Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:20, 23 April 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gina Carano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Martial arts: Kickboxing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts This article is supported by Kickboxing task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mixed martial arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mixed martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Mixed martial artsmixed martial arts Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's sport: Martial arts / mma Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Misplaced Pages. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Women's martial arts task force. This article is supported by the Women's MMA task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Boxing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing WikiProject Boxing "To Do": edit history watch purge → Help pick the next article for collaboration. FA Noms: Review: New: Expand: Hasim Rahman | Gabriel Elorde | Gerry Peñalosa | Ike Quartey | Joel Casamayor | Jean-Marc Mormeck | Odlanier Solís | Yuriorkis Gamboa Collaborate: Boxing Discuss: Annotate: Muhammad Ali | Sugar Ray Robinson | Oscar De La Hoya | Jack Dempsey | Rocky Marciano | Joe Louis | George Foreman | Roy Jones Jr. | Marvin Hagler | Lennox Lewis | Evander Holyfield | Manny Pacquiao | Érik Morales Assess: Create:

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: February 7 to 13, 2021 (10th)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gina Carano article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Pronouns

Carano uses boop/bop/beep pronouns on her twitter. There is no coverage of her gender identity however and I don't think she is being particularly serious. Any thoughts? Caius G. (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

On July 31st Gina Carano joined a protest to end sex trafficking. Posting a photo to Instagram Carano stated in her caption that I was proud to be a part of this today. It didn’t trend. It wasn’t apart of the right agendas apparently.. Carano implies that this movmenent should be gaining greater recognition than the Black Lives Matter Protest that was occurring at the same time. For this comment, she received praise from numerous supporters of the movement. Multiple comments using the hashtag

Carano also received criticism for changing her name to "Gina Carano boop/bop/beep" mocking the common practice of identifying personal pronouns such as they/them. Fellow co-star in features he/him pronouns in his own bio. Noticing this difference, Carano responded to those criticising her by starting "Pedro & I spoke & he helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios. I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose."

1. Carano, Gina. "Sex trafficking protest". Instagram. Retrieved 25/10/2020. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
2. "Statement on pronouns".

Controversy section

As much as I personally don't agree with Carrano's views, User:DabYeetDab seems correct in that the newly placed "Controversy" section violates WP:BALANCE. Taking a larger perspective, virtually every public figure is subject to Twitterverse critics. Unless the issue being criticized becomes independently notable, it seems like gross overkill to create an entire "Controversy" section because a few people were offended by her comments.

I would also note that User:Koreanidentity10000 added another controversy today, to David Cross, that was remarkably overstated, non-neutral and unbalanced. It involved another celebrity referring to Cross specifically, so that would reach the level of independent notability and not "some tweeters criticized the person." I trimmed the Cross content to the raw facts as best I could. I would suggest that an editor inserting highly non-WP:NPOV content in incendiary language perhaps has an ax to grind and is not editing responsibly.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well Tenebrae, thanks very much for editing this David Cross controversy section. But don't make these assumptions towards me next time; I have no "ax to grind" because I don't have an ax. I'm just posting the facts and remained neutral as much as possible so that people like you can edit this. People with reputations like Cross need to learn to watch what they say, and it's all for the greater good for people to learn from their mistakes.-User:Koreanidentity10000 Reedited 2:36pm Nov 27th, 2020

You say you have no ax to grind. Then two sentences later you start grinding it: "People with reputations like Cross need to learn when to keep their mouths shut ... to learn from their mistakes." Misplaced Pages is not a place for you to work out your grievances toward "people like David Cross" or anyone else. If you continue trying to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox for your personal feelings about people who "need to learn when to keep their mouths shut," then admin intervention will be called for.

Your edits also do not show you as anyone who "remained neutral", and editors are not supposed to write any personal essay they want and expect others to "make these balanced edits."--Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again Tenebrae, thanks for everything, I'll ask you for help if I need it. -User:Koreanidentity10000

Carrano's views has garnered significant media attention from major news outlets as Forbes, Telegraph, and Newsweek. If the "Controversy"section violates balance, it should not be deleted en masse, but edited to improve any biases.146.151.113.93 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to rework the section as written to make it read more neutrally and encyclopedically. I'm a journalist and editor for a living, and I couldn't do it. The "Criticms" section needs a complete top-to-bottom rewrite, including making it much shorter. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty unfortunate that the Wiki article doesn't include one sentence about these controversies. I have little interest in the subject matter itself, and am more concerned of censorship. 146.151.113.93 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The controversy section is entirely one sided with some glaring omissions (including her activity on parler).Jeffery Thomas 02:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's one sided with glaring omissions. The section used to have mentions of her covid-19 and voter fraud conspiracy theories and her opening an account on parler, and I also tried to convince people that her association with the Fandom Menace and other fringe right wing elements should be mentioned, but it was decided that these things are "not notable". 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Political Views?

Pro Thanksgiving Pro military Anti censorship Anti cancel Culture Anti masks voter Fraud conspiracy theory https://mobile.twitter.com/ginacaranore

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/mandalorian-gina-carano-anti-mask-fraud-trans-b1724073.html

https://filmdaily.co/news/gina-carano/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpolowing (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That first link you posted is a dead link. Her real Twitter page is at https://twitter.com/ginacarano

Her Twitter messages are not a clear indication of her politics. Her being from Texas is not a clear indication of her politics either. An encyclopedia cannot make guesses even if it seems obvious, and an encyclopedia must wait until better clearer sources are available. The standards required of biographical articles is high, you will probably need to wait until she directly states her politics in an interview. She is a sports person turned actor, she's not a politician, her political views might not even be important enough to add to the article even if she did clearly state them. -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue in light of recent events, particularly recent news articles about her contract with the Mandalorian TV program not being renewed because of an Instagram post, that her actual political beliefs are still not relevant. However, my feeling is that the interpretation of her statements by some as anti-semitic and fascist is relevant to the extent that it influenced her employment. I strongly feel that Misplaced Pages itself however must not attribute those interpretations to the statements, nor in any way imply that they are correct. Rendall (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional controversy information

I removed uncited information regarding the social media support for Gina Carano. If there are sources for it, we should probably find ones that mention that her support comes entirely from the same reactionary influencers who incited the harassment campaign agains Kelly Marie Tran, and the support for her is due to her propagating discredited QAnon conspiracy theories. I also added Antivax conspiracy theories to her claims, but I'm not 100% certain if they are mentioned in the source. The Mary Sue has more information about that. We should also probably mention her tweeting her support of the January 6 terrorist attack on the US Capitol. 213.233.88.151 (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The article claims she "falsely suggested the existence of voter fraud". This must be changed, since there were of course instances of voter fraud. 193.180.10.21 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about Criticism Section

This request for comments has two parts; (1) does the information in the criticism section merit inclusion in the article at all and (2) if so, does the current presentation give WP:UNDUE weight (multiple paragraphs under its own heading titled "Criticism")?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's not great to have a separate "Criticism" section (see WP:CRITS), and we want to avoid recentism, but I feel like in this case the events have been covered widely enough that they merit inclusion. Given the length of the article I don't think that the two paragraphs about the controversies give them undue weight; it's a relatively small portion of the article. I wonder if there's a better section heading, maybe "Political views" or "Social media activity"? Srey Sros 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Yes. The information can be in its own section or merged into any pertinent other section. 2. No. Two paragraphs on different events do not overwhelm the rest of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the questions in reverse I do think it is giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to trivial social media happenings. The section as it is phrased now seems misleading to me, (maybe that's WP:NPOV or WP:TONE) Carano is a fighter turned actor, not a political figure, but people were trying to compel her to make political statements and get behind causes which she wasn't going to do. She received abuse on social media (and unfortunately who doesn't) and she's perfectly entitled to call out that abuse from "cowards and bullies". It is quite something to misrepresent that as her having called her critics cowards and bullies. The suggestion from User:SreySros to present her "Political views" seems more reasonable, present her views first then responses to them, not the fireable-offences that social media imagines she has committed. (Given the previous criticisms of her acting, I'm surprised the article doesn't have any comment on how her acting in The Mandaloriain
  It does seem to have received coverage from reliable sources so while I think sources are being poorly presented I accept that in principle a better version might be justified. There are some people with an ax to grind here and a lot of caution needs to be shown because of WP:BLP (specifically: tone and balance and attack, all seem to apply). So I guess I should try to make this easier for anyone reviewing the discussion and summarize that as: 1. Maybe 2. Yes (undue, needswork). -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to stick to the sources here. Our own interpretation(s) of what happened is irrelevant. We must summarize the reliable sources about her, covering each aspect and viewpoint proportionally to how much it is covered. The two paragraphs seem to me to be appropriate summaries of the sources cited. As for this edit summary, we must remember that Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. We report what the sources say, not what we think they will say.

Are there specific words or phrases whose tone is objectionable to you? To me the tone seems pretty neutral. It seems that you specifically disagree with the framing of she called her critics "cowards and bullies" but denied accusations of racism. The source that is paraphrasing says (with an ugly comma splice) Carano was asked to show her support for BLM, when she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist. She responded saying: "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I'm sorry, these people are not 'educators.' They are cowards and bullies.". I think it's pretty reasonable to paraphrase that the way the article currently does. Her cowards and bullies comment seems aimed at the people calling her racist, not specifically at online abusers. Srey Sros 04:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The tone was actually less neutral, and the paragraphs longer before I truncated the long quotes to simple paraphrases. Having escessively verbose quotes from Gina Carano explaining herself puts too much emphasis on her side of the story.

I disagree that the section should be renamed "political views". Her "political views", are notable only because the criticism she received for using her platform as an actress in a popular series to spread thoroughly discredited conspiracy theories and misinformation - things she doubled down on in interviews with right wing outlet The Federalist, and some Gamergate youtubers.

In a similar vein, her opening a Parler account is notable only because she was criticised for choosing parler of all options, a far right platform. Yet someone is insisting on removing "far right" despite the fact that that is what the site is.213.233.88.151 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an editorial decision to include it all, (1) those decisions matter, that is the starting premise of this very discussion. People with an ax to grind are subjectively interpreting the sources,(2) in ways that I do not believe are objective, not properly following the policies of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. You can call it summarizing but it takes selectively quoting to present people screaming on Twitter as if they were reasonable critics or serious commentators. This is a biographical article about Carano, of course it should have "too much emphasis on her side of the story" it's literally supposed to be her story. (I'm not convinced joining or leaving a social network is newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic or notable enough to include in a biography. If Parler is worth mentioning at all then you should look closely at the Misplaced Pages article for Parler which does not call it a right or far-right social media site, but very carefully calls states instead that it "Posts on the service often contain far-right content".) The edit by RCarter to remove vague phrasing and weasel words is a good start, the section needs a lot more cleanup if it is to stay. You're perfectly entitled to think what you will about Carano or her politics but that doesn't make any of it encyclopedic.

By all means include more criticism of her stiff acting, but don't feed the social media trolls and armchair activists desperately trying to cancel Gina Carano. It was disingenuous when they tried to do it to Rosaria Dawson and it is lame that they are trying to do it to Carano too. (Actress is not politically aware! News at 11. Actress repeats dimwitted conservative talking points that millions of American voters also believe. Stop the press!). It's another social media tempest in a teapot that just barely managed to get mainstream media attention. It is not an important part of her biography, it is not a defining part of her life. It is something might barely merit a mention if it was written a bit more objectively. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosario Dawson didn't express any opinions on social media. A civil lawsuit against her family, that was dropped months ago, was dug up on twitter, caused a minor stir and was forgotten in a couple of days. The controversies surrounding Gina Carano have been ongoing for several months, and covered by multiple reliable sources. The two are not comparable. Also, wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not "social media trolls and armchair activists". That being said, if you can find any reliable sources that show the criticism agains Gina Carano comes from internet trolls, feel free to find it and add it. So far, the only people I saw making this claim are Ethan Van Sciver and his Comicsgate crew. I hope you understand why they are not considered reliable sources. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

People on social media purporting to be fans of the show tried to cancel Dawson based on nothing more than entirely unfounded allegations. People on social media have been trying to cancel Carano based on dim tweets she has made. It might be a reason to lose some respect for Carano but it is crazy that people think it is appropriate to try and get her fired over her lack of savvy.

Yes Misplaced Pages relies on WP:RS reliable sources to WP:VERIFY and help show that things are WP:NOTABLE but Misplaced Pages is still under no obligation to give WP:UNDUE weight to the latest social media kerfuffle. The reliable sources are talking about criticism (from unreliable anonymous sources) on social media. Twitter types are blinkered and think the world revolves around other people like them, but it really is not important it's been blown out of all proportion. Some people got annoyed on Twitter but this campaign to cancel Carano hasn't gained any traction, it is not as significant as you seem to think it is. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The controversy has been deemed notable enough to be included by regular contributors who's word has more weight than either of ours. The consensus to include it is clear and you have failed to provide a single convincing counterargument. With Rosario Dawson, there was no controversy. The controversy surrounding Gina Carano has been going on for months and was covered by reliable sources. Based on that, it was deemed worthy of inclusion. What you believe about her critics is unimportant. Misplaced Pages reports on what reliable sources say.

Also, it looks like while you are here arguing for the removal of the criticism section, using talking points taken word for word from comicsgate youtubers, other anonymous users have been deleting entire sections and references, and adding uncited claims. I see signs of a coordinated effort here. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• @DabYeetDab, 2604:2d80:6d80:a900:ad46:d022:bb01:1c5, 74.98.217.210, and 2603:8080:3a05:5900:140a:ff90:321f:ebee: There is an ongoing RfC about this section. Please stop removing it. Edit-warring won't get anything done and just wastes everyone's time, including yours. If you think the content is undue, say why here but don't remove the content until we reach a consensus. This is the whole point of RfCs. Additionally, a lot of the conversation here has focused on our own interpretations of what counts as legitimate criticism versus abuse, or concerns about the inclusion of criticism of her being unencyclopedic. Our job, and our only job, is to read the reliable sources about the subject and summarize what they say in this article. Each aspect and viewpoint in the article should be represented proportionally to its coverage in reliable sources. If someone has a Twitter dispute and that dispute is covered extensively in reliable sources, then we must include it in the article. This controversy seems to be one of the most notable things to happen to Carano, and just because we think it's petty or transient or meaningless doesn't mean we exclude it from the article. Every editor has their own POV, that's inevitable. We must prevent our own POVs from spilling over into the article, and the way we do that is by simply relating the reliable sources. Srey Sros 20:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Her blocking Twitter accounts is not needed o n here. If I was to put "Stop animal abuse" in my Twitter bio, then go on a celebrities' Twitter account and spam them hurtful things, and I was blocked, does tat mean that celebrity then supports animal abuse. Likewise, if a Twitter user puts "BLM" in their bio then spam's Gina's comments, and she blocks them, that doesn't make her racist. If someone is going to then accuse her of racism because of that, they are clearly not being neutral or objective, and are trying to point blame and negativity. Therefore, whatever source is saying that, should not be used on this article because it very clearly has a negative bias. Likewise, Gina opening a Parler account, where all she did was repost her Tweets, is nothing "controversial" or notable. A source saying that it is, is also clearly trying to push an agenda because they have a negative bias. In itself, opening a Parler account, objectively just another social media platform, and doing nothing worthy of note with it, and only using it to repost Tweets, is extremely biased. Lots of celebrities will repost Tweets to places like Instagram. Is THAT controversial? No, because there is nothing wrong or bad about it. That is all Gina did with her account on Parler, so to put that in this section also carries over the negative bias form the source and puts it on this article.DabYeetDab (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, Misplaced Pages goes by reliable sources. Not your personal feelings. The consensus on keeping the criticism section is clear. You're the only one going against it and you jave yet to give one objective reason why people should listen to you. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So... a lot happened over the weekend, I take it? Looking back, I'd say "our own POV spilling over into the article" is a generous way of describing it. To me, this looks more like fans of Gina Carano taking it on themselves to defend her honor, rather than any genuine attempt at building an encyclopedia. 213.233.88.151 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Neutral on whether the information should be included, but (2) if it is included, not in a "Criticism" section. See the points made in the essay WP:CSECTION. I would suggest combining the "Criticism" and "Accolades" sections as "Reception". —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 'Thoughts: I was asked, as a contributor to this section who pared down the wildly POV essay into something approaching neutral, to weigh in. For the sake of collegiality, I'm responding. I've been off Misplaced Pages since Jan. 20 because it's hard for me after brutal biographical discussions elsewhere on Misplaced Pages by people who aren't journalists/biographers, aren't trained in writing bios, and are "going by their gut" to reach conclusions any professional would find objectively wrong. I don't mean to drag on anyone here — the people here seem intelligent and are trying hard, politely and in good faith to reach consensus — but as someone who writes this kind of stuff professionally, biographical discussions on Misplaced Pages have gotten dispiriting and depressing.

'Anyway, now that I've settled the acid in my stomach by venting a little, I'm not going to take a side but simply offer my professional view. Generally, the political opinions or medical opinions or quantum-physics opinions of an actor/athlete are not notable. But when reaction to such opinions reaches a critical mass in the media, resulting in a significant number of major outlets covering it, then the reaction to the opinions, not so much the opinions themselves, becomes notable. We need to ask ourselves if that critical mass has been reached. Has the criticism been written about in the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter? Then the criticism is notable. If it's just niche publications the general public doesn't see, I would say it's less notable or non-notable.

Conversely: People in the public eye, including actors/athletes, do have the power to help shape public opinion. I think of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when a portion of the public was vicious toward suffers. Actress Elizabeth Taylor showed compassion to Ryan White, a kid who contracted AIDS through a transfusion, IIRC, and that helped steer the national conversation to a more humane place. So we can't immediately write such things off as, "Oh, it's just an actor's opinion." What is the reaction to that opinion? These are all things to consider.

I'm logging out and leaving Misplaced Pages again for a while, so I won't see any responses to this. As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you want.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a developing topic; in a few more days this RfC may be moot due to expanding coverage. However, I think we should certainly avoid "Controversy" or "Criticism" headings per WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Such sections are invariably POV magnets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Post firing update

Now that Carano has been let go from Lucas Films, should the information be merged into the “Film and television career” section as the controversy has had a direct impact on her career?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it works reasonably well as it is and should remain a separate section for the moment. There is a certain indirect quality to the Lucasfilm statement, as if they had not kept her on any kind of contract after The Mandalorian season 2, which you might have expected if they had planned to include her in the show again or in any of the spin-offs. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Article needs protection

There have been a lot of IP users removing content, deleting and changing citations or otherwise making edits that in my opinion could be considered disruptive. Subject's fans have been organizing recently on social media. It's possible this has something to do with them. As an outsider, it shouldn't be my concern, and it's not my place to accuse anyone of disruptive editing, but it may be wise to protect this article for the time being. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Locking the article or at least setting it to flagged edits would seem wise at this point. (I expect registered user will continue to fight over the article in any case but increasing the protection level may be overdue). -- 109.76.194.53 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording re Holocaust comments

@Jake453: I'm not sure why you reverted () my edit changing the wording about her recent comments about the Holocaust. You didn't leave an edit summary, which is generally good practice when dealing with non-vandalism edits. I see you earlier altered the text of the article to say that the post was made on Twitter, is that the issue you had with my wording? The cited article says she received criticism on Twitter, but the first paragraph says she garnered backlash on social media Wednesday after sharing several controversial posts on her Instagram story. Srey Sros 22:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence too, I don't think the wording Jake used was clear enough. I don't think summarizing it all as Republicanism and the Holocaust is in any way clear enough.

