Talk:Junlper

Reason of suspension
hey, are we still sure that she was suspended because of calling musk a pedo? Some people claim it's because of community note manipulation. Kryshot64 (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah those are two theories, but neither have been confirmed. Since viewing her profile doesn't say what rule, we dunno. I've added a sentence to say this, otherwise it is implied. SWinxy (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The leading theory as to why Junlper was suspended was beacuse of article headline manipulation, not because she calling Elon a pedo. In fact, she did so multiple times in the past and was never suspended for it. Stressed Potato (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * From what ive seen the general belief is that the "official" reason for the suspension was community note violation, but that actual cause was her calling elon a pedo. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Actual notability?
Is this person notable enough to pass notability guidelines? It seems that pretty much all their coverage in secondary sources is either as scant mentions in collections of tweets around viral events or specifically pertaining to the Goblin Mode stuff (which would mean notability only for involvement in a single event). Paragon Deku (talk) 06:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I saw this on Twitter and the instant thing I thought was "There's no way a niche internet celebrity got a Wikipedia page". All she deserves right now unless like, she violently dies in a horrible accident and makes nationwide news is a mention on Goblin mode. AlenaEK (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this page is not exactly urgently needed to be deleted, but safe to be reviewed for deletion. I think any mention on goblin mode or the Snicker's controversy section can remain though, and she can stay on the list of Twitter suspensions.
 * RM-Steele (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a fair point to be made with all the dick vein stuff (while being the reason that the word of the year is the word of the year) that she is a notable person, although I'm not entirely sure Kryshot64 (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really see how they're important enough to have a whole page. AxioChrono (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Signed. I get that you're offended that Twitter banned this person, I don't like it either, but you can't just make an article about every random happenstance on the internet. That's an excercise in futility. Funktasticdog (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly I have zero clue who this person is. Did they even breach the one million follower mark for some semblance of niche microcelebrity status? Amogus bals (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They were considered notable enough to be featured in an advertisement for The Boys alongside a few other big twitter accounts (couldn't find the advertisement, maybe someone else will have more luck), I don't think they're as big as Dril (who has their own page) but they're still a pretty large presence on twitter. ‪YolnguEditor‬ (talk) 6:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YolnguEditor (talk • contribs)

Re: notability
Not sure what you mean by "ADF", but getting suspended on a Twitter troll account doesn't make someone noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia page. Especially on an account with under 1 million followers. Jingle38 (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * If you mean this edit summary it refers to AFD which is a step up from PROD. I think David Gerard was saying that the article has enough references to fail a basic PROD but if you would like to you can try AFD to have the article deleted. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's what I meant. I was surprised myself at the idea of an article on Junlper, but the references show she's been involved in a surprising amount of RS-documented stuff, sufficient to warrant an examination at AFD before a deletion. I'm not 100% on her notability, but that's way more coverage than a lot of people get - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I've nominated the article at AFD this morning, but my reasoning was so flawed (WP:BLP1E while naming two other events she was involved in) that I closed it mere minutes after opening it.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 19:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I gotta opine that I don't think it comes particularly close to Wikipedia's notability standards. Are there any other articles about defunct Twitter accounts? Jingle38 (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While I'm not aware of any, I don't think a Twitter account being defunct makes it not notable. Notability is not temporary. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that she was also notable enough to get interviewed by Buzzfeed News. This, plus the fact that she's notable for more than 1 event, leads me to believe she definitely meets notability standards. Da share z0ne is a comparable page with a similar number of sources (though it's much more fleshed out, which makes sense since the page has been around a lot longer than this one). Slinkyo (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Twitter shitposter"
Is this shortdesc particularly sensible? It feels like a term that the average reader would interpret as overly negative.

I've changed it to "Pseudonymous Twitter user" which is more in line with other similar articles (dril being one of them) WindTempos (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * They’re also listed as such on the disambiguation page for Juniper. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually asked a similar question regarding this on the disambiguation page yesterday to no reply; for both cases I would personally be in favour of the use of 'Twitter satirist', but if 'shitposter' is insisted upon, I think linking to the 'In modern politics' section of the article would be best to justify the choice. Td 078 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wrote Catturd, where I used the word 'shitposter' to describe him. Both people it would be correct to call them shitposters, regardless of if a reader unfamiliar with the term would think it's derogatory. SWinxy (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect Catturd would be offended and Junlper would be delighted - David Gerard (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Does it matter if Libs of TikTok criticized someone for retweeting a post?
In #Suspension from Twitter, it says: Libs of TikTok owner Chaya Raichik criticized internet safety expert Alejandra Caraballo for retweeting the post. I'm pretty sure that in this situation, what Libs of TikTok says is unimportant and probably an issue with NPOV. Should it be removed?  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Frankly I think the article should just be deleted. I don’t have time to open an AfD currently but I really doubt notability here and it seems as if the page may just exist as a lightning rod. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Paragon Deku, as I said above, I did open an AfD, but my reasoning was so flawed that I almost immediately closed it. I feel like it could very well be discussed, though.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 21:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed this as it's too trivial to be relevant information here. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 06:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Is the origin of her avatar notable enough to receive mention?
Not the "@PfpDrawer" bit, but that it was traced from a practical effect puppet designed by Kevin Yagher for an MSN ad in 1999

