Talk:Blaire White

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2023[edit]

Her mother is Mexican-American while her father has Irish and Portuguese ancestry, which she stated in her 23andMe video on her podcast channel. Lemurs03 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Saying that she stated it in a video or podcast is not a reliable source. Lightoil (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well if her DNA test results aren't enough proof than I guess she'll forever be ethnically ambiguous... EytanMelech (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemurs03 Do you have a link to said video? It would help to be able to verify both the statement in the video and that it is sourced directly to her. If it's on a verified channel, so we can verify that she said it, then I would accept the self-published source to support her parents' ancestry. —C.Fred (talk) 11:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this video at 21:16, Blaire says that her mother is Mexican, and she says that her father has some Irish and Portuguese ancestry. EytanMelech (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the one. Lemurs03 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genetically there's no such thing as a Mexican, if it's on her 23&Me then she's genetically half Native American. On DNA tests this tends to be described by the DNA analysis companies as "Indigenous Americas - Mexico" or "Amerindian". Nativebun (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody stated that she was "genetically" Mexican. She talked about in the podcast that one of her parents is of Mexican ancestral origin, and the DNA test she reads shows that she is of Native American ancestry concentrated in Mexico. EytanMelech (talk) 22:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You guys need to make it more clear this is a trans woman, you purposely obfuscate that to promote your agenda against her. And also the transphobic attacks against her are coming from the LGBTQIA community as well but you people have such an agenda you can’t acknowledge the truth. 98.122.166.46 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I'd be on your side, but in the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article, it states:
White has risen to fame as one of the few openly trans YouTube creators to produce conservative content
EytanMelech (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023[edit]

Why does the article give her own opinion of 'center-right' when in 'political views' there is a third party source that describes her as far-right? Surely, third party sources are more objective and so should be instead in the intro, and not buried deep below?

So... change 'center-right' to far-right... as surely the subject's PR department shouldn't be so prominent... 92.21.87.105 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.

