Talk:Grace VanderWaal/Archive 2

Proposed BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers
The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:

"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media.[110] As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers,[111] her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers,[112] and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers"

Violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOT and WP:POV have been tendered as reasons for exclusion. WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the content.

Should this material be included or excluded from the article?

Is the above a suitable rendering of the dispute? Anastrophe (talk)


 * No, it should include the arguments that have been tendered for retaining the information, including that major media sources have found it significant, that it has been included in the article for a long time, that, for performers today, social media is an important measure of influence, and that deleting the information demonstrates a bias against new media. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, while being a WP old fart but generally an innocent on formally dealing with dispute resolution, the request should be worded as neutrally as possible, with the wisest advice being that 'if the reader can't determine where you stand on the issue, it's a good Rfc'. So I've kept it as simple and direct as possible. Those who do comment will likely see the thread above and go from there. Anastrophe (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a good start. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I only presented the arguments for exclusion, which is one-sided. rewriting. Anastrophe (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

here's the current content with refs:

In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers.

Feel free to replace your initial proposal with this if you like, or we can continue from here. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, updating. Anastrophe (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed what looks like a tracking id from the ref above and in the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP RFC: include or exclude social media numbers
The following line is in dispute for inclusion in the article:

"In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media. As of 2020, VanderWaal's Instagram account has more than 3 million followers, her YouTube channel has more than 3 million subscribers, and her Facebook page has more than 1 million followers. "


 * The arguments for exclusion are violation of WP:BLP (because the material is disputed), WP:NOT (an indiscriminate collection of information), WP:FANCRUFT (only relevant to fans) and WP:POV (I'm unable to find the rationale for this last). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE has been cited as rationale for exclusion, absent consensus on the suitability of the material.
 * The arguments for inclusion are that it it does not violate WP:BLP, is not excessive to the point of triggering WP:NOT for the BLP of an actively engaged and followed media personality, is not WP:FANCRUFT (for the same reason), and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE is a guideline for admins, not editors so isn't a trigger until admin intervention.

