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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
BlueMoonset
talk
17:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The tag on the article about advertising has not been addressed in over a month; closing as unsuccessful per review
Created by InvadingInvader ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sommer Ray; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
In that time, with COVID — someone was saying I could have made $40 million or something like that). It might be good for this to workshop a new hook at DYKN. Paging Theleekycauldron for
During an April 13 podcast with YouTuber George Janko, Ray revealed that she’d actually been advised to make an OnlyFans account to jump on the gravy train… but she ended up turning it down. "At that time it was like, every single person in my life was coming to me and telling me, "If you don’t start an OnlyFans, you’re stupid,'" she explained. "The money I could make would be insane. In that time, with COVID — someone was saying I could have made $40 million or something like that."
From the article, not having vetted the claims:
Also, as I expressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele), I feel that this nomination has not received full review and requires a new one. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 08:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
BLP requires consensus for inclusion, and places the onus on those arguing for inclusion.
There are many more problems with the current article as is that won't be resolved with poor and promotional references such as the ones removed.-- Hipal ( talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It would be best to work from edit requests, or something similar, showing clearly what changes are being requested and the references supporting them.
ABOUTSELF#1 states, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
. It's the self-serving part that is most common in situations like this. --
Hipal (
talk)
22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.-- Hipal ( talk) 00:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties, and to cite opinions. However, care must be taken to ensure that normal editorial standards have been applied to the material (also, note WP:BLPSPS does not usually allow such sources to be used for claims about other living people). Depending on the publication, such material may not undergo the same level of fact-checking as other types of articles. For example, the introduction to an interview may rely entirely on facts provided by the interviewee. In general, the longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking.If you'd like to take FORBESCON interviews to RS/N, it may be necessary. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Hipal I would strongly disagree with your reversion. I think that calling a study from UVA and Liberty University a "poor source" is frankly bullcrap. If you want to revert, consider a WP:Partial revert only. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Excessive listings of unexplained statisticsis not what I added at all. If stats can be explained and trimmed into a prose, they are a more than vital addition. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this cleanup by @ Strawberries1:: I agree that edit summaries should have been used, but it looks like a good step toward resolving the problems with this article. I especially like the lede being trimmed back to something more focused on her notability. - Hipal ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
In preparation for a rewrite, what WP:BIO references do we have? -- Hipal ( talk) 20:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
If there's no BIO reference supporting it, we need to be very careful what is added into the lede. Please identify which sources support this in the lede. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Referring to this version: Of the first five: Obviously not YouTube (1). IntheKnow (2) is a puff piece. Cosmo (3) is a profile focusing on her workouts. LifeandStyle (4) is another puff piece. TheAtlantic (5) mentions her once, in passing, in the list of Clout Gang members. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The Atlantic ref has been removed: Tiffany, Kaitlyn (2019-12-23). "Why Kids Online Are Chasing 'Clout'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-08-03. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Referring to this version, the next three: Obviously not Podcasts.apple.com (5), Insider (Leskin, 2019) (6) gives a one-sentence profile in a list from this research, The Hollywood Reporter (7) is a warmed-over press release announcing the podcast, UniPd.it (8) is a Italian-language thesis that mentions statistics for Ray. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Referring to the same version as above: Mysuncoast.com (9) is a press release. Insider ( Asarch, 2021) (10) mentions Ray once, in passing. Esports News UK (11) mentions Ray once, in passing. It's unclear that Esports News UK is reliable for such information.
After looking at them all, there are no BIO references, and some that should be removed. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the Podcasts.apple.com and Esports News UK refs. It might be best to stub the article until some BIO refs are found. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
augment the secondary source. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
sabotages? Following policy is just the opposite.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.( WP:5P5) My ultimate concern is that you're using BLP to remove non-libelous material, precisely what the 3RR exemption on BLP material warns against. Better references are a goal we both agree upon, but I do believe that given the nature of Ray, this may be one where Dexerto and other Additional Considerations sources should be permitted. RSP does state that
Dexerto is rarely suitable for BLPs; this is a case where it does seem that it is, given that we cross-reference and augment its secondary coverage with another source, either primary or more reliable secondary, to ensure that we
get the article right, the entire goal of the BLP policy. How to construe rarely ultimately depends on the content in question, but a blanket prohibition is something that we can't automatically jump to without a thorough discussion.
