection, I am sure everyone would be happy for you or User:Goodlucklemonpig to do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This all sounds like a plan to me! The phrasing of that lead sentence strikes me as a bit odd, but I can't place why? Maybe simply "accusations of inappropriate conduct" is enough? I also truly think the song is the primary artefact that we'll find in 10 years time, and some of that's reflected in its proportionate coverage. Just based on personal experience, I imagine the article will get visits from readers who see a reference to the response video and come here to find out who Ballinger is, almost indefinitely. I'm not sure how one could include it in the lead though, so I'll stew on things and come back if I can think of a useful suggestion. Otherwise, I'm just glad these sometimes tense discussions led to respectful collaboration and what seems to be a path forward to consensus/the full protection being lifted! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, just "inappropriate conduct"; also simplified description of the upcoming shows -- good? Would everyone either need to propose alternatives or agree to the proposal so that we can go forward? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That really did the trick! I'm more than happy to move forward with that, and I don't have an alternative proposal. Of course, I'd be happy to discuss any further suggestions, so I'll keep my eye on the talk page. Seems like we're extremely close to the final steps! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s fine and we should move forward. But the process you suggest seems a bit long winded. These proposals have been percolating in this talk page for pretty much the entire month, and there’s been ample opportunity to weigh in. I think given there has not been further disagreement here, we should request to end the protection, and then move all these edits for which an exhaustive consensus has been established into mainspace. If there are any further refinements needed, they can surely be handled through the standard process, or other diplomatic communications. But to let them sit another week while people vote feels like wasted time, it’s been a week without any substantive contributions against the proposed changes. Criticalus (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Going ahead and pinging @Johnuniq Criticalus (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer a clearer statement of the proposal but perhaps those who have been following the discussion understand the details. Let's give it a day to see if there are any further ideas then I can remove the current protection. Please ping me again if I haven't done it in 24 hours, and/or ask at WP:RFUP for protection to be changed from full to the indefinite semi-protection that it was. Johnuniq (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Summary of proposed changes

OK, thanks Johnuniq. To make this clearer, I’ve cut and pasted what I think are the consensus changes that have been broadly agreed upon by all or most (or at least they have been proposed and no-one has objected to them). I’ve signposted the sections from which these have come so you can check my working out.

From Next steps and Lead sentence section

Heading change: from "Accusations by former fans" to Accusations of inappropriate conduct

From “Newest draft re Paytas” section

"After Ballinger’s response, an ex-employee posted alleged screenshots in which Ballinger appeared to send him purportedly nude photos of YouTuber and OnlyFans creator Trisha Paytas. cited to: NBC, ET Online McIntyre then asserted that Ballinger sent him the same images when he was a minor. Paytas soon released a video condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship. cited to: HuffPo, Paytas video}}

From “Quioh” section

Change Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans. into Dahl's video led to renewed accusations by McIntyre and allegations by other former fans and employees, including racial insensitivity on the set of Haters Back Off. Vulture, New York Magazine]

From “Ukulele” section

Change "Ballinger later posted a response video, in song," to: Ballinger later posted a response video, partly in song, accompanying herself on the ukulele, Variety and The Conversation}}

From “Next steps and Lead sentence” section

In 2023, after accusations of inappropriate conduct against Ballinger were widely reported, she cancelled her forthcoming 2023 live shows.

From “Ballinger subscriber count update or removal”

Removal of the subscriber count from the infobox

From “The remainder of Ballinger's 2023 tour has been cancelled” section

In July, Ballinger cancelled the remainder of her 2023 live shows".Variety and NBC

To all: If I’ve missed any or picked the “wrong” version, please let me know, but this was done in good faith, and I think this is what we’re agreeing on.

If people think this section should be moved to the end of the page (as it summarises discussions above and below where it currently is), please feel free to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that clarifies what people are agreeing to. If anyone has an objection to the above, please speak up. Otherwise, there is no need to say you agree (although do so if you feel compelled) because silence will be interpreted as consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, SchroCat! I added the agreed upon heading change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, Johnuniq, would you kindly close all of the older discussions above the Paytas one? Thanks -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I've closed one section that has already been done, but most of the others are only dealt with by the agreed changes above, so I've let them alone. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I restored the previous semi-protection so editors can now implement the above consensus. I would be inclined to wait a week and see what happens rather than close discussions now. If anyone continues in the past-used-by-date sections above, they should gently be asked to either follow consensus (if they appear to be deviating from the above) or to start a new section if there is something new (but please understand WP:DUE first). I will be watching for a while but please ping me if something is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Now implemented. Please see my edit summaries if anyone has questions about the ref formatting or other tweaks, and let me know if I made any mistakes. I still need to check all the names of the sources to see if any should be linked or delinked per MOS:REPEATLINK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for implementing these changes. I am glad this was able to be resolved. Criticalus (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Seconding Criticalus's sentiments! The edits look great, and I'm glad this has been resolved! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to you both, and to SchroCat, Throast and Nemov, for all your contributions to the discussions, to others who contributed helpful suggestions or discussion, and to Johnuniq for sticking with us. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 July 2023

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.