Should this material be included or excluded from the article? Anastrophe (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * Include. Social media profile is increasingly important for modern celebrities, and one of these sources if from Forbes, which gives an indication of that. I've seen the plates of alphabetti spaghetti being thrown around to question the inclusion, but not which specific parts of those policies is supposed to be breached by the inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include, per my existing commentary. Anastrophe (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include, per stated arguments. Somambulant1 (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude. The line "In its 2019 profile of VanderWaal, Forbes stated that she had accumulated 8 million followers on social media.[110]" is well-referenced, but it still fails to establish the encyclopedic relevance of these numbers, since they're just mentioned, not discussed. Lots of info about her have probably been mentioned in multiple sources (height, favorite meal, pets' names, date of first kiss, etc.), but having some criteria for the inclusion of material is one of the things that separate encyclopedias from Wikias and catalogues. As for the rest of the paragraph, it's just WP:FANCRUFT residue and can be removed without harm to the page's overall quality. Pardon the "the end is near" tone, but I'm afraid people haven't quite realized yet what they're paving the way for by supporting this. Victão Lopes  Fala! 22:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include, per my existing commentary above and below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include: a no-brainer in my view. Common sense should prevail over Wiki-lawyering.  Tim riley  talk   08:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include - She also has over 2M listeners on Spotify. She was on Billboard's 21 Under 21 list, where social media was calculated into their methodology. TBH, I had never heard of this young lady before this RfC and every profile I read about her in sources mentioned her social media, one way or another e.g. embedded music videos, Instagram posts, tweets, music streaming. I'm not seeing any BLP violation either, good grief, inclusion of 8 million social media followers is not contentious material that would clearly cause harm to the subject. Isaidnoway (talk)  11:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Trim/exclude The sources are poor and do not demonstrate due weight, nor encyclopedic value that editors are asserting, though I think we should discuss some of what Isaidnoway has brought up. This is fancrust, echoing her publicity, not encyclopedic information. Most importantly, it's being taken out of context to emphasize these numbers, while ignoring what encyclopedic value there might be. Again, Isaidnoway has some good points, and the Vanity Fair article seems to give encyclopedic context that for whatever reason is being ignored. More NOT and POV violations stacked one on the other. I asked when the material was first disputed for any general consensus on handling such situations. I'm asking again, because this looks to be a WP:CONLEVEL violation. Meanwhile, it would help to dig into any encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It would help if you quoted exactly what part of the guidelines you are referring to: so far you've missed the point or misunderstood more than at least one of them, so please quote the exact text you are relying on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Projection and disruption, but feel free to provide diffs. The discussion section is below. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop lying. I have shown elsewhere on this page (here, if you want a diff) where you are misconstruing at least one of the policies. If you wish to base your comments on a policy or guideline, please quote the revelant part of the policy and say where it is being breached. Otherwise you are just throwing page names at something you don't like. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but if this type of disruption continues, I'm going to ask you be removed from these discussions.
 * Your diff shows nothing but your opinions, which you seem unwilling to discuss further . Instead, you attack me. --Ronz (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh nonsense. Not discuss? Pish. I've added a stack of sources that provide information about the widespread mention of VanderWaal's social media figures. They comne from a range of reliable sources. You've offered nothing but tendentious obstruction. If you have any response to the sources then feel free to quote the exact words of the policy or guideline that you think may be breached, but you've missed the mark so many times with you playing bingo with various policies that if you just quote another overall page, most people reading this will know you're clutching at straws yet again over this. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've identified policies and a policy-based way to possibly include some of the information. Maybe the sources you've provided could help. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include per the very good arguments above.  Cassianto Talk  19:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * include the Forbes reference because it's clearly a reliable source. Exclude the social media primary sources. They're not as reliable, and including them would also be just too much social media numbers wonk. Reyk YO! 19:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include first sentence, cited to Forbes, but exclude second sentence, cited to Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook per WP:BLPPRIMARY, as these are primary sources. They are of questionable reliability. The first sentence is OK because it's relevant to the article topic and it comes from a reliable secondary source. Levivich 20:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, please see below in the discussion section for a series of other sources to cover a range of references showing various figures for the social media attraction. They are, by their nature, out of date, and the ones used by the companies themselves are accurate. BLPPRIMARY does not bar use of primary sources, it says to use "extreme caution" in using them, which is the case here. None of that may change your minds, but the additional sources are worth taking into consideration. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the short answer is that I don't disagree that there are a variety of secondary sources analyzing social media numbers that are perfectly appropriate to use, esp. in articles like this one about, e.g., young pop stars. Apologies for the following pedantic analysis: some of the sources put forward in this discussion are primary (contemporaneously reporting the numbers) and some are secondary (analyzing the numbers, e.g., Forbes reports an increase from one point in time to another, and NYPost reports an increase in a 22-hour window and compares it to a competitor's social media numbers). I'd generally support the secondary and oppose the primary. The non-pedantic reason for this is that it might be important that a person's SM numbers peaked at a certain point, or that a person saw an increase in SM numbers (which is evidence of a rise to fame), and we get that sort of information from secondary source analysis. It's not, however, to report what everybody's SM numbers are right now by sourcing it directly to primary sources like social media sites themselves; that's recentism, and using primary sources like that robs us of the "filter" of going through reliable secondary sources. Levivich 20:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the potential sources below, and only two of the four are relevant, neither that gives even a full sentence to what they cover. That's a strong case for not giving it more than the briefest of mentions: a single sentence, a footnote, or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Shame your "review" is deeply flawed and taken only from a negative viewpoint. All show the importance of social media in her career, and several deal with her figures in full. Such rejection of important information from reliable sources does make me wonder why you are so dead-set against including the information, given the number of reliable sources in which it appears? - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Exclude/Limit I think Forbes including the stat on its list justifies that number, but the others should be excluded.Social media networks like Instagram, Twitter, Twitch, and YouTube have experienced persistent problems with the reliability and accuracy of statistical measures. This has meant inflated follower/subscriber counts and paid for or bot generated inflation of the count of individual pieces of content such as views on YouTube or likes on Instagram. This has been a problem for many years (see efforts in 2012 to counter on Youtube or on Twitter in 2014) and remains a problem today (sample of stories from 2019: ). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include. Swayed as to relevance by the Lexis results pulled up in discussion below, and as for weight/cruft issues--this is a short aside in an article which is presently just shy of 3000 words long, and so I'm under no impression it is given undue attention. In this day and age, social media following seems as important to media figures as record sales or film grosses, which we've long included in articles. G RAPPLE   X  18:35, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Include While I would gladly put everyone who has spent more than an hour on social media on the next rocket to Mars, VanderWaal's career is inseparable from new media. She learned her craft at Youtube and started there. Having three million followers is part of her life. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
The sources are poor (primary sources and a profile) and demonstrate no due weight whatsoever. Inclusion then is a POV and BLP violation. --Ronz (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: A rather poor RfC, thrown together quickly. I suggest withdrawing it and waiting a bit. Simply asking whether the material should be included or not would suffice. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You issued a "Thank you" to my account for both versions I posted, which seems...peculiar considering your commentary here. Your opinion of the quality of the RFC is noted. I put more time and effort into it than I wanted to - I'm curious how you determined that I "threw [it] together quickly" - I was sitting at my computer alone working on it, so I'm unclear how you can make such a blunt observation. A blanket 'rather poor' is not constructive. I'm letting the RFC stand unless you can cite specific problems with it rather than inspecific carping. Anastrophe (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, when I ask for citation of specific problems with it, I'm asking for policy-based issues, not personal opinions. Anastrophe (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen better RfC's get rejected outright. I thank you again for moving the process forward. I made a specific suggestion. Why not comment on that instead? --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for you that you've seen better RfC's get rejected outright. You're welcome. You did. Because I disagree with your suggestion; I assumed that was patent. I don't think any more discussion of these meta-matters are constructive to the RfC, so shall we just let the RfC play out, and see what happens? Anastrophe (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As you've been asked several times before, please quote the relevant sections of the policies and exactly where they have been breached. Simply repeating the same shortcuts isn't sufficient. And Forbes is poor? No. - SchroCat (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The specific Forbes profile is poor, as previously discussed.
 * See WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DUE to start. --Ronz (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, you're still not doing what's been requested. I'll leave it here, as communication seems to be problematic here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope we can agree all but the Forbes profile are primary sources that lend no weight. Agreed? --Ronz (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If YouTube says that a person has 3.3 million followers, does that make it a primary source? It's not a claim she is making, it is something that YouRube is saying about a third party. As I've asked several times, rather than blithely throwing tags around, quote what you think the relevant part is. I know communication is a struggle, given your inability to be entirely straight on your talk page, but I've asked this several times without success so far. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, YouTube is a primary source reporting their data as it relates to VanderWaal. The same applies to Instagram and Facebook. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that, but it's a moot point: even if into is the case, there is no bar on using such information, just that caution must be used. I.e. It depends on the type of information to be shown. This isn't "personal" information of the type described by the policy, but is a reflection of their professional popularity as shown by metrics over several sites. It gives a modern audience a very understandable steer on this point. You may not like social media, but it is important. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with policy, then don't waste our time while disrupting good faith discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. I haven't said I don't like the policy, so stop wasting people's time. You are being deliberately obtuse and your approach is uncollegiate and obstructive. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with citing the social media sources regarding the statements concerning the size of the social media following: they are the most reliable source for that information on their own platforms.  The Forbes profile, which was written in connection with Forbes selecting VanderWaal as one of its 30-under-30 in music, demonstrates that Forbes considers VanderWaal's social media penetration to be important to understanding her biography. Nothing could be more "weighty". The Vanity Fair article mentioned above also cites VanderWaal's Instagram following as one of the key facts about her.  A brief mention of the size of social media following is of interest to Wikipedia readers in this day and age when the subject of a bio article has millions of social media followers. For performers today, social media is an important measure of influence and acceptance. To omit the information would show an out-of-date bias against new media. BLP does not justify exclusion of the material, because the information is "written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources." Finally, the content has been included in the article for a long time, and if it is to be deleted now, it should be deleted for a good reason., that,   -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but profiles like the one we're using from Forbes tend to be provided from publicists. It's listed. To conclude that it's important and encyclopedic is just personal opinion.
 * The Vanity Fair ref, which you choose not to use, mentions it a portion of a sentence. If they don't think it deserves more coverage, we shouldn't either.
 * Katy Perry was offered as an example of including such info. It's clearly noteworthy there, backed by multiple references that clearly show why. --Ronz (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem with your argument, Ronz, is that it doesn't hold any water. There are multiple sources that can be used to show the significance in the media, but only the references from the source (i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter themselves) are up to date. The ones in the press go out of date very quickly. I took ten minutes to find the following (and just as long to type out the damned references):
 * Slightly less core to the above, but signifying the view that social media has an important impact
 * And that is without delving into the significant number of unreliable sources from the popular end of the press (mailonline.com, etc).
 * Slightly less core to the above, but signifying the view that social media has an important impact
 * And that is without delving into the significant number of unreliable sources from the popular end of the press (mailonline.com, etc).
 * Slightly less core to the above, but signifying the view that social media has an important impact
 * And that is without delving into the significant number of unreliable sources from the popular end of the press (mailonline.com, etc).
 * Slightly less core to the above, but signifying the view that social media has an important impact
 * And that is without delving into the significant number of unreliable sources from the popular end of the press (mailonline.com, etc).
 * And that is without delving into the significant number of unreliable sources from the popular end of the press (mailonline.com, etc).