What I do think is clear is that Gina Carano would be better off if she hired a publicist and didn't comment on social media, and although I was skeptical before I think this also makes it clear now that this must be included in the article. I do think the change of section heading was an improvement. -- 109.76.194.53 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the current wording is misleading, and there seems to be an attempt at whitewashing her words under the guise of neutrality. "Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing political intolerance to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany" does not accurately reflect the content of what she said. She equated republicans, and specifically Trumpists being called out for their conspiracy theories and hateful, divisive rethoric with the persecution of jews during the holocaust. There is no such thing as "political intolerance" here. And let's stop pretending that this isn't antisemitic. It is. It's what it's being called, and wikipedia should not be muddying the waters around it for the sake of false balance. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Variety magazine quotes the since deleted instagram post from Carano

You can suggest a better summary if you don't like the current one. The article is locked, so propose a specific edit of the form change "X" to "Y" and add the tag {{Edit semi-protected}} with your comment. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The current summary makes it look like she's making some general statement, but her comment is just a generic alt right talking point. Nobody is being "hated for their political views". That's a very dishonest way of framing criticism you're getting for spreading misinformation, promoting q-anon conspiracy theories, supporting the terrorist attack on the capitol comparing Black Lives Matter to nazis and calling them "tyrants and bullies", and spreading straight up unscientific and dangerous nonsense regarding covid lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccines. She was criticised for this, and she compared the criticism she was getting to the greatest atrocity in all of history. She isn't condemning "political intolerance" (which doesn't actually exist outside of alt right echochambers - it is the right who's willing to pay the bail of a murderer like Kyle Rittenhouse because he killed people who don't align with them politically), she's pushing right wing victim-mentality, by dishonestly claiming that free speach means the hateful rethoric of the far right should be uncritically allowed.

My recommended summary would go like this: "She made a poat on Instagram comparing criticism of republicans to the persecution of jews in nazi germany. The since deleted social media post was widely criticised for being tonedeaf and having antisemitic undertones." 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not following the specified format if you are serious about making a real edit request. The source did not actually mention "republicans", and it did not state that her comments were "tonedeaf" so if you want to add anything like that you will need to find reliable sources that say it first, you can't just add your own words. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@109.77.207.102 Agreed. Original text does not mention Republicans and it is improper to editorialize the language like that. MarioCerame (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

And let's stop pretending that this isn't antisemitic. If the above is the quote under discussion, I don't believe it's coherent to call that anti-semitic. Clueless or tonedeaf, sure, but an anti-semite would not hold up the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany as a bad thing, but as a good thing. Let's look at what the ADL defines as anti-Semitism: The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. ] By this light "We should not treat conservatives the way that Nazis treated Jews" (if that's even a fair paraphrase) is an hyperbolic and insensitive statement, but not anti-semitic. That said, it is indisputable that some have interpreted this as anti-Semitism, and that might or might not be WP:DUE, but Misplaced Pages must not take the stance that Carano or the statement is an example of anti-Semitism Rendall (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned that the post she shared came from the The Warrior Priest Podcast Instagram or that it contained the song "Nazi Punks Fuck Off"?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.233.120 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Instagram post

I think the best way to handle this is to give the quote Variety uses in her Instagram post - avoids having to discuss the description of it, and it is no so long that it raises copyright issues etc. Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The criticism section was nothing but walls of direct quotes from her, until another IP user trimmed them down to the essentials. And I agree with the reasoning they gave. There is no reason to include the entire quote when the the core of her argument is very simple. She's comparing the scrutiny republicans, and specifically trumpists like her are getting for their behavior on social media (and in real life - see also, January 6 terror attack on the US capitol), to the dehumanization of jews proceeding the holocaust. That is what her argument is. The rest are just ww2 history, and doesn't change the essence of her comment. A comment which by the way is thoroughly ridiculous, insulting, and yes, antisemitic. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I maintain that the inclusion of the whole quote is unnecessary and doesn't add any new information. Just makes the paragraph longer and harder to read. In addition, this summary makes absolutely no sense: "comparing political polarization in the US to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany". How do you compare political polarization to the holocaust? She was comparing the backlash to her behavior on social media to the holocaust, not "political polarization". This wording is neither impartial, nor encyclopedic. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost every quality RS (from the WPO to the NYT) on this event includes that specific quote from her Instagram, so it is notable and central to the event. Anybody reading this section about this major event in her career will look for the quote. It also resolves issues around having to introduce or explain it, which can introduce POV. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the entire quote is WP:UNDUE. Just being included in news stories doesn't make it encyclopedic. Articles are based on evaluation, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation by published sources, not indiscriminate quotations. As to what Carano really meant, the sources just say: " implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" (WaPo); "One of the posts she shared compared today’s divided political climate to Nazi Germany" (Variety); "The actress shared a TikTok post comparing the current divided political climate in the U.S. to Nazi Germany" (Deadline). Any further interpretations need a published, reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (edit: see also Reuters and NPR for similarly terse summaries. 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC))

It is hard to see it being UNDUE when it is the specific sentence that created the event, which is quite a material event in her career ? Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OK then, find a published source that says so. Most of the cited sources refer to a whole series of controversial remarks. The Lucasfilm statement doesn't single out just one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The specific tweet is reprinted by Washington Post, Reuters, Rolling Stone, The Guardian (I could go on and list off the long list of WP:RS/P sources who felt it important to specifically re-print the tweet)? I can't see how a reader of her BLP would not want to read the specific sentence which has caused so much drama in her career? Britishfinance (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's more than one sentence. We don't repeat every newsworthy detail because Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. See additional reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Use the quote itself if it's going to be discussed at all. Any other action is original research. Some readers will interpret it as anti-semitic, others will not. It's not for Misplaced Pages or its editors to control how it is taken. Just the facts, please. Objectivity is the standard, not one or the other interpretation. Rendall (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Sangdeboeuf here. "Carano implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" (WaPo) - that is an accurate and properly cited summary of what she said. Everything else is filler. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a journalist's interpretation of what she said. However, the quote plus "...the statement was interpreted as implying that conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" would be an accurate and properly cited summary of the journalist's view. I would accept that as objective.

As a minor point, the controversy is not over her saying this, but over her sharing an Instagram story written by someone else.  Rendall (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources say something similar: " compared being conservative today to being Jewish in Nazi Germany" (Global News); "implying that being a Republican today is like being Jewish during the Holocaust" (Hollywood Reporter); "comparing the persecution of American conservatives to the Nazi persecution of Jews" (Daily Beast); "posted on Instagram that being a Republican in America is pretty much the same thing as being a Jew in Nazi Germany" (TheWrap). Adding weasel words isn't going to clarify anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) edited 06:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure really, the quote highlights what was said, there are of course some who probably feel it provides a rationale, or context, for her position, but in actuality it serves to concretize the idiocy of her statement, while demonstrating her ignorance of history. Saying she "compared being conservative today to being Jewish in Nazi Germany" kinda misses the mark. Acousmana (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How does it miss the mark? It accurately conveys the idiocy of her statement and demonstrates her ignorance of history. It's an accurate summary of her statement and it speaks for itself. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words Could you be more specific? I don't understand how those are weasel words. To be clear, I'm proposing that the statement should accurately separate the quote from it interpretation. It sounds like you want to say in effect "Carano implied that conservatives are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany", which IMO is editorializing. It is an important interpretation to understanding the conflict, which is what matters, ultimately, I agree. But "Carano said x, interpreted by many sources to mean A" is fair and accurate. What is your objection to including the actual quote with the interpretation? Rendall (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"The statement was interpreted as" - those weasel words. The statement wasn't "interpreted as" saying what it did. The reliable sources directly state that that is what her statement is, and that's what we go by. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTE ("It is generally recommended that content be written in Misplaced Pages editors' own words") and WP:IMPARTIAL ("Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute"). There are few more heated arguments than comparing your opponents to the Nazis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words attempt to convey the impression of authority where none exist, as stated in the link.  If you show how quoting Carano followed by a cited, prominent interpretation of that quote is a weasel word, I'll listen.

Moving on to the discussion at at hand, I oppose any wording of the sort "Carano implied...". Wiktionary thereby engages in the controversy, not simply describing it as per policy. Principled people can disagree on the interpretation of that statement, but inserting a single interpretation in the article is editorializing. Eugene Volokh, for instance, could read that wording and disagree that it implies any such thing: ] Rendall (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good. Misplaced Pages doesn't comment on what the reliable sources say, but simply pass on the message. We are not writing an essay on how different reliable sources interpreted her words. The article needs to DIRECTLY convey what the reliable sources say, then make proper attributions, without bloating the article with filler text that only serves to muddy the waters around what is a clear-cut black and white issue. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Britishfinance, Rendall, Acousmana, and myself all favor inclusion of the quote, with only Sangdeboeuf and the single-purpose 47.x IP against. Sangdeboeuf does not get to WP:FILIBUSTER this either on this talk page or with their tag they keep edit warring in. WP:QUOTEFARM does not apply to one encyclopedic quote. MOS:QUOTE does not forbid quotes and is not a reason not to do so. It has the support of sources. I am not debating you, Sangdeboeuf. Start an RfC if you really think all 4 of us are wrong about content policy and would be overturned by an RfC. Crossroads 18:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it is appropriate to use the quote of the tweet for this case purely because it would probably diminish edit warring of any pov paraphrasing of the tweet. Vaselineeeeeeee 19:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's been any edit-warring over the content of the tweet post itself. And the community has ways of dealing with disruption that don't entail punting the question to our readers as if to say, "Oh well, figure it out yourselves". All we need to do is summarize the sources analyzing the tweet post (see below). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC) edited 14:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a good rationale. Vaselineeeeeeee 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

+1 The quote is only one line, and is arguably going to have a very material impact on her career (and life); makes no sense not to include it, and then waste further time debating how to describe it.  WP:UNDUE cannot apply to a quote that has had so much impact on a subject's career (i.e. if it is not DUE, what is?). Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

DUE doesn't mean anything you are I might personally think is important. It means proportionately representing the viewpoints of published sources. A verbatim quote doesn't really count as a "viewpoint" of the person quoting it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

But when a list of WP:RS/P sources (per my reply earlier with Reuters, WPO, Guardian), reprint the quote as being important to understand the event, then we have to go by what sources say? I can't see how UNDUE would apply? Britishfinance (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

See my reply below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thanks for confirming you have no interest in building consensus and are simply here to stonewall changes you don't like. I never said MOS:QUOTE "forbade" quotes, and lots of things have "the support of the sources" without belonging in an encyclopedia; should we quote all her social media posts in full that have made the news? Aside from that, your argument basically boils down to "Nuh-uh". Feel free to respond to the actual substance of any arguments you disagree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And I'll definitely be remembering this personal attack and misrepresentation, given that I am supporting the consensus of other editors. As for MOS:QUOTE, you brought it up as a reason not to have a quote in your 14:44, 12 February 2021 post. As for argumentation, I am not obligated to WP:SATISFY you. Crossroads 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and even cited the exact sentence where it says we should generally paraphrase material rather than quoting it directly. Consensus is not a vote. If you have any policy-based reasons for including the quote, as opposed to mere wikilawyering about what is and isn't "forbidden", this would be the place to say so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And I've argued with you enough to know not get into these further; WP:SATISFY applies. Crossroads 23:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I've seen, sources are split on whether Carano compared "being conservative/Republican" or "the US political climate/polarization" to being Jewish in Nazi Germany. The New York Times says Carano "compared 'hating someone for their political views' to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust". Carano didn't explicitly mention conservatism, even if it's obvious what she meant. The Washington Post elaborates: "As Carano has been an outspoken supporter of former president Donald Trump and has often complained about the backlash against her conservative opinions, many critics took the post as her equating Republicans with Jews in Nazi Germany."Using these two reliable sources as a foundation, we can convey what the post was about and the reaction to it without needing to quote the entire thing. (@Rendall: the weasel words in question are "was interpreted by", as explained already.) Here's my proposed compromise:

The hashtag #FireGinaCarano resurfaced in February 2021 after Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing "hating someone for their political views" to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust. Many critics interpreted the post as comparing American conservatives with Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them ...

Thoughts? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I would support that as it is to the point, succint, and seems to offer a fair summary without being overly bloated. Vaselineeeeeeee 21:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Your own statement says the NYT and other sources compared it to political polarization instead, and that sources are "split"; but then you focus on one interpretation in the proposal. The quote is still pivotal and something readers will want to know; and better than a single interpretation. A group of 4 or 5 editors is also not obligated to "compromise" with one if WP:DROPTHESTICK applies. We'll see what other editors think. Crossroads 22:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The proposal actually contains both of the common interpretations of Carano's post. They are simply framed differently, according to the two most reputable sources available, namely the NYT and WaPo. Nor is it "4 or 5" against one at this stage. I think it is you who needs to drop the stick. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am rather indifferent on the inclusion of the full quote (but perhaps lean on the summary version as the full quote is admittedly a little long and can be seen in the sources), but I think something needs to change in the current wording on the article. As Sangdeboeuf pointed out, Carano made no reference to conservatives in her post, so the current wording "...after Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany" is a little misleading. Vaselineeeeeeee 22:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason to avoid quoting it. I don't have a stick since I am explicitly wanting other editors' input rather than insisting on problem-tagging or demanding others satisfy me with their arguments. Maybe the new proposal will be accepted, maybe not. Crossroads 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on those favoring inclusion. If you want the post to be quoted in full in the article, it is on you to satisfactorily provide reasons for it. "I don't see why not" is not how we write an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I said why above; don't act like my last post was the only one. Crossroads 23:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The quote is still pivotal and something readers will want to know; and better than a single interpretation ... Crossroads -talk- 22:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC) – policy explicitly contradicts this: per WP:V, "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible". Per MOS:QUOTE, "It is generally recommended that content be written in Misplaced Pages editors' own words". Per WP:NOR, "Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources ... A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." For our purposes the quote is a primary source, while the analysis of the NYT and WaPo are secondary. We rely on sources to tell us what's "pivotal", and it's way too soon to know that this one deleted Instagram re-post from a different account is going to be of lasting significance. Readers who are just dying to see the full post can do so by looking at the sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Misusing policy. V and NOR don't forbid an encyclopedic MOS:QUOTE. V isn't talking about quotes for quotes' sake; it's talking about ordinary referencing. NOR does not apply because this quote appears in the secondary sources and is sourced to such and presented in them, whose example we can follow. The quote in such a source is not a primary source. Do try to stop WP:WIKILAWYERING by quoting policies for things they obviously do not apply to. Crossroads 01:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The definition of a secondary source is that it provides analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. A direct quotation is none of those things. It is you who are Wikilawyering by harping on what is and isn't technically "forbidden" by policy. Saying the quote is "encyclopedic" over and over, without giving policy-based reasons for it, doesn't make it so. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, which is why we don't follow news sources in everything we do. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A quotation is not a source; a source is what the quotation is from. The news media source does indeed engage in analysis, etc. Stop repeating your false "no policy-based reasons" claim, and stop with the WP:LASTWORD-ism. Crossroads 02:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course the source contains analysis, as I've already stated. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that a source engaging in some analysis and evaluation automatically makes everything else in the source fair game for inclusion? Because that's certainly not what WP:SECONDARY is about. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For a similar incident regarding some social-media posts that attracted intense controversy, see Talk:Sarah Jeong/Archive 7 § Proposal to include quotes in the article. Consensus was that quoting the posts verbatim went against a range of principles outlined under WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:COATRACK, and WP:UNDUE, despite the fact that the media widely quoted them. The same reasoning applies here, I think. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why both interpretations need to be included. The way I see it, the two interpretations are how Gina Carano's damage control brigade is framing it, versus how everybody else understands it, including reliable sources like WaPo. One of these is not like the other and should not be treated on the same level. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No two situations are alike. Crossroads 23:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. So far no policy-based reasons for inclusion have been put forward that I can see. Waving away all comparisons to other articles is not helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Per my reply earlier in this section, we have a long list of WP:RS/P sources who specifically reprint her quote in covering the event. We have to go by what the highest quality sources say and chronicle that. Given the volume of high-quality sources reprinting the tweet, I can't see how UNDUE applies? Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a diary, chronicle, or newspaper. Our job is to summarize the sources, not just pick out the juicy bits verbatim (see WP:IMPARTIAL). We already have the analysis and interpretation of reliable sources to go on, and more recent sources are already moving past the immediate details of the controversy; Reuters for instance gives the event a single summary sentence: "Walt Disney Co's Lucasfilm studio said on Wednesday it would no longer work with her after she posted on Instagram drawing parallels between persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany and the treatment of people who hold conservative political views today." Something like that should be sufficient. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a specific tweet, reprinted by a long list of WP:RS/P sources around the world (and led to over 600,000 hits on her Misplaced Pages article alone), and has had a major effect on her career (dropped by the studios and agency). It can't be categorized as NOTNEWS, or selective picking of information. Wanting to replace the specific tweet (which the many WP:RS/P sources reprint), with an interpretation from an individual source (as you mention above) on the tweet, also makes no sense, and will only open further extended issues over POV and selection of which individual source to use? I could not support that I'm afraid. Britishfinance (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that you or I might personally think it's significant is beside the point. I never said we can only use one source. As the story develops I'm sure there will be more we can draw on. We have policies on which sources to use. The fact that users may disagree on which ones are best is normal and to be expected. It's not a reason to bypass the normal process of summarizing and contextualizing that makes an encyclopedia different from a newspaper. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I have listed off several WP:RS/P sources (and could probably give circa. twenty, just looking at a google search of the sentence), that have all decided to reprint the sentence in full as they consider it notable for their readers; what we do is chronicle what they do? To decide not to reprint it is a personal view, which I think is in the minority on this thread. However, I could be wrong, so perhaps consider running an RfC to resolve? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past one another. I haven't disputed that the post was widely quoted. It obviously was. But Misplaced Pages is not a news aggregator; we don't simply "chronicle" what newspapers print. Today's weather was also printed widely; that doesn't make it encyclopedic information. Editorial opinions about what is and isn't encyclopedic may indeed be personal interpretations of WP policy, but are not equivalent to personal opinions about the event itself or its real-world impact. Finally, consensus is not decided by majority vote. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

just use a f***ing to supply the full quote, and keep precious paraphrased version in the text, problem solved. Acousmana (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Victor, Daniel (11 February 2021). "Gina Carano Is Off 'Mandalorian' Amid Backlash Over Instagram Post". The New York Times.
2. "Gina Carano fired from 'Mandalorian' after social media post". PBS NewsHour. Associated Press. 11 February 2021.
3. Moreau, Jordan (10 February 2021). "'Mandalorian' Star Gina Carano Under Fire for Controversial Social Media Posts". Variety.
4. Bella, Timothy (February 11, 2021). "Gina Carano is off 'The Mandalorian' over 'abhorrent and unacceptable' social media posts, Lucasfilm says". The Washington Post.
5. Parker, Ryan; Couch, Aaron (February 10, 2021). "'The Mandalorian' Star Gina Carano Fired Amid Social Media Controversy". The Hollywood Reporter.
6. Elliott, Josh K. (February 11, 2021). "Disney fires Gina Carano from 'Mandalorian' over Holocaust remark". Global News.