Other than STUBbing, AfD has been brought up as an option. I'm against it, and am unlikely to vote for or against deletion with the refs we currently have.
We need better references, but I've been unable to find them. I am observing that the better the source, the less they say about her. I'm going to dig through other references that we've discussed in case some might be useful. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Better references are a goal we both agree upon
. Since we agree, I've restored the relevant tag asking for better sources. --
Hipal (
talk)
15:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Moving the article back to draft space has been proposed. I think it a very good idea. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Does the inclusion of the following sets content in the article violate WP:PROMO and other content policies?
Set A: Information on Ray's relationship with Machine Gun Kelly
|
---|
Ray formerly had a three-month long relationship with rapper
Machine Gun Kelly prior to his engagement with actress
Megan Fox.
[1]
[2]
[3]
References
|
Set B: Information on Ray's entrepreneurial endeavors
|
---|
Sommer additionally founded Imaraïs in 2017 alongside attorney Felicia Hershenhorn and Nutrabolics cofounder Aaron Hester, a line of
vegan health
gummies which contain chemicals that enhance skin appearance.
[1] The ingestibles partnered with four North American retailers distribute Ray's product.
[2] Later, Ray launched a mobile app, Evolve fitness, which she debuted on May 3, 2018.
[3] Her endeavors also led to the creation of a line of
subscription boxes, titled "Sommethings", which she curates.
[4]
References
|
InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
get the article right; the material, based on the sourcing provided, was "gotten right". And neutrally worded to the greatest possible extent I could put forward as well. Both also would warrant inclusion in some form as they would follow WP:DUE given the amount of coverage from reliable sources that is mentioned. Given the general rarity of especially The New York Times among other sources to comment on internet culture and celebrities, their notation of it alone should warrant at least serious consideration of inclusion, if not automatic inclusion. To quote from the penultimate paragraph of DUE,
we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, and the relationship has been adequately covered by reliable sources. BLP, while I do understand why it exists, seems to have been taken too far and removed reliably sourced content based on the belief that the content violates PROMO. Stating that the relationship existed, even with only a single sentence, and of course with multiple instances of provided reliable sourcing, is not libelous, nor does it seek to inherently promote the subject. To claim that this article is written as an advert is borderline assuming bad faith. Further stating that Ray started a business and sourcing it with reliable references independent of the subject, and of course to write it in a neutral point of view as required by WP:5P2 does not violate WP:PROMO. It would only violate PROMO if we told our audience that they should buy it. We're not doing that. We're just stating that she started some businesses in connection with the content that she was posting. Is it a violation of WP:PROMO to state that the iPhone 7 was released with a lightning to headphone jack adapter? Is it a violation of WP:PROMO to publish information which states neutrally that JM Smucker just announced it would buy Hostess and Twinkies? We still include these pieces of information, even though one could make the claim that "including such information would incentivize trading on Hostess or Smucker stock", or that "saying the iPhone 7 comes with a headphone adapter incentivizes people to buy iPhone 7"; we include these potentially promotional statements because the neutral coverage on both of these instances outweighs the potential to promote. These types of claims seem to be the objection to including Ray's business endeavors. It's almost as if WP:CRYPROMO has become a thing, and that the preferred solution to getting the dandruff that is a few small errors off an article is decapitation of content acceptable and in line with our policies. I see that the only possible defenses for removal would ultimately boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Sommer additionally founded Imaraïs in 2017: the source says that Henneshorn and Hefter began working on Imarais
nearly a year ago(i.e. in 2020) and that Henneshorn
approached Sommerto be involved; I don't think either "Sommer founded Imarais" or "Imrais was founded in 2017" are supported by that source. Nor do I see
contain chemicals that enhance skin appearancein the cited source; the closest is
meant to promote skin-barrier functionwhich doesn't mention appearance and doesn't even claim that the product is effective.