Now, I think it's fairly clear that the discussion of the importance of social media hits in the modern world is greater than it used to be. It doesn't matter whether one likes it or not, but it is a phenomenon that cannot be ignored. We can discuss whether they are primary sources or not, if you truly wish, but there are no bars on primary sources, even in BLPPRIMARY. One of the reasons I have asked you several times to quote what you are relying on (and it is noteworthy that you haven't done so) is that you are throwing policy names around without reading them. BLPPRIMARY does not say we cannot use primary sources. It says "Exercise extreme caution". Extreme caution is being used here. There is nothing excessive about using the figures, it is not going into a point which anyone would ever find awkward or embarrassing, and there is nothing truly "personal" about the information. – SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You didn't link a single potential ref. Why not? Is it safe to guess that not a single one is even close to the Katy Perry case? --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about. These all relate to VanderWaal, as is bloody obvious from the quotes I've included. Stop wasting people's time - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to dig through the unlinked list of refs. That's never a waste of time when following policy. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Go find the damned references yourself: I got the results from the Lexis news database. Without having an account you won't be able to access them. The quotes are taken directly from the text. If you actually understood the policies I'd know what to discuss, but as I said in my 9:36 post, you throw policy names around without reading or understanding them. - SchroCat (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Why does it matter either way, if the info-in-question is included or excluded? She's popular & has a Wikipedia bios article. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor Ronz, what is the purpose of the constant twiddling and fiddling with the material under discussion, within article space? Deletion with immediate revert, moving it around, rewording, etc? We have an open RfC here, is it not best to let it be until resolution is found? Anastrophe (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Get back to me after the changes that were made are reverted. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ?? I asked why you are doing it. There's nothing for me to 'get back to [you]' about. It's a simple question. It doesn't make any sense - you delete the material in question, then revert yourself immediately. Unless there's a meaningful reason for these actions, I'm all ears. Otherwise, please stop, it's disruptive. Anastrophe (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 
 * WP:FOC --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am focused on content, thank you, but when editors are WP:DE it is cause for concern and inherently goes to editor behavior. I am asking what value there is in making edits, stating in the edit summary you will revert, then reverting. Is there some point to it? I see no net value in the twiddling around with the material while it's in dispute. I would ask that you respect the process.
 * Regarding your explanation that I just saw on my talk page, thank you - but that's what the Sandbox is for. Testing edits in article space is generally frowned upon, no? Anastrophe (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed—userspace pages, the sandbox, or even the preview function can all be used to avoid multiple self-reverts like this. G RAPPLE   X  01:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing potential sources
Please help with assessing potential sources or offer others. I've collapsed these only to minimize distraction. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is little more than a puff piece, and doesn't give an entire sentence to the information. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is little more than a puff piece, and doesn't give an entire sentence to the information. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm having difficulty finding this. It appears to have been removed from the NYPost archives, and I'm not finding another archive. WP:RSP isn't a great source to be using. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be about the single YouTube clip from her AGT appearance. If so, it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be about the single YouTube clip from her AGT appearance. If so, it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a press release, and shows that the information is being used for promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a press release, and shows that the information is being used for promotional purposes. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is a brief concert review. I'm not clear how it's relevant, as this is not about her social media, but a single YouTube clip, which is noted in the "2016: America's Got Talent" section of this article. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a brief concert review. I'm not clear how it's relevant, as this is not about her social media, but a single YouTube clip, which is noted in the "2016: America's Got Talent" section of this article. --Ronz (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Like The Tech review above, this is about the same, single YouTube clip. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Like The Tech review above, this is about the same, single YouTube clip. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This appears to be behind a paywall, pressreader.com has a copy, and there may be one within https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ww1-archive/12215741/Daily-Telegraph-December-24-1918.html . If the quote is the extent of the relevant content, then it doesn't suggest a full sentence is due. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This appears to be behind a paywall, pressreader.com has a copy, and there may be one within https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ww1-archive/12215741/Daily-Telegraph-December-24-1918.html . If the quote is the extent of the relevant content, then it doesn't suggest a full sentence is due. --Ronz (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This is yet another about the AGT video. Like the others, it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is yet another about the AGT video. Like the others, it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