Parler

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Parler is not "far-right." it is a free-speech platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:5C27:756F:E0FC:691A (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but you will need to restate your point more clearly if you want it to stick. Some editors are unwilling to separate the platform from the content that often appears on the platform. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Please note that my comment above actually made sense before Special:Contributions/207.255.20.39 vandalized the comment from Special:Contributions/2601:701:C002:FD40:5C27:756F:E0FC:691A changing the meaning of the original comment . It is unfortunate that User:RandomCanadian locked the section without first reverting the vandalism.
If you examine the edit history, and even comments on this talk page you can see it has been an issue recently and there has been back and forth over this for a while. The article was only recently restored to a neutral wording ("social media platform") but there are people who keep forgetting that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and are not even trying to be neutral and objective. Anyway the article has since been locked which hopefully should calm things down a bit. 109.77.207.102 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to the initial comment by another user. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)}

I don't understand why this discussion was closed. Parler being a far-right platform is key to the controversy. Just saying she opened a parler account without clarifying what parler is is missing the whole point. Calling parler what it is, a far right platform is neutral and encyclopedic. Obscuring that fact leaves out key information. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the Misplaced Pages page for Parler. Look at how it is described firstly as "a social network service". Then after that it says "Posts on the service often contain far-right content" but to be objective those two things have to be stated separately and you do not get to summarize and call directly call it a "far right social media platform" because that fails WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages is is an encyclopedia and it tries to be objective, so it must separate the social media platform from some of the subject matter that happens on it. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the article. The first thing that sticks out is the infobox saying "Part of a series on Antisemitism". Wether Parler is far right or not, has been a subject of lengthy debates. Regardless of what reliable sources say, one has to be either blind or willfully ignorant to read that article and not come away with the impression that Parler is a far-right social media platform. The whole reason it was created, like Gab or BitChute, is to host far-right content that would get anyone banned from any mainstream website that gives a damn about it's public image. Anyone who's too right wing for Twitter (a website that took over four years to ban Donald Trump despite his flagrant violations of their TOS) or Youtube (a website that still hosts and promotes alt right content and creators, in spite of many years of calls from journalists like Carlos Maza to fix this problem) is too far off the deep end. But none of that is relevant. This article is about Gina Carano. The article on Parler does a good job explaining that the website is a far right cesspool. The fact that it doesn't state it explicitly, because reliable sources on Parler avoid being too direct, is a technicality. The controversy section for Gina Carano on the other hand, doesn't have to split hairs. Gina Carano was criticised for opening an account on the far-right platform Parler. That is what she did, that is what she was criticised for that that is what the article needs to reflect. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone has since changed the text to from "social media platform" to read "conservative social media platform". Again this fails WP:NPOV, a platform does not have any inherent political alignment is merely a platform. A car could be extremely popular with conservatives but that wouldn't necessarily make it a far-right automobile. The nature of the platform and the comments and users are separate things. It shows a lack of objectivity to conflate the two separate matters. -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means we follow the majority of published, reliable sources. If they call Parler "conservative", "right-wing", "a cheese sandwich", etc., then that's what we say too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

12 February 2021

Parler is a far-right platform. Not a "conservative" one. Also, "hatred levied at american conservatives"? Since when did Hannity become a wikipedia contributor? 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The disputed wording has been removed. I'm not sure any WP:RS describe the platform itself as "far-right" though, just that it's intended as a safe space for right-wing content. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

February 11, 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article states that Carano was dropped by UTA/United Talent Agency. The reference immediately following this statement is an article from The Hollywood Reporter about Lucasfilm, it does not mention UTA. Please add the following reference instead, specifically:

Replace X "droppped by UTA." with "Y"
droppped by ].<ref>{{cite web |date=11 February 2021 |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title='The Mandalorian' Actress Gina Carano & UTA Part Ways In Wake Of Social Media Controversy |url=https://deadline.com/2021/02/the-mandalorian-actress-gina-carano-agency-uta-part-ways-in-wake-of-social-media-controversy-1234691964/ |website=Deadline }}</ref>

I leave it up to the editor to move (or remove) the Hollywood Reporter reference to a more suitable place, or not. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done. The Hollywood Reporter ref says Carano has also been dropped as a client by UTA, an agency spokesperson confirms.? Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference does not mention UTA. The article was changed since I made my request. -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Fired"

The statement by Lucasfilm quoted in most of the recent news coverage (such as CBS) says that Carano "is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future". While a number of sources interpret this as Carano being "fired" etc., a different article on Deadline says "Carano wasn’t attached to continue" with the series, and that there was no "deal" in place last fall for Carano to stay on. It's not clear how someone can be "fired" from a company they're not actually working for. I think it's best to err on the side of caution and simply report Lucasfilm's statement as saying Carano "would not return" to the role of Cara Dune pending more authoritative sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also in Vanity Fair: "Since Carano is not currently filming anything related to Star Wars, she was not technically fired" and "the Nazi post, which seems to have led Lucasfilm to end its connection with her" (emphasis added). We should avoid implying anything more definite unless a source says so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"We should avoid implying anything more definite unless a source says so."

"While a number of sources interpret this as Carano being 'fired'..."

I don't see the problem. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, most of them only say that in their headlines – which are written by copy editors, not journalists. It looks like the copy editors got this one wrong. Besides, it simply doesn't make sense in light of the actual statement by Lucasfilm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Find one official statement from a company that literally states an employee of theirs was "fired". Granted, it wouldn't surprise me if they fired her sooner and just now confirmed it to distance themselves from her (Redacted). Considering the stuff she's been saying for the past six months, including (Redacted), which isn't even mentioned here, despite being covered by reliable sources, it's anyone's guess why she wasn't let go sooner. Talk about privilege. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion, and I remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so I've redacted some of your more inflammatory statements about Carano.Returning to the topic, Carano was not actually employed by Lucasfilm at the time of the "firing", as indicated by the two sources I quoted above and strongly implied by Lucasfilm itself. Therefore it's best to proceed with caution and wait for more retrospective analysis and interpretation before we say she was "fired" or "dropped" by Lucasfilm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. It was my impression that what you call "inflammatory comments" have actually been covered by reliable sources. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I note that the two most reputable sources cited so far, The Washington Post and The New York Times, don't explicitly say she was fired. The WaPo article says the company "sever ties with Carano ... after widespread backlash" to her Instagram post, but that's somewhat more vague than saying she was "fired". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

I'd like to remind everyone, fans and detractors alike, that objectivity is the guiding principle and you, yes, you reading this right now, are not objective. What actually happened is paramount, and any other interpretation, particularly weaving it into more global trends or situating it into any political framework, is original research and is forbidden. Do not allow any editor to push a political or social interpretation into the article even - especially- if you agree with it Rendall (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I include myself in those of us who are not objective. Even so, it is to be striven for, not subverted. Rendall (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That is an unfairly broad generalization. The only people here are gina carano fans pushing their political interpretation, and everybody else, striving for objectivity. The both-sidesism is uncalled for. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. If you're being objective, then this reminder was not directed at you. You however might want to introspect about why you metaphorically stood up, waved your hands and said "that's me and how dare you", but I'll leave that to you.

However, if you're interpreting editors who propose edits that are neutral or nuanced, or want to eliminate interpretation, as only "Carano fans", this is exactly the problem this is meant to address.

Fan or detractors, objectivity is the standard. Speaking personally, I am a fan of "holding fast to standards" as should you be. "Fans of Carano" (and detractors) will degrade this article only to the extent that they allow their opinions to infect the article Rendall (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not "stand up, wave my hands and yell 'that's me and how dare you'". Also, i made no such interpretation. For days, if not weeks, Carano fans have been whitewashing facts and removing properly sourced content, while leaving long winded diatribes about how it's all lies and slander, outright ignoring any discussion on the topic. Some have even vandalized the talk page. There are no "detractors" of carano degrading this article. All such degrading has come exclusively from her fans. Your wording makes it sound like there are two sides pushing their own political narrative and ruining the neutrality of the article, when in reality, there is only one side: the people running damage control for her. Which is not surprising, because every alt-right talking head on the internet is now rallying behind her. They are the problem. Everybody else is trying their best doing what you're telling us: striving for objectivity. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The standard is neutral point of view, which means representing the views of reliable sources with due weight. You may be confusing objectivity with impartiality, which is part of NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. I would argue as an aside that impartiality and neutrality require some yardstick to measure against, but I see your point. Rendall (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a yardstick. It's called "reliable sources". 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

46.97.170.253, it was an aside, but citing "reliability" is punting the question. Reliable to do what, exactly? Answer: to describes facts accurately and fairly without editorializing. In a word, objectivity Rendall (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages already has strict criteria for which sources are considered reliable. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Jewish bankers tweet

@Vaselineeeeeeee: What is your issue with this addition to Gina Carano § Social media and political views? How would you improve it?

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." In the image, the Jews sit in front of an Illuminati pyramid; a second pyramid sits on the board, surrounded by gold, cash, a skull, Saturn, and the symbols of various trades, including medicine and law. Like the similar Freedom for Humanity mural, the image has been condemned as anti-semitic. Some have speculated that she did not know the men pictured were Jews.

Gershonmk (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gershonmk. I don't think this is WP:DUE - we don't want this section to become an overly detailed collection of every one of her tweets. Let's see what others think as well. Vaselineeeeeeee 20:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, understood, I disagree. Unfortunately even reliable sources have been forced to speculate because of Disney's vague statement, but this was likely part of the reason for her exit and has been covered by mainstream outlets. I'll ping Sangdeboeuf, and Rendall, and Acousmana, who have been most actively contributing here. What do other editors think? Gershonmk (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not exactly an editor, but Sangdeboeuf most likely already knows my opinion, which i cannot post without violating BLP. Suffice to say, this news does not surprise me at all. The speculations are probably more due to the lack of concrete evidence and the journalists trying to avoid a defamation suit (which at worst would waste their time), than any real ambiguity. "Anti-globalism" and "anti-elitism" are well documented antisemitic dogwhistles of the alt right, and feigning ignorance is a weak defense. If enough reliable sources cover this, maybe even the ADL gets involved, then I say it needs to be mentioned. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the given sources, I do not think this is DUE. Ref #2 has nothing to do with Carano, so that part is improper synthesis. Newsweek is not the quality publication it once was, and Reason is mostly commentary with a libertarian slant. (I'm surprised to see it listed as generally reliable at Perennial sources; personally I would only use it with attribution – and The Volokh Conspiracy is evidently a blog with no oversight by the magazine's editors.) Given that this is a BLP, I would err on the side of caution and wait for more authoritative sources. Hollywood drama is generally of little real-world import; there's no deadline, and no need to include every newsworthy item. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC))

That is a disappointing tweet by Carano. I agree with the others that it does not yet rise to the level of WP:DUE. Perhaps with more sources. Rendall (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to my fellow editors for weighing in. I've inserted a pared down version in accordance with the critiques here, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. Gershonmk (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. There's no basis in either policy or this discussion to include any material based on a self-published blog such as Volokh's. All the users here besides yourself said the material was WP:UNDUE – that means it should not be included without substantially more support from reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf There's definitely no call for rudeness. Reading Volokh's section on editorial policy, I agree. I don't know the process but we should try to get a perennial sources note on this. At the same time, reconsidering the reliability of sources, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the Newsweek article and we are told to evaluate case-by-case. A second possible source is this which is self-published but by an editor at Reason and subject matter expert. It doesn't seem that any reliable source has brought up the mural, which is a shame. I didn't mean to get over my skis on this; here's another proposed edit:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Some have speculated that she did not know the men pictured were Jews.

Gershonmk (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We have much stronger sourcing requirements for biographies of living persons. Not only is a tweet not a reliable source here, the statement "Some have speculated..." is pure original research. Who speculated? The author? Someone the author is referencing? (See also Unsupported attributions.) If this material is DUE, then more mainstream sources besides Newsweek will have covered it, which is why I suggested we wait for "more authoritative sources". See WP:REDFLAG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf I'll say again: a confrontational tone runs counter to our shared goals on Misplaced Pages. Self-published sources can be reliable sources when they are by recognized subject matter experts. I accept your critique of the second line, which better reflected the content of the Volokh piece. Another round:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism on the basis of this tweet but that most people would not have realized it was anti-Semitic.

Gershonmk (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I seem confrontational, but I really don't think you're listening. BLP policy is clear: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." I don't see anything to suggest that Robby Soave is an expert on anything to do with anti-Semitism, but it doesn't matter; the "subject matter" here is Carano herself, and his self-published opinion is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think I understand our issue. This source makes no claims about the BLP and is not represented to. Soave is an expert on Internet controversy, writing and editing many (hundreds?) of reliable articles for a reliable source. His comments here refer to the controversy, about which they are reliable. Gershonmk (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed text mentions Carano by name. That is a statement about a living person. It mentions her in connection with a tweet by a different person. A tweet by a different person is not a usable source in a BLP. Even in an article about an "Internet controversy", an opinion from a single tweet would be WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

We would not cite a tweet by Soave in which he said "Gina Carano's birthday is March 5," because that claim is about the BLP. Citing a tweet by an SME for information not about her, that contains no claims about her, but only about the image and the reaction, is in absolute accordance with the BLP guidelines.

The challenge here is that including just the Newsweek article's information -- despite it making no controversial claims and, to my judgement, appearing reliable -- is a clear WP:NPOV issue because we know she has been widely defended, including by a subject matter expert. Obviously I welcome the input of other editors, as we seem to gotten a bit bogged down. For ease, I reiterate that my proposed insertion is as follows:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism on the basis of this tweet but that most people would not have realized it was anti-Semitic.

Gershonmk (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism is a claim about Carano. You seem to starting with the material you want to include, and then looking for sources to justify the inclusion. That's the opposite of due weight, which involves finding the most reliable sources first and then adding material according to the views presented therein. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Tell me what the claim about Carano is, that is contained in that sentence? It is about the group that accused her. It doesn't, for example, say that she is an antisemite, or that she isn't, both of which would be claims about a BLP subject. I didn't mean to imply that was my method; what I mean is that we have a reliable source that says it was one of her controversial posts, and a second that explains the controversy, so I'm leery to compromise and only include information from the first, because it may without the help of expert analysis lead to a particular, controversial conclusion. But I think I can clarify further:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that many had shared this tweet as evidence of anti-Semitism but that most people would not have realized the image was anti-Semitic.

Gershonmk (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If the tweet isn't about Carano, then why would we include it in her biography? It's obviously about her, in that it implicitly states she was accused of anti-Semitism. Her name is right there in the first sentence of the tweet. Whether she's the subject or object of the sentence (or of a dependent clause) makes no real difference.

I'm leery to compromise and only include information from the first – then we don't include either one, because the whole incident is WP:UNDUE, as I and several others have stated already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about the intent of the policy, and even more so about your application of the ethical obligation the policy protects, but I'll keep trying.

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an anti-semitic image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that the anti-semitism in the image would only have been obvious to the alt-right.

I have edited the claim cited to Soave further, hopefully so that no one could mistake it for a claim about Carano, and added the descriptor "anti-semitic" to the image, cited to the Newsweek article which describes it that way (to my ears on this page, uncontroversially) for context now necessary to his comment. If you don't like it and don't think it's necessary for context, I'm ok with leaving it out. I encourage you to suggest language that you think might be acceptable to both of us, as I have been (so far I have been wrong). Gershonmk (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you read my last response once more, carefully this time, because you apparently did not understand (or did not wish to understand) what I was saying, and what several others have said in this discussion already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC) edited 17:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not productive here, but I actually think we've made some progress. Rendall Acousmana Vaselineeeeeeee Crossroads Ghy201 Caius G. Morbidthoughts 73.197.233.120 Britishfinance I've been trying to address WP:UNDUE concerns about a proposed edit, which would insert the following language into the social media controversy section:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Robby Soave, a senior editor at Reason, wrote that the anti-semitism in the image would only have been obvious to the alt-right.

You guys are recent contributors, and I'd like some feedback. Some of you have already provided input but, as I say, the language has evolved dramatically to address concerns. Gershonmk (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll say what I said before. We'll include this story as soon as it goes mainstream. Until then, there's not much to do. There's plenty of stuff Carano did that are seemingly overlooked by reliable sources and this is unfortunately one of them. As support for Carano grows in the ranks of the alt right, i expect this tweet to gain more traction and THEN we can mention it. Right now your only source is one guy trying to excuse her actions. That is not up to standard. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The Newsweek article is a reliable source, which definitely does not excuse her actions. A separate reliable source defends the image Gershonmk (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek is no longer considered to be a reliable source in Misplaced Pages, see WP:RS/P. To include a controversial quote like this in a BLP you would need to have multiple quality sources, preferably WP:RS/P standard given controversial, re-printing it (i.e. they deem it sufficiently notable to chronicle it). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I thought your compromise that you added was decent but I am still leaning towards what I said before and the side of Sangdeboeuf in that the whole thing is probably UNDUE. Vaselineeeeeeee 14:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As others have stated, the WP:UNDUE concerns are that the entire incident fails to rise to the level of being noteworthy or encyclopedic. Not that this or that sentence could be phrased differently. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Principled, non-anti-semitic people could reasonably dispute that the bankers portrayed in that tweet are Jewish. I don't think it would be fair to include the description "Jewish bankers, sitting at a table", nor even "bankers". To me, I thought they were just "oligarchs" until I read about the controversy. "Carano tweeted an image of oligarchs playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." This was criticized as anti-Semitic by x, y, and z. would be fair, to my mind. Rendall (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is more information, in which Bari Weiss just went ahead and asked Carano what she meant: ] Rendall (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rendall: Weiss is definitely a subject matter expert in anti-semitism, though also a heavily opinionated one. This is an interesting source, and I think it accords with guidelines. It's also been covered here and here, Vaselineeeeeeee which are obviously opinion pieces. BTW the only ones I recognized initially are the guys in the middle: Bernie Madoff (who, come to think of it, wasn't rly a banker) and Lord Jacob Rothschild. I think Bernanke and Soros are on the right, though. A Safra? Adelson? on the far left. How about:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Carano told Bari Weiss, "I was in utter shock and confusion when certain people said it was antisemitic," and "The image for me was a statement that people need to stand together and rise up, stop being so manipulated by the powers that believe they know what's best for you and play games with our lives." She affirmed, "My heart has only ever had ultimate respect and love for the Jewish community."