four North American retailers distribute Ray's productis sort of supported in that the linked article does name four North American retailers which distribute Imarais, but the source doesn't support the implied claim that there are only four north American retailers. The claim about the fitness app is supported; I can't access the source about the subscription boxes. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 16:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Related discussions:
There are no
WP:BIO references in the seven used. With the exception of the NYTimes ref, the references are all poor and promotional that do not meet BLP's requirement to Be very firm about the use of high-quality
sources.
While the NYTimes is a high-quality publisher, the reference written by a culture reporter barely mentions Ray at all, demonstrating no due weight or encyclopedic value. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
"the references are all poor and promotional"is at the very least partially false. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 20:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
...only being one reliable source.... I didn't make such a claim. Please strike. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There are no WP:BIO references in the seven used. With the exception of the NYTimes ref, the references are all poor and promotional that do not meet BLP's requirement to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."This is at least a partially false claim. The magazine People, per WP:RSP (which I feel as if I should remind you reflects current Wikipedia consensus until it changes), is listed as a generally reliable source. This should suffice as high-quality. Cosmopolitan the magazine, per RSP, is listed at additional considerations. Not consistently high quality, but based on context it can be reliable. So with regard to sources alone, all sources supporting Set A are at high quality. If you don't think People is a reliable source, consider starting a thread on WP:RSN, but until consensus changes, we are to consider it as a generally reliable source. Please link a specific thread where consensus has decided that not all generally reliable sources are high-quality and appropriate for BLP (since I'm having trouble finding it myself), and please explain how People would not be reliable when the RSP entry for People does state that the magazine is appropriate for use with regard to BLPs except for the most contentious claims, in which cases support from a stronger source can be used in conjunction with People. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
People is unsuitable for BLPAnother misrepresentation. This is disruptive. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
it's a situation where those seeking inclusion of article content should make a convincing policy-based argument; precisely a debate. If you think that policy goes against it, then you should do more than just barely avoiding your points being Ipse Dixit (and in some cases, textbook ipse dixit) and explain more sufficiently how you feel PROMO is being violated. That's how we have a productive conversation. I feel that I've done quite a bit of explaining already on my position already, and we can't get anywhere if we just dig our feet into the sand and make ad nauseam arguments which increasingly seem like they're coming close to "I'm big you're little I'm right you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it". InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
In June 2021, Ray and former attorney Felicia Hershenhorn launched the skincare gummy Imaraisbased off of it. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 08:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
[Machine Gun Kelly's] romantic life may not be as eventful as the tabloids suggest, but it’s eventful enough.This sentence would invalidate any OR speculations on the concept of the image being included since it's clear that reliable secondary sources have talked about this. The tabloids themselves, such as the directly-linked tabloid USMagazine in the Times' journalism, could be considered a primary source to this information as well. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Material in question
|
---|
(Early Life section) Ray stated in an interview with
Forbes contributor Frederick Daso that she grew up on a
ranch and was
homeschooled with her siblings.
[1]
(Personal life section) In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab". [1] References
|
@ Hipal The removal ForbesCon Interview is a revert that should not have been made at all. I've provided my reasoning in edit summaries, but if you did not read those, I'd be happy to put them here as well: Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources written by the subject are permitted to be included. Given that the material came straight from the horse's mouth with regard to Ray's words, this would suffice as material "written" by the subject as required by BLP since those words originally came from her. We really can't extract too much evidence against inclusion from WP:BLPPRIMARY either.
See the discussion on RSN about ForbesCon interviews? You yourself stated that FORBESCON states, Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons
. Interviews aren't third party claims; they're first party claims. Your argument for removal would essentially fall apart from this alone. The phrasing I used also echoed the suggestion made by @
JPxG on the thread: use common sense
, and by @
XavierItzm: Give it the same treatment as published by the interview subject
.
