Talk:Grace Van Dien

Please remove the article about Grace being sexually harassed.

https://www.tumblr.com/lunastar92/711364119856644096 it was run without consent from her management team and she doesn't want people to keep making a big deal about it 67.83.25.239 (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't make the original article untrue, nor does it somehow negate what she is quoted to have said. The fact is, she did "step back from acting" (she turned down projects) to "focus on" basically Twitch (by her own words). I personally never thought that she had "quit acting", and the article currently does not say that she did. But nothing has been put forth that even merits editing that current sentence in the article. And removing validly sourced content without a legitimate reason is a total no-no, especially without a discussion and demonstrated consensus to do so.

Now, if someone comes up with an actual Reliable source that puts the original quote in a different light, or clarifies it, then we can talk about adjusting what the article says on the subject. We can even discuss rewording the current version, as long as it doesn't stray too far from what the cited source says. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Twitch

By Grace's own words, she would like Twitch streamer to be removed from her page entirely. While streaming is something she does, as a hobby, it is not her career, and being listed as such might affect her acting career negatively. This has been edited a few times, but every time those edits got reverted and users who did them got banned. I'd like to make that change and make it permanent. On top of that, Grace is no longer legally with FaZe Clan, but changes made to that have been undone too. I'd like to request that change not to be removed as well. Dinah29 (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "twitch streamer" needs to be in the lead sentence, but the content in the body should not be removed. It's one of the things that she's known for and is mentioned in multiple reliable sources when they write about her. CNN, NBC, IGN, MovieWeb via MSN

As for FaZe, the most recent information I can find (June 1, 2023) showed her still associated. There was quite a bit of coverage when she joined, it seems like either FaZe or she would make an announcement if the agreement fell through (that we could cite in the article). Schazjmd (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible that we can rewrite it in a way that it clarifies that streaming on twitch isn't her profession, though? The way it's been written makes a huge deal out of it, when in reality she doesn't stream that much, just on her free time maybe once or twice a month. It would be like calling actors who have successful TikTok accounts "TikTok influencers" when in reality that's not their career, they're actors. And like I said, she's tried fixing it herself, but got banned. I'm a mod on her channel and offered to help her up make these changes permanent because she was frustrated that she couldn't do it herself. Information on her association with FaZe comes directly from her, I can ask her to maybe post about it somewhere so we can use it as a source? Dinah29 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've made some modifications to the article. But just fyi, nothing on Wikipedia is permanent. And we can add a mention to the article that she's no longer associated with FaZe when there is a reliable source to cite. Schazjmd (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I know, I meant permanent as in, so Grace doesn't have to ask us people in her team to constantly try to fix something because other people keep reverting our changes 5 minutes after they're done. That kind of permanent. English isn't my first language, so maybe there's a better word to describe that. The association to FaZe is something important that she wants removed, if you go to the edits history to the page, yesterday she removed that herself before she got blocked from editing anything further. Again, I'm her mod, and I doubt there will be an article to use as a source, so if there's anything she can do to prove that, let me know and I'll talk to her so we can sort this out. Dinah29 (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if this is overly blunt, but anybody on the internet can claim to be anyone. Personal knowledge is not an acceptable source for an article. I've made the changes that seem reasonable in the context of what reliable, published sources have written about Van Dien. If, in the future, information is published that is applicable to the article. feel free to post here and editors will evaluate it for inclusion in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, that's why I'm asking what can we do to sort it out properly. I'm not just saying source trust me bro, if a tweet is enough to use as a source, I can ask her if she's okay with that, or an instagram story, a change on her twitch about me section, I don't know. Just let me know what would be good enough, because I don't think there's ever going to be an article about how her contract just came to an end, there rarely is. Dinah29 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I found two iffy sources to support that she removed FaZe from her bio and included that in this article. Kotaku mentions that Van Dien could not be reached for comment and that FaZe declined to comment. It's possible she could reach out to the writer to confirm whatever the status between her and FaZe is and possibly he might update his article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

She did remove it due to harassment back in June when the announcement was made, I'll see if she can reach the writer for an update on the article so we can use that as a source, thanks for the heads up. Is it possible to remove the Twitch stats on the bar on the side? And maybe remove the harassment articles that were written without her consent? Dinah29 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Why would we remove the Twitch stats? And I don't know what you mean by "harassment articles that were written without her consent". Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It makes it seem like Twitch is a much bigger deal/profession than it is, no actors or musicians who also have a successful TikTok page have their TikTok stats on the bar on the side. You don't open Taylor Swift's wiki page and see how many TikTok followers or what her username is on the bar on the side, because everyone knows TikTok is not her profession, it's just something she does sometimes. Regarding the consent: the articles that were written about the harassment were written because Dexerto posted a clip of her twitch stream on twitter and it went viral, not because it was something she talked about on an interview or to the press. Here's a post she wrote about how she didn't want them: https://www.tumblr.com/lunastar92/711364119856644096 (someone else posted it in another topic above). Dinah29 (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If another editor decides to remove the Twitch section of the infobox, I won't revert them.