Gershonmk (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Some people really need to read WP:BLPSPS once, or dare I say, twice more. Bari Weiss's blog is another self-published source and therefore not usable in a BLP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I remind you, again, about Misplaced Pages's policy against personal attacks. Not sure about policy re: the quote from Carano, but I think it's responsive to their intent to include it. Weiss is a subject-matter expert and a reliable journalist, subject I would think to a case-by-case test for bias. Gershonmk (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

And I remind you again that a person's subject-matter expertise is irrelevant. This is a biography, not an article on anti-Semitism. If you think I've got the policy wrong, the place to continue the discussion is at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in the policy which distinguishes based on the nature of the article, but rather the nature of the claim. A claim about Carano would not be acceptable in an article on anti-semitism, and a claim which is not about Carano is acceptable here; assuming from a subject-matter expert. Re: the quote, all guidelines are subject to individual exceptions, what matters is the underlying principle, and it's pretty hard to say that a friendly interview with Carano isn't OK just because Weiss moved to Substack. Gershonmk (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Substack appears to provide no editorial oversight. Weiss was an opinion columnist at WSJ and opinion editor at NYT; by all appearances this is another (self-published) opinion essay. The proposed text says, Carano tweeted an image ... Carano told Bari Weiss ... How exactly are these claims not about Carano? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The argument you keep making here doesn't convince me at all; I think other editors are going to have to pitch in. There's nothing wrong with citing experts who comment on the primary sources. The only claim about Carano made in any edition I've proposed is the most recent, which claims that she said things to the interviewer, but the interview is friendly, the content uncontroversial, and her comments invaluable to understanding the issue. But, I just noticed that the first source cited in the section actually does mention this tweet -- "posting a meme that all but comes out and says that Jewish people control the world order and must be overthrown, as Carano has done." Vox/Soave/Newsweek/Weiss/Volokh/Defector/AwfulAnnouncing are enough, it's been covered widely enough that we can provide a fair summary of the content and the controversy over it, and she's commented on it herself at length.Gershonmk (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not my job to convince you. If you think the material belongs in the article then the onus is on you to make convincing arguments for it. Opinion pieces like the ones you mention are not reliable for facts. That the Weiss interview is "friendly" is all the more reason to be suspicious; we're not here to promote advocacy for Carano's personal point of view, let alone Weiss's. The Vox piece doesn't explicitly say what the meme is. An earlier reference in the article to "anti-Semitic memes" links to a tweet that is unavailable; maybe it showed the image in question. The author only mentions it in passing in the context of making a larger point about American conservatism and the entertainment industry. As it stands, it would be improper synthesis to use this source in relation to the image mentioned in the Newsweek article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The only claim about Carano made in any edition I've proposed is the most recent ... If you don't understand that Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers ... she did not know the men pictured were Jews ... many had accused Carano of anti-Semitism ... Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers are claims about Carano, then you may not be competent to edit this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Spencer, Samuel (2021-02-11). "Why Gina Carano has been fired from 'The Mandalorian'". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
2. "Council candidate sets personal Facebook page to private". The Harrisonburg Citizen. 2020-09-21. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
3. "Redefining "Anti-Semitism" in the Gina Carano Controversy? Or Just Inaccurate Reporting?". Reason.com. 2021-02-11. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
4. ^ Soave, Robby (12 February 2021). "Lots of people sharing this as evidence of Carano's anti-Semitism". Twiiter. Retrieved 13 February 2021.
5. ^ Weiss, Bari (15 February 2021). "Gina Carano and Crowd-Sourced McCarthyism". Common Sense with Bari Weiss. Retrieved 15 February 2021.
6. https://www.vox.com/culture/2021/2/12/22280565/gina-carano-fired-star-wars-mandalorian-social-media-conservative. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

I hope we can all agree this settled the matter? https://www.deseret.com/platform/amp/entertainment/2021/2/17/22287226/star-wars-gina-carano-exit-comments Gershonmk (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

is owned by Deseret News Publishing Company, a subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, a holding company owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To me that doesn't scream "reliable". Note that the article never mentions the Monopoly tweet; instead, it presents Carano's statement to Weiss as being about the backlash to her Instagram post comparing conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany.More recent articles from Newsweek and Entertainment Tonight include snippets from the Weiss interview, along with references to Carano's other social-media activity. Both are focused on the fact that Carano learned of her "firing" through social media and only mention the Monopoly tweet near the end. Lacking focused coverage in more reliable, mainstream sources, I'd say this is still pretty WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, Deseret News is considered reliable for non-LDS issues, please see WP:RPS. I'm going to let other editors weigh in, I'm pretty sure the consensus is for inclusion at this point. There's been a lot more coverage of this, just for example, than of the change.org petition, which I don't think has ever been mentioned by a reliable source. Gershonmk (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for an uninvolved editor to judge consensus, thanks. I think the Change.org petition is probably UNDUE as well, but it doesn't involve any claims about Carano personally, so it's less urgent IMO. Per RS/P, Deseret News is considered generally reliable for local news. How is this a local story? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf I'm going to post to a board. How would being owned by the LDS affect coverage here? Gershonmk (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know, maybe the church's socially conservative views might slant the paper's coverage a teensy bit when it comes to hot-button culture-war topics? Shocking, I know. Why are we still discussing this when (1) the Deseret News is obviously mixing up the two social-media posts, and (2) I already cited other independent coverage? It's not like the Deseret News gives the quote any more weight than the ET article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Not going to continue to discuss this with you. Gershonmk (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about banker tweet in the social media and controversy section (superseded by RfC below)

The following addition to the Gina Carano Social media and controversy section, is it WP:UNDUE:

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Carano told Bari Weiss, "I was in utter shock and confusion when certain people said it was antisemitic," and "The image for me was a statement that people need to stand together and rise up, stop being so manipulated by the powers that believe they know what's best for you and play games with our lives." She affirmed, "My heart has only ever had ultimate respect and love for the Jewish community." Gershonmk (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-tweets-fired-mandalorian-star-wars-lucasfilm-1568538. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. ^ https://www.etonline.com/gina-carano-speaks-out-on-mandalorian-firing-160648. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-found-out-she-was-fired-via-social-media-1569614. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• I suggest this RfC be closed or withdrawn as premature. Any potential limitations of the new sources should be hashed out through normal discussion: Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. There's been no significant discussion of the ET Online source at all; I merely brought it up recently as an example of how the material is not emphasized even in such marginal sources. Failing a procedural close, oppose per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, etc. (See discussion above.) —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC) * Note that the RfC was altered after users had already responded. To be clear, my "oppose" !vote refers to the proposed text itself, not the idea that it us UNDUE, which I agree with. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is not true, as anyone scrolling up will see. I've spent three days discussing it with you, but you've rejected every source, including that one. Several other users have weighed in supporting the compromise but I want total clarity on the consensus. Gershonmk (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  As I suggested earlier, it looks like you first decided what content you wanted to include, then went looking for sources to support it. That's not good practice. Where was there any proposal to use ET Online as a source before this RfC was posted? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  You about that source: "Lacking focused coverage in more reliable, mainstream sources, I'd say this is still pretty WP:UNDUE" though, if you've changed your mind and have a proposal, I'm all ears. Other editors, please weigh in about the RfC. Gershonmk (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. As I said, Newsweek and Entertainment Tonight include snippets from the Weiss interview, along with references to Carano's other social-media activity. Both are focused on the fact that Carano learned of her "firing" through social media and only mention the Monopoly tweet near the end. The material is WP:UNDUE and the Weiss interview is a minor event that will not pass the ten-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Needs to be way shortened due to WP:UNDUE. The last 3 quotes are unnecessary. Not sure if this fits the scope or format of an RFC given the long intro per WP:RFCOPEN Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Morbidthoughts Several preceding versions were shorter; it got longer in negotations with one editor here. Would you support a version without the last three quotes?Gershonmk (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't be removing the intro after people have already commented. Instead strike the old one out and move the header to the new proposal. That's why a long intro that can be revised is not appropriate for an RFC. If you envision more edits after feedback or there were multiple versions in the discussion, then you should be presenting options for people to choose like: A. Version 1 B. Version 2 C. Version 3 D. Shouldn't be mentioned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't want to but you were the only one who commented and I tagged you. I don't really. I went through about a dozen versions with another editor and this happened to be the most recent, but your comment made me realize it wasn't actually the version I/anyone would want. Unsure of the process here -- what do you suggest? Gershonmk (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have multiple options, reset the RFC by striking the previous intro, post the new RFC below these now moot comments and move that RFC template, {{rfc|pol|soc|bio}} down to the new one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts No, I don't have multiple options. OK, I think I did it right, so please comment below. Gershonmk (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about banker tweet in the social media and controversy section

Is the following addition to § Social media and political views WP:UNDUE?

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish financiers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." Carano told Bari Weiss, "I was in utter shock and confusion when certain people said it was antisemitic." Gershonmk (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-tweets-fired-mandalorian-star-wars-lucasfilm-1568538. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. ^ https://www.etonline.com/gina-carano-speaks-out-on-mandalorian-firing-160648. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. https://www.newsweek.com/gina-carano-found-out-she-was-fired-via-social-media-1569614. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• It's UNDUE. This can be reduced down to a variation of: "Carano had previously tweeted a meme using artwork similar to the Freedom for Humanity mural, which was criticized as being anti-semitic" in the third paragraph. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Morbidthoughts, Is it really better to not quote her defense? I feel a little cheated, in that I responded to your critique above and you came up with a new critique of the version you yourself suggested. I am trying in good faith to reach consensus. Gershonmk (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This is why I mentioned previously that it's better to hammer down the various versions in discussion and then present them as options in an RFC. Her response can be paraphrased too or reduced down to that she was surprised at the criticism. Remember that this meme example is discussed in the context of her later comments about Jews and the Holocaust and her firing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, OK. I guess if this fails I can try again. This has already taken an obscene amount of time/energy, that's all. Gershonmk (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes UNDUE, exclude. Sources #2 and #3 are focused on the fact that Carano learned of her "firing" through social media and only mention the Monopoly tweet near the end. Overall the incident was ignored by major media outlets, suggesting extra caution is warranted. As such the material is WP:UNDUE. The Weiss interview is a minor event that will not pass the ten-year test. Additionally, there was no proposal to include either source before the original RfC above was posted, suggesting this fails WP:RFCBEFORE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  It is not true that it was not suggested. As readers will see if they scroll up, I spend three days suggesting various source combinations, some of which received support here but all of which were rejected by Sangdeboeuf, who insists no mention of the event appear on the page in any way. Sangdeboeuf rejected these sources specifically, which he confirmed in the closed RfC in response to my quoting his original critique of them. Gershonmk (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's a mischaracterization. You did not suggest these sources before the RfC was posted, or attempt to convince anyone they should be used. Once again, best practice is to find the most reliable sources first, then summarize what they say. Not to start with the content you want and then try various source combinations in an attempt at post-hoc justification. Regarding the above proposal, image of Jewish financiers is POV, and the utter shock and confusion quote is UNDUE. When a reliable, secondary source offers some analysis and interpretation of her statements in the interview, then it might be good to include. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  Again, not true. I encourage anyone curious to scroll up. Gershonmk (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  First of all, when editing disputs arise we dont scroll up, we look at history. Second, Gershonmk added one Newsweek article as a source from when RfC was posted and before Sangdeboeuf suggested "That's a mischaracterization".  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• Undue as written. I like Morbidthoughts' proposed sentence above. WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:MANDY apply here, but even without those her comments to Weiss haven't been covered enough to be quoted or really even mentioned; they're simply undue. If some quality reliable sources comment on the interview, then we can consider including it. Srey Sros 23:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• UNDUE, exclude and definitely not the proposed one-liner per Sangdeboeuf and my previous comments. Vaselineeeeeeee 23:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude, undue and did not get enough coverage. Crossroads 04:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Exclude per UNDUE, certainly not enough coverage to include that much prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• UNDUE - Misplaced Pages is not a repository of every stupid or controversial tweet that was ever posted. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace X "she was pressured by Twitter users to support Black Lives Matter" with Y "she was criticised by twitter users for not voicing support for Black Lives Matter" This is how it was originally, but somebody changed it to push POV.

Replace X "In November 2020, there was debate between Star Wars fans who supported Carano and those who used the hashtag #FireGinaCarano to urge Disney to replace her on The Mandalorian" with Y "In response, Star Wars fans began to use the hashtag #FireGinaCarano to urge Disney to replace her on The Mandalorian". Again, this is how it was originally but was changed for false balance purposes.

Finally, replace X "Conservatives on social media responded to Lucasfilm's decision with the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus. In addition, Senator Ted Cruz defended Carano on Twitter, praising her as a strong female role model and criticized Disney's decision" with Y " " (blank). This is WP:FRINGE. And doesn't belong at all. Anyone who looks up the conservatives' astroturfed #CancelDisneyPlus hastag can confirm that 90% of the tweets come from people making fun of the boycott campaign. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

For the first, the source says "pressured", so watering down what Twitter people were doing is what's POV. WP:STICKTOSOURCE. The second matter appears to be moot now. For the third, the first sentence thereof, it's reliably sourced to the New York Times; we don't change it based on personal original research. The second is sourced to a Houston paper; I am not feeling inclined to remove it but don't feel strongly in favor of it either. Crossroads 18:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we go by reliable sources. If reliable sources say she blocked people for pressuring her, which she didn't, she was salty that BLM received more attention than her fundraiser for Operation Underground Railroad, and what they don't, then saying she did is POV pushing. Her being pressured is your interpretation. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Her being pressured isn't an interpretation, it's what's in the source. If you have sources to counterbalance the claim, or sources to counterbalance the section you want excised, post them here. Otherwise, altering a sentence that is true to the source and a section that's reliably sourced is silly. Wertwert55 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"Conservatives"

@DabYeetDab: the source (NYT) says "Some conservatives, who viewed her posts as a matter of free speech, countered with #CancelDisneyPlus." Omitting "conservatives" is simply whitewashing.

Ditto for "Conservative fans expressed support for Carano" per Vanity Fair: "After her announcement, right-leaning fans filled Carano’s thread with supportive comments". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that referring to Gina Carano's supporters as "conservative fans" (they're not fans of anything, they're internet grifters), what I like to know is, why was the statement referring to conservatives decrying "cancel culture" changed? "Cancel culture" is a term used by right wingers for gaslighting purposes. Who else would be using the term, and most importantly, what reliable source would claim that somebody other than conservatives is calling something "cancel culture"? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The source is cited at the end of the sentence mentioning "cancel culture". I'm not sure about its reliability overall, but it has an editorial staff. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're not sure about it's overall reliability, than it would be prudent to treat them with a healthy dose of skepticism. Even reliable sources should be questioned should they claim the sky is limegreen, and this idea that the star wars fandom, any fandom in popular culture has a sizeable enough number of conservatives to be considered their own category is in stark contradiction with everything we know for fact about history. Conservatives are mainly outside mainstream popular culture. They have their own alternative news sources like fox and OAN, their own alternative "sciences" like creationism (or evolutionary psychology for those who are more clever), their own alternative music (heck, they didn't even like Stryper and that band was specifically pandering to them) and their ond hollywood alternatives like Pureflix or Ben Shapiro's new studio.

Every time conservatives have shown interest in mainstream popular culture it was an antagonistic one, from blacklisting hollywood actors and directors during the McCarthy era, to going after bands, boardgames and videogames during the satanic panic. One cannot make the claim that there are suddenly conservative Star Wars fans, or Star Trek fans, or Marvel and DC fans, without being willfully ignorant of all of the above. I said this before and I'll say it again. These so called "conservative fans" amount to a few dozen internet grifters and their social media followers, who add up to a few hundred thousand at most if you account for them overlapping, which they do. I'm fine with not saying this in the article because it's WP:OR, but can we at least not validate their talking points? Just because a reliable source says something, it doesn't mean it needs to be included. I give it two months and this conservative support for gina carano will either cycle out of the news completely and fade into irrelevance, or investigative journalists will expose it as a continuation of Gamergate. Can we at last wait until then, instead of spreading misinformation about the existence of these supposed "conservative fans"? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Also in the Vanity Fair article is "While her defiance alienated some who previously looked up to her, the scores of supportive replies to Carano’s recent Parler message suggest she has also drawn new admirers from the right side of the political spectrum." I think that shows that she still has non-conservative fans. I read that part of the article as saying that she drew in additional supporters from the right/conservative part of the spectrum due to her speech, rather than her performance. I would support dropping the conservative before "fans expressed support." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused; wouldn't that suggest that non-conservative fans expressed support for Carano on this specific issue? The source seems to be saying the opposite. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It says she alienated some, and then she received scores of supportive replies from new admirers on the right. Are we assuming the some that were alienated were the totality of her non-conservative fans? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully we're not assuming anything, just summarizing what published sources say. Writing fans expressed support (as opposed to conservative fans) goes beyond the meaning of the source. It also doesn't make sense in light of the preceding statement critics began urging her removal from The Mandalorian cast, some using the hashtag #FireGinaCarano. Said "critics" certainly included some fans, as the VF piece and others point out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself: the issue is not CONSERVATIVE fans, but conservative FANS. We know conservatives are rallying in support of Gina Carano. There is zero evidence that these conservative voices are coming from within the Star Wars fandom (and plenty of reason to assume the contrary). 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lucasfilm didn't tell Carano they fired her

“That was heart-breaking, but I didn't want to take away from the hard work of everyone who worked on the project, so I said ok. That was the last time I was contacted about any type of public statement or apology from Lucasfilm. I found out through social media, like everyone else, that I had been fired.”