From my review, of the seven potential refs, we have: A press release. Four irrelevant references about her AGT YouTube video, which is already mentioned elsewhere in this article. The remaining two references don't give a sentence to the material. All we've done here is show that more than a sentence is probably undue. --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fundamentally wrong. What they ALL show is that social media is important in her career, and the level of her support is clearly shown in several of these. Interesting to note that you reject two from very reliable sources simply because there is less than a sentence describing the material. You are rejecting information that is in the public domain having been published in multiple reliable sources. Why? Why are you so dead set against it appearing. It's obvious that it's not just a question of the sources, so what is it? - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Primary source that's not reliable due to manipulation by bots, similar to what was pointed out by Barkeep . --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary source that's not reliable due to manipulation by bots, similar to what was pointed out by Barkeep . --Ronz (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)




 * Blatant promotion by a freelance writer, but maybe editors would find this slightly better than the Forbes profile which has neither a date nor an author? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Blatant promotion by a freelance writer, but maybe editors would find this slightly better than the Forbes profile which has neither a date nor an author? --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Still not a full sentence. This ref was brought up in the early discussions. It's better than the Forbes profile. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Still not a full sentence. This ref was brought up in the early discussions. It's better than the Forbes profile. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A nice, though brief, Rolling Stone article. This appears to reference the popularity of her AGT video, which is already noted in the article, so it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A nice, though brief, Rolling Stone article. This appears to reference the popularity of her AGT video, which is already noted in the article, so it's irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Announcement about her album, quoting her tweet, written by an editorial intern at Billboard. Not a complete sentence. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Announcement about her album, quoting her tweet, written by an editorial intern at Billboard. Not a complete sentence. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear why this was mentioned. It appears irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear why this was mentioned. It appears irrelevant. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * A short report about a charity performance by VanderWaal. Maybe it should be mentioned in this article, or Perfectly Imperfect (EP)? I'm not clear what it has to do with the proposals for this RfC. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A short report about a charity performance by VanderWaal. Maybe it should be mentioned in this article, or Perfectly Imperfect (EP)? I'm not clear what it has to do with the proposals for this RfC. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal #1 - withdrawn for #2 below
In 2019 VanderWaal had accumulated eight million followers on social media.

This removes the primary sources, and removes the unnecessary attribution. No one has contested the reliability of the Forbes ref, only what weight it deserves. --Ronz (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No. The weight of other sources indicates that this is insufficient. - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which sources might those be? Nothing in "Potential sources offered by SchroCat" even gives a full sentence, and only two of the seven offered are even relevant. --Ronz (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Your one-sided "review" shows little. I have !voted on your proposal, you don't need to bludgeon me about it further. - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid we have to disagree on basic facts then. If you want to identify any source that has a full sentence of more, please do. I've yet to go through the Potential sources offered by Isaidnoway, but those look very promising. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As for the use of the Forbes profile, I prefer it over the Twice and The Daily Telegraph refs because it's more recent. Though the others provide at some context, it's not much.--Ronz (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The social media platforms are 100% reliable with respect to the number of subscribers on their platforms. This is not the same as the other statistical measures mentioned.  These are simply the number of viewers that clicked "subscribe". As for including a "full sentence", there is no such rule. The Forbes profile is part of their 30-under-30 feature and is a major piece of editorial analysis and selection from a well-respected media source.  It is hard to imagine a weightier source, and the social media numbers merely give a constantly updated breakdown.  That is not recentism; instead it is reliability, context and timeliness. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning the primary sources, I wish it were so clear, but fake followers is real. BLPN/RSN might help.
 * An undated profile without an author that gives no context is not WP:BIO in my opinion, but BLPN/RSN could be of help there too. --Ronz (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Greenburg ref, on which the profile is based, is slightly better: Greenburg, Zack O'Malley. "Meet Grace VanderWaal, the Youngest 30 Under 30 Music List Member Ever", Forbes, November 13, 2018 --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative proposal #2


Slight changes, the date should be 2018, using the Greenburg ref rather than the undated profile. The profile information has not changed other than her age. --Ronz (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Given the nature of social media statistics, I think attribution is best. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing the following/subscriber amounts stated by the social media platforms. Those numbers are useful for direct comparison with other performers' followings on social media. There is no consensus to remove these amounts from the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you prefer the Greenburg reference though? --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, certainly not. I agree that Greenburg may be added additionally, if it will make you stop wasting everyone's time here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So which date do you feel we should use, "In 2018" or "In 2019"? --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Movement of the content under dispute into the "Reputation and accolades" section
I agree that such a move is disruptive. It should be reverted.