By "harassment", then, you're referring to the portion about In March 2023, Van Dien stated during a Twitch livestream that she would be focusing more of her time on streaming over acting after being sexually propositioned during a movie shoot.? Multiple reliable sources covered that: Variety, which is cited in the article, as well as CNN, Los Angeles Times, AV Club, CBS, USA Today, and NBC.

Personally, I sympathize with her. If another editor comes across this and chooses to do remove it, I won't restore the content, but I can't justify removing content that was that widely reported and I won't make that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it, thanks!

By harassment I'm referring to those articles, yes. Of course I'm not saying it didn't happen or that the sources aren't reliable, obviously they are, I'm saying those articles were written against her consent simply because the initial clip went viral on twitter and everyone started reporting on it overnight. She's said on that tumblr post and on her stream once that she's embarrassed that those articles were even written, that she doesn't like them, so while I understand reporting on it, I wonder if there's a chance we can either remove it or make that section shorter. Sexual harassment is a sensitive topic and a lot of times victims don't like making a big deal out of it or for that to become the one or main thing they're known for, especially not when they're trying to move on with their lives, so I was wondering if there's something we can do about that. Dinah29 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a single sentence. Schazjmd (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, now it is, it used to be a whole paragraph, but it's still kind of very detailed/specific, which can be triggering? Dinah29 (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how "being sexually propositioned during a movie shoot" is "very detailed". Sorry, I'm done with this discussion. If you want to continue with that issue or any others, it's probably best to start a new thread so other editors will be more likely to engage with it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd personally just say "due to sexual harassment" and leave it there. But okay!

One last thing, re: the FaZe contract, I told her about it and she just tweeted that she's not in any gaming org https://twitter.com/GraceVanDien/status/1689400358974717956 (screenshot here: https://i.imgur.com/bOEAVny.png) would that be enough to count as a reliable source? Dinah29 (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Just addressing your final point here, I think a (not implying this is what you are doing but, easy to fake/impossible to verify) screenshot of a tweet would be a stretch to qualify as a reliable source. A tweet from a protected account can't necessarily be seen by someone else coming along who wants to verify/get more info from the source. At a minimum I think you would need some kind of post from a public account. Generally secondary sources are preferred, but for something like this I think a primary source would be ok. bojo | talk 22:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Got it. She's public now, so you can verify that is that the tweet and the screenshot are the same. Dinah29 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Personal life source

I just added Template:Dead_link to the one and only source given in the Personal life section. It looks like this was a video originally uploaded to the Bluefille Plays YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@bluefilleplays) that no longer exists. I am unsure exactly what it contained, as there is no quote property on the citation either. I have a hard time finding any reliable secondary sources. If someone with more editing experience would like to weigh in that would be appreciated. Potential replacement cites:

1. Grace Van Dien Discussion on LGBTQ🏳️‍🌈. Blue Fille Stan. 14 August 2022. Retrieved 4 May 2024 – via YouTube. Do you support LGBTQ? I am bisexual, so, yes. Yes, I do.
2. Grace Van Dien talking about coming out for her dad. 19 May 2023. Retrieved 4 May 2024 – via TikTok. Hey dad, I went on that date with that girl. 'How did it go? Did you tell her you just want to be friends?' I was like, uhm, dad, I am bisexual.

That first one might potentially be a reupload of (a section of) the original citation? If someone who remembers the original could confirm, that would make this easy.