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/gina-carano-and-crowd-sourced-mccarthyism

As discussed above, this is a self-published source by someone other than the article subject, and therefore not usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not true, see above. Gershonmk (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Hard disagree that it is so clear cut. Note that WP:USINGSPS says "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable"." particularly "If you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.". That applies here. The *intent* behind not including a "self-published" source about a subject not by the subject is that it can include unverifiable claims, libel, bias. The example given in the docs for unacceptable is a personal blog post about a "neighbor, business partner, or friend". This does not apply to Bari Weiss publishing what Gina Carano said to Weiss on the record as a journalist. No one would reasonably dispute that it happened; not Weiss, not Carano. It is a reliable fact, "editorial oversight" notwithstanding Rendall (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The point of contention isn't whether Bari Weiss' interview with Gina Carano happened. The only thing in that blog to support that Gina Carano wasn't told that she was fired are her words and nothing more. It would be as reliable as citing a twitter post she made. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Where an explanatory supplement contradicts policy, we defer to the policy. But in this case even WP:USINGSPS is unambiguous: Self-published sources can be used, "but not for third-party claims about living people" – Self-published sources are unacceptable as "third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". Supporting a direct quotation seems to be about statements by the author of a self-published source that have since been quoted in reliable, independent sources. It doesn't mean bloggers are suddenly reliable for interviews. In fact it's reasonable to be cautious of any journalistic claims until confirmed by outside sources. Remember Johann Hari? Any doubts should be raised at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, It doesn't matter because Deadline has picked it up https://deadline.com/2021/02/gina-carano-the-mandalorian-firing-actress-responds-social-media-1234694755/ Gershonmk (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Red Alert 3 was an acting role

When you have a minute, someone with editing access can remove "Voice role" from this line? It was video (Redacted)

> Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 Natasha Volkova Voice role — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.3.160.194 (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I've redacted the YouTube URL because the clip violates copyright. The "voice role" text was unreferenced, so I've removed it as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Carano was fired without consulting Jon Favreau

"the decision to ultimately fire her came swiftly from the top, without need to check in with Mandalorian creator Jon Favreau." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.233.120 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

https://collider.com/the-mandalorian-cara-dune-controversy-recast-gina-carano-fired/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.197.233.120 (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war over Fox News source

To prevent an edit war over something small, I decided to come to the talk page, since Gershonmk keeps deleting my sentence. I'm not giving Fox News undue weight with that sentence, I'm summarizing what Fox News is saying conservatives are saying, which I feel is obvious because of how the sentence starts. There was another source saying the exact same thing, but it was deleted at some point. As far as I know, there's no source defending Pascal's comments, and it doesn't matter because I'm summarizing what Fox News is saying someone else is saying. Wertwert55 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Not trying to edit war -- I'd be OK with "what they thought was a similar post" or even maybe "what Fox News called a similar post," but this kind of thing shouldn't be sourced to Fox and put in the article's voice. For example: re the last point: here here here here here here here. Gershonmk (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of those are reliable sources, since The Sun was deprecated and the Forbes link is a contributor. If you want to include a reliable source saying they're not comparable, fine, but deleting my contribution seems odd. I'll rephrase it to your suggestion as a compromise. Wertwert55 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Wertwert55, I think we agree on this -- Fox isn't a reliable source either on political issues, the article expresses one viewpoint on a controversial issue. See WP:RSP. Gershonmk (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It's reliable for the reason I put it in there: to aggregate conservative commentary on her firing and Pedro Pascal's posts, since quoting twitter posts is unacceptable. I'm not using that source for Fox itself's commentary. Wertwert55 (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree, haven't challenged the sourcing of what's currently there. (Though there's a epistemological bias here in media generally; you would hardly expect the WSJ/NYT/whatever to put out "most conservatives actually don't agree with this hashtag Fox calls popular" even if it was true, because the relative popularity is so much harder to establish than the existence of some people saying it + in partisan media these claims become self-fulfilling, as they're designed to.) Anyway, happy editing. Gershonmk (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

To which I feel the need to ask: do we need to aggregate conservative commentary on this situation? It strikes me as WP:FRINGE. Plus, why should we give any undue attention to their whataboutism regarding Pedro Pascal. Anyone looking objectively understands that the reason they were treated differently is because 1) It's not the same situation - Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character; 2) It's not the same tweet, or even similar - Pedro compared modern concentration camps to ww2 concentration camps, and modern nazis and white supremacists to historical ones, and save for a few right wing talking heads raising stink about it, his tweets were not controversial, and do not reflct poorly on the company in fact, they reflect the popular consensus while Gina compared being a republican to being a jew in nazi germany, which is indefensible by all metrics; and 3) even if he did tweet something controversial, Pedro is not a repeat offender, while Gina has been doing this for almost a year, even after being told multiple times to stop. That conservatives are trying to spin this story to push their nonsense narratives and advertise their upcoming propaganda flick, which will undoubtedly be a massive financial flop, even with her on board, is not something wikipedia should contribute to. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• the entire thing is WP:COAT bullshit, we don't detail the peripheral consequences of some celebrity muppet's stupidity, focus on subject of article, what they said, and what the direct consequences were for them personally, all this other crap is incidental and tangential. Acousmana (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  I tend to agree. Naturally there are political opportunists who want to use the incident for their own purposes. My guess is that a lot of recent coverage will not pass the ten-year test. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd tend to agree. It's going a bit too far into the weeds on back-and-forth political bickering. Quoting Chait in particular seems undue (he has no relevant expertise and seems to be quoted here solely because his opinion is hyperbolic, which is exactly the wrong reason to quote someone - it's the sort of thing that leads to WP:QUOTEFARMs as editors fire snappy retorts by pundits at each other via the article. Quotes should be because they're by experts or because they're extremely significant, not because they're snappy.) But even the larger focus of the section feels like it's gone beyond the biographical focus on Carano, especially since coverage of the "backlash" doesn't seem to have been WP:SUSTAINED - it's already mostly evaporated, mere days later. "Hashtag exists" is something that requires more sustained coverage than this to be worth mentioning in a biography. --Aquillion (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Independent

I'm not sure about the status of the Independent as a reliable source, but it has to be better than Fox. I would recomend replacing it with a mention of this: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/gina-carano-mandalorian-lucasfilm-b1803281.html What we learn from this is that 1) Lucasfilm didn't simply characterize Carano's tweets as denigrating groups of people based on their identity, but specifically called them "abhorrent and unacceptable" in their official statement. I suspect this is what the used reliable sources say as well. 2) Carano's removal from the mandalorian was received POSITIVELY by fans, while OTHERS called it cancel culture. Not a word of these elusive "conservative fans" everybody keeps talking about. Unless somebody wants to argue that Ben Shapiro and Ted Cruz are Star Wars fans. 3) Carano herself called for the boycott of Disney Plus, and started the associated hashtag, again, not conservative fans (though this being a claim about Carano herself, needs better confirmation), and most importantly, 4) The request for the boycott was largely mocked online. No sign of this big support coming from "conservative fans". Furthermore, during the last day internet trolls have been dislike-bombing the Oscars' video on Kathleen Kennedy, and brigading Gina Carano's IMDB page to make it look like she's the most popular actress ever, which is laughable. Let's be real here. We don't need to document the alt right's every single attempt to turn her into a martyr. DOing so will only validate the trolls and encourage them further. I'll say it again. Until reliable sources expose the conservative support for Gina Carano for the alt right astroturfing that it is, wikipedia should not comment on it. If that never happens, just pretend it not real, because let's face it, it isn't 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

doesn't matter, it's all fluff, peripheral cultural war nonsense we shouldn't be detailing, our only concern here is what the subject said and what the direct consequences were for her, this twittersphere drama - even if reported in RS - has no place in a subsection covering her social media activity and her political views. Acousmana (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I too am opposed to giving undue attention to the conservative support for Gina Carano, and have made multiple posts objecting to the usage of the term "conservative fans" when referring to it, but Sangdebeuf doesn't seem to listen to me. The article from the Independent, I shared here specifically to show that there is no substantial support for Gina Carano, and the astroturfed hashtags calling to boycott Disney Plus are irrelevant. The Star Wars fandom is not split in this issue, regardless of what the alt right grifters wants to convince their subscribers.

The reason why I can't let this issue go is because this new cult of personality forming around the subject is a direct continuation of Gamergate/Comicsgate, which in turn WERE notable issues, covered by multiple reliable sources. Gina Carano is directly involved with these grifters, as well as the QAnon movement, and I don't understand why it's taking so long for journalists to uncover this, when the whole thing is happening in plain sight.

Incidentally, user Crossroads keeps reverting your deletion of the relevant paragraph, but wasn't given and edit war warning. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

it's not worth engaging in, even to improve a citation, removing said content is a better solution. Acousmana (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's better to leave out the "abhorrent and unacceptable" wording per WP:IMPARTIAL. While the statement was widely quoted, phrases like that tend to inflame passions rather than impart useful information. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Inflame passions in the conservative talking heads, maybe - the same people who like to parrot "facts don't care about your feelings". This was the official statement by Lucasfilm, and it's how reliable sources reported on it. I see no reason to edit it out. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

IP, I give up on that paragraph, but you shouldn't be reasoning about the topic based on your own WP:Original research. The source makes multiple references to conservative or right-leaning fans. The idea that the entire fandom is of a single mind on this (or anything) is exceedingly implausible. Humans aren't a hive mind. Keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, as does WP:SOAPBOX. Crossroads 23:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Conservative pundits and on-line grifters, maybe, but not "fans".You are putting words in my mouth as I never said the entire fandom is of a single mind. Quite the contrary, the Star Wars fandom is diverse, and has only become more diverse in the recent years. Sure, I'm even willing to grant them that there are SOME conservative fans, as long as we use "conservative" in the sense europeans understand it, or in the traditional sense, meaning fiscally conservative people who want lower taxes and small government. But that is NOT what people thing of when speaking of "conservatives" in america. Saying that one specific group of people, american conservatives do not have members among the Star Wars fandom, isn't the same as saying "humans are a hivemind". That is a strawman argument. Conservatives have a long history of being antagonistic towards mainstream popular culture. Large mainstream franchises, as well as their authors and fans have always been liberal, and that's not a controversial statement. Alt-right concern trolls, and social media grifters are not part of any fandom. Ther are just the useful idiots of the dying trumpist movement that lost all relevance it had left. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

X Some conservatives on social media responded to Lucasfilm's decision with the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus.

Y Fans on social media responded to Lucasfilm's decision with the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus. 2001:8003:2376:F700:D9F:4FCA:AE88:38AF (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Currrent Text:

"Following a series of controversial posts she made..."

Proposed Amendment

Following a series of what some considered to be controversial posts that she made... 202.190.17.157 (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: if the posts generated controversy, they are by definition controversial. And several independent, published sources refer to them as such. "Some considered..." does not tell us who did or why. There may be room for a more detailed explanation of the controversy, but I'm not sure how much space in the lead we want to devote to such scandals-of-the-week. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Hi, I believe that the "Social media and political views" section could be greatly improved if more conservative views were represented. Existing sources are largely left-wing biased, so many possible edits should include unbiased or conservative sources in order to stay in line with WP:STICKTOSOURCE. However, it is a good idea not to simply delete left-wing views, but also include right-wing ones. Also, statements made by Gina Carano herself about the issues in that section may be valuable. Thank you for considering this. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 01:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a false balance. Sources aren't chosen because of their political leaning, but because of their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Carano's own statements are not comparable to the views of independent, reliable sources, especially regarding criticism or controversies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear enough in what I said. To clarify: I did not intend to propose a false balance; representing the views of conservatives is not a false balance; conservative views are not fringe theories or pseudoscience, but they are the views of half the population of America. I did not intend to recommend choosing sources based solely on political leaning; I intended to recommend choosing reliable sources that represent opposing viewpoints on highly controversial issues, in order to achieve balance. Regarding your last point, perhaps you are right. However, I still believe that it would be valuable to include quotations of Gina's from reliable sources. Maybe like this: "Gina Carano has said 'Actually, I am very fond of puppies' in an attempt to clarify her position." However, I realize that it is not essential to the integrity of the article, and am willing to concede this specific point. Thank you. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 03:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether they are the views of half the population of America or 99% of the population of America. Due weight means considering a viewpoint's prominence in published, reliable sources, not among the general public. Per NPOV, achieving balance entails using sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, not looking for sources that represent opposing viewpoints, whether on this or any other issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid. Also, all the more reason why wikipedia must not entertain giving attention to this sort of nonsense. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

we don't detail the peripheral consequences of some celebrity muppet's stupidity, focus on subject of article, what they said, and what the direct consequences were for them personally, all this other political crap is incidental and tangential, appropriate WP:WEIGHT already given to incident. Acousmana (talk) 12:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Appearance on the Daily Wire

I know we shouldn't be giving free exposure to partisan rags like the DW, but if reliable sources talk about it, most likely to fact check her claims and deconstruct the false narrative Shapiro was trying to build, then it might be necesarry to report on what those sources say. The Mary Sue had an article on the interview. Also, while not related to the interview itself, DiscussingFilm had an article debunking the conspiracy theory on anti-conservative bias in hollywood, using Chris Pratt as an example. This sounds like something worth mentioning. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

tangent, not notable, more peripheral fluff. Acousmana (talk) 13:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, no it's not. It has to do with her and stuff she said and did. Especially if it's covered by reliable sources. That interview is something she did. Articles on it concerns her actions directly. Not to mention Gina Carano does not exist in a vacuum. She's being used as a prop by the alt right to push the right wing narrative. It is the responsability of the free press to debunk this nonsense and it is the responsability of wikipedia to put it on record that is was debunked. By your logic, everything about the social media section is just "peripheral fluff". 46.97.170.19 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

she did an interview on Daily Wire, so what? giving oxygen to this bs drama prolongs it, not notable. Acousmana (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You keep changing up the arguments. First you say we need to focus on the subject and what they did/said. The moment I point out that the DW interview is something the subject did, and the things she said there are being rebuked by reliable sources, you say this is "giving oxygen to the bs drama". I'm sorry, but the "bs drama" exists regardless of wikipedia. We don't decide if it's notable or not. Reliable sources decided that for us weeks ago. This argument lost relevance the moment consensus was born that the Gina Carano drama is notable. If you don't like that, you should be arguing against the existence of the entire article itself, because this "bs drama" is the single most notable thing the subject is known for right now. If you don't like that, that's understandable. Focus on something else. "I don't like drama" is not a valid argument for anything. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We really need to wait a while and see how all of this pans out, then cover it based on the totality of coverage, rather than covering every part of it as it breaks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"This argument lost relevance the moment consensus was born that the Gina Carano drama is notable." the relevant section details subject's bigoted statements and the direct consequences for subject professionally, the "drama" is the peripheral fan-based politically motivated crap that you feel is notable. See WP:DIARY. Acousmana (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You keep repeating that, and you keep missing the point. The interview wasn't "peripheral political crap", it was her trippling down on her bigoted statements. Her association with the DW and the alt-right is HER own action. Her becoming a propaganda figure for the alt-right is a direct consequence of something she did or said. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

you do realise the world doesn't revolve around bit players in America's never ending political psychodrama? If this affair becomes a matter of encyclopedic merit it might then be included. Acousmana (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has devolved into insanity. It doesn't matter if she is a bit player or a huge player in American politics. Her biography page will always revolve around things she does and says. And it already does. Please keep in mind, if your political feelings about this issue are so strong that you have to attack her character at every turn, you should not be editing this page and it may lead to sanctions. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 18:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

see WP:NOTNEWS. Acousmana (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point. This Misplaced Pages page is not a celebrity gossip column, and should not be treated as such. Fan opinions and conservative opinions about her actions are no less relevant than the opinions of other communities. If this section reads as a gossip column, it should be promptly deleted. Thank you. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 19:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, they are not relevant at all. What reliable sources say about her is what's relevant, and the problem with conservative opinions is that their sources are not reliable. Fan opinion is generally unfavorable of Gina Carano. The support for her is right wing astroturfing.

I see Gina Carano's Daily Wire appearance as relevant only to the degree it was covered by reliable sources, and only as yet another dumb thing she did that she was criticised for. It is relevant in the same way her making trnasphobit tweets is relevant. It is relevant in the same way her spreading conspiracy theories is relevant. It is relevant in the same way her holocaust tweet is relevant. The only reason I disagree with User:Acousmana, is because he seems to want to arbitrarily exclude it. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Inverse article

At the risk of beating an undead horse that simply refuses to die, I feel the need to point out that a recently published article by the online newspaper Inverse details the events of Gina Carano's firing from the fandom's perspective, and how star wars fans mobilized to get her removed from the show. The article confirms what was I've been saying, and what has also been confirmed by the Independent earlier this week. Gina Carano's firing was done at request of Star Wars fans, Star Wars fans' reaction to her firing was POSITIVE, not "mixed" as some people here want to claim, and conservative support for her is coming entirely from Ben Shapiro fans and from outside the Star Wars fandom. How many more reliable sources need to say this before wikipedia admits that these "conservative Star Wars fans" do not exist? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

And we have reliable sources Vanity Fair and IndieWire sourced stating that the fanbase is divided into those who see her firing as an example of cancel culture and violation of free speech, and others who support the move as they heavily disagree with her views and online behaviour. Star Wars has an enormous following; you really think everyone who's a fan is only on one side of the political spectrum? You've provided nothing to back up your claim that everyone who supports Gina is not part of the fandom. Just because you're either ignoring or unaware of articles like these, doesn't mean they don't exist. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Vanity Fair and Indiewire write about this subject from an outsider's perspective. They look at the astroturfed right wing support claiming to represent conservative fans, and simply report on it without digging too deep. When Gamergate first broke, some reports were favorable or at least neutral towards them, until their true nature was exposed. By contrast, the Inverse article actually provides proof that they have done their homework, and are reporting on people from within the fandom. Newer reports with more accurate information shouldn't be ignored just because other reliable sources reported on the topic. Especially if those reports are less accurate.

