Talk:Farrah Abraham

Sex tape material and celebrity sources
Hillbillyholiday, although the sex tape content you removed had some poor sources and arguably needed trimming, some mention of the sex tape matter should be in this article. It brought Abraham notoriety and she has commented on it. So mentioning it in this article with WP:Reliable sources supporting it is not a WP:BLP violation.

Here you removed In Touch Weekly, and here you removed Us Weekly; you also removed a Fox News source about her cheerleading days. These are okay sources for this article. What type of sources are you expecting for this subject? Academic ones? These two sources are in the same vein as People magazine, which I remind you once again was deemed to be generally fine for WP:BLPs. As I noted back then, that People RfC should not have focused solely on People since the disagreement was about People magazine and sources like it. But I wouldn't mind starting an RfC on these other sources if you are going to keep removing them because don't deem them appropriate enough. Furthermore, when a celebrity gives an exclusive interview to one of these sources, it is even more doubtful to just chuck the source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. In Touch Weekly, "the celebrity gossip magazine geared towards a younger readership, billing itself as 'fast and fun'." That's a good source for claims of child abuse made against living people is it? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, here we go again. After the People magazine matter, do you not understand that there is a difference between tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism? Do you not understand what a WP:Reliable source is? Must you always go by your own definition of what a WP:Reliable source is instead of following what Wikipedia says it is? If you have a problem with Abraham's claims, you should take that up with Abraham. Otherwise, we follow the sources when they pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * People is commonly considered a gossip magazine as well; that doesn't make it any less reliable for celebrity information. Perhaps if you point out how In Touch Weekly and Us Weekly have been as bad as the Daily Mail, I would see your point. Instead, celebrities continue to trust these magazines by lending their voices to them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh enough already. If my edit is so bad revert it. Or improve the article with some good sources. When you're done you should ask at the BLP/N whether we should use In Touch Weekly when taking of child abuse. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Oh enough already" is exactly what I and a number of others have been stating when it comes to your reckless, frustrating edits and edit warring. Reverting you only leads to more reverting. In this case, I wouldn't want to revert all of what you removed. Only the important content you should not have removed. And given your ideas about sourcing, it might be a waste of time to add different sources as well. As for BLP, the People magazine case that I keep bringing up more than shows that I know what is and is not a BLP violation and when an editor is interpreting WP:BLP-compliant sources in an overzealous manner. I watch enough policy pages and noticeboards to know what I am taking about. And if need be, I will start an RfC on sources like In Touch Weekly and Us Weekly. Then we will see how many editors agree with your thoughts on such sources. I highly doubt, for example, that many will agree that giving an exclusive interview to one of these magazines about a personal matter does not count as a reliable source for a claim made by the subject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Terminated from Teen Mom OG
Farrah Abraham Fired for Porn Return --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * AiNews.com is apparently a self-published website. Not usable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Conflict in the same sentence
um, in the first half of a sentence the page says Farrah's parents are separated. In the second the article says she gained a new step-father [sic] through her mother's remarriage in 2017. Methinks there ought to be some mention of her parents *divorcing* in there. Hannah955 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Hannah955

Middle name
I have removed the middle name in the article ("Lynn") as sources seem to be mixed as to her middle name. Most of those using "Lynn" seem to be sourcing it from Wikipedia. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Rape allegations / Vivid
It looks like someone did a bit too much pruning of a previous version. There's currently a section that starts with "With her previous allegations of rape placing a strain on her partnership with Vivid Entertainment". Except that part, which clearly references something that should have been previously mentioned in the article, is the first mention of any rape allegation or of her partnership with Vivid Entertainment, being the only mention at all of the rape allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.233.165 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Really ridiculous that this article still looks like this 3 years later 50.208.67.245 (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2021
Section "Personal Life" should be before section "Filmography", Greetings.201.239.205.195 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.   Mel ma nn   09:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2022
Please erase Category:American women in business from this page. 190.237.55.154 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ 晚安 (トークページ) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)