Talk:Colleen Ballinger/Archive 6

Vanity Fair article
Not trying to start a debate on the content of the recent Vanity Fair article, my opinions on it aren't relevant, but is there a reason why it was cited? It seems to lack relevance to any text preceding it, it's already become contentious in terms of accuracy (initially when published, the article had the country McIntyre was born in wrong, I believe this has been corrected since), and it has been widely criticized for the author's unwillingness to reach out to McIntyre for comment, the main subject of the article besides Ballinger. The quote doesn't really add any new information either. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The vanity fair article's presentation is so out of place it's presented incredibly inappropriately at this point and every excuse brought up in this thread to not edit it is easily fixed. There are so many ways to present information but presenting information in this way about an alleged rumor is truly outrageous 2607:FB91:108A:4DD0:E1FD:E82B:1CE8:537F (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What exactly is "outrageous" about it, and if you think it is out of place, where do you think it should be placed, and why? (It is reviewing all the various actions and accusations that preceed it, so there is some logic to it at the moment). Just to answer one part of your comment: "excuses" are not being brought up, but we are trying to judge how a valid comment from a reliable source fits the numerous guidelines and policies we have, both in general and for biographies of living people. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I should clarify I specifically meant the quote about Ballinger "bringing teenagers into adulthood and then them turning on her". Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * It fits chronologically (it was written shortly after the events that precede it in the paragraph) and has the advantage over some of the other sources in that it doesn’t try to just repeat the accusations made the previous day, but review the situation in context a week or two after the accusations. Theirs is a valid viewpoint that needs to be included in the article, and that seems to be an appropriate place for it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it adds some balance to the accusations, and the reactions to them, that have been reported by the press. Many of the press sources have interviewed McIntyre and reported his views, as well as repeating his accusations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The viewpoint comes across as biased. It would be one thing if there was another side to the accusations, an alternate explanation maybe, but there is none. The article only seems to consult Ballinger's lawyer, and this quote is just a vague sentence that you could say about any Youtube personality that's been on the platform for over a decade. This article lacks sources, any advantage it has in terms of reviewing the events is negated by the fact that it's clearly written from the perspective of trying to paint all of Ballinger's actions in a positive light (if they thought it necessary to reach out the the lawyer for comment but nobody else, it appears to be something curated to try to repair Ballinger's image). If there was an alternative explanation as well as new (verified) information that made the allegations seem false, that would add balance, but this quote is a transparent attempt to make Ballinger look like the victim, it adds nothing new to what was being said above it. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All viewpoints are biased when seen from one viewpoint. Our job is not to filter out things that pick one side, but to show the balance of weight from viewpoints. That’s what policies like WP:NEUTRAL show should be done. - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I think the Vanity Fair essay should be removed. Thus far all the things we've included are verified facts and responses from parties directly involved, we have not included thinkpieces from any publication. Per WP:DUE if we were to include third-party analysis from uninvolved parties of any viewpoints, then we should include an array of viewpoints. For now I think that would be premature to collate those viewpoints, and doing so would make the length of the section significantly more than is necessary. Criticalus (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We identify the article as an essay, give attribution of the quote in the text, and then cite it appropriately. We do not assert it as a fact. This is what our policy on neutrality (see the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV section) requires us to do. As further required by WP:DUE, this an appropriate way to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints". I agree that this essay gives a significant viewpoint, as it considers the broader context and effects of Ballinger's social media content on her audience of young users of social media, and the effects of the accusations on the subject of our article. Jack1956 (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Every word you say is how I feel. Usernamecreatedz (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Criticalus I was literally writing a reply that said exactly that. I agree that it's premature to include editorial analysis and the section is already quite long. What we have at the moment is a neutral recap of the facts as they are being reported, without editorial comment. There was actually an earlier attempt by an editor to include an attributed statement from a journalist regarding the apology's reception, and that was summarily shot down as being undue (if I remember correctly, it was also much much shorter than the VF quote). Imo, the same standard applies here, although that may change if analysis of the event is further expounded on in RSs. