This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nick Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nick Carter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nick Carter at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay, can someone please tell me how was Nick's sister BJ and brother-in-law Mike Ashton even involved with the restraining orders? It was only Nick and Angel who filed against Aaron. I even found of it myself right here.
1. https://www.tmz.com/2019/11/20/aaron-carter-restraining-order-court-brother-nick-sister-angel/
2. https://people.com/music/aaron-carter-twin-sister-restraining-order-extended/
3. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8530283/nick-carter-restraining-order-against-aaron-carter
4. https://www.etonline.com/aaron-carters-brother-nick-granted-1-year-restraining-order-136773
See? There was no mention of BJ or Mike in any of the articles. 108.46.251.85 ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Unproven allegations have been repeatedly added to, and removed from, this article. An IP editor has made a legal threat in relation to the material being included. I blocked the IP range under the policy on legal threats. However, I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material. For convenience I am posting here a copy of comments by Daniel and myself posted at WP:AN/I. JBW ( talk) 09:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely no issue with the block for NLT, obviously that's black and white. And on the face of it, I agree that removal of sourced information is generally revertable with minimum thought. But let's take a step back here and think about this. I think it's fair to say that this person is either the subject, or someone associated with the subject. The sentence they are trying to remove is sourced, so agree that it has the right to be included. But is it a fair representation of the sources and situation ( WP:NPOV)? For me, no. It doesn't mention that he denied the claims. It doesn't mention any of his viewpoint. Right now, that paragraph reads to someone who doesn't click thru to the source as if the only thing that 'saved' him was the statute of limitations, and does not even touch on the fact that he denied the claims. In my view, I can just about understand the removal of content by a person closely associated with the subject, given the emotion they would feel reading it presented the way it is. I feel like we can make some changes here to benefit the presentation of the information, and improve the content around this paragraph to make it more reflective of the situation (and hence, neutral). Thoughts? (Pinging those who have edited the article recently @ Vedbas:, @ Johnnie Bob:, @ CodeTalker:, and blocking administrator @ JBW:.) Daniel ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have removed names and exact dates from non-notable family members that we do not need to include, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the sexual assault allegations in regards to Nick Carter should be added as it's a matter of public record. Initially I added all 3 incidences that had been reported to police, as well as statements from Nick Carter where they were reported. The edit was reverted on the basis no charges were laid. Nick Carter is a public figure and there for the allegations, which are notable and well sourced should be added per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I have added the blog of the initial Melissa Schuman allegation as the many news reports refer to it and Nick Carter's statement is based on the blog so I within the context it's important to add the primary source. Also it seems this has been discussed above in "Controversy" where 3 different users agreed the allegations should be added and then again in "Contentious unproven allegations" where the main point of contention was neutrality. In my edit I added sources and comments from alleged victim's, police and Nick Carter / his representatives. (Redacted) Pinging @ Meters: and @ Beauty School Dropout: who reverted my edits so we can hopefully come to a consensus. Persianprince99 ( talk) 08:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianprince99 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I came across this talk page on Dustin Hoffman, which I found interesting as the proposed changes were written by his publicist (COI was stated). I thought it may be a little useful as a way of comparison as allegations were made, he replied but nothing very significant came of them [1]
There is also this article on Morgan Freeman where allegations of harassment have been documented under the "Personal Life" section. In this case the allegations were not credible but they were still included. I'm including this as the article was reviewed and given GA status [2]
Now I know that just because other articles have been edited in a certain way doesn't mean it has bearing on how this will be edited but I thought it was a good talking point and a bit of a framework to how allegations, regardless of veracity, can be documented in high quality articles. Persianprince99 ( talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't normally discuss accusations unless they result in convictions, let alone ones that don't even result in charges. Meters ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material.You restored the material, and more, three times, before bringing it to the talk page. Meters ( talk) 07:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Is the inclusion of sexual assault allegations in line with BLP policy for public figures? Persianprince99 ( talk) 04:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Moved. I see a consensus favoring the move in numbers and in argument strength. Nobody questions that the singer is the primary topic by a huge margin in terms of likelihood of being sought as estimated by relative page views. While long-term significance is also important, in order to counter such a strong primary topic by page views, any other use with more long-term significance also has to have a relatively significant number of page views. But here the other uses are clearly quite obscure in terms of how often people visit them and therefore in terms of how likely they are to be sought. There is also consensus to move the dab page currently at the base name to Nick Carter (disambiguation). The other uses are so unlikely to be sought there's no need to even hatnote link to any of them directly from this page once it's at the basename; just one to the dab page should be sufficient. -- В²C ☎ 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) В²C ☎ 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
– This is why I propose this move. The topic seems to be primary/main ( WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for many years, but the singer has been very popular since the 90s. RapMonstaXY ( talk) 11:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nick Carter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Nick Carter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Nick Carter at the Reference desk. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay, can someone please tell me how was Nick's sister BJ and brother-in-law Mike Ashton even involved with the restraining orders? It was only Nick and Angel who filed against Aaron. I even found of it myself right here.
