Talk:Maris Racal

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 21 November 2015, see discussion.
delete and redirect to Pinoy Big Brother: All In, 22 September 2014, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance).

Women in Music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

MARIS RACAL.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

C-q7nHgUQAEgryg (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding removal of recent scandal.

@Beeone b1 - please see WP:RS & WP:BLP. The content you continue to remove includes citations to news articles, making it's addition a valid, constructive addition. It can be argued that removing it is censorship, which Wikipedia is not. If you have a problem with the information that is being spread, you should contact the sources directly rather than remove the content from Wikipedia, as we are not responsible for the publication of this information. The content included in the article is not meant to shame, degrade, or spread libel, as again - it is cited by news articles. Regardless of whether an apology was issued, there is no justifiable reason for the information to be removed. Synorem (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. While I understand your perspective, I strongly believe the content in question violates Wikipedia’s policies, particularly WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons). The addition of such material, even if cited to news sources, can have serious repercussions, including cyber libel, slutshaming, and the spread of uncalled-for personal attacks. Wikipedia’s role is not to amplify potentially harmful narratives, especially in private matters, but to ensure that content adheres to high standards of neutrality and respect.

I urge you to consider the implications of including such sensitive information. Removing it is not censorship—it is an act of protecting individuals from undue harm caused by private details being publicly spotlighted without necessity. If you feel strongly about the veracity of the sources, I recommend addressing your concerns directly with the publishers of the original articles, rather than perpetuating the issue on Wikipedia. Beeone b1 (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeone b1, if you could respond to me without the use of an AI, that'd be greatly appreciated. Synorem (talk) 05:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the content you’re adding violates WP:BLP by spreading harmful personal attacks and private information, including potential cyber libel and slutshaming. wikipedia is not the place to amplify such narratives, even if cited. removing it protects individuals from undue harm, not censorship. Beeone b1 (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeone b1 The information has not been removed, though - it's still public on the two news articles. WP:BLP does not apply in this case as it was:

Neutral - the editor did not include anything outside of the cited recollection of events.
Verified - the editor included citations to the statements, and
Not original research, as two separate news articles were cited.

It is not a personal attack to upload information about a recorded event. It is not 'slutshaming' as it is not shaming her for what she has done, but again - only stating it. If you believe stating the information is shaming her, then it is you that is implying there is shame in her actions. If you believe she is in any harm, that is a matter for you and law enforcement - not Wikipedia. Synorem (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i get where you’re coming from, but i still think WP:BLP applies here. even if the info comes from reliable sources, it’s unnecessary and unfair to highlight those sentences, especially when the sexual parts are the only ones being highlighted. it just adds to the public crucifixion of someone. and the mistake was only cheating. just because something is public doesn’t mean it belongs on Wikipedia, especially when it’s not relevant to the person’s notability. it really feels like making fun of someone’s sexuality, and that’s not something Wikipedia should be promoting. this isn’t just about citing sources—it’s about being responsible with sensitive topics. Beeone b1 (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. As we've both reached the 3RR rule; I'm awaiting a third-party oversight on this. Synorem (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

@Synorem and Beeone b1: Certainly Wikipedia's policy on censorship allows us to include this material if we need to, but do we need to? I would highlight that presence in a reliable source is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. I am not well placed to assess the reliability of those sources, but unless presented with other evidence I am interpreting them towards the lower end of reliability. I can see an argument that inclusion would place undue weight on this material. This feels a little like another thing Wikipedia is not, a platform for celebrity gossip. Of particular relevance from the section on tone is summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. On this basis, I don't believe a play-by-play summary with dates places due weight on these events. To summarize this effectively we can prune this down a lot, unless a lot more sources surface. Let me know what you think. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that changing the original edit's wording is the way to reach a compromise here, i.e. the information could be condensed to prevent undue weight, stating only the key points of the event.
As for sources, a quick google search of their name reveals a fair diverse range of sources - see here, here or here for example - indicating this person and the event connected pass WP:NOTABILITY.

In my opinion: It's an argument as to whether given how much public information regarding this case, the choice should be to expand it given it's public coverage & notability, or alternatively, it should be condensed down to a bare-bones summery of events. Outright removing the information, I believe, would amount to removing information that is notable & contextually relevant to the person. Could you imagine how much shorter P Diddy's article would be, were his scandals not covered?

Perhaps a stretch of a comparrison, but nethertheless. Let me know what you think @Beeone b1 @TheDragonFire. Synorem (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]