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:CRITICAL, “Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance”. I appreciate that some of the newer editors here may want to show a particular viewpoint, but we are obliged to show a balance of views here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I certainly desire a balance of views. Of course we should always give positive viewpoints when negative are given. I think the larger point is that this far we’ve refrained from giving any viewpoints at all, only the direct assertions and the responses from those accused or affected. And then we are opting to include a positive third-party viewpoint from the
 * Vanity Fair article. Criticalus (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's important to include balanced viewpoints, but I also agree with Criticalus that it seems irrelevant/premature at the moment as there were no viewpoints included in the article previous to the VF addition. Per WP:BALANCE, we describe viewpoints: "...when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence...". At the moment, there are no reputable contradictory or counterbalancing viewpoints to the VF article. As was mentioned previously, if 3rd party analysis of the event becomes widespread and varied enough to collate into a balanced synopsis, then perhaps it's worth revisiting. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole section (other than Ballinger's responses) is from the viewpoint of the accusers and the repetition of the accusations in the press and on social media. The VF article is one of the few independent sources that gives any balance or perspective. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assume it's a given that most reporting on accusations would be presented, in part, from the viewpoint of the accusers as those "viewpoints" are the events being reported on (also note that Ballinger chose not to provide comment, multiple times). That's different than a think-piece, and the RSs cited so far do not offer much, if any, editorializing. The quotation from the VF article is an opinion based statement representing a singular journalist's holistic analysis of the events, which I don't believe should be included until/if there are enough reputable and contradictory third-party viewpoints. Edit: To further illustrate, the reporting in VF on McIntyre's previous videos makes sense to include, as it is discussing a fact, not presenting an individual opinion. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s fine to disagree with the various policies and guidelines of the project, but opposing them on individual articles isn’t the way to change what has to be done. I suggest you open an RFC on the policy or guideline pages to change the overall approach. A local consensus can’t override the wider consensus on how to approach these things. - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand which policy I'm disagreeing with? I'm reiterating what's written in WP:BALANCE. I assume when they discuss best practices for "viewpoints" they mean "viewpoints", not the contents of an event? Maybe I'm missing something, and I would be grateful if you could point me to a relevant guideline or clarify what you mean a bit? Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s fine: I’m still trying to work out the “verified facts” that differ from opinions and “feelings” that are in the article, rather than opinions from third parties. Odd what is trying to be excluded here. We have policies about balance and neutral approaches to things: sorry that isn’t what people want to hear, but there we go. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're talking about the wikipedia article? If so, I'd say that a lot of discussion was had about how to present things accurately and neutrally, and I think that was accomplished. The agreed upon text contains no third party opinions (per WP:ASSERT), only the widely reported allegations and Ballinger's response to them. It appears to me to be a balanced synopsis of what is present in the majority of reliable sources. I'm curious what in particular you're referencing in regards to differentiating facts, feelings, and third party opinions? Accusations being partially based on the feelings of primary sources seems unavoidable and distinct from post-mortem analysis by a third party, so it seems unbalanced and out of place to include a single instance thereof. I know individual wiki articles stand alone, but as an example, the subtopic on allegations in the Ellen Degeneres article doesn't include editorial comment at all, despite the similarly emotional content of the accusations. Third-party analysis wasn't a relevant or noteworthy aspect of that situation even though there were a few opinion pieces published on the topic. In comparison, the subtopics on allegations toward people like Junot Díaz or Aziz Ansari include third-party reflection, as the discourse around them was a noteworthy part of each event. I would wager that we're much closer to Degeneres territory, at least at this point. Perhaps that will change. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of the content of the RSs that we have cited is editorializing, so I must disagree with you there, Goodluck. Also, it appears that you misunderstand WP:Assert.  We are not asserting opinions.  We are identifying opinions for what they are. This is specifically approved by WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We haven't cited any editorial sources until now. All the sources are offering recitations of facts. For example: "person 1 said XYZ about ABC, person 2 then said DEF, then GHI happened in response." etc. There is no thinkpiece or editorializing cited anywhere, until now, I don't know what you mean by that. I can see the argument for inclusion, just think if you were to include it, you should also strive to include an array of viewpoints and not just one. But why do that when we could instead leave up strictly the fact pattern, and let readers come to their own understandings? No need to toe the line of BLP by editorializing at all. Criticalus (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The line of BLP is only being toed by not keep a fair and neutral balance. We are not editorialising, but reporting one aspect of the circumstances from a reliable third-party source - in line with this site's policies and procedures. Do you know of any policy or guideline that suggests we should take this out? -SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe the article is fine to be included but it is interesting to be included as a
 * a
 * balance of the views when no article was quoted for the opposite vIt is true that wikipedia includes information of both sides but not without additional factual information if a side omits and uses bias. iew. The truth of the matter is that quoting the article as an essay is not sufficient enough to be considered unbiased information presented on Wikipedia. At the very least, the article should come with a disclaimer that the article only consulted with Ballinger's party. As quoted above, plenty of articles consulted McIntyre and other parties, but none of them were included, just used as references. Adding the article as "later that month, an essay was published on VanityFair (with this quote)" isn't really along the lines of the tone that is usually presented on WikipeEspecially as use as a final note to the section. dia. Maybe, since the timeline isn't over, an addition could be added to reference the backlash the article has received. 2603:9009:605:B808:174B:49A6:9B22:38BD (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This place got messy, it feels like a Twitch or Reddit brigade came into this talkspace. Obviously I disagree with anyone who is pushing for removal on a non-policy basis, and I will add that while it is always good to welcome new editors and we always do so, coming to the table on an emotional basis is detrimental to us finding solutions.
 * Anyways, my reason I originally suggested removal might be apt is the same as it was when I first posted, instead of paraphrasing I'll just quote it and then add a bit. Per WP:DUE if we were to include third-party analysis from uninvolved parties of any viewpoints, then we should include an array of viewpoints. For now I think that would be premature to collate those viewpoints, and doing so would make the length of the section significantly more than is necessary. Essentially I feel that we have avoided any third-party viewpoints or analysis in this section entirely, and that adding any then creates the burden that we must then balance out the various viewpoints to achieve neutrality. For example, if we include this one quote from this Vanity Fair that opines those fans turn[ed] against her, then for the sake of balance, other commentary must be considered as well involving her relationship with her fanbase and retrospective looks at these allegations, and perhaps offering alternative takes. There are numerous other sources that have been pointed to with such commentary.
 * I think in the end, the Vanity Fair article in fact should likely be included along with an array of viewpoints. But to add it now would be premature in my view, as doing so without including the rest feels like it violates the spirit of DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Given the highly-contentious and charged atmosphere around this given topic, as evidenced by the volume of comments that appeared overnight, it seems it may take some time for a level-headed consensus on sourcing and inclusion of commentary to be refined, and it would be wiser to take the Vanity Fair sentence out of the mainspace for now. As has been brought up before, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we are in no rush. It would be better to include it properly. Criticalus (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you add yet more information and sources, then this one section with will be breaching DUE (it's fairly close already, to be honest). We cover her life to date in 3,881 words ("readable prose size") words, and c.430 of those are the last few weeks. Adding more would breach DUE. We already cover one viewpoint in great depth from a multitude of sources, and now we have one to go with Ballinger's response. It's funny you've gone with 'not a newspaper': some of us were saying the same thing a few weeks ago when there was a huge rush and huge pressure to post everything that was in the press - regardless of whether there was any truth to it or now. We finally have an article that doesn't just repeat the allegations but puts some context on the story, and all of a sudden this isn't good enough for inclusion? Given the influx of redname accounts and IP commentators, there is obviously something going on somewhere that only wants to post the most negative stories available, but that's not what Wikipedia is about: we need to have some balance in the article, and one quote provides a little of it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still confused regarding what "viewpoint" is being referenced? The section contains the facts of the event as it unfolded, nothing more. Whether those facts can be chalked up to the viewpoint of accusers is irrelevant to the way the section is written. The focus is explaining what happened and how it happened, not who was right and who was wrong. If Ballinger had presented further comment, or if there was information that contradicted the accusers statements, then of course it would be included. Perhaps it's worth adding her legal team's statements to VF, though? They stated that VF's requests for comment were “simply a regurgitation of the baseless and unsubstantiated claims that other media outlets and individuals on social media have reported previously.” That is a direct response from a primary source, and would fit the fact pattern, plus offer a secondary reiteration of Ballinger's video. It does seem like there's been some kind of raid, which is absolutely disruptive. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * now we have one to go with Ballinger's response The Vanity Fair piece is not "Ballinger's response" but rather a third-party commentator's musings about the whole thing. I intentionally brought up not a newspaper as it was wisely used in the previous weeks to slow the rush to publish and foster a collaborative consensus in talk. I agree with @Goodlucklemonpig that Ballinger legal team's response to VF would be a better quote from that article in lieu of the arbitrary quote from the author's commentary currently being used. I also agree these disruptive raiders are not helpful, but we can work to bridge these gaps despite any interference, I hope. Criticalus (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. You may prefer another quote from the VF article, but quoting Ballinger's lawyers about what *they* thought of the VF article is not helpful. McIntyre's already numerous videos attacking the VF article among all the other articles written about this, shows us editors, if there were any doubt, that the VF article does have an important perspective; he and the raid brigade hate it because, unlike the others that really did just regurgitate the accusations, the VF article challenged some of the things he has said. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't follow any of these people, I haven't seen any of McIntyre's videos on it, but I did see a Tweet (or a Xeet? yikes), and it's clear they are unhappy about it. Though you're right that it's somewhat curious to think the brigade that occurred seems to have played out the dynamics discussed in the VF article. In the end, I think it's fine as is, it's not worth spilling so much ink over this line, if you feel that strongly about leaving in the VF quote you left in. Criticalus (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I still think it's out of place. The VF piece does offer a valuable perspective, but honestly that quote is extremely vague, so whatever that perspective may be isn't communicated really at all (at least in my opinion). The comment from Ballinger's legal team is ostensibly a quote from Ballinger herself, as they are acting on her behalf. It's the only official statement she's made directly about the allegations since the video, which in my view makes it more relevant than an indistinct quotation by the author. That being said, it looks like I'm in the minority now, which is fine. As an aside, I did some googling, and it appears that there's some reporting on Yahoo about the backlash to the VF article. I don't think it's at a point where it warrants inclusion, or reconsidering the citation. From what I can tell after reading it, the blowback is about how McIntyre is represented in the retelling of the story, and has nothing to do with the quotation used (which to me, again, makes the quote seem out of place and irrelevant). Anyways, c'est tout, just thought I would mention it. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm torn here. I still think it is not the right choice, but I lack the energy to argue. Criticalus (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In what way does the article challenge any allegations made by McIntyre? How is that relevant to the quote in question? It's one author's retelling of the story from a perspective that required a lot of minimizing of any allegations or criticisms of Ballinger's work. Also, I'm having a hard time understanding your logic here, how is this random Vanity Fair author's perspective more helpful and important than a quote from Ballinger's legal counsel? The one Goodlucklemonpig brought up may sound more aggressive, for lack of a better word, but that statement is the closest we have to one from Ballinger herself, whom this article is about. Wouldn't the most valuable alternative viewpoint regarding the allegations be from the perspective of the party whom the allegations were leveled at?