Also, you are the second person to put these words in my mouth. I made no claim that star wars fans come from only one side of the political spectrum. I'm saying that one specific fringe section of the political spectrum, american conservatives, are NOT part of the Star Wars fandom, or any mainstream fandom for that matter. THese "conservative star wars fans" only started appearing after The Force Awakens, and their first act as "star wars fans" is subjecting John Boyega and Daisy Riddley to racist and respectively sexist online harrassment. Reliable pop culture journalists accurately identified this as a dirsct continuation of Gamergate, and reported on it as such. Stop feeding the trolls. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "army of twitter stans" article? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That is what I'm talking about, as a matter of fact. Why? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Because it's talking about obsessive online "stans" rather than the general fanbase. It's not saying what you say it's saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't particularly care about splitting hairs over semantics. The Independent also stated that the Star Wars fandom's reaction to Gina Carano's firing was positive. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Which Independent article are you talking about in particular? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The one I linked above under it's own subsection called "The Independent". The article also states that Gina Carano herself started the "Cancel Disney Plus" campaign, and that said campaign was met with ridicule from the Star Wars fandom. I don't know how many more proof people here need that the support for Gina Carano is a result of right wing astroturfing, rather than the work of any star wars fans who liked her in the Mandalorian. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The one that includes this quote? "Following the news, fans of Carano called for a boycott of Disney’s streaming service using the hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus. However, the request was largely mocked online." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So they changed it to sound more vague. Note that the wording says "request", because it originally referred to a singular request by Gina Carano. It looks like they issued a stealth correction to avoid liability, by adding "fans of". Nevertheless, the fact that the "cancel Disney Plus" campaign was largely mocked online is still there. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Largely mocked online" != "All real members of star wars fandom were happy she was fired and all supporters are conservative shills." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Because her supporters really WERE conservative grifters. These same people, are ON RECORD calling her an "ugly SJW feminist" when her character first appeared on the show. If you cannot recognize that they are grifters, then the issue is your ability to accurately perceive reality. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sources for this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Uhm... their own social media posts from a year ago? Ethan van Sciver's own words? I'm not arguing for detailing the history of the astroturfed right wing campaign to prop her up as a hero, I'm arguing for not including a specific term that is verifyably false. We're still reporting on what reliable sources say, even if we use "conservatives" instead of "conservative fans" which is all I'm arguing for. In a year or so, the Fandom Menace will be exposed by journalists for the alt right grift campaign that it is, and then we will have plenty of sources. For now, all I'm asking is that we ommit one tiny detail that we can all see is false. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe the article was corrected to fit the available facts better. Quality outlets do that all the time. Although it's odd they didn't note the correction. As for the Inverse article, several of its quoted sources are anonymous. There's not too much we can do with such info per WP:BLPGOSSIP. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected edit request on 24 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace X= "Carano later clarified that she was mocking online users accusing her of transphobia for refusing to put pronouns in her bio." with Y= " " (blank) This claim is attributed to Bounding into Comics. Bounding into comics is a far right propaganda site associated with the Comicsgate hate group and not a legitimate reliable source. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

That can be sourced to dozens of places. "She also defended the joke, saying: “Beep/bop/boop has zero to do with mocking trans people & everything to do with exposing the bullying mentality of the mob that has taken over the voices of many genuine causes.”" for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 19:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Bounding into Comics is not a reliable source. It is universally known by anyone even the slightly familiar with internet culture as a false rumour mill ran by alt right trolls, and the reference was added to whitewash Gina Carano's actions. Site policy says it needs to go. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed that source and left it sourced to the following three sources which covered the same info as Bounding into Comics. I also added that she removed the offending pronouns upon speaking with Pascal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust comments

I have heard a lot of people point out that even without the ludicrus paralel with the supposed treatment of republicans, Gina Carano's holocaust comment is wrong. The post she shares claims The nazi government indoctrinated germans to hate jews, so they would eventually support their extermination. This is completely false. The nazis didn't invent antisemitism, they simply took advantage of antisemitic sentiments already existing in european christian countries for centuries, in their bid to rise to power (exactly how trump took advantage of white supermacy to secure his presidency in 2016). Which means it isn't just an ill-conceived comparison, but a dangerous whitewashing of history. Any thoughts? 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

When I asked for thoughts, I didn't do it to start an off topic discussion. What I'm interested to know is, if anyone is aware of any reliable sources criticising Gina Carano's holocaust post from this angle. Because if so, then it should be included. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's already covered in the article. How much more detail do you think that single post online should have in the article without being WP:UNDUE? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If her post was indeed criticised from this angle, and that criticism is reported on by reliable sources, then it should be mentioned. Leaving it out would be arbitrary cherry-picking. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

So we need to include every single angle that someone criticized the statement, otherwise it would be cherry picking? I disagree. I believe the current prose in the article covers that she said something and a lot of people criticized it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The criticism is incomplete and doesn't address the bigger issue, namely that it's whitewashing history. The way it reads now, makes it look like it was criticised for one thing that doesn't even directly come from the quote itself, and less informed readers will walk away with the impression that without the comparison to modern politics, the characterisation of the holocaust as a direct consequence of years of nazi indoctrination is historically accurate. It isn't. The nazis didn't invent antisemitism during the third reich. Christians did that centuries ago. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. I guess we'll have to see if others think that there needs to be more in depth coverage, assuming sources can be found that specifically outline your criticisms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't want it included unless it's covered by reliable sources. As the story seems to grow out of control, it's almost inevitable for actual scholars on the holocaust to speak out. This isn't simply about comparing republican to being jewish in nazi germany. This is about implicit denial of antisemitism from before nazi germany. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Social Media and Political Views" Section

Hi ScottishFinnishRadish. First of all, I would like to thank you for your continual civility regarding disputes over this page, and for your constructive and well thought out comments and edits. Regarding your reversion of my edit that deleted this section, I agree with you when you say that there is room for significant trimming. I also agree with you in that these events are notable in respect to her life. However, I don't believe it to be an elegant solution to severely trim the section and have a small section that doesn't flow with the rest of the article. Instead, I propose removing the whole section, and perhaps adding a few small details to where this is covered at the end of the "Television and film career" section. Thank you. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 19:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I just don't think there will ever be consensus to remove it wholesale, even if it's just while the section is being rewritten. I think a more workable approach is to leave it as is for now and hash out a new section here or in a sandbox and work on getting consensus for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's sourced to a huge range of sources, many of them high-quality. I don't think the section can be removed - at this point her views and the firing are a significant part of her notability - but which specific aspects do you think are a problem? FWIW the basis of this section (although it was a "controversy" section at the time) was added back in November. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

This section needs to be changed so that it doesn't sound like a gossip column and a one-sided hit piece on a celebrity in her own biography (See also my edit summary when I deleted the section). If significant improvements to this section make it small enough not to warrant it's own section, then it should be incorporated into the rest of the article. (Also, If it was this bad back in November, I wish I had known back then, as it should have been changed right away.) — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 20:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I just looked back at the history for this page (November specifically), and from what I can tell, people have been fighting over NPOV and Notability from the very start. But I digress. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 20:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The whole controversy was designed in a lab to create the maximum amount of angry discussion on wikipedia with the intent of filling the servers and shutting down free knowledge. Really though, its a perfect storm of what people argue about on wikipedia, so its going to be a fight until the next big controversy rolls along and it'll settle into something stable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, someone should put a template on this section, so that people know that it needs improvement. I'm not quite sure which template though. Maybe one of these? {{unbalanced}} {{partisan sources}} I'm not quite sure they fit though. It would be good to have a better one. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

If there were one pertaining to BLPs, gossip, or politics, it might be perfect. If a good template can't be found though, probably it should simply be omitted. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 02:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing "partisan" about the majority of sources cited. NYT, WaPo, and the BBC are all reliable mainstream news outlets. Vanity Fair, Vox, and Vulture are fairly liberal in the American sense, but most of the claims for which they are cited are supported by other sources. All are generally seen as reliable for pop-culture topics. The rest are either general news or entertainment-focused publications. If a cleanup template is absolutely needed, one like {{undue weight}} or {{recentism}} might be appropriate, if only because of the disproportionate focus on recent controversies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Let us be real here. (BLP violation removed) If there wasn't the social media section, I would argue whether she should even have an article at all.

Incidentally, Sangdeboeuf, is there any reason why you removed her conspiracy theory posts, in particular the anti-mask and voter fraud ones? Those were kind of a major part of the controversy, if not the biggest until she made that holocaust tweet. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:BLP. We don't make disparaging comments about people. It's clear you have a personal dislike for her so perhaps you should remove yourself from editing the article? She was clearly notable before the recent social media controversies which made her well known to the twitter/instagram/other online crowds. Before that she was well known to other crowds. Much the same as almost anyone. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I was already briefed by Sangdeboeuf on WP:BLP, which is why i'm avoiding bringing up her january 6 comments, or calling her a you-know-what. You may think she was notable before this incident but that doesn't make me wrong about her track record. I do not have a personal dislike for Gina Carano in particular, I have a general dislike for the alt right, just like people in general. If anything, I'm getting the impression that you are the one who's biased in her favor. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Shucks, you got me. That's why I reverted the removal of the Social Media and Political Views section. I play a long game to keep critical material about her in the article for as long as possible with the end goal of...? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no point in wasting time arguing about this. We both agree the criticism section needs to stay. I just happen to also argue that without the criticism she got for her social media behavior, the subject isn't notable at all. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This section needs to be changed so that it doesn't sound like a gossip column and a one-sided hit piece on a celebrity Be specific - which parts of it do you feel are worded that way? Which language in the section do you object to? The first paragraph mostly covers accusations (as mere accusations); these got a lot of coverage and are cited to relatively high-quality sources, plus we include praise from conservatives. Everything concerning her firing from The Mandalorian seems like it has to stay because it's actually a major part of her biography, and what we say about it is both carefully-worded and cited to high-quality sources. You're making fairly sweeping statements about the section, but I'm not understanding why you see it that way at all - it reads to me like a neutral and accurate summary of what has become a significant aspect of the subject's notability. --Aquillion (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue I see with it is that the section says that it's "conservative fans" that support her when the sources don't actually specify that the only fans that still support her are conservative. The way it's written feeds into the highly online social media culture war that most people don't take part in or care about. However the amount I care about the verbiage is pretty low so I don't really find it worth my time to argue about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess here's another example. From the Vanity Fair article "In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance. “In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I’m sorry, these people are not ‘educators.’ They are cowards and bullies,”" This is summarized in the article as "In August 2020, Carano was pressed by Twitter users to support the Black Lives Matter movement. She labeled critics "cowards and bullies""

We went from some activist twitter users, some of which were polite while others were hostile to "twitter users," which slants the coverage to appear that it was just the general user base, not sometimes hostile activists. Then to "balance" this we says she labeled critics as cowards and bullies. It's clear from the full quote that she's responding to the hostile activist users, calling them cowards and bullies for the way they approached her. That's a pretty clear example of the slant that has been put into the section. A rewrite to something along the lines of "In August 20202 Carano was pressed by activist Twitter users to make support the Black Lives Matter Movement. In response to antagonistic messages she responded, "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I’m sorry, these people are not ‘educators.’ They are cowards and bullies”" seems like a more neutral fit that matches the source without slanting the information as we are now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish's comments cover my main concerns. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 21:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

And more from our current sources that show the slant. We refer only to conservative support, and conservative websites, but from the Indiewire source we're using we have the following, " But at the same time, #StandWithGinaCarano has also begun trending on Twitter in response from fans who feel the plea to cast Carano out of the show is another example of censorship, and cancel culture gone too far." Note that it is "fans" not "conservative fans." Another quote from the same article "Still, plenty of “Mandalorian” faithful remain in support of Carano throughout a show that has seen other controversies." I think it's obvious the section is cherry picking to present the controversy in a certain light. All that said, I still don't really care about the tags. I'm sure we can work something out here either way. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so now I've gone and put energy into discussing this I may as well follow through with what I thought about trimming. I submit that the section should be relabeled "Social Media Controversy" and be trimmed significantly. Here's a basic draft I just threw together.

Starting in August 2020 backlash to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian. She was also dropped by United Talent Agency. This started after clashing with activist users on Twitter about support for the Black Lives Matter movement and worsened after changing her Twitter profile in a manner that some though mocked preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. She later adjusted her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose.” In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that her critics interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat people based on their cultural and religious identities".

That's obviously a starting point, but it's shorter and I believe more neutral. Thoughts? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

How is any of this an improvement? If anything, it makes it worse. This is what I would recommend:

Gina Carano has been criticised for her controversial social media posts. In August 2020, she received criticism for "liking" posts criticising the Black Lives Matter movement. She labeled critics "cowards and bullies", which led some fans to accuse her of racism. She later modified her Twitter profile in a manner that appeared to mock preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. According to Vanity Fair, Carano's responses generated praise from conservative and right-wing publications such as Breitbart.

In November, after opening an account on far right social media platform Parler. She began making tweets mocking Covid-19 mask mandates and postal voting, and perpetuated debunked conspiracy theories about wide spread voter fraud in the 2020 elections. In response, Star Wars fans began urging her removal from The Mandalorian cast.

In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post with an image taken during the Lviv pogroms that compared criticism of comparing American conservatives to the treatment of Jews during the holocaust. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat people based on their cultural and religious identities". That same day, Carano was dropped by United Talent Agency.

Carano's social media posts were received positively by conservative pundits, who claimed her firing was an example of Cancel Culture. The hashtag #CancelDisneyPlus began trending, but was mostly mocked on-line. Later, ijn an interview with Ben Shapiro, Carano claimed that she was bullied by Disney, while also announcing that that she would be working on making her own movie with the Daily Wire.

It's not shorter, but this is the accurate summary of the entire controversy. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't address concerns outlined above about how we're already misrepresenting sources. Also I think it's even more undue weight to the whole controversy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

And as I stated above, if the controversy is undue, then Gina Carano herself is undue. If the single most notable thing about a person is not notable enough for wikipedia, then the person herself is simply not notable. Like it or not, her dumb tweets and their consequences are what Gina Carano is best known for right now. There is no such thing as giving undue weight to them. You'd have to argue that she herself is irrelevant. But since consensus seems to be that she is notable, I'd say the controversy is also notable. And I don't see how we are representing reliable sources by leaving out the pointless fluff like her explanations and theweasel words that muddy the waters around what she actually did/said. There are far too many "her critics said that..." and "her post was interpreted as..." as it is. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, so I guess we'll have to see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested in what others think, you can refer to prior consensus on this very talk page. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:CCC ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Tags on Social Media and Political Views section

I figure this is going to need discussion. I'm personally ambivalent. Don't really care one way or the other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a point to the tags - nobody has really given any specific things they'd want to trim from the section (aside from "remove the entire thing", which seems like a nonstarter given the extensive citations to a wide variety of course and the fairly heavy media coverage.) Section tags aren't supposed to be marks of shame, and I'm not seeing a broad agreement here that the section is undue - if nobody has a specific, concrete issue with the section and an accompanying suggestion that could reasonably happen, I'll remove it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As long as improvements need to be made, I think that the tag deserves to be there. See above comments in "Social Media and Political Views section". — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been a week with no severe objection, so my plan is to replace the current Social media and political views section with the following and remove the tag. I'll give it a few days to see who says what.

Social media controversy

Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian and being dropped by United Talent Agency. This started after clashing with activist users on Twitter about support for the Black Lives Matter movement and worsened after changing her Twitter profile in a manner that some thought transphobic and of mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. She later changed her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said, "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose.” In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that her critics interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat people based on their cultural and religious identities"

References

1. Robinson, Joanna; Breznican, Anthony (November 19, 2020). "As Gina Carano and Star Wars Fans Clash, Hero Worship Turns to Scorn". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 26, 2021.
2. Jackson, Jon (November 18, 2020). "'The Mandalorian' Fans Once Again Petition Disney to Fire Gina Carano Over Offensive Tweets". Newsweek. Retrieved January 26, 2021.
3. Victor, Daniel (11 February 2021). "Gina Carano Is Off 'Mandalorian' Amid Backlash Over Instagram Post". The New York Times.
4. Cite error: The named reference Moreau 2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. D'Alessandro, Anthony (February 11, 2021). "Lucasfilm Calls Gina Carano Social Media Posts 'Abhorrent'; Actress No Longer Employed By 'Mandalorian' Studio". Deadline.
6. D'Alessandro, Anthony (11 February 2021). "'The Mandalorian' Actress Gina Carano & UTA Part Ways In Wake Of Social Media Controversy". Deadline.
7. Gonzalez, Umberto (2021-02-11). "Gina Carano Dropped by UTA After Uproar Over Social Media Posts". TheWrap. Retrieved 2021-02-16.

Pinging the last people to have posted on the talk page to see if there are any objections, or a consensus to override any objections. I'm not pinging those that simply redacted BLP issues or answered edit requests. If anyone wants to ping someone they think I missed, by all means go for it. Angry Red Hammer Guy, Aquillion, Sangdeboeuf, Acousmana, Wikibenboy94, Crossroads, PraiseVivec, Vaselineeeeeeee, SreySros, Gershonmk, Morbidthoughts, Wertwert55, Rendall. I think that's everyone from the past 250 edits on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - not an improvement on the current version. Acousmana (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - this is a brief, well-sourced and fairly comprehensive summary of the subject. I don't have any objections. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This entire thing got entirely out of hand, with constant edits from both sides trying to push viewpoints. The proposed one is very well-written, neutral, and tries to stick to the facts of the matter rather than reactions to it. Personally, I'd keep the statement that she was "pressed" to support Black Lives Matter, as that's what the source described the situation as being, and probably rewrite the opening sentences to be less wonky, but it's good otherwise. Wertwert55 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  I went with clashed so I could avoid writing several sentences about how the activists pressed her to support, she didn't want to, some were really mean, she called them bullies and all that back and forth. If people want more details than clashed there are plenty of sources cited. That's my reasoning anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: What started in August 2020, the backlash or the social media posts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Backlash. From the Vanity Fair source "In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano" "Carano replied on August 4." "In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps change the wording to Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian and being dropped by United Talent Agency.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll buy that for a dollar. Updated the prose. I'm open to any other copy editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not an improvement; the wording/punctuation for one could be better. Also, her being fired from Disney is referred to at both the beginning and end of the paragraph when really they should be together. (I've not really been following this and only commented the once. IMO the discussion has been overblown.) Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. It is much shorter and pithier than the existing version, and seems to lend a more fair weight to recent events. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also, Wikibenboy94 may have a point in that there are small improvements that could be made, but overall, I think the quality is acceptable. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to any copy editing anyone has to offer. I'm sure the writing isn't perfect, but I think the amount of information and detail is where we should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; not an improvement. For one thing, this would change it to a WP:CSECTION, which isn't a great way to organize things - a political views section is much more neutral and generally preferred. For another, the language in the new version seems a bit more emotive and opinionated - the current version (which it seeks to replace) is a more dry recitation of facts, whereas the proposed replacement characterizes people as activist users, uses WP:WEASEL wording for that some thought, and opens the section with an awkwardly-worded bit about Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media... It generally smushes multiple distinct things that all received significant coverage together in a way that's a bit awkward and hard to read. And it cuts several things that received significant coverage for no clear reason. I don't see any issues with the current version, but this proposed replacement is both less neutral and more poorly-worded, while omitting important aspects of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Activist users is a direct quote from the source. It states the BLM twitter issue started with "Some activist users" as opposed to the current statement of "Twitter users." The current version specifically slants the coverage in our sources. I expand on this a bit above with some more examples of how our current prose is not very neutral or true to the sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have a couple problems with the proposed version. Maybe it's just me, but there are a few excerpts that seem grammatically clumsy and hard if not impossible to parse. These would be easy to fix, so I'll put them first:

  1. Backlash... Agency (the first sentence). Readers have to dig through three nested prepositional phrases before they get to the meat of the sentence (that she was removed), and ...led to her removal from TM and being dropped by UTA is just begging for some parallel verbs. "...led to her being removed from TM and being dropped by UTA" maybe?

  2. This started after clashing... and worsened after changing... We need Carano (or "she") as a subject for both of these clauses.

  3. ...after changing her Twitter profile in a manner that some thought transphobic and of mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people.: I don't understand what's going on in this clause grammatically. What is the "of" doing?

Besides the grammar issues, there's quite a few neutrality errors as well:

4. ...some thought transphobic... The current article text (Carano was later accused of transphobia after modifying her Twitter profile in a manner that appeared to mock preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people.) is well-sourced, and this modification is whitewashing. (Vanity Fair: "...Carano made dismissive remarks about trans pronouns."; Newsweek: "...she was accused of transphobia by seemingly mocking people who write their preferred pronouns in their Twitter bios..."; Den of Geek: "She’s also been dismissive of adding pronouns to her Twitter bio...").