The claims in both the questioned content as well are supported in primary and secondary sources:
Whether any of these sources are includable in Wikipedia remains up for debate, though because these crossreferences with other media both from tabloids and straight from the subject's mouth, this serves to verify the material. If they're all saying the same thing about her growing up...
A BLP reversion ironically works against your reasoning, which in the edit summary simply says " Revert per BLP". Please engage thoughtfully in the following discussion and assume good faith. If you claim that my insertions violate a policy, be prepared to defend your claim. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
remains up for debateNo. BLP says to remove them, and keep them out unless consensus is otherwise. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Previous discussions
|
---|
I'm concerned that policy and discussions are being ignored. Some previous discussions include:
|
This article reads like it's written from a fan's POV, with the puffery and promotional-ish/defensive tone.
she perceives her early social media career as the result of hard work and not the sexualization of her character
citing the prevalence of performance-enhancing substances in the fitness industry as the reason for her quitting.
Ray accredits the growth of her social media following with her collaborations with WorldStarHipHop, though places greater emphasis on her lack of performance-enhancing drugs and photograph manipulation.
She has refused to get plastic surgery despite many firms sending her offers to waive fees for the practice in exchange for promotion, as has expressed disdain for competitors in bodybuilding who use steroids and other performance enhancing substances. In furtherance of this commitment...
Adding the material in question Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab"
just adds more to that puffery and tone.
Some1 (
talk)
00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab"to "basic facts"? Also, see WP:VNOT. IMHO, this article should go back to draft space. Some1 ( talk) 23:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stated she was not interested in joining the platform OnlyFans, despite calls from her fans to join the platform.Open to suggestions.
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick DasoThat's padding that appears to be a POV violation.
I don't see how we'd be avoiding ABOUTSELF#1, 2, and 5.
You can't just call everything you don't agree with disruptiveNo one is doing so. Please retract. -- Hipal ( talk) 03:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
a total jokeevokes to me a battleground attitude, and at some interpretations could be considered a personal attack. Would you like to respond to the four above questions that I asked in my previous comment? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
inclusion is still contingent on discussionYes, and you still haven't provided a reason why her decision to not join OnlyFans is something that needs to be included in the article. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should automatically be included, per WP:VNOT:
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted.If she says in an interview that her favorite restaurant is Subway, should that information be included in this article? Some1 ( talk) 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Re:
[5]
[6]: The Cosmo ref is rather poor, and the author, Elizabeth Narins, does not make the claim but instead quotes Ray with, "I was slut-shamed in a way — everyone from my hometown judged me." The care that Narins took is being ignored when used to verify citing it as
slut-shaming
. Ray qualifies it, Narins takes care with the presentation, so content in dispute seems inappropriate even if the ref was stellar. It's also far more than is due, it's soapboxing, and it steps into SYN in ways inappropriate for a BLP.
Looking closer, I'm not clear where "excessive" comes from, so removed it as well. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Is this Forbes Contributor Interview, and Forbes Contributor interviews with the subject in general, appropriate for WP:BLPSPS/ WP:BLPSELFPUB claims about Ray's personal and early life? Also, is ForbesCon appropriate for sourcing her decision to not join OnlyFans? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Previous discussions include:
it would have been contested by Ray already
That's completely irrelevant. We're not here to provide a soapbox for Ray. --
Hipal (
talk)
22:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
BLP requires consensus to include– then let's work to develop a consensus. By refusing to discuss, which it seems like you have by simply repeating previous material and not diving deeper, it's borderline disruptive. You still didn't answer my four questions. I'll copy them down here if you'd like:
[8] -- Hipal ( talk) 17:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine. I do not think I have been overly demanding in asking for which quotes you are meaning when you cite differences. I don't know how to tell you more bluntly that I should not have to find your arguments for you. With regard to your most recent response, I would recommend you take a look at WP:DROP and how "Just Drop It" comments stifle productive conversations. If anything, I see such comments as uncivil; feel free to strike if you agree.