1. https://www.tmz.com/2019/11/20/aaron-carter-restraining-order-court-brother-nick-sister-angel/
2. https://people.com/music/aaron-carter-twin-sister-restraining-order-extended/
3. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8530283/nick-carter-restraining-order-against-aaron-carter
4. https://www.etonline.com/aaron-carters-brother-nick-granted-1-year-restraining-order-136773
See? There was no mention of BJ or Mike in any of the articles. 108.46.251.85 ( talk) 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Unproven allegations have been repeatedly added to, and removed from, this article. An IP editor has made a legal threat in relation to the material being included. I blocked the IP range under the policy on legal threats. However, I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material. For convenience I am posting here a copy of comments by Daniel and myself posted at WP:AN/I. JBW ( talk) 09:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely no issue with the block for NLT, obviously that's black and white. And on the face of it, I agree that removal of sourced information is generally revertable with minimum thought. But let's take a step back here and think about this. I think it's fair to say that this person is either the subject, or someone associated with the subject. The sentence they are trying to remove is sourced, so agree that it has the right to be included. But is it a fair representation of the sources and situation ( WP:NPOV)? For me, no. It doesn't mention that he denied the claims. It doesn't mention any of his viewpoint. Right now, that paragraph reads to someone who doesn't click thru to the source as if the only thing that 'saved' him was the statute of limitations, and does not even touch on the fact that he denied the claims. In my view, I can just about understand the removal of content by a person closely associated with the subject, given the emotion they would feel reading it presented the way it is. I feel like we can make some changes here to benefit the presentation of the information, and improve the content around this paragraph to make it more reflective of the situation (and hence, neutral). Thoughts? (Pinging those who have edited the article recently @ Vedbas:, @ Johnnie Bob:, @ CodeTalker:, and blocking administrator @ JBW:.) Daniel ( talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have removed names and exact dates from non-notable family members that we do not need to include, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Elizium23 ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the sexual assault allegations in regards to Nick Carter should be added as it's a matter of public record. Initially I added all 3 incidences that had been reported to police, as well as statements from Nick Carter where they were reported. The edit was reverted on the basis no charges were laid. Nick Carter is a public figure and there for the allegations, which are notable and well sourced should be added per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I have added the blog of the initial Melissa Schuman allegation as the many news reports refer to it and Nick Carter's statement is based on the blog so I within the context it's important to add the primary source. Also it seems this has been discussed above in "Controversy" where 3 different users agreed the allegations should be added and then again in "Contentious unproven allegations" where the main point of contention was neutrality. In my edit I added sources and comments from alleged victim's, police and Nick Carter / his representatives. (Redacted) Pinging @ Meters: and @ Beauty School Dropout: who reverted my edits so we can hopefully come to a consensus. Persianprince99 ( talk) 08:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianprince99 ( talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I came across this talk page on Dustin Hoffman, which I found interesting as the proposed changes were written by his publicist (COI was stated). I thought it may be a little useful as a way of comparison as allegations were made, he replied but nothing very significant came of them [1]
There is also this article on Morgan Freeman where allegations of harassment have been documented under the "Personal Life" section. In this case the allegations were not credible but they were still included. I'm including this as the article was reviewed and given GA status [2]
Now I know that just because other articles have been edited in a certain way doesn't mean it has bearing on how this will be edited but I thought it was a good talking point and a bit of a framework to how allegations, regardless of veracity, can be documented in high quality articles. Persianprince99 ( talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't normally discuss accusations unless they result in convictions, let alone ones that don't even result in charges. Meters ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material.You restored the material, and more, three times, before bringing it to the talk page. Meters ( talk) 07:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Is the inclusion of sexual assault allegations in line with BLP policy for public figures? Persianprince99 ( talk) 04:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: Moved. I see a consensus favoring the move in numbers and in argument strength. Nobody questions that the singer is the primary topic by a huge margin in terms of likelihood of being sought as estimated by relative page views. While long-term significance is also important, in order to counter such a strong primary topic by page views, any other use with more long-term significance also has to have a relatively significant number of page views. But here the other uses are clearly quite obscure in terms of how often people visit them and therefore in terms of how likely they are to be sought. There is also consensus to move the dab page currently at the base name to Nick Carter (disambiguation). The other uses are so unlikely to be sought there's no need to even hatnote link to any of them directly from this page once it's at the basename; just one to the dab page should be sufficient. -- В²C ☎ 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC) В²C ☎ 03:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
– This is why I propose this move. The topic seems to be primary/main ( WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for many years, but the singer has been very popular since the 90s. RapMonstaXY ( talk) 11:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)