Martijnvdven (talk) 14:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

New source isn't a reupload of the original link, she talked about being bisexual several times. The newer source was the quickest and more direct one that I could find where she explicitly says she's bisexual, the previous source was also a clip from her stream but it was on a different day. She also spoke about it on a panel at a convention (here: https://x.com/bndtherulesnh/status/1599818812312162305?s=20&t=HNe8E4vCyvg0EX3b8DG-eA) but I think the youtube clip is more likely to stay up considering people go private/change their usernames/get suspended/delete/etc on twitter. Dinah29 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

YouTube Not A Source

The article says its subject is bisexual, a claim that is only supported by a YouTube video. Because this is a significant BLP claim and because YouTube has been identified by consensus as unreliable (Wikipedia:RSPYT), I removed this. (A non-encyclopedic sentence about having pets went with it.) A longtime editor reverted the delete and this cycle was then repeated for a second time, the editor arguing that It's a clip of Grace saying, herself, from her own mouth, that she is bisexual. It cannot get any more clear than that. While that may be true, the issue is the perception of unreliability. For example, this is not Morgan Freeman. It is a fake. To avoid an edit war, I've tagged the article so that others can hopefully weigh in. Parenthetically, I'm sad to see the continuing decline of WP reference standards and the growing perception that it is just another social media mega-pile of POV. 128.252.210.3 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I was literally present in the stream from that clip used as a source. I saw it happen, live, as I've seen her say she's bisexual several other times on stream as well. If I'm adding a clip as a source is because I know it's real. Dinah29 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

That may be true, but all you've provided is personal testimony. Sources must be reliable and, by consensus, YouTube is not (Wikipedia:RSPYT). VanDien is pretty famous, so I would assume that another source for this could be found. You said in your edit tag: It's really weird that you guys keep trying to erase her being bisexual. That is false and I'm sure none of the editors here appreciate such a bad-faith accusation. Please refrain from that. It' crucial to understand that the quality of the source is what is at issue here, not the claim itself. The cite-check tag expresses a legitimate concern in this regard. Please do not delete it, unless and until a reliable source can be found for the claim of bisexuality. (I am 128.252.210.3 above) 128.252.210.4 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying it's weird because it feels weird, that part of her page was there for at least a year completely undisputed until now, so it feels weird. Apologies for my feelings. I have also replied with a different video in another conversation here in the Talk tab, if that serves as a better source, go for it, but considering that the claim that Youtube isn't reliable because people can edit video, I'm sure that expands to all forms of video across all platforms, not just Youtube. In which case, I ask, what would be reliable enough? A tweet or Instagram post can be the result of a hacking incident, a news article can be misquoted. Dinah29 (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

One could also turn this around, observing that "it feels weird" that you're so determined to force such a poorly-sourced claim into this article. BLPs, for obvious reasons, have the most rigorous sourcing standards on WP. You have a long edit history on this article, including many comments implying you're personally close to the subject and may therefore even have a COI. Be that as it may, you have to allow that, for the >1200 views this article gets per day, there are bound to be disinterested editors, like myself, who wander by and happen to fix problems that they see. In this case, if I remember correctly, the dead-link tag caught my eye. FWIW, I did some quick checking and found that this claim appears widely on social media platforms (YT, Instagram, etc), none of which, according to WP:RSP are reliable sources. You might wish to dig further, as well as familiarizing yourself with source reliability guidelines (WP:RELIABLE). And, finally, please assume good faith on the part of other editors here. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, please understand why that specific portion of the page being removed feels weird given the topic. You don't have to agree with me, that's fine, you brought up what I said and I'm explaining why I said it. That's exactly why I asked which source could be considered reliable enough for something like this which is a personal fact that people don't usually give endless interviews about, given the fact that in today's age a lot of things can be misconstrued or manipulated, from videos, to photos, to even quotes. Dinah29 (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I cannot explain it any more plainly than above: the quality of the source is what is at issue here, not the claim itself. It is inexplicable how this is "weird" to you, unless you have some COI/POV'ish position with regard to this article. Whatever source you find, you should check against WP:RELIABLE. Nothing that I found in my quick search mentioned above passed muster. It could be that there is not a reliable source that supports the claim of bisexuality, in which case you may have to accept that it is not mentioned in the article. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand, let me reiterate, since my first language isn't english so I might not be explaining myself properly. It's entirely possible. All I'm doing is explaining that claim being removed after a long time felt strange when the initial source was also Youtube and there wasn't an issue then. I'm not saying don't remove it anymore, I'm not saying accept the source because I say so, I'm not saying accept that it's weird to remove it. I'm explaining what I meant by those words, and why I asked what I asked. And I'm explaining my question because I want to be able to find a new source that works and won't be removed in the future, if possible That's all. Hope that makes sense now. If not, let me know. Dinah29 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we can put all discussions of "weirdness" aside and agree that the only relevant issue here is that there must be a reliable source. I did not find one, but you might be luckier. Cheers. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)