However, placing it there allows us to address the POV and NOT problems better. Since the statement from Forbes about the social media followers is from the 30 Under 30 Music List, it should be included with it, like this, rather than presented as if it's something separate and on equal footing. --Ronz (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * This move was requested above on this Talk page and agreed to by those who participated in the discussion. You failed to comment on it.  Your constant edits and reverts are the only disruptive edits being made.  And, of course, you are totally wrong, and there are no POV or NOT problems with the content being discussed here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So nothing to say about it being related to the 30 Under 30 Music List and how presenting it otherwise, with a different date (that appears to fail verification) makes it look like it's something of equal footing? --Ronz (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The social media information should be presented in its own paragraph. I hope that, as User:Johnuniq suggested elsewhere, you will focus on other matters or hobbies and stop disrupting this article. The minor issue of referring to the dates of the Forbes articles, if those dates are worth mentioning at all, can be cleaned up after you stop disrupting the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad you want to address the date. 2018 or 2019? --Ronz (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I want to address the extraordinary disruptive editing that you have been doing on this article and ask you to stop working on it so that other editors can consider any remaining minor matters. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you choose to BATTLE rather than address content policy. Too bad. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that administrator Wugapodes has also just asked you to step away from the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one trying to make this work, which is why I sought his help, knowing that BATTLE problems like these lead to blocks/bans/ArbEnf. When editors get so caught up in a BATTLE mentality that they cannot even work on the most basic content problems like verifiabilty, it's good that at least one editor can seek help.
 * So please drop your stick and listen to what others have to say in this request for comment. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Ronz, this last comment of yours is good advice but advice you should heed yourself as well. There is an ongoing RFC which should be allowed to run its course—muddying it with additional proposals, addenda, or tweaks and self-reverts is not going to help. It would probably be for the best to take a break from this article until it's clear how the RFC plays out. It takes two parties to argue, after all, and so the 'battleground' mentality you mention is not a one-way street. I would recommend picking up another project in the meantime until this RFC closes—your point has been made, as have the points of editors you disagree with, and no party needs to continue reiterating them for now. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not understand what Ronz has been doing putting in numerous large chucks of script and then removing them but they look like some sort of test edits to the article. Whatever they are they are clearly disruptive and it needs to stop. Perhaps Ronz needs to step away from the article for a while? Jack1956 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as the changes to the RfC content in the article remain, why complain about edits that were reverted? --Ronz (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Proposal #3
 Forbes noted at the time that VanderWaal had accumulated eight million followers on social media.

Placed immediately after She is the youngest person ever included in Forbes' 30 Under 30 Music List.

As proposed in the section immediately above. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No, because it didn't note that at the time. Forbes said eight million followers in 1918, not in 1919 when including her in a list. Moriori (talk)

I disagree with this. The social media information should be presented in its own paragraph and should include the more specific and current (constantly updated) figures from the social media platforms that have long been included in the article. There is certainly no consensus above to delete this information. We do not need to cite Forbes if there is a consensus to cite any of the other sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Awards Prior to 2018
On July 3, 2020, the table of awards prior to 2018 was deleted. I do not understand the reason for the deletions; it is an integral part of the artist's career. Here is the content (apologize for the format; the table does copy well):

Awards and nominations

Year	Award	Category	Result
 * 2016	America's Got Talent		Won
 * Radio Disney Music Awards	Best New Artist	Won
 * 2017	Acoustic Music Awards	Best Female Artist	Nominated
 * Teen Choice Awards	Choice Next Big Thing	Won
 * Billboard Women in Music 2017	Rising Star Award	Won
 * 2018	Radio Disney Music Awards	Best Song That Makes You Smile	Nominated[146]
 * MTV Video Music Awards	Push Artist of the Year	Nominated
 * MTV Europe Music Awards	Best Push Artist	Won[140]
 * 32nd Japan Gold Disc Awards	New Artist of the Year, Best 3 New Artists	Won[147]

Original page (prior to edit) can be found here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200409031141/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_VanderWaal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlp2451 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Rlp2451 (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451


 * I agree with restoring those awards, but each of them needs a reference. Can you find a cite for each of them? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the general consensus is to limit mention of minor awards, especially when it's just a nomination. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't recall a consensus like this: is there something I'm missing? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You were the one that removed them. I try to avoid working on entertainment articles, where it's hard to draw the line between SOAP violations and noteworthy promotion, while trying to work with editors that are fans first. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hipal/Ronz, no, that is not the consensus. Plus, some of the awards that were removed are quite important.   I believe that Koavf simply removed the ones he considered inadequately referenced.

The dismissal of any award, no matter it's heritage, I consider it pejorative to the person who attains it. Just because it's not an Oscar or Academy award shouldn't mean outright dismissal. Nonetheless, I'll concede that only those "Won" should be included, although it will only show those won. I included references for the awards but they were already referenced on archived page. Why is it necessary to get them again? Rlp2451 (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451
 * References to winning 2016 America's Got Talent:https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/entertainment/americas-got-talent-winner/index.html
 * Disney New Artist: https://www.christianpost.com/news/americas-got-talent-season-11-winner-grace-vanderwaal-news-clay-singer-wins-best-new-artist-at-radio-disney-music-awards-2017-182187 Or: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Disney_Music_Award_for_Best_New_Artist
 * Teen Choice :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Teen_Choice_Awards
 * Billboard Rising Star: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Women_in_Music#Rising_Star_award


 * I consider it pejorative You need to check your personal opinions, or avoid BLP articles until you're far more familiar with content policy.
 * The refs are helpful. Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Rip, cites to Wikipedia articles are not helpful. We need to cite independent published sources, like the awards' websites or, say, Billboard articles that discuss the awards.  There is nothing wrong with citing nominations for major awards. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

OK. Teen Choice Award: https://www.axs.com/america-s-got-talent-champ-grace-vanderwaal-wins-teen-choice-award-for-122001

Billboard Rising Star: https://www.billboard.com/articles/events/women-in-music/8054799/grace-vanderwaal-moonlight-rising-star-award Rlp2451 (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451


 * They should all go back in, with an appropriate reference to a reliable source. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Rip, I put the awards back in the table (except for the Acoustic Music Awards nom). We still need a cite for the MTV Video Music Awards (2018). -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

