Talk:Brandi Sherwood

Sexual Abuse
Are the details of her sexual abuse really appropriate here? Since the lawsuit is public, reference to it and an outline of the allegations seems fine to me, and the link to more information at The Smoking Gun. But the rest of it? Rbraunwa 18:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an important part of her life. The scandal has been pushed under the table and ignored. This influenced the rest of her life. It is important imho.

99jonathan 00:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem covering this, if its widely reported. But, its absolutely essential that each and every fact be properly cited (with independent, reliable sources).  A lawsuit, by itself, is not an adequate source.  This is simply what she's claiming.  If the lawsuit it the only source, than the article shouldn't say much more than than the fact she filed the suit. --Rob 04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So far, you've failed to provide any sources for any of your salacious stories, 99. The overly intimate, voyeuristic style of the writing, which is extremely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, also leads me to the same conclusion, which is that you are a troll or a vandal.  If I've mistaken you, then I'm sorry.  The best way to disillusion me of this belief would be to add reliable sourcing for your claims and present them in a dignified and encyclopedic manner.  Or hell, just provide the reliable sources and I'll rewrite your claims into suitability.  Please stop citing other Wikipedia articles and claiming it's "sourcing".  This isn't an echo chamber.
 * If you continue to add your stories of these events without sourcing, I'm going to be forced to assume they're your fabrication and revert them on sight. Thanks.  -Kasreyn 07:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brandi Sherwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201111710/http://content.missteenusa.com:80/history/timeline/past.html to http://content.missteenusa.com/history/timeline/past.html
 * Added tag to http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,1664,00.html,

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This "bot rescue" resulted in a reference check and the following References and issues section.

References and issues

 * This article is a BLP and as such is mandated by the addition of BLP sourcing criteria. The E! Online reference that was replaced (listed as rescued by a bot) is essentially the same as the TMC reference. A problem is that the dead link is used to source "The lawsuit was thrown out because of the royal family's immunity as heads of state.". A workable link to E! Online does not support the content. Rescuing a dead link is one thing, rescuing a dead link to a BLP another, but rescuing a dead link to support a contentious claim on a BLP, that does no such thing, actually means the entire content can be removed. This is covered in Verifiability that specifically states "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.". Content concerning lawsuits can not be argued as "not contentious.There are other BLP related reference issues:


 * The Wayback Machine link to  Miss Teen USA Timeline does not work.
 * The Asiaweek reference An online article on the case is a redirect to a Time search page wanting viewers to log in or subscribe.
 * As a reminder, this is a BLP, and a dead link to support content should not be used, or "rescued" because if there is not a proper source the correct solution is to remove the material since the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". This section also includes "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article 'if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page.". Otr500 (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Addition: There is also WP:SOURCES that states "The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.".