 * Also, I will say, I'm not on the side of a "raid" or a "hate brigade", none of that is helpful or conducive to a neutral and informative article. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the articles published about the accusations have been, "a regurgitation of the... claims that other media outlets and individuals on social media have reported previously." We don't need to the lawyers to tell our readers that, as they can see it with their own eyes. The lawyers didn't specify which claims they found "baseless and unsubstantiated", so this quote is not helpful. Aside from that, I disagree with your characterization of the VF piece. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree all you want. I think the readers can also see with their own eyes that Ballinger had an audience of adolescents up to adults for many years that recently turned on her when the allegations were brought to light, based on the included glowing reviews of her content from before the recent controversy, and the fact that many of the detractors are former fans, we don't need the VF essay's author to tell them that either. You're right though, perhaps none of the responses from Ballinger or her legal counsel are specific enough to the allegations include(although I feel as though you could argue the same thing for the quote in question). If it's really so important to you that this quote stays then there's not much anybody can do, I just found its placement strange and was curious to see what others thought and what the rationale was. I agree with Criticalus though, it seems a little premature to include think pieces like this when the scandal is ongoing in some ways. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, if we were to tally up those here (omitting any of those disruptors) we'd find it seems that 2-3 are in favor (Ssilvers, SchroCat, and maybe Jack1956?) and 3 are against (Goodluckmonklepig, me, you). Given the lack of consensus and the merit of arguments both ways (both for inclusion and against), I feel it would probably bes best to revisit this further before solidifying inclusion. Therefore per WP:BOLD and considering the information above, I am going to go ahead and temporarily remove the VF article so we can refine its inclusion much as we did the previous contested information. Criticalus (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Criticalus, I was thinking the same thing. The conversation seems kind of deadlocked at the moment, but hopefully more discussion will be productive. I will say, there seems to be important questions about what "editorializing" was purportedly present in the consensus text, and how/why the fact-pattern has been categorized as a "viewpoint" in this context. These questions have been posed a few times, and so far they haven't elicited a direct response. I'm not sure if this is a case of misunderstanding, or if there's a core disagreement, but I'd be grateful to get some clarification from editors who feel strongly that the quotation should be included. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put it back. You need more than IDONTLIKEIT to remove a pertinent comment from a reliable source. Consensus isn't decided by vote counting: it's about the strength of argument. Do you have a policy or guideline that you think backs up the removal? Without it, the section already breaching DUE etc, as outlined above. - SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We pointed to WP:DUE above but you ignored what I said. Once again, Anyways, my reason I originally suggested removal might be apt is the same as it was when I first posted, instead of paraphrasing I'll just quote it and then add a bit. Per WP:DUE if we were to include third-party analysis from uninvolved parties of any viewpoints, then we should include an array of viewpoints. For now I think that would be premature to collate those viewpoints, and doing so would make the length of the section significantly more than is necessary. Essentially I feel that we have avoided any third-party viewpoints or analysis in this section entirely, and that adding any then creates the burden that we must then balance out the various viewpoints to achieve neutrality. For example, if we include this one quote from this Vanity Fair that opines those fans turn[ed] against her, then for the sake of balance, other commentary must be considered as well involving her relationship with her fanbase and retrospective looks at these allegations, and perhaps offering alternative takes. There are numerous other sources that have been pointed to with such commentary. Criticalus (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When I said and the merit of arguments both ways earlier I was referring to the strength of arguments being strong both ways, I already addressed that portion of it... None of this is IDONTLIKEIT, it's just that you and Ssilvers keep ignoring the arguments we are making... Criticalus (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They’re not being ignored: they are being refuted. Adding more sources, as you’ve suggested, will breach DUE even more than it is already (I’ve already given the word count which shows just how out of balance this section has made the article, so adding more would make it even more unbalanced.) Having one quote from a reliable source provides some context to balance from the negative aspects of the section. - SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I may be misunderstanding here, but the negative aspects are simply the events, no? It's not bad reviews of Ballinger's shows, it's allegations of misconduct. I'm sorry but I fail to see how a listing of the events as