That can be deleted. It is a duplicate of the MTV Europe Best Push Artist. MTV USA does not have a "Best Push Artist" award. Thanks! Rlp2451 (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451


 * Thanks, Rip. I think the table is done now.  BTW, it is best to keep your talk page comments compact, without too many spaces and blank lines, so that it is easy to see whose comments are whose.  If you look above, I hope you will not mind that I formatted some of your comments to be more compact, as an example of how to one can do it.  All the best, and happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Lead; Stargirl
User:Display name 99, IMO, has been trying to over-write the paragraph about Stargirl (film). You don't need such long quotes. Also the ref style should be the same manual style used in the rest of the article. Also, they keep trying to put the Awards in the first paragraph of the Lead instead of the last paragraph. Awards are overused in Wikipedia. They should not go in the first paragraph. The other changes they keep pushing are not better and, IMO, worse, than the last draft I left as of this date stamp. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm tending to agree with Ssilvers overall.
 * Yes, the awards don't belong in the first paragraph.
 * If Stargirl turns out to be the debut of a significant acting career, then we'll adjust the article accordingly. Until then, let's not let the recent release and publicity drive our editing or have us making assumptions.
 * Kansas or Missouri? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * She was born in Lenexa, Kansas, so I think Kansas City, Kansas is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I didn't mean to undo your revisions outside of the Stargirl paragraph. I should have been more careful in my recent edit. As for the paragraph itself, you had no problem whatsoever including a long quote from the Indie Wire article. I actually shortened that in one of my latest edits. You didn't shorten the Deadline Hollywood quote but only the quote from RogerEbert.com, which happened to be the only critical quotation of the three in the paragraph. So I think it's worth asking whether you were upset at me for including quotes that were too long or if you just didn't like that one of those quotes gave a negative assessment of her performance. As for the referencing, using the citation templates that are provided helps protect against link rot and is altogether a superior form of referencing, which is why it is used on the vast majority of Wikipedia's articles. I won't fight you on this however, although I would like it if you'd add a missing bracket or whatever it is that you forgot to include on the citation. Display name 99 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy to include the critical quote. But you only need to include the relevant part.  To include in the quote the statement concerning VanderWaal's music videos (which are better made by the critics in the critical response section) is repetitive and not helpful. And why do you say "Film critic Sheila..."  They're all film critics.  And why do you need to characterize two of the three (but not the third) reviews as favorable or critical? If you're going to also include the quote, people can read the quote.  We should streamline the paragraph further to just say A wrote "x", B commented "y" and C said "z". Simple.  Re: rerences: Per WP:CITE, manual citations are totally acceptable, and the MOS says not to change established citation formats. See WP:CITEVAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ssilvers here. The article should be kept as concise as possible and should use the same ref style as the rest of the article. Jack1956 (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that Vanderwaal's performace is also discussed in a review in Variety, which needs to be added. Display name 99, were you suppressing this review? (I don't think you were, but you should understand that your failure to WP:Assume Good Faith above was unfair. I have well over 100,000 edits on Wikipedia and have neutrally written about 1,000 articles for Wikipedia, some of which are Featured articles or Good articles; in fact, one of my articles will be Today's Featured Article in 4 hours on the Main Page -- South Pacific (musical).) --Ssilvers (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I notice the citation still is not fixed. Asking me why we need to say "Film critic Sheira..." is nonsensical. If you examine my version of the paragraph, it did not call Sheila O'Malley by any title. It simply read "Sheila O'Malley found fault with her performance..." You then changed it to "A critic from RogerEbert.com," which makes no sense because as you yourself said, they're all critics. My latest version had "Film critic Sheila...," I simply left the word critic, which was there because of you, and put "film" before it.


 * The first review is the only one specifically described as favorable. It seemed redundant to me to call the second one favorable, although I won't object if you do so. The third review is distinguished as the article says that O'Malley "found fault" with her performance, which is intended to draw a distinction between it and the two positive reviews. I understand that you do not believe that I was "suppressing" the Variety article, but the question itself makes no sense. Even if I saw a particular review and decided for one reason or another not to include it, that would not mean that I was suppressing it, whatever that means. We are under no obligation to include every single assessment of her acting performance that has been written in an article and can be found on the Internet. Display name 99 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The point is that you accused me of something, and though I doubt you will, you really ought to apologize to me. Here's a fourth warm review. To set the paragraph up as one critic says "yea" and another says "nay" turns out to have been poor research on your part. Are you ready for me to make the changes discussed above, or do you want to wait for more comments here? -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the words "film critic" should be deleted, that the Variety reference needs to be added, and that the quote from RogerEbert.com should remain as it is in ssilvers last draft. I also agree that we should delete repetitive filler language, like "a favorable review of her performance" and "found fault with her performance".Somambulant1 (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I did not directly accuse you of anything, but simply said that bias was a question that was worth asking about. I'm not sure where the poor research is. I found two reviews and posted information about them on the article. That is not poor research. I'm not obligated to find more. If you want to add more, that is fine with me. If you're concerned about the section appearing biased against Vanderwaal by giving the negative assessment more representation than it deserves, you could have a sentence saying something like "Numerous film critics praised her performance" or "Her performance was generally well received" and then pull out a few short quotes, followed by the RogerEbert.com article. I am content with the RogerEbert.com quote remaining as it is in the current version of the article. Commentary about her music videos is, I suppose, not important here. Display name 99 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, you only found only one article. The other one was already there, because I had already put it there two weeks ago.  At that time, I had done enough research to see that most of the reviews were favorable to VanderWaal, so I did not think that more than one reference was necessary in this article, as it would represent the majority viewpoint of the critics, and also because this is not the article about Stargirl -- that article should have a more detailed critical reception section. As I indicated above, your recasting of the paragraph as one critic says "yea" and another says "nay" misleads our readers.  All you would have had to do to realize this was take a quick look at the displayed reviews on RottenTomatoes.  Anyhow, I've gone ahead to revise the paragraph based on all of the above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ssilvers, thank you for the explanation.
 * RogerEbert.com is a major source for film reviews, so deserves weight on that note alone. It's addition is valuable. Thanks Display name 99 for finding it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Stargirl performance in article body
I would like to see the more neutral comment from the "Stargirl" webpage than the out-of-context quote currently posted for the Roger Ebert segment:
 * "Sheila O'Malley from RogerEbert.com gave the film a mixed review. She criticized VanderWaal's performance and complained that numerous aspects of the film, mostly centering around Leo's and Stargirl's relationship, did not make sense. However, she praised the visual appearance of the film as well as its message, giving it two stars out of four.[17]" Rlp2451 (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451


