User talk:Hannahscott92

Biographies of living persons and reliable sources
For biographies of living persons we need reliable sources. Instagram and YouTube are not usually considered reliable since nayone can post anything. The same goes for websites of organisations lobbying for this, that or the other such as PETA. Please read the articles I linked to, which will provide some background. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * :I understand that if it's for paid partnerships but surely for information about their own lives there is no source that would be more accurate than their own pages? (Hannahscott92 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC));
 * Peoples statements about themselves are quite notorious for being biased in their own favor, even blatantly untrue, hence WP:BLP requires some form of editorial oversight and independent fact-checking. Besides, peoples pets are hardly relevant to their career as a movie-star. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, after all. Kleuske (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


 * How can someone be biased over stating a fact that they have a pet. I understand that it's a topic that you are not interested in but when I look at a wikipedia page about a celebrity I like to see any information that is available about their career and their personal life. Is that not why there are always sections about their personal life. If that is the stance then why is it acceptable to mention their siblings or where they are from - going off of your logic that also has nothing to do with their career? (Hannahscott92 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC));
 * Having pets is generally seen as a Good Thing (tm). Publishing photo's of cute animals (and presenting them as pets) provides a feelgood moment to viewers and enhances the public image of the celeb in question. So there's plenty of reasons to present a cute animal as your pet which actually isn't. As to siblings, we also require reliable sources for those. Kleuske (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)