There are also two third-party RS in that section that describe her as simply "conservative". Inline attribution has been used throughout the article, which is appropriate when there's not a clear consensus among reliable sources. Xan747 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Conservative' doesn't imply it's center-right... it's more like an overall category where all right-wingers can fall under, so no... nothing to do with where in the spectrum it is (but if we don't go with The Advocate's description because no others have it, then I suppose just having that word would be better than that 'center' nonsense out of an obviously biased source...) 92.21.87.105 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went spelunking through the edit history of this article, and my impression is that the article is in a state where involved editors are all reasonably happy. Much of the past wikidrama revolved around whether to describe her views as alt-right, and as an essentially uninvolved editor I am reticent to touch off another battle by modifying the lede. I might suggest that if you feel very strongly about this to create an account, make at least 10 edits and four days after creating your account you can modify the article yourself. Talk page comments count as edits. Xan747 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussions in the past about this, so maybe others can opine if they wish, then after however much time someone else can add it with another edit request (but what if no one else responds?) - I did not notice this drama, though... editors just changed it from that, to conservative, then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blaire_White&diff=prev&oldid=907963956 to the current version... with no one subsequently apparently saying anything, or trying to change it again (unless I missed it, I only read summaries)... which is absurd, I repeat, as usually the site doesn't just repeat whatever propaganda the article's subject blurts out within the first few words... 92.21.87.105 (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're definitely gonna have a hard time at trying to get that changed to far-right, especially considering I can't think of many news outlets that would go so far as to classify her as far-right. All sources I find say "conservative", "right", "right-wing". Perhaps they haven't listed her as far-right because that is not what she is? Its laughable that you want to classify her as far-right when I can't think of a single opinion she has that could classify her as such. EytanMelech (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessarily "laughable" to label her views as far-right, but I know very little about them and in any case it doesn't matter: we go by what sources say, and since what few we have are divided, that's what we should (and do) report. Ultimately saying where she falls on the left/right political axis is less informative than describing her views on specific issues, which we also do. Xan747 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, that even a majority of the sources from news outlets who are politically opposed to her do not call her far-right, and the few instances that do are mostly focusing on one specific aspect of her political positions that don't necessarily have to do with a left-right issue. The general consensus of sources is that she's definitely right-wing, but she is not considered far-right to the media. Even RationalWiki doesn't refer to her as far-right. EytanMelech (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'd ever use RationalWiki as a source in an article, their Infoboxes classify her as both alt-right and far-right. Down in the categories their classifications include Alt-right, Alt-lite, Antifeminism, Crank magnetism, Homophobes, Internalized discrimination, Internet kooks, Islamophobes, Plagiarists, Racists, Sexists, and Transphobes. (I omitted a few positive/netural categories because I get to be POV in talk within reason.)
Simply because you personally can't think of any of her views that might qualify her as alt-right doesn't make it laughable that someone else can.
Here on Wikipedia we have to stick to RS, which is why I declined the OP's request. It would be nice if further discussion in this thread were limited to why or why not implement their changes based on policy and sources. Xan747 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well... based on sources, as suggested earlier, we could go with just conservative if that's what the majority say, which would still be an improvement on the current (sole?) Insider which, of course, quotes her... (if primary sources aren't usually used for subjects' articles why are secondary sources quoting them acceptable? ps. weird thing, but EytanMelech seems to insult User:Rugbyfan22 on their userpage, for some reason...) 92.21.87.105 (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your PS seems to be very relevant to the discussion. EytanMelech (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, and maybe it should be discussed elsewhere... but why do you feel like you can insult others like that? 92.21.87.105 (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem like a fairly competent editor. Why are you using an IP address to edit? EytanMelech (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Competence in what, wikitext? It's even more basic than html, wish I was competent in actual programming. What's editing like this got to do with anything, anyway? I'm following all policies... you aren't (and... could my hunch that it's just because they proposed article deletions be the reason...?) 92.21.87.105 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about wikitext, I'm talking about your edits on other pages. EytanMelech (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you're implying, but I don't see the point of this discussion if you can't even explain why you use your page to insult that person. 92.21.87.105 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not helping improve the article. Both of you take this discussion elsewhere. Xan747 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... with regards to the article, do you reckon my suggestion is sensible? 92.21.87.105 (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lede should mention that sources are divided on her political alignment, with two saying conservative, one saying far-right (or alt-right, I forget which) and herself saying center right, with inline attribution mentioning the name of each source. Standard NPOV of not taking sides in disputes, but describing them. Does make the lede wordy, but I think this will be the best way to avoid future controversy about which label to apply. Go ahead and draft the revision, then ping me when you're ready for the edit and I'll have a look. Xan747 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If she said her favourite colour was pink and the New York Times said her favourite colour was blue, what would Wikipedia say? LastDodo (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation and half-truths[edit]

In the lede, it says that Multiple videos by White have spread misinformation or half-truths. First, the two sources only point to one video each in which White said something false, and in one case she admitted her error and took down the video. These two sources do not therefore consitute sufficient evidence for the general claim being made. Perhaps I should make the point another way. How many prominent left-leaning YouTubers have put up two or more videos with inaccuracies in them, and whose Wikipedia page has a sentence in the lede about 'multiple videos spreading misinformation or half-truths'? Second, while those two cases are elaborated on in the body, there is nothing about the more general claim of 'multiple videos'. When you include a claim like this, you are implicitly suggesting that there is a unusual level of misinformation being put out, rather than the regular amount one would expect from activists and youtubers. Perhaps that is the case, but if so, such a claim should be made clear and elaborated in the body and of course properly sourced. LastDodo (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"trailblazer" lede claim not in source[edit]

the media matters source is 404'd and has not been archived. it plainly is not in the newsweek source. i was going to just remove it, but im unsure how best to reword the surrounding sentences. 2birds1stone (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link. However, it doesn't appear to include any useful information. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blaire_White&oldid=1217768664"