they happened needs balancing with a third-party quote that refutes none of these events? If there are no reliable sources that outright deny or at least give an alternate explanation to the allegations, it's hard for there to be balance. This section states events as they happened (as well as the direct response to them from Ballinger if there was a response), and the rest of this article is very positive and/or neutral. Comicallysmallkeytar (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The main issue is that the quotation in question is seen by some (50ish%) editors as the only viewpoint expressed in the subtopic, which in turn breaches the due and balance/balasp policies. The consensus text is based on material from primary sources, and synopsizes the consequential factors in the event and how it unfolded. It contains the facts as they are presented in the wide array of reliable sources, it certainly does not make any biased claims as to whether the allegations are true or false, nor what they might mean culturally, only that they occurred. Again, it is a simple reiteration of the necessary facts. If you notice, the paragraph does not say "Rolling Stone reflected on the allegations stating...", nor anything of the sort. Perhaps it would appear more "balanced" if Ballinger had made further statements or presented alternative facts, but she did not, and it's not our job to make up for that. This is why I proposed including the statement from her legal team. The specific quotation from the VF article offers a relatively vague opinion-based statement from a third-party, and is the only explicit "viewpoint" included. It does not add any information, it is not a statement from an involved party, and it certainly is not necessary for a reader to understand what has happened. It doesn't even offer support to Ballinger's claims, and is in fact a sentiment almost identical to the title of the Rolling Stone article ("Fans Built Her an Internet Empire. Now They’re Tearing It Down."). I brought these issues up earlier, and you provided a vague answer stating that you were trying "to work out the 'verified facts' that differ from opinions and 'feelings' that are in the article, rather than opinions from third parties." There was no follow up, nor a discussion on what you or Ssilvers were referring to as editorializing or third party opinions in the consensus text, even when the question was posed again. I would really appreciate a clear answer, as without it the discussion is stalled. Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

FFS, why back to edit warring? Are you trying to get the article locked again? (It wasn’t BRD - that’s already happened, and STATUS QUO should apply). Again, IDONTLIKEIT isn’t a good reason for deletion or for edit warring. I’m out - there’s no point in trying to discuss by explaining the policies, when tag teaming deletions done in bad faith are happening. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh boy, the irony in this comment is palpable. So much I could say to this but all I'll conclude with is I'm happy this article has 1 less person arguing in bad faith. To mostly everyone else, thank you for debating in good faith. I've had my mind changed on a few issues here and enjoyed the experience! Usernamecreatedz (talk) 06:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make it bad faith: when you've been here more than five minutes and understand how this place works, you may get to understand that, although I doubt it. We have policies and guidelines to ensure we strike a neutral tone. Unfortunately new SPAs are ignorant of those policies and guidelines and are intent on railroading through inappropriate changes for a personal agenda, and this place is so much worse for all of that. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS -- Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. (emphasis added by me)
 * Also quoting @Nil Einne from earlier in this talk page: Especially if material was only recently added, then there is a very very big difference between there being no consensus to remove, and there being consensus to include. BRD doesn't mean bold, revert, discuss, ignore objections and say you have consensus and then require consensus to remove. As I said at BLPN, editors really need to try to achieve consensus rather than just claiming there is consensus because they're ignoring objections then when these objections get loud enough that they can't be ignored, claiming that there now needs to be consensus to remove when there was never consensus to include in the first place. (emphasis added by me)
 * You say It wasn’t BRD - that’s already happened but when? Just you and Ssilvers does not a consensus make, and consensus was never achieved to include the material. Your use of WP:STATUSQUO reeks of bad faith: you can't with a straight face make the claim that STATUSQUO protects an edit for which there was no consensus to include that was made under a week after full protection was lifted. In fact by removing the material, we are the ones adhering to WP:STATUSQUO. Accusing us of acting in bad faith is absurd. You both keep claiming this one viewpoint is necessary to balance out "the negative information" (aka facts) when none of said negative information includes any third-party viewpoints or commentary. We gave numerous solutions in good faith attempts to bridge these gaps, all of which you refuse to accept, all the while you are ignoring the good points and questions of @Goodlucklemonpig. Some of the solutions we offered:
 * a) including other commentary viewpoints for balance - you reject this idea because you think per WP:DUE it will make the section too long.