5. She later changed her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said, "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose.” This is 30% of the proposed paragraph by word count, and 25% by character count. It's far too much weight on her denial, an aspect that got relatively little coverage, and WP:MANDY applies here.

6. In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that her critics interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. This, again, whitewashes the controversy. Cutting the description we currently have (...that compared "hating someone for their political views" to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust and included an image taken during the Lviv pogroms.) removes well-sourced, important information and deprives the situation of valuable context.

Overall, I appreciate that this is shorter, and I think our current version could use to lose some length, but this version is the wrong way to go about doing that. It gives undue weight to her denial and not enough weight to the well-sourced descriptions of what she actually did. Sorry for the long post here, but I wanted to spell out the issues I saw and offer ways to fix them. Srey Sros 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the point by point critique. I agree on the first sentence, it could definitely be tidied up. For the second point we could go with "This started after Carano clashed with... worsened after she changed" to tidy that up as well. The of in point three is just a typo, so that can be cleaned up.

As for 4, "changing her Twitter profile in a manner that brought accusations of transphobia and of mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people" would bring it closer in line with current prose and avoid the "some" that is there now.

With 5 I agree that the quote is long, but I thought her full explanation would be helpful. Perhaps move the full text to a footnote, like we do for the conservatives/Jews text? We can use a small excerpt as we do now and then allow the reader to see the full text with a hover if they care to.

I disagree that point 6 is whitewashing, although I'd be interested in seeing some alternate phrasing for that. The sentence I used was one of the two we have in the article now. Perhaps using the first sentence or coming up with a succinct way of combining them is the way to go?

Again, I appreciate the long post, because I feel to get a lasting consensus on this we're going to need to hash things out and compromise. Now that I'm getting feedback we're in a position to develop a shorter, more neutral section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Sorry for the delay, I've been away from this page for a while (I typed up a response here a while ago but I guess I never sent it, oh well). The main issue I have with the current version of the article is that it doesn't actually tell the reader what Carano did wrt the pronoun thing. We include a lengthy quote, verbatim, of her defending herself (which has WP:MANDY issues), but we never actually say what she did; we only say how people reacted to it. The article says she changed her Twitter profile in a manner that led to accusations. If we don't want to say exactly what she did for length's sake, we have RSs, as I pointed about above, that support that her profile appeared to mock preferred pronouns. Under the current article, for all the reader knows she could have written "I hate trans people and preferred pronouns" in her profile.

The first main change that I would support here would be trimming the quote from her (potentially replacing it with something like She later adjusted her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal "helped understand why people were putting them in their bios.”), and the second would be to include the RS description of what she did wrt pronouns, either by writing it out explicitly or doing what the previously stable version did and saying that it appeared to mock preferred pronouns. Srey Sros 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I made both of those changes, how does it look now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros forgot a ping. Also I wanted to add it's been a pleasure working on this with you. Your feedback has been perfectly civil and very constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you as well, this has been refreshingly civil for such a controversial area. The new version seems a lot better. I've played around with the wording a little and come up with a possible edited version at my sandbox, I'd be interested to hear what you think. I don't think I made any substantive edits, but I've reordered things a little and changed some wording. Srey Sros 19:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks a-ok to me. The only thing I might change is "That same day" to "The same day", but that's a pretty minor quibble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, ah nice catch, I like that better. I like the flow of it better, so I'll boldly edit it in and see if people like it. If anyone thinks it's worse (or simply not an improvement), feel free to revert it. Srey Sros 19:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This is better than what's currently in the article but there are still some WP:UNDUE flaws. Newsweek is not reliable post-2013 per WP:RSP due to its clickbait nature. Second, focus of the social media criticism should be on the citations that report on the impact on her career rather than the blow by blow recounting of Vanity Fair months before she was let go. So it should be written to what citations 3-7 can support. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair all the sources say roughly the same thing. I'd prefer to distill everything down into a paragraph and then reference at the end, but I assume most people here would prefer to see citations per sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - While there is some room for including consensus POVs, I feel that this is a WP:Neutral and fair, accurate summary of the situation. I particularly like that this summary does not editorialize by implicitly asserting that any particular interpretation is true (i.e. that Carano's tweet was, or was not, transphobic) Rendall (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - This version is a complete mess, it leaves out her anti-mask tweets and election fraud conspiracy theories which are a major part of the controversy, and doesn't fix any of the real issues, i.e. fluff texts and weasel words. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please remember WP:CIVIL. Calling someone's work a "complete mess" is very rude. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's no problem Angry Red Hammer Guy, they've been very combative since the start and I just try to read the parts that actually apply to the current discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's an updated version taking into account the constructive feedback. Some grammar changes, cut down on Carano's quote about pronouns, expanded the bit on the conservatives/Jews flap that ultimately led to her firing. Also removed newsweek as a source since it wasn't needed anyway. I've also left out the Den of Geek source because I seriously doubt its reliability and we have plenty of higher quality sources to draw from.

Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian and being dropped by United Talent Agency. This started after Carano clashed with activist users on Twitter about support for the Black Lives Matter movement and worsened after she changed her Twitter profile in a manner that led to accusations of transphobia and mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. She later changed her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said, "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to.” In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that that compared "hating someone for their political views" to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust and included an image taken during the Lviv pogroms. Carano's critics interpreted this as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat people based on their cultural and religious identities"

References

1. Robinson, Joanna; Breznican, Anthony (November 19, 2020). "As Gina Carano and Star Wars Fans Clash, Hero Worship Turns to Scorn". Vanity Fair. Retrieved January 26, 2021.
2. Victor, Daniel (11 February 2021). "Gina Carano Is Off 'Mandalorian' Amid Backlash Over Instagram Post". The New York Times.
3. Cite error: The named reference Moreau 2021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. D'Alessandro, Anthony (February 11, 2021). "Lucasfilm Calls Gina Carano Social Media Posts 'Abhorrent'; Actress No Longer Employed By 'Mandalorian' Studio". Deadline.
5. D'Alessandro, Anthony (11 February 2021). "'The Mandalorian' Actress Gina Carano & UTA Part Ways In Wake Of Social Media Controversy". Deadline.
6. Gonzalez, Umberto (2021-02-11). "Gina Carano Dropped by UTA After Uproar Over Social Media Posts". TheWrap. Retrieved 2021-02-16.

Any other criticism would be appreciated. We're at about a 50/50 split right now, so hopefully we'll be able to get consensus soon and remove the tag of shame from the section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support I think this is an improvement. Shorter definitely seems better. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 01:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support While I believe some of the sentences could use some commas or even be split into two, the statement as a whole continues to judiciously, distinctly separate the editorial voice from the criticisms. In this version, Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia but tweets were criticized as anti-Semitic and transphobic, for example. Excellent WP:Neutral Rendall (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support In general, a better summary of the events than the previous version. Might still need some light copyediting though. Kind regards, Willbb234 (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I posted an updated version there have been three supports and no opposes, so I'll give it to tomorrow and then edit the section and remove the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Your new version didn't adress any of my previous criticisms, so I'm still opposed. The old version was clear, easy to follow, professionally written and encyclopedic. Your version is all one paragraph, that has sentences starting with "This started..." and "About this, she said:...", which are not only unencyclopedic, it's not even something someone with basic understanding of the english language would say.

You still give too much undue weight to her own defense of herself, and you use dodgy language instead of describing the criticisms she got as they were, so even User:SreySros's points have been ignored.

Your version also didn't restore any of the reverences to any of the anti-lockdown, antivax and election fraud conspiracy theories she was spreading, which were properly sourced and were a major part of the controversy. There's also still no mention of her association with Ben Shapiro and the Comicsgate hate group, which is probably the biggest indictment of her character.

The previous version wasn't good, but this is a massive downgrade. Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is. This is not consensus. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on content not contributors, especially in the case of Rendall where you believe you see an agenda when they was referring to the text saying there were accusations rather than something was factual. Also we're not here to "indict her character," rather we're summarizing the most significant things found in the body of reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. My agenda is to maintain WP:Neutrality. As a personal aside, I despise anti-Semitism and racism more than most, which is why I'm careful not to dilute its meaning by flinging the accusation at whomever annoys or disagrees with me. Rendall (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is not false neutrality. If reliable sources say what Gina Carano said was transphobic and antisemitic than that is what wikipedia will say. Reliable sources are neutral. Fringe gossip mills are not. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Three quarters of my post was on content and the remaining was on one of the arguments in support of your change - consensus on wikipedia is determined by quality of arguments, not majority vote, and Rendall seems more concerned about whitewashing Gina Carano than improving the article.

Your changes are also not shorter as User:Angry_Red_Hammer_Guy claims. If anything, your version is longer, because it's bloated with pointless fluff and convoluted sentences that are neither gramatically correct, nor encyclopedic, as I have mentioned before. The reason why it's shorter isn't because the wording is better. It's shorter because you arbitrarily singled out two details of the controversy and cut any mention of the rest.

Also, a lot of contributors seem to completely misunderstand what the Gina Carano controversy is all about. This is not about Gina Carano making dumb tweets in a vacuum. This is about an ongoing problematic behavior that she doubled down on even after being told by her employers multiple times to stop. Her persistently using her celebrity status to clash with transgender advocates, spread harmful pro-trump rethoric, conspiracy theories on Covid 19 and voter fraud, as well as other alt right nonsense is the whole controversy. One singular ongoing issue. Her opening a Parler account and willingly and knowingly associating with Ben Shapiro, as well as online hate groups that are part of Comicsgate and QAnon is simply the latest development.

Please look up Tila Tequila for another example of an alt-right sweetheart. Gina Carano's article should be handled the same way in my opinion, considering that, as I stated above, her controversy over her anti-trans, pro-trump rethoric and her association with the far right, are the single most notable things about her right now. This article should be examined by veteran contributors versed in political topics like User:Snooganssnoogans. I'm tempted to call him in, actually. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. A little while ago SreySros made what he calls a "bold reword/restructure" of the "Social media controversy" section, and it remains the current version. Please take a look (if you haven't already), and propose changes to this new version rather than continuing to disscuss an old proposed edit. Also, I would reccommend being very careful about how you call in other editors, because depending on the situation this could be seen as Meatpuppetry. Some less risky options are listed over at Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus-building. Thanks, — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

​*what she calls, per my user page and the GENDER magic word, accessible through the {{they}} template.

Also, I think the relevant guideline here would be WP:Canvassing (meatpuppetry is when someone recruits another person to edit WP, rather than calling in someone who already is an editor). I would welcome any thoughts on or criticism of my edited version. Srey Sros 20:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros: Thanks! I will try to remember your pronouns for the future. Also thank you for clarifying the difference between canvassing and meatpuppetry, it helps. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 23:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros: The page on WP:Canvassing lists "Editors known for expertise in the field" under "appropriate notifications". User:Snooganssnoogans is known for expertise in all things connected to the alt right - in fact, he participated in discussions of every article even tangentially related to it, and always came out on top of every discussion, effectively representing wikipedia's voice on these issues. He's infamous even outside of wikipedia. And considering who Gina Carano's enablers are and who's rethoric she's regurgitating on social media, she is connected, whether you like it or not. This is the kind of topic Snoogans should at least look at. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Angry Red Hammer Guy: The new version still claims she was "pressured" by activists to support the Black Lives Matter movement. This is false. She was liking tweets from alt right personalities disparaging the movement. This version is whitewashing. Her pushing conspiracy theories is still unmentioned.

The bigger problem still remains however, namely that this is just a list of separate incidents, that appear to exist in a vacuum. There is no mention of the fact that Gina Carano has been engaging in this sort of behavior persistently. Listing two or three incidents or even all of them isn't going to do this justice without the proper framing. The reason why I believe at least her parler account and her DW interview should be mentioned is because they give context to these seemingly separate instances. To an uninformed reader, the current version gives the impression that Gina Carano is a celebrity who on a couple of occasions tweeted dumb shit.

It doesn't matter what events you add, what gets removed and how the wording changes, you can's leave the biggest problem with this section unadressed and expect me to give a different opinion. Gina Carano has been criticised for using her platform to promote pro-trump rethoric and spread conspiracy theories about Covid19 and wide spread election fraud. She also opened an acocunt on far right social media platform Parler, and associated herself with fringe far right influencers and pundits, including Ben Shapiro. These details need to be included. Her conspiracy theory tweets received wide coverage, and should not be left unmentioned, and her association with the Daily Wire and the Fandom Menace paint a broader picture of wat kind of a person she is. They are key information to understanding this entire controversy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. We follow the sources, and that is what sources say. If you'd like different prose you should provide reliable sources and the prose you'd like to see instead of attacking other users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You said focus on the content yet you're the one who keeps ignoring my comments on the content in favor of accusing me of attacking other users. The source is a vanity fair article. That same article also backs up all of the things I have been saying since I started commenting on this talk page. You cannot say we go with what sources say when you're arbitrarily ignoring things in that very source.

• Two months ago, Carano made dismissive remarks about trans pronouns. She's also shared unproven theories about both the presidential election results and COVID-19 mask mandates.
• In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans accusing her of racism on Twitter after some followers highlighted posts she had liked that mocked or cast aspersions on Black Lives Matter protests.
• "Carano was actually vehemently hated by Star Wars 'fans,' you know the ones," Josefina Vineyard wrote to Vanity Fair. "They felt like featuring a muscular woman in the show was 'SJW Pandering' or some such nonsense. The best thing happening in live-action Star Wars at the moment, and they were angry at it for featuring a female MMA fighter for three episodes ... suddenly those same fans love her."
• The uproar quieted for a time, but Carano reignited the controversy in the aftermath of the November 3 election by promoting unproven theories about voter fraud, and also shared memes that questioned the value of wearing a mask to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
• When she announced her move to Parler, it was interpreted as a provocation, and critics of her actions began demanding her removal from The Mandalorian.
• While her defiance alienated some who previously looked up to her, the scores of supportive replies to Carano’s recent Parler message suggest she has also drawn new admirers from the right side of the political spectrum. "It's been very strange to watch a person go from being a controversial figure for all the wrong reasons to being controversial for better reasons," Vineyard observed. Carano's Parler account, for what its worth, looks nearly identical to her Twitter feed; the actor appears to be double posting the same right-leaning memes.
• But even as Disney/Lucasfilm continue to grapple with a divided fandom, one thing that Star Wars will never be is apolitical. Politics is baked into Lucas’s original story about a band of scrappy rebels taking on an evil empire. It’s possible, in this case, that Carano views herself as a rebel—even if many of her previous admirers would say she’s gone to the dark side.

The very source you're citing has literally all the information I'm asking for, minus the holocaust post, her getting dropped and the Ben Shapiro interview, because all that came later. If you want to insist on having the claim that Carano was pressured to support BLM, then what is your argument for leaving all this out, including the part where she liked posts disparaging the movement)? It's all there, clear cut, black and white. Are you going to finally start acknowledging my criticisms? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Because her being pressured to support BLM is what kicked off the set of dominoes that led to her eventual firing. I'm not of the mind that we need to cover every single thing that happened and every tweet someone was critiqued for, just the ones that had a direct effect. Looking at the weight in sources the BLM tweets, the pronouns and Jewish person/American conservative were the big three. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the sources really say that; only Vanity Fair even uses the term "pressured", and none of the others really say anything comparable, so using it to lead the entire section or treating it as if it was the root cause is pretty ] (and even Vanity Fair doesn't seem to call it the root cause.) From Vulture: This was not Carano’s first brush with social-media controversy. In the past few months, Carano has used her social-media platform to mock COVID mask mandates, spread conspiracy theories about the legitimacy of the election, and like posts disparaging Black Lives Matter and pronoun usage. From the Washington Post: In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement. I also take issue with the use of the word pressured, which seems a bit non-neutral in tone and which only one source uses - in particular, Vanity Fair's framing directly contradicts the way the Washington Post described it, which strikes me as more neutral. If we use the Washington Post as the main source instead, everything about that aspect of the controversy can be easily summarized into a single sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the "cowards and bullies" quote because I don't think it adds anything unless we want to get into further discussion in the article about how she felt she was being harassed, and I re-added activist before twitter users because the sources don't support it was just a general population of twitter users, rather it was a specific subset. Otherwise I don't have any issues with your change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: please put the references to her spreading conspiracy theories back. There was no reason to remove them. Also, by now reliable sources have covered her new contract with DW and the Ben Shapiro interview, as well as the fact that the support she's getting comes from the toxic "anti-SJW" side of the internet. All of these are key elements of the controversy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As the examples given by User:Aquillion show, other reliable sources cover her conspiracy theory nonsense as well. I don't see what your criteria is for determining which of her tweets are "the big three". Your choice appears to be arbitrary. That being said, As I mentioned before, you are completely misrepresenting the controversy. This is not about separate controversial tweets with separate consequences. There wasn't a single tweet that generated controversy and consequences. There IS an ongoing social media behavior. EVERYTHING she has said and did contributed to Star Wars fans asking her to be fired, and her eventually being dropped by Disney and the talent agency. It is all one issue, and you cannot just cherry-pick individual episodes to frame them like they exist in a vacuum.

And another thing. This part: She later removed the words from her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal had helped her "understand why people were putting in their bios.” doesn't appear in any of the sources. It's a misrepresentation of what actually went down. It also creates the false impression that the pronoun controversy ended when Gina Carano removed the words words and issued some kind of public statement or apology when this is not what the sources say. Her saying she talked to Pedro Pascal was ONE reply to ONE tweet, and even though she removed the offending words, she continued to antagonize the transgender community. The sentence above should be changed to "She later removed the words from her profile, but later tried justifying them by saying she can put whatever she wants in her bio." which is what the sources say. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll address your second point first. I looked at the sources listed at the end of this sentence: She later removed the words from her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal had helped her "understand why people were putting in their bios.” The Washington Post says this: She later walked back that sentiment, citing a conversation with actor Pedro Pascal of “The Mandalorian,” in which she said her co-star “helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios.” The New York Times says this: She said she talked with her “Mandalorian” co-star Pedro Pascal, who “helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios.” Deadline says this: She later walked that back, saying Mandalorian star Pedro Pascal “helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios. I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose.” All three of these sources mention this quote, and all three of these sources end their coverage of the "pronoun controversy" with these sentences. Considering this, I don't believe any change needs to be made to the sentence in question.

Now for your first point. The Nazi related instagram post is the most notable part of the controversy, because it had the greatest effect on her life. As for the other two, (the pronouns thing and the BLM thing), they seem like they were a bigger part of the controversy than the posts about masks and voting and stuff. If the notability of these two got accurately assesed, I wouldn't be against more notable events replacing them in this section, as long as they are written neutrally. However, I think that making the "Social media controversy" section longer by adding all the small details would give too much weight to recent events. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Angry Red Hammer Guy: The fact that other sources don't mention the fact that Gina Carano in fact doubled down on the "beep/boop/borp" thing AFTER she claimed she spoke to Pedro, only shows that their reporting is incomplete. Carano's tweet about talking to Pedro was one reply among many to a random tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Her comment in which she claimed the transgender community is bullying her for putting "three small words in her bio", was not.