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by
BlueMoonset
talk
17:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
The tag on the article about advertising has not been addressed in over a month; closing as unsuccessful per review
Created by InvadingInvader ( talk). Self-nominated at 15:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Sommer Ray; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
In that time, with COVID — someone was saying I could have made $40 million or something like that). It might be good for this to workshop a new hook at DYKN. Paging Theleekycauldron for
During an April 13 podcast with YouTuber George Janko, Ray revealed that she’d actually been advised to make an OnlyFans account to jump on the gravy train… but she ended up turning it down. "At that time it was like, every single person in my life was coming to me and telling me, "If you don’t start an OnlyFans, you’re stupid,'" she explained. "The money I could make would be insane. In that time, with COVID — someone was saying I could have made $40 million or something like that."
From the article, not having vetted the claims:
Also, as I expressed at Template:Did you know nominations/Substitute Teacher (Key & Peele), I feel that this nomination has not received full review and requires a new one. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 08:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hello! I trust you're enjoying a wonderful day. I wanted to express my gratitude for your valuable contribution to Wikipedia through your article. I'm pleased to let you know that your article fully complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, so I've officially marked it as reviewed. Wishing you and your loved ones a fantastic day ahead!
✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
BLP requires consensus for inclusion, and places the onus on those arguing for inclusion.
There are many more problems with the current article as is that won't be resolved with poor and promotional references such as the ones removed.-- Hipal ( talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It would be best to work from edit requests, or something similar, showing clearly what changes are being requested and the references supporting them.
ABOUTSELF#1 states, the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
. It's the self-serving part that is most common in situations like this. --
Hipal (
talk)
22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.-- Hipal ( talk) 00:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
If the material is secondary, and if it is published in a reliable publication, then it can sometimes be used to cite facts about third parties, and to cite opinions. However, care must be taken to ensure that normal editorial standards have been applied to the material (also, note WP:BLPSPS does not usually allow such sources to be used for claims about other living people). Depending on the publication, such material may not undergo the same level of fact-checking as other types of articles. For example, the introduction to an interview may rely entirely on facts provided by the interviewee. In general, the longer and more detailed the material, and the more reliable the publication, the more likely secondary-source material in an interview is to have undergone proper fact-checking.If you'd like to take FORBESCON interviews to RS/N, it may be necessary. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Hipal I would strongly disagree with your reversion. I think that calling a study from UVA and Liberty University a "poor source" is frankly bullcrap. If you want to revert, consider a WP:Partial revert only. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Excessive listings of unexplained statisticsis not what I added at all. If stats can be explained and trimmed into a prose, they are a more than vital addition. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 15:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding this cleanup by @ Strawberries1:: I agree that edit summaries should have been used, but it looks like a good step toward resolving the problems with this article. I especially like the lede being trimmed back to something more focused on her notability. - Hipal ( talk) 20:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
In preparation for a rewrite, what WP:BIO references do we have? -- Hipal ( talk) 20:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
If there's no BIO reference supporting it, we need to be very careful what is added into the lede. Please identify which sources support this in the lede. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Referring to this version: Of the first five: Obviously not YouTube (1). IntheKnow (2) is a puff piece. Cosmo (3) is a profile focusing on her workouts. LifeandStyle (4) is another puff piece. TheAtlantic (5) mentions her once, in passing, in the list of Clout Gang members. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
The Atlantic ref has been removed: Tiffany, Kaitlyn (2019-12-23). "Why Kids Online Are Chasing 'Clout'". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2023-08-03. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Referring to this version, the next three: Obviously not Podcasts.apple.com (5), Insider (Leskin, 2019) (6) gives a one-sentence profile in a list from this research, The Hollywood Reporter (7) is a warmed-over press release announcing the podcast, UniPd.it (8) is a Italian-language thesis that mentions statistics for Ray. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Referring to the same version as above: Mysuncoast.com (9) is a press release. Insider ( Asarch, 2021) (10) mentions Ray once, in passing. Esports News UK (11) mentions Ray once, in passing. It's unclear that Esports News UK is reliable for such information.