 * b) including the lawyer's response to Vanity Fair instead as it represents a non third-party response and keeps the centered on events and responses without any commentary
 * c) not including it at all to keep any and all commentary out of the section - you reject this idea because you somehow view what's currently presented as a "negative viewpoint" in need of balancing when in fact no negative viewpoint currently exists in the text.
 * Also, speaking of bad faith, I ignored it before in service of finding a resolution, but now that you are accusing us of bad faith, I think clarification is needed. In the 'Suggested Addition re: Paytas' section above there is a massive amount of bad faith arguing being done by you guys. You argued these claims shouldn't be included because they could represent a crime when there is no indication (other than WP:OR and your attempt to interpret California criminal code) that any of this was considered or handled criminally by anyone. Then on the subject of Quioh: you argued that Quioh was not even involved in the show and then because I used iMDB to show that she was involved, you expended more hundreds of words on how "iMDB is not a reliable source" when no one was trying to cite iMDB but rather use it to push back against your meritless claims. I had to literally log into Netflix and find this stupid show and scrub to the credits because you guys gaslit me so hard into questioning whether she was even involved in the show or not, that's how much you acted in bad faith there. And then, to reach a consensus, we ended up cutting Quioh's claims down to an aside phrase, which feels like erasure of a black person's experience.
 * It's all there, the many back and forths (not to mention the ridiculous conversation that occurred on BLPN) where many successive waves of editors tried to improve this article and were stymied by the perpetual entitlement and feelings of ownership various editors are showing to the material. It's also clear that you sometimes take this editing too personally. Earlier, when you said I do not like throwing any notable individual under a bus which if anything is YOU very literally using the argument IDONTLIKEIT (which none of us used here in the Vanity Fair section) and my response included a general imploration to avoid feelings and focus on facts, you accused me of unfounded aspersions and I had to clarify my comments were not directed at you personally. In the noticeboard, when the user @Despressso attempted to have a reasonable dialogue with you, you made it very acidic, accusing them of saying things that were "beyond appropriate" and attempting to threaten them with the reproach of discipline from Wikipedia administration (though you were careful to say And I'm not threatening you before proceeding to threaten them, very thoughtful.)
 * You know, I have great respect for you, and especially Ssilvers for their many contributions to the Wiki over the years, I've said it before and will say it again. But not even administrators on Wikipedia have a greater input in editing. All editing should be based on the policies and guidelines, and following them as they are written and intended, not as tools for wikilawyering. And so, my removal of this material is correct, and Goodlucklemonpig (by the way sorry I kept calling you Goodluckmonklepig I don't know why my brain kept flipping it) was right to re-remove it.
 * If you want to include the VF article, in any capacity, establish a consensus first. Criticalus (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sure that no one is working in bad faith, but I wish the newer editors here would work on some WP:Featured Articles, which is a great way to learn how the best Wikipedia editors understand our policies and guidelines and discuss article content. It is clear to me why SchroCat is frustrated, and I believe that this article is poorer for excluding the perspective of the VF article. However, more will be written over time about Ballinger, and I will continue to advocate that we cover noteworthy information and important viewpoints in a balanced fashion.  I wish that there were more experienced editors here, but they are usually not interested in these pop culture topics and would not have the patience to read these lengthy discussions. If I could make one request for discussions going forward, I would hope that everyone try to keep their talk page comments more concise and pointed, and try not to repeat their positions multiple times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * +1 to everything Ssilvers has said here. I've stayed out of this wall of text because in my experience (e.g. with "International reactions" to every event that happens anywhere) it's often easier to let people include or exclude whatever they're after in the heat of the moment and just revisit the article with an eye to revising it into encyclopedia shape once the news cycle has moved on, when we additionally have the benefit of more perspective. -sche (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @-sche: I think you glanced at walls of text instead of actually reading them, thus coming to a glib conclusion that people were by and large trying to "include or exclude whatever they're after in the heat of the moment." Perhaps that's what some were trying to do, but many of us are focused on "revising the article into encyclopedia shape," sure you can be as dismissive of our efforts as you please, but the way you've tinted them is incorrect. Criticalus (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)