And for the last time, the individual episodes don't exist in a vacuum. You're perpetuating the same misinformation that Gina Carano's right wing enablers are spreading, that she was fired because of one tweet. No. By the time she made the holocaust tweet, Gina Carano has already been causing problems with her behavior for months. All episodes, including opening a parler account, the anti-mask posts, and the election conspiracy theories had just as much if not more importance. The holocaust post is only special because it was made after season 2 ended, but by that time, she has given Disney more than enough reasons not to work with her anymore. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If this small a number of reliable sources cover her continued defense of "beep/bop/boop" after she talked to Pedro, I highly doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion in the Misplaced Pages page.

Your second point is actually pretty good. This is what Disney said when they fired her: “Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.” Note how it says "social media posts", plural. But note also how it only mentions social media posts that " people based on their cultural and religious identities", which doesn't seem to include her mask/voter posts and the parler thing. They appear to be talking only about the BLM thing, the Nazi thing, and the pronouns thing. It also looks like this is the weight that most of our sources give the events as well. I think that this weight is fair. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> <📧> 16:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And a high number of reliable sources conver her spreading of conspiracy theories and tangling with fringe right wing elements. At the very least there needs to be some mention of the fact that she had a persistent habit of spreading right wing trumpist rethoric on social media, to frame the whole thing because the way it is now, still reads like she made three separate controversial tweets in a vacuum. Context matters. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The posts in question (vaccines, masks, voting, and her Parler account) had little to no effect on her life, and no documented effect on Disney's decision to drop her. Including them would give too much weight to recent events (as per WP:RECENTISM). — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬-📧-ℹ️> 16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I also said "At the very least there needs to be some mention of the fact that she had a persistent habit of spreading right wing trumpist rethoric on social media, to frame the whole thing because the way it is now, still reads like she made three separate controversial tweets in a vacuum. Context matters." Please read more than just my first sentences. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There need not be any mention of her vaccines/masks/voting posts on social media, for they are not notable and do not fit within the existing context. The way it is now, the "Social media controversy" section reads like she made three related controversial tweets. They all pertain to her firing, and her firing pertains to her time with Disney, and her time with Disney pertains to her film career, and her film career pertains to her life. You are undeniably correct in that context matters.

Fight injustice, put these things on your blog, submit an article to a magazine, pass out flyers, make your voice heard using the tools you are given. Misplaced Pages, however, is not one of these tools. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If that was what I wan't I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain myself here. It's this article that I'm trying to help improve.

I'm asking for the controversy to be framed. Just two sentences. One in the beginning starting out explaining that she has been criticised for persistently voicing fringe right wing opinions on social media, and one additional sentence at the end acknowledging that she has received support from fringe right wing voices. This doesn't even need any aditional citations, because all of this is already covered by the cited sources.

Also, by your logic, Gina Carano getting hired by the Daily Wire is also something that should be mentioned. After all, that DID indeed have an effect on her life. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the end of the "Television and Film Career" section, you will indeed find mention of her hiring by the DW.

I am standing by what I said. This section should not be framed with non-notable, out of context sentences like the ones you have previously proposed in this thread. It would be more appropriate, but I would still be opposed to a very short sentence at the beginning that says something like, "Gina Carano has voiced political opinions which are generally held to be Republican views." For reference, take a look at Pedro Pascal's page, and note how his policical opinions are left entirely out of the page. There is no mention of him being a democrat. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Make it "Gina Carano has been criticised for pushing fringe right-wing talking points on social media", and I'll concede That is a much more accurate description. "...generally held to be republican views" doesn't make any sense and isn't even accurate. Her political views are most accurately described as populist right or trumpist, not "republican". As damning as "republican" is it's not very specific.

Her employment by the DW is part of the controversy, seeing as it confirms that all of the criticism levelld against her to be legitimate. The DW is a fringe far right political rag, and Ben Shapiro is a far right pundit. willingly associating with them isn't the same as just getting a new job and that should be acknowledged.

As for the Pedro Pascal whataboutery - the same whataboutery that GC's enablers have tried to push in this article a few weeks ago, all I can say is, false comparison. Gina Carano is notable only because of the social media controversy she's been stirring for over half a year now, with her terrible political takes. Pedro on the other hand is an actor, and not a political one. The most "controversial" thing Pedro has ever done is compare modern white supremacists to 18th century white supremacists, and modern concentration camps to WW2 concentration camps. A completely apolitical, non-partisan statement anywhere outside of post-trump america. For a more accurate comparison, I recommended the article on Tila Tequila, another alt-right sweetheart. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed to your proposed edits because they are potentially libelous, not notable, poorly sourced, and out of context.

How do you recommend making the Gina Carano page like the Tila Tequila page? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am down to ONE proposed edit. Leading up the controversy section with "Gina Carano has been criticised for pushing fringe right-wing talking points on social media", and I'll concede That is a much more accurate description." This is not libelous, and it's in line with what reliable sources say. Also, it's not out of context. What we currently have, is out of context. My proposed edit would put them IN context.

You wanted to draw comparisons with Pedro Pascal's article, when the two cases are not similar. Pedro Pascal is completely apolitical and his views are not relevant. Gina Carano on the other hand is notable BECAUSE of the controversy she stirred with her ignorant political takes. Without that, nobody would know or care who she is besides star wars fans, and the few MMA fans who still remember she used to be a thing at one point. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

She was certainly notable before the social media controversy and it's odd that you keep claiming otherwise. Also please find sourcing that says shes been criticized for pushing "fringe right-wing" talking points. Looking at the sources in the article now none make that claim, and I've done some searching and found no strong sources that make that claim. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Break

• I definitely don't agree with this edit. Vanity Fair is the only one who describes it that way; pulling that descriptor out and using it to frame the entire section is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, we are required to maintain a neutral tone per WP:TONE - the sources we use are often not required to, so we have to use a degree of caution when following their language. For something like that I'd expect to see other sources using similar language before we could use it in the first sentence of the section - and instead, we have other sources saying the exact opposite. I also disagree with the assertion that the Washington Post is less in-depth; it says "In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement." That's more neutral in tone, in that it simply reports the facts and doesn't ascribe motivations to the criticism; I don't think it make sense for us to go with the less-neutral tone from Vanity Fair (which is often a more opinionated source to begin with) when more neutral sources are available. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Stating that she was being merely "criticized", and in a vacuum without context, is POV. Especially when WaPo said "public support" and this was changed to "support". And WaPo is no less opinionated than Vanity Fair in these sorts of things. Vanity Fair clearly states: "In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance." We don't do special pleading or whitewashing of Twitter activist behavior. The source is clear on what happened and the factors at play in what followed. Crossroads 20:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Aquillion, you make a good point. When I wrote the (sort of) current version I was more focused on style, flow and compromise between the existing proposals. I agree with you that current version does give undue weight to Vanity Fair's framing of the events, and I would prefer a more neutral wording. Additionally, upon reading through the sources, the "cowards and bullies" comment seems just as notable if not more than the Pascal conversation quote (BBC, WaPo, Newsweek), so I would favor inclusion of that quote as well. Srey Sros 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Mentioning that she called them that without stating what they were doing in return - "pressure" - is even more POV. This stuff against the Vanity Fair source is special pleading and is what is non-neutral. It is the most comprehensive source I know of from that point in time and is therefore better than brief pieces from WaPo or whatever. Crossroads 21:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: This "context" you speak of is only mentioned in Vanity Fair. Every other source says she was criticized for not supporting BLM and liking tweets that attacked it, and that she called her critics "cowards and bullies". That is what reliable sources say. That is what the article should reflect. Carano has a repeating pattern of calling her critics "bullies". She called BLM supporters "bullies", she called transgender people trying to explain pronouns to her "bullies" (this was after she claimed she spoke to Pedro, by the way), and in the Ben Shapiro interview, she described her higher-ups warning her to desist from her problematic social media behavior as being "bullied by the company". Gina Carano sure likes to call people bullies at the first sign of any pushback to her behavior. I think there's a term for that. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's simply untrue that this is only covered by VF. Directly below this post (until I replied to it) I'm quoting the BBC source SreySros provided that does not say she called BLM supporters bullies, she called those who called her racist after she didn't post anything online supporting BLM bullies. The other source SreySros provided actually covers the tweets Carano was responding to where she was called racist and a bootlicker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources claim she was "pressured". And considering what kind of tweets she liked, and what kind of people support her now, being called "racist" and "bootlicker" don't appear to be inappropriate as criticism in her case. If she doesn't want to be called that, she should consider distancing herself from her current fanbase. I said this in the past and I'll say it again: You appear to be biased in Gina Carano's favor. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the "cowards and bullies" mention was how it was framed. To quote the BBC source Back in August Carano was asked to show her support for BLM. When she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist. She responded saying: "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I'm sorry, these people are not 'educators.' They are cowards and bullies." Saying Carano was criticized by Twitter users for her lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement; labeling the critics "cowards and bullies", completely reframes how most sources are reporting it. The Newsweek source you linked to even gives examples of the type of bullying behavior she was responding to. The text that was added made it sound like she labeled all of her critics bullies and cowards when it was a response to specific behavior which is covered by sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I don't understand how "Carano blasted 'cowards and bullies' for..." is neutral. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an exact quote, but in any case, I'm less concerned with that point than with the excessive focus on a single word from Vanity Fair which isn't reflected in the sources (per WP:RSP many people consider "biased or opinionated", so I'd at least insist on in-text attribution as long as it's the only citation for that.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And again, this is a POV whitewash and absolutely does not have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish also addressed this above. Vanity Fair is listed in green and the most recent discussion on it is here; hardly anyone mentions bias and those who do are not saying it's biased towards the right wing; quite the opposite. Making it seen like Gina Carano did the beep/bop/boop thing out of the clear blue when that is false is a borderline WP:BLP violation. It's absolutely not WP:NPOV to write the section as though it's a 'Twitter good, Carano bad' narrative when the most detailed, reliable sources are more nuanced. Crossroads 03:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We must summarize all the sources. No matter how strongly you might personally feel that the Vanity Fair summary is the best source (I disagree; it is a conversational piece that focuses more on opinion than fact, and is generally one of the weaker ones we have), and no matter how fervently you might agree with it, it is WP:UNDUE to pull out what you personally consider the most important word from it and repeated it over and over throughout the section as though that is the only possible interpretation. Note that the part you are repeatedly insisting we give primary focus at the top of the section is a single word two-thirds of the way down the article; the new addition you attempted to add, which has even more severe WP:TONE issues, isn't even in Vanity Fair's voice but is plainly attributed to Rebecca Green. Obviously multiple sources have had multiple different takes and interpretations about what happened; you cannot simply take one of them, when it does not align with the others, declare it correct, repeat it over and over, and insist on downplaying all other coverage. And given the choice between more sedate, neutral language (language that does not ascribe motivation or intent to anyone involved), obviously we should go with the sources that use more neutral language. In any case, as you are aware, you added the second quote from Vanity Fair mere days ago; insisting that it is the status quo makes no sense. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you've insisted on re-adding your contested text, I've added in-line attributions for now (at the very least, with only one source saying it, we should make that clear), and added undue-weight inline tags, since it seems patiently undue to me. I do not understand your WP:BLP claims at all; BLP does not demand, as you seem to be implying, that we always take what you personally believe to be the most sympathetic coverage of a subject, and in any case I don't see that it is actually negative without it. If you disagree, take it to WP:BLPN again, but it seems patiently absurd to me; we cover things as the sources as a whole do, not by putting excessive weight on whatever sources an editor decides are most ideologically friendly. Our coverage of BLP subjects is required to be accurate, even-handed, and neutral in tone, not fawning or defensive. It feels, basically, like your opinion is that most sources have not been telling the story "properly" or in a way that is appropriately "fair" to her, and that putting excessive weight on Vanity Fair (the one source that, in your view, does) is a way to correct for this; but that is ultimately a form of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We have always given much more WP:WEIGHT to reliable sources that discuss a topic in depth than to ones that gloss over it. You appear to be wanting to "count" sources in some not-clearly-explained way. Vanity Fair is in no way weaker, and discussing opinion is very different from being opinionated (and in no way is Vanity Fair "ideologically friendly" towards Carano's views). The first occurrence of "pressured" is the status quo, and therefore without a consensus to change it, it must stay the same. I never said anything about preferring sources based on ideology; it is you who keeps needing to portray people on Twitter, a site well known for toxic behavior, as doing nothing wrong. Crossroads 05:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: False. It is not a "POV" whitewash, it is an accurate summarization of what the sources say. I agree with User:Aquillion's edit. If anything, it is you who is trying to whitewash Gina Carano, by pushing a narrative that comes from her enablers. Reliable sources don't claim she was pressured to support BLM. Reliable Sources claim she was criticized for liking posts from detractors of BLM. Stick to what the reliable sources say. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

How about she faced calls to include pronouns. We already use pressured above for the BLM coverage. Faced calls from some fans or similar language matches sources, like this for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick source analysis so we can see on balance the types of wording the sources are using. All sources are left leaning or in the case of Vanity Fair left biased according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, so it's not like we're getting anything whitewashed or right wing slanted. There are a few uses of demanded, from both the Independent and BBC. There's a lot of "faced calls" and some "asked to show support." I think on the whole the sources support the current language of pressured to support BLM and faced calls to add pronouns.

• BBC Back in August Carano was asked to show her support for BLM. When she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist.
• BBC She had faced calls to add pronouns such as 'she/her' on her Twitter bio after Mandalorian star Pedro Pascal had added 'he/him' on his profile. The use of pronouns is common among transgender social media users to help avoid misgendering... However, in response to demands, the actor eventually added the words "boop/bop/beep" to her bio.
• Deadline In November, she made fun of those using preferred pronouns on social media by listing “beep/bop/boop” in her Twitter bio. The action came off as transphobic.
• WaPo In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement. The next month, she was accused of ridiculing transgender pronouns by adding “boop/bop/beep” to her Twitter profile. She pushed back against critics who accused her of being transphobic, saying she did it to expose “the bullying mentality of the mob.”
• The Independent She had faced calls to add her pronouns to her Twitter biography (a common practise among transgender and cisgender social media users to help avoid misgendering). However, in response to the demand, the actor added the words “boop/bop/beep” to her Twitter name, in apparent ridicule of the convention
• Vanity Fair In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No it does not. For starters, mediabiasfactcheck.com is not a reliable fact-checking site, and for that matter, I wouldn't trust any self proclaimed fact-checker that describes any of those sources as "left-leaning". The fact is, you insist on pushing the claim that Gina Carano was pressured when none of those sources other than Vanity Fair make this claim. Based on all sources you presented, she declined to show support for BLM, was criticised for it, and she proceeded to call her critics "cowards and bullies". That is what the reliable sources say. Using non neutral language to cast Gina Carano in a more favorable light is not contributing towards improving this article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Carano's motivations

On the social media and political views section, it captures the views of her critics and the timeline of the events really well. One thing I will have to point out though, is that we don’t really get to read about Gina Carano’s motives. She recently did an interview with political pundit Ben Shapiro on the Daily Wire, and in this interview she states that her controversial tweet was not to compare republicans to Jews from the Holocaust, but actually a call for unity. She went on to say that when she was calling to stop the hatred on those who differ on political views she meant hate on both republicans and democrats. When she was stating that the Holocaust happened from people learning to hate their neighbors, she felt that this was thing as people were learning to hate each other based off policy preference. If this clarification from Gina Carano is sincere or not is up for debate, but I do believe her input needs to be added. That way the readers of this page can get more background on this situation and determine the sincerely for themselves. Masterzat (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

We have to use the weight of sources about the topic to come up with our prose, and in general not a lot of reliable sources are covering that, as much as what led to her firing. Currently, in the section above, is a discussion about overhauling that section. That said, if you have reliable secondary sources that cover her response and motivations you can post them here to see if they can be of use in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Wire is generally unreliable. Interviews in general are primary sources and should be used cautiously if at all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Not only is the Daily Wire a hyperpartisan rag, peddling nonsense propaganda on a regular basis, but an interview with her specifically made to paint her the victim, using her own account of the events is unencyclopedic. wikipedia isn't here to validate your POV. That being said I, like most people believe Gina Carano's willingness to associate with someone like Ben Shapiro speaks miles about her character and the validity of the criticism she got. This is why I've been trying to argue that at the very least, the Daily WIre interview should be mentiones as reported by a reliable secondary source, because Carano's role as an alt right propaganda figure is becoming increasingly obvious and wikipedia should report on it. Unfortunately, consensus is not on my side. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Lucas film's alleged hypocrisy regarding pedro pascal.

Apparently pedro pascal made some similar nazi-related social media posts, including comparing united states in 2018 to being similar to nazi germany, using Palestinians behind barb wire as props apparently to apear as if Jews in concetration camps. Then in 2020 posting a image that compares trump/and or trump supporters with nnazi germany as well as the confedderacy. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/mandalorian-gina-carano-fired-pedro-pascal-lucasfilm https://nypost.com/2021/02/11/fans-raise-pedro-pascal-tweets-amid-gina-carano-firing/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The WP:NYPOST is generally unreliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This also isn't Pascal's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

it's connected to the firing of Carano, which is what this wiki is about. 2600:6C44:701B:200:204A:9858:EA3E:5B1D (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that it is quite notable enough to put in without it sounding gossipy. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 01:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This bit of nonsense has already been slipped into the article and promptly removed. Not only is it not notable, it's blatant trumpist whataboutery. Pedro Pascal's posts are not comparable. Gina Carano has a history of making dumb political takes on social media abd hurting Disney's PR. Fans have been calling for Gina Carano's firing over her ignorant tweets. Pedro Pascal is universally loved and uncontroversial. Disney dropped the actor who was causing controversy. That was Carano, not Pascal. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the Social Media Controversy it is mentioned that she insinuated that American Conservatives were Nazis but it’s the opposite. She insinuated American liberals are Nazis after taking up in the habit of absolutely destroying people who shared conservative values. You need to change that statement 70.50.72.61 (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Right wing populism category

I've been reverting the addition of this category as it's not a defining characteristic and it is contentious and both of those mean no go on the category. Any other thoughts on this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not a defining characteristic. See also WP:OPINIONCAT. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• C-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Martial arts articles
• C-Class Kickboxing articles
• Kickboxing task force articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class Texas articles
• Low-importance Texas articles
• WikiProject Texas articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class mixed martial arts articles
• C-Class Women's sport articles
• Mid-importance Women's sport articles
• C-Class Women's martial arts articles
• Women's martial arts task force articles
• Women's MMA task force articles
• WikiProject Women articles
• C-Class Boxing articles
• WikiProject Boxing articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report