After looking at them all, there are no BIO references, and some that should be removed. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the Podcasts.apple.com and Esports News UK refs. It might be best to stub the article until some BIO refs are found. -- Hipal ( talk) 02:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
augment the secondary source. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
sabotages? Following policy is just the opposite.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.( WP:5P5) My ultimate concern is that you're using BLP to remove non-libelous material, precisely what the 3RR exemption on BLP material warns against. Better references are a goal we both agree upon, but I do believe that given the nature of Ray, this may be one where Dexerto and other Additional Considerations sources should be permitted. RSP does state that
Dexerto is rarely suitable for BLPs; this is a case where it does seem that it is, given that we cross-reference and augment its secondary coverage with another source, either primary or more reliable secondary, to ensure that we
get the article right, the entire goal of the BLP policy. How to construe rarely ultimately depends on the content in question, but a blanket prohibition is something that we can't automatically jump to without a thorough discussion.
Other than STUBbing, AfD has been brought up as an option. I'm against it, and am unlikely to vote for or against deletion with the refs we currently have.
We need better references, but I've been unable to find them. I am observing that the better the source, the less they say about her. I'm going to dig through other references that we've discussed in case some might be useful. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Better references are a goal we both agree upon
. Since we agree, I've restored the relevant tag asking for better sources. --
Hipal (
talk)
15:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Moving the article back to draft space has been proposed. I think it a very good idea. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Does the inclusion of the following sets content in the article violate WP:PROMO and other content policies?
Set A: Information on Ray's relationship with Machine Gun Kelly
|
---|
Ray formerly had a three-month long relationship with rapper
Machine Gun Kelly prior to his engagement with actress
Megan Fox.
[1]
[2]
[3]
References
|
Set B: Information on Ray's entrepreneurial endeavors
|
---|
Sommer additionally founded Imaraïs in 2017 alongside attorney Felicia Hershenhorn and Nutrabolics cofounder Aaron Hester, a line of
vegan health
gummies which contain chemicals that enhance skin appearance.
[1] The ingestibles partnered with four North American retailers distribute Ray's product.
[2] Later, Ray launched a mobile app, Evolve fitness, which she debuted on May 3, 2018.
[3] Her endeavors also led to the creation of a line of
subscription boxes, titled "Sommethings", which she curates.
[4]
References
|
InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
get the article right; the material, based on the sourcing provided, was "gotten right". And neutrally worded to the greatest possible extent I could put forward as well. Both also would warrant inclusion in some form as they would follow WP:DUE given the amount of coverage from reliable sources that is mentioned. Given the general rarity of especially The New York Times among other sources to comment on internet culture and celebrities, their notation of it alone should warrant at least serious consideration of inclusion, if not automatic inclusion. To quote from the penultimate paragraph of DUE,
we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, and the relationship has been adequately covered by reliable sources. BLP, while I do understand why it exists, seems to have been taken too far and removed reliably sourced content based on the belief that the content violates PROMO. Stating that the relationship existed, even with only a single sentence, and of course with multiple instances of provided reliable sourcing, is not libelous, nor does it seek to inherently promote the subject. To claim that this article is written as an advert is borderline assuming bad faith. Further stating that Ray started a business and sourcing it with reliable references independent of the subject, and of course to write it in a neutral point of view as required by WP:5P2 does not violate WP:PROMO. It would only violate PROMO if we told our audience that they should buy it. We're not doing that. We're just stating that she started some businesses in connection with the content that she was posting. Is it a violation of WP:PROMO to state that the iPhone 7 was released with a lightning to headphone jack adapter? Is it a violation of WP:PROMO to publish information which states neutrally that JM Smucker just announced it would buy Hostess and Twinkies? We still include these pieces of information, even though one could make the claim that "including such information would incentivize trading on Hostess or Smucker stock", or that "saying the iPhone 7 comes with a headphone adapter incentivizes people to buy iPhone 7"; we include these potentially promotional statements because the neutral coverage on both of these instances outweighs the potential to promote. These types of claims seem to be the objection to including Ray's business endeavors. It's almost as if WP:CRYPROMO has become a thing, and that the preferred solution to getting the dandruff that is a few small errors off an article is decapitation of content acceptable and in line with our policies. I see that the only possible defenses for removal would ultimately boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Sommer additionally founded Imaraïs in 2017: the source says that Henneshorn and Hefter began working on Imarais
nearly a year ago(i.e. in 2020) and that Henneshorn
approached Sommerto be involved; I don't think either "Sommer founded Imarais" or "Imrais was founded in 2017" are supported by that source. Nor do I see
contain chemicals that enhance skin appearancein the cited source; the closest is
meant to promote skin-barrier functionwhich doesn't mention appearance and doesn't even claim that the product is effective.