 * Rip, please read the above. I agree that the Ebert quote is not typical of the reviews for the film.  I think the main argument for deleting it is that we don't need so many reviews to be cited here (and we most certainly should not include just one positive one and one negative one, as that would be misleading to our readers).  IMO, it would be sufficient to include just one source that is *typical* of the mostly positive response, and leave a more detailed discussion of the response to the film in the film's article, where it belongs.  Therefore, I suggest deleting ALL of the review quotes except the first one.  Read the above to see the full discussion. Don't WP:EDIT WAR with Ronz.  Just keep the discussion here until there is a WP:CONSENSUS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifics about VanderWaal belong in this article. Reviews of the film belong in its article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ronz. "It's" means "it is".  The possessive is "its".  Everything else you wrote is nonsense; there is no reason to cite multiple reviews of one film here, when one would do fine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing, Ssilvers. I agree with you.  More reviews can be seen on the Stargirl page. Rlp2451 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451
 * I specifically said film reviews belong on its page. Noteworthy information about VanderWaal belongs in this article, and we don't censor around editors' personal preferences and synthesis. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Since the majority of reviews of the film Stargirl that mention Vanderwaal are positive, it would be better to cite just one review that represents the majority view, rather than four reviews. Obviously, if VanderWaal acts in more films, we can cite more reviews, but this unbalances the article per WP:BALASP. - SchroCat (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How does that work without violating POV and SYN? It looks like censorship based upon bias against what the reliable, independent source actually says. Is anyone looking at the depth of coverage at all? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We say that the "majority" of the reviews were favorable. That already admits that they were not "unanimously" favorable.  So there is no POV.  I have no idea what you mean by SYN here, as there is/would be none, but, again, there is no need to cite and/or quote every review of a film when a simple statement can be made, as it certainly can here, that the majority of the reviews were favorable.  In any case, there is a WP:CONSENSUS now to trim the four sources to one typical one that exemplifies the statement that the "majority" of the reviews had a positive view of VanderWaal's performance. If one wants to view more reviews, one can look on Rotten Tomatoes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not based upon ignoring policy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors want to get rid of the negative review. That's been made clear over and over. It's a POV and NOT violation to remove it based upon personal opinions.
 * Editors want to cherry pick a source based upon their personal opinion of what should belong in the article. Again, this is a NOT and POV violation.
 * If no one wants to look at depth of coverage, but would rather just work based upon their personal preferences, then it's a NOT and POV violation.
 * Attempts to summarize sources without using a source is OR/SYN. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a rough consensus here - and it doesn't breach any policies (you "summary" where you decide what is a breach of policy is not accurate - it's twisted to try and "win" something here). - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring policy is not a means to consensus, nor does waving away attempts to address policy, nor does focusing on editors. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm ignoring nothing here thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I see that you are now WP:EDIT WARring. I have reverted you. Please stop Edit Warring and editing against consensus. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes you edit warring, while ignoring content policy. Please self-revert and work to get consensus. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I made an edit, leaving the review that reflects the majority opinion. However, the reference to the Ebert review remains in a bookmark. If this is permissible, it allows anyone interested to read that review, but they would have to go to the reference. Rlp2451 (talk) 21:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)rlp2451
 * Yes, that's right -- the Ebert review is footnoted, so anyone wishing to see the minority viewpoint can easily do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when is that how articles address minority viewpoints, rather than being a blatant POV violation? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've revised the content to what the reference says and the timeframe it covers. Thank you, Ssilvers, for finding it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Learn to read. I did not add that reference, SchroCat did.  I have reverted your poor grammar and edit warring. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake on attributing the ref to you.
 * I'll leave the grammar to you if you like.
 * You've reverted how many times now? Why?
 * How does the reference verify "She received mostly favorable reviews"? That's not what it says from my reading. The article reviews the film as a whole, not just her performance. It includes a section titled "Grace VanderWaal is a Standout", that quotes two reviews. I don't see how this meets basic verification standards. Do explain rather than insult editors as a distraction from content policy while violating behavioral policy.
 * Since when is that how articles address minority viewpoints, rather than being a blatant POV violation? Please respond. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What is in that article is sufficient to verify the statement in the article (ie that she has won the critics over). The fact that the reviewer only quoted two reviews is neither here nor there: you have no idea how much other research they have done before making that statement, so you have to accept what the reliable source says – you don’t get to ignore it just because you don’t like it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * you don’t get to ignore it just because you don’t like it So answer the question. How is it verified? Please quote from the article, and let's not misrepresent film reviews as reviews of her performance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have done so already (or near as dammit) and I have misrepresented nothing. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. A simple quote would resolve this, but it appears to not exist.
 * So the content:
 * fails verification.
 * Is original research.
 * Conflates her performance with general reviews for the movie.
 * Removes a noteworthy perspective on her performance.
 * Attempts to resolve this dispute are just creating a long list of problematic comments and editing more suitable for ArbEnf. Let's see if we can avoid that.
 * Anyone want to address any of the content policy concerns, or am I wasting time? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As usual, you are misreading the applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines and failing to acknowledge the consensus here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Attacking other editors only makes you look bad: the attacks themselves and the attempts to derail consensus-building based upon policy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What a lot of alphabetti-spaghetti you are throwing round... it’s like watching ‘Policy Bingo’, as numerous attempts are made to see if any of them stick, while you accuse others of various egregious acts. Please just stop. You’ve edit warred to the limit here, and that and the stonewalling is increasingly disruptive. What I see in this thread is a misreading of policy and guideline. The content is fine: it is supported by a reliable source that addresses exactly what it claims to (ie. about her, not the film). Can you find anything that says differently? If it’s so blatantly untrue, perhaps you can point to a source that says this isn’t the case? If you can’t, that should give you pause for thought. - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IDHT and WP:PA, suitable for arbitration enforcement. Please stop. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * More alphabetti spaghetti? Neither of those are remotely true. (And stop with the threats to "arbitration enforcement": that's just nonsense - ArbCom wouldn't touch this with a barge pole) - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop what, exactly? You are accusing people of various egregious acts, and there isn't any truth in the accusations. You have been asked to stop on multiple occasions, and you still keep posting unhelpful and misleading comments. I'm going to step away from this thread because it stopped being constructive a long time ago. A citation is in place for something you insisted upon (it's not necessary, but it's there) and hopefully people can move on without any further disruption of obstruction. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC.
 * I'm going to step away from this thread Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC off. _ SchroCat (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's actually get some consensus and avoid basic policy violations
I've removed the unverified original research that She received mostly favorable reviews, and restored  the info verified by the RogerEbert.com ref that was still in the article.