---

Consensus was reached to include following the second paragraph under "Accusations from former fans" (See "Suggested addition re: Paytas" for discussion).

"After Ballinger’s response, an ex-employee posted alleged screenshots in which Ballinger appeared to send him purportedly nude photos of YouTuber and OnlyFans creator Trisha Paytas.[6], [7] McIntyre then asserted that Ballinger sent him the same images when he was a minor. Paytas soon released a video condemning Ballinger and ending their personal and professional relationship.[8][9]" Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 There is no consensus for this yet -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A note that under full protection, only an uninvolved administrator can make an edit from a request and should be the one that's answering this vs. non-admin accounts in a semi or ecp protection per WP:EDITXY. To allow those who cannot edit to answer would be the equivalent of an ip answering and removing an edit request from another ip in a semi-protected article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I have seen IPs answering edit request before and I don't see any harm with it provided the answer is appropriate. Remember that edit requests are supposed to be for edits which have clear consensus. So if an editor objects most of the time this means the edit request has already failed. They are not intended as a way to propose edits or to establish consensus let alone to let some super editor decide on the merits of an edit. They are simply a way for someone to make an edit which the editor cannot make but anyone who see's the request is likely to gather that yes that is an edit the needs to be made. To require only someone able to make the request answers the edit would lead to dumb stuff like needing an admin to answer higly flawed frankly misuses of the feature like the request to add groomer above. In fact if it's a semiprotected page even requiring a confirmed editor to answer it is just silly. There is zero reason an IP can't answer such a request. Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not be impatient. It really doesn't matter if this article is a few days behind current activity. Wait until you've got consensus regarding all the currently active proposals as that is the only way to know if edit warring is likely to break out again. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood! I thought we were adding each edit one by one, not waiting until all active edits had been decided on! My mistake! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think we are quite close to resolving any differences, it seems we are coming to conclusions on most of the subsection discussions. The main outstanding issues would be within the Quioh subsection, and also if there will need to be additions to the lead of the article (nothing has yet been proposed on this). So long as any passionate party can come in and edit freely, you will never fully diffuse the risk of an edit war, but from the elongated and productive discussions that have been occurring in the talkspace and their resulting text, it does seem we have a preponderance of editors acting in good faith and in cohesion, differing with unity and respect to find consensus. Criticalus (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The stonewalling in these last few discussions from those who are presumably part of Ballinger's audience is getting rather intense. I understand arguments on the basis of recentism, but I've never seen such a high bar for inclusion of a highly reported-on (series of) incident(s) before. Concretely, seeing as it was already discussed before, what new, arguments are there against including this paragraph? Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF and read more of the talk page above. There is no stonewalling going on: there has been a positive discussion on multiple points while the page is locked. We're now nearly at the point where all the points are at consensus, at which point the article will be unlocked and they can be added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat: I've been here for 8 years, I think you know you don't need to point me towards Wikipedia's guidelines. One of the reason why I say this is because one highly involved editor in these discussions has been Ssilvers, who has over a thousand edits on Ballinger and claims to "have been covering Ballinger since 2008". They have made their opinion on the accusations perfectly clear. Attempting to close this discussion by immediately slapping a "not done" tag on it due to lack of consensus - despite OP stating there was a consensus - combined with requiring other editors to reach a consensus before they may edit the page lest they get reverted, can easily be considered stonewalling. And I certainly don't consider constant reverts by 2-3 users to be indicative of a consensus being close to being reached. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You may have your opinion, but there has been no stonewalling. The article was locked for two weeks, only having been reopened a few days ago: no changes could have been made until it was unlocked and it could not be unlocked until the various points of contention had been thrashed out and a consensus reached. That process has now happened, consensus has been reached, and the changes have been made and the article unlocked as a result. In addition to the article being locked while this was posted, the point was being discussed in a thread above, where there was no consensus, but the point was being discussed and where is now consensus. Again: see AGF before throwing accusations around. - SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User:Prinsgezinde, to expand on what Schrocat noted: if you look at the above discussions, you will see that an admin had placed full protection on this article and stated that he would reduce the level of protection when a WP:CONSENSUS was achieved on all the "active" discussions (at the time there were about a half dozen active discussions). The OP prematurely asked for the drop of full protection at a time when we only had three opinions on this single point, and I knew we needed to wait for more of the people involved in the discussions above to weigh in and to finish the discussion on a couple of the outstanding points. As soon as we had consensus on all the points, we did get back to the admin, who then reduced the level to semi-protect, and then we added all of the new language, including this one, to the article. So I was just following the instructions of the admin. I have previously admitted that I was, at first, skeptical of the initial accusations, but as I have also noted, as the situation evolved, I participated in reaching a consensus on the most WP:Noteworthy information about the incidents and accusations. The situation may evolve further. Yes, I have researched Ballinger's career and worked on this article over the years, and I have researched and worked on dozens of FA and GA articles, and thousands of other WP articles. I always follow the WP:RSs, policies and guidelines, and I think my contributions have been valuable in this recent series of discussions about this Article. Your own user page says "please remind me of our (in my eyes) most important policy, assume good faith, which is all Schrocat did. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023 (2)