four North American retailers distribute Ray's productis sort of supported in that the linked article does name four North American retailers which distribute Imarais, but the source doesn't support the implied claim that there are only four north American retailers. The claim about the fitness app is supported; I can't access the source about the subscription boxes. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 16:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
Related discussions:
There are no
WP:BIO references in the seven used. With the exception of the NYTimes ref, the references are all poor and promotional that do not meet BLP's requirement to Be very firm about the use of high-quality
sources.
While the NYTimes is a high-quality publisher, the reference written by a culture reporter barely mentions Ray at all, demonstrating no due weight or encyclopedic value. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
"the references are all poor and promotional"is at the very least partially false. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 20:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
...only being one reliable source.... I didn't make such a claim. Please strike. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There are no WP:BIO references in the seven used. With the exception of the NYTimes ref, the references are all poor and promotional that do not meet BLP's requirement to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources."This is at least a partially false claim. The magazine People, per WP:RSP (which I feel as if I should remind you reflects current Wikipedia consensus until it changes), is listed as a generally reliable source. This should suffice as high-quality. Cosmopolitan the magazine, per RSP, is listed at additional considerations. Not consistently high quality, but based on context it can be reliable. So with regard to sources alone, all sources supporting Set A are at high quality. If you don't think People is a reliable source, consider starting a thread on WP:RSN, but until consensus changes, we are to consider it as a generally reliable source. Please link a specific thread where consensus has decided that not all generally reliable sources are high-quality and appropriate for BLP (since I'm having trouble finding it myself), and please explain how People would not be reliable when the RSP entry for People does state that the magazine is appropriate for use with regard to BLPs except for the most contentious claims, in which cases support from a stronger source can be used in conjunction with People. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 00:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
People is unsuitable for BLPAnother misrepresentation. This is disruptive. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
it's a situation where those seeking inclusion of article content should make a convincing policy-based argument; precisely a debate. If you think that policy goes against it, then you should do more than just barely avoiding your points being Ipse Dixit (and in some cases, textbook ipse dixit) and explain more sufficiently how you feel PROMO is being violated. That's how we have a productive conversation. I feel that I've done quite a bit of explaining already on my position already, and we can't get anywhere if we just dig our feet into the sand and make ad nauseam arguments which increasingly seem like they're coming close to "I'm big you're little I'm right you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it". InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
In June 2021, Ray and former attorney Felicia Hershenhorn launched the skincare gummy Imaraisbased off of it. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 08:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
[Machine Gun Kelly's] romantic life may not be as eventful as the tabloids suggest, but it’s eventful enough.This sentence would invalidate any OR speculations on the concept of the image being included since it's clear that reliable secondary sources have talked about this. The tabloids themselves, such as the directly-linked tabloid USMagazine in the Times' journalism, could be considered a primary source to this information as well. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 05:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Material in question
|
---|
(Early Life section) Ray stated in an interview with
Forbes contributor Frederick Daso that she grew up on a
ranch and was
homeschooled with her siblings.