I hope we can agree that She received mostly favorable reviews is not verified. Is there is disagreement, please quote exactly what verifies it.

I realize that there's no easy way to pick and choose what reviews to mention. I hope we agree that they should be about her performance, published by a highly prominent reviewer. --Hipal (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have returned the article to the consensus version. I totally disagree with you. A search of the reviews shows that the comments about VanderWaal's performance were indeed mostly favorable. The basic principle at stake here, and that is behind the consensus that was reach here, is WP:BALASP: It is not necessary to cite ALL the reviews of the film to show that most of them praise VanderWaal's performance, or to cite numerous reviews, positive and negative about one performance among so many in her career -- it would unbalance the article to spend so much time on a simple and obvious factoid.  The amount of ink we spend on her performance in the film is appropriate, and writing more would simply be overwriting the segment. Don't you feel at all ashamed of yourself when you revive battles that you have lost in an effort to see if enough time has passed that you might sneak your preferred version by us again? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ssilvers above; this is old ground already covered. The article should be left at the consensus version. Jack1956 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So no one can verify the first part? Then it stays out. The rest could use some new eyes.
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Hipal. The statement that most of the reviews for VanderWaal were positive is verified by the Screenrant site, which is a roundup of the major reviews for the film, and quotes several reviewers' reviews of VanderWaal's performance in the film. The consensus has been to use this one Screenrant citation instead of citing and quoting the various positive reviews and the one negative review, which was more material than is warranted with respect to this one performance in VanderWaal's resume. We've been over this before, and I wish Hipal would stop rehashing issues where a consensus has been reached. Somambulant1 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Screenrant ref says the movie received the reviews, not VanderWaal, correct? Please quote if I'm missing something. Otherwise the content fails V and is OR. It needs to be removed or changed to meet policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hipal, you are incorrect. In the Screenrant article, VanderWaal is also the subject of reviews. Read the section that begins, "Grace VanderWaal is a Standout". Somambulant1 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a quote. That does not verify the information. Is there anything else that could possibly verify it? --Hipal (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What more could you want? What exactly are you looking for? Somambulant1 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're discussing basic verification. --Hipal (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors (except you) agree that Screenrant provides verification. Somambulant1 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Somambulant. Furthermore, this was discussed and decided previously. When Hipal raised the issue on the BLP noticeboard, no one agreed with them there either. Stop forum-shopping and endlessly re-raising the issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like you're trying to ignore WP:V, if not purposely violating it. --Hipal (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Charted singles
Is there a reason that only VanderWaal's charted singles are listed in her discography section? I find it very strange – I've never seen that on a BLP. If the release of a single is covered by a RS, why not list it? – DarkGlow • 22:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, the discography section of a person's main article should not list singles. If you like, we can remove them.  Certainly non-charted singles are not noteworthy on her main article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a guideline explicitly recommending that? Because until a separate Grace VanderWaal discography page is created, I don't see any reasons to omit such information here, either. Victor Lopes  Fala! • C 01:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of such a guideline either., where is this located? – DarkGlow • 22:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article guidelines state: "The discography section of the musician's primary article should also provide a summary of the musician's major works. In most cases this is done using a simple list of their studio albums, leaving a complete listing of releases to the discography article." So, normally, Bio articles do not include singles at all.  But in VanderWaal's case, her charted singles have been important to her career, so I don't mind listing them.  If you disagree, then we can remove the singles.  Also, I have no objection to someone creating a Discography article for her; I only object to cluttering up her main article with non-charting singles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand. Given her potential, this separate Discography article will be born sooner or later, so I'm okay with the section as it is. Victor Lopes  Fala! • C 16:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Larson
At what point do we put in information about the fact Grace has a notable stalker in Daniel Larson? Surely even a throwaway line would make sense to reflect her life more accurately? 2601:19B:801:12B0:4DE4:152B:120C:E0E9 (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see a single WP:Reliable source that discusses this, so not until at least then. See WP:V and WP:BLP. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)