Add https://www.huffpost.com/topic/colleen-ballinger and https://time.com/6286635/colleen-ballinger-allegations-controversy/ and https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/colleen-ballinger-miranda-sings-youtube-fans-allegations-1234774947/

As sources under the about the allegations section Justice4adam (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Question:Is this a request to change any of the text of the article, or just to add additional sources? The claims in the existing prose appear to be appropriately sourced. Wikipedia articles do not generally include every available source but just the citations necessary to clearly provide reliable verification of the article's text. If your request is to add content from one or more of these sources to the article, please clarify what you'd like included from them that is currently missing. If you believe an existing source is inadequate, please clarify which source(s) and why. Also note that the Huffpost link you provided is to a collection of articles and not any specific article.

When you reply to this, you can change the answered=yes in the above template back to answered=no to reopen the edit request. Thanks! Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Justice4adam also please see the above discussion (Vanity Fair Article) and other discussions and edit requests on this page regarding the sourcing of the claims in the articles. Note that changes that go against the current consensus won't be made here; instead, I recommend participating in open discussions. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Adam McIntyre

I went through the references and external links and Adam McIntyre was not included once. There are no references or links to Adam's social media or videos even though he is mentioned. This wikipedia page needs to be updated to also include Adam, as well as the other victims of Colleen, in the external links/references section. Otherwise, the page comes off as biased and is not neutral to the situation. 2603:6010:2F07:21E7:111F:1D4C:CC6C:C1C5 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The article isn’t about McIntyre, so we wouldn’t include the links to his social media in the external links. (It would also fail WP:ELNO). As his social media feed is a primary source, that wouldn’t be included either, but his accusations are covered by reliable secondary sources, which is in line with the strictures of our policies and guidelines. - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You can delete me I don't have a job ill be here forever stopping child groomers

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.

---

Im disabled and have all the time in the world to keep telling you to take the Vanity fair article down

The definition of vanity

inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance : conceit. 2. : something that is vain, empty,

Fair is a gathering of people so when you add thetoe you get a vain and empty gathering of people not reliable 174.215.220.18 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

 Undone: This request has been undone. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Something remarkable about this article is that if you read it without knowing who she was you could walk away under the impression that Colleen Ballinger is actually funny, which I've yet to see proof of 186.23.36.97 (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

Bro please let me change the picture of her to the one from her apology video, it would be hilarious. PatrickHoganKlaver (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Heart ^(talk) 23:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickHoganKlaver The image can't just be changed "because it's funny". Plus, the apology video is not Creative Commons, so it, and screenshots from it, cannot be used on Wikipedia. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

please clarify that the Vanity Fair article that was written by Andrew Quintana was slanderous and debunked by Adam Mcintyre himself. Here is him addressing the article ( https://youtube.com/PFC43LBuNlg ) Choqi3 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Italic

Why are these not included

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

https://time.com/6286635/colleen-ballinger-allegations-controversy/

https://www.huffpost.com/topic/colleen-ballinger Justice4adam (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The YouTube video is self-published and not a reliable source. Calling an article "slanderous" is also not neutral language. Justice4adam, for your request see my reply below. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The definition of vanity

inflated pride in oneself or one's appearance : conceit. 2. : something that is vain, empty,

And a fair is a gathering of people so when you add the two Vanity Fair you get a vain and empty gathering of people and thats not reliable good sir. The you posted it for a blanced view on the topic. The topic is child grooming andyiy said in now delete post you wanna reflect on comments to be blanced about grooming kids...........wow 174.215.220.18 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, feel free to go to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to challenge the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

"This source is unreliable based on the dictionary definition of its name" feels like it'd sure be a new one for RSN. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 18:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dylnuge Yes, we can't really say that it "is slanderous", but we can definitely use the YouTube video to make direct quotes, like saying that McIntyre "said the article was "slanderous"" etc.. Strugglehouse (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing a primary self-published source shouldn't be used for. Primary sources can't establish noteworthyness (i.e. whether the claims are worthy of inclusion) or veracity (i.e. whether the claims have any merit).

I'm not entirely familiar with this situation (I was just replying to some open edit requests; this one didn't even describe the changes actually wanted) but I imagine McIntyre's claims have been covered by secondary sources. Further, it seems like which sources to include here is a big conflict and a subject in the controversy saying "I don't like source X" is definitely not an argument for excluding source X. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed about the YouTube video. User:Dylnuge, we no longer quote the Vanity Fair article mentioned in this request, and McIntyre's reaction to it is not of encyclopedic importance. With respect to the other sources linked above, they have been discussed before on this Talk page, and the sources used in the article were selected based on long discussions. There have been many articles written about McIntyre's accusations, and we reached a WP:CONSENSUS on which ones to cite, selecting about a dozen WP:RSs that you can currently see cited in the article (some refs include more than one source). -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)