[1]
(Personal life section) In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab". [1] References
|
@ Hipal The removal ForbesCon Interview is a revert that should not have been made at all. I've provided my reasoning in edit summaries, but if you did not read those, I'd be happy to put them here as well: Per WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources written by the subject are permitted to be included. Given that the material came straight from the horse's mouth with regard to Ray's words, this would suffice as material "written" by the subject as required by BLP since those words originally came from her. We really can't extract too much evidence against inclusion from WP:BLPPRIMARY either.
See the discussion on RSN about ForbesCon interviews? You yourself stated that FORBESCON states, Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons
. Interviews aren't third party claims; they're first party claims. Your argument for removal would essentially fall apart from this alone. The phrasing I used also echoed the suggestion made by @
JPxG on the thread: use common sense
, and by @
XavierItzm: Give it the same treatment as published by the interview subject
.
The claims in both the questioned content as well are supported in primary and secondary sources:
Whether any of these sources are includable in Wikipedia remains up for debate, though because these crossreferences with other media both from tabloids and straight from the subject's mouth, this serves to verify the material. If they're all saying the same thing about her growing up...
A BLP reversion ironically works against your reasoning, which in the edit summary simply says " Revert per BLP". Please engage thoughtfully in the following discussion and assume good faith. If you claim that my insertions violate a policy, be prepared to defend your claim. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 02:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
remains up for debateNo. BLP says to remove them, and keep them out unless consensus is otherwise. -- Hipal ( talk) 16:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Previous discussions
|
---|
I'm concerned that policy and discussions are being ignored. Some previous discussions include:
|
This article reads like it's written from a fan's POV, with the puffery and promotional-ish/defensive tone.
she perceives her early social media career as the result of hard work and not the sexualization of her character
citing the prevalence of performance-enhancing substances in the fitness industry as the reason for her quitting.
Ray accredits the growth of her social media following with her collaborations with WorldStarHipHop, though places greater emphasis on her lack of performance-enhancing drugs and photograph manipulation.
She has refused to get plastic surgery despite many firms sending her offers to waive fees for the practice in exchange for promotion, as has expressed disdain for competitors in bodybuilding who use steroids and other performance enhancing substances. In furtherance of this commitment...
Adding the material in question Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab"
just adds more to that puffery and tone.
Some1 (
talk)
00:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stressed her belief in not using the platform OnlyFans despite calls to join the platform, viewing it as a "cash-grab"to "basic facts"? Also, see WP:VNOT. IMHO, this article should go back to draft space. Some1 ( talk) 23:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick Daso, Ray stated she was not interested in joining the platform OnlyFans, despite calls from her fans to join the platform.Open to suggestions.
In her interview with Forbes contributor Frederick DasoThat's padding that appears to be a POV violation.
I don't see how we'd be avoiding ABOUTSELF#1, 2, and 5.
You can't just call everything you don't agree with disruptiveNo one is doing so. Please retract. -- Hipal ( talk) 03:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
a total jokeevokes to me a battleground attitude, and at some interpretations could be considered a personal attack. Would you like to respond to the four above questions that I asked in my previous comment? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 21:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
inclusion is still contingent on discussionYes, and you still haven't provided a reason why her decision to not join OnlyFans is something that needs to be included in the article. Just because something is sourced doesn't mean it should automatically be included, per WP:VNOT:
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted.If she says in an interview that her favorite restaurant is Subway, should that information be included in this article? Some1 ( talk) 19:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Re:
[5]
[6]: The Cosmo ref is rather poor, and the author, Elizabeth Narins, does not make the claim but instead quotes Ray with, "I was slut-shamed in a way — everyone from my hometown judged me." The care that Narins took is being ignored when used to verify citing it as
slut-shaming
. Ray qualifies it, Narins takes care with the presentation, so