I dunno! I am simply an IP 71.186.130.36 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic content + vandalism lock
Why is the article full of transphobic slurs (i.e. “troon”) and misgendering? Why is it locked so that this can’t be corrected? This is deplorable. At least fix it before you lock it. Better yet, delete the fucking article. 70.49.141.73 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The material has been reverted and hidden. Any comments on whether to delete this article or not should be directed at Articles for deletion/Junlper (2nd nomination). Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't need to be here
Junlper is not notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Aknatn (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Aknatn, the afd is that way. Cakelot1  ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  22:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * nuh uh Aknatn (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Advice?
I would like some advice here. There are a lot of other sources that talk about Juniper, however they are brief and in the context of a different story. Many articles include Juniper as part of commentary for other topics. Would it be right to add that in, or no? Or maybe like have some quick sentences about things she's commented on? Personisinsterest (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, we want depth and quality over quantity. So, normally, those are best to leave out except when they serve to support something specific that we do need to say. As a shitposter, she has tweeted on a lot of subjects and those tweets get quoted in a lot of articles because quoting other people's tweets is an easy way for a site to pad out an article. I found a lot of that when I was looking into the AfD. Most of that stuff is not usable. DanielRigal (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah alright thx Personisinsterest (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Quality over quantity is required, especially when said articles/sources may be of a churnalistic, low effort quality like Daniel mentioned. As this is a “shitposter” known for easy-to-digest attention grabbing posts and trolls, there’s obviously gonna be quite a few content farm-esque sites or articles that pick up on the content. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"JUNIPER" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JUNIPER&redirect=no JUNIPER] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Clyde &#91;trout needed&#93; 13:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead versus article body
The lead section gives several names for this person. None of them are "Juniper". However, the article body exclusively and repeatedly refers to her as "Juniper". I suspect the article body should be changed to use "Junlper". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sources about her do tend to call her Juniper or June e.g. . Given that she's used multiple accounts, and her current account name isn't "Junlper", it's reasonable to refer to her by her actual name. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 04:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * But the Wikipedia article does not say her name is Juniper and does not even say she is ever referred to by that name. It just starts calling her that in the second section without warning, leaving the reader to guess that this refers to the same person. There is no evidence in the article that it is her "actual name". At least the lead section of the article should say she is sometimes known by that name. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to use the article title here to refer to the Twitter account. If there's another primary name for the subject, then we ought use that name to refer to the subject, but this article title naming appears to be about a particular account rather than a human. Perhaps the article should be more reflective of that. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 15:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Goblin mode
None of the sources in the aritcle state that this phrase was added to dictionaries or rose in popularity because of Junlper. Yes, she used the phrase, but I'm not seeing the direct link that supports the claim that she made it popular. Are there reliable sources that do this? -- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * She used the phrase which led to an increase in popularity, stemming from the fake article. It may have grown beyond her but she initially set it off, leading to the wording of popularizing the phrase Personisinsterest (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure - but we need reliable sources saying the rise in popularity was due to her usage. Otherwise it is mere speculation. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 00:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Univeristy Press article about their addition of the phrase said
 * "Although first seen on Twitter in 2009, goblin mode went viral on social media in February 2022, quickly making its way into newspapers and magazines after being tweeted in a mocked-up headline."
 * And in case it was not clear they were talking about Junlper's tweet, that article also linked this article by the guardian which says:
 * "But according to Google Trends it started to rise in popularity in early February and spiked after a doctored headline attributed a quote with the phrase to Kanye West muse and it-girl of the moment Julia Fox."
 * That doctored headline being Junlper's. Now, this is word of the year, and not specifically being added to the dictionary, but they do directly attribute its rise in popularity to her tweet. Reil (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even one of the sources you deleted as 'not supporting the claim that she made is popular' directly links to her tweet:
 * Interest in “goblin mode” spiked in February when a viral tweet featured the word in a fake headline (purportedly written to show how easy it is to spread fake news online) about the short-lived romance between actor Julia Fox and the rapper Ye, formerly known as Kanye West. “Julia Fox opened up about her ‘difficult’ relationship with Kanye West ‘He didn’t like when I went goblin mode,’” the doctored headline read.
 * In light of this, I'm restoring the content. Someone else can add in the other links if that's not sufficient. Reil (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

New account
Junlper has a new twitter: @Canteverdie this should be mentioned 2.30.180.212 (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Not unless Reliable Sources cover it. We can't reliably tell which accounts are genuinely hers and we can't do original research anyway. It might also fall foul of WP:OUTING and, besides, we don't want to be doing Musk's dirty work for him. It's far funnier if he has to waste his own resources on this. DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024
Please remove the ‘former’ from the first line of the article. She’s still active on twitter and the article itself mentions that she’s back on another account. SudoHack (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Charliehdb (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

how is this even allowed
how is this awful page even allowed on this website. geeeeg holy shit Sooty soot (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Delete this, honestly
If this is allowed, anyone could just spam pages of internet users with a bunch of followers and wikipedia would just be a microcelebrity encyclopedia. The reason this is still around is either because the admin is a fan of this person or someone paid for this to be kept up Местный Бунтарь (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to nominate this article for deletion if you think the page shouldn't exist, but your given rationale is not a particularly strong one and would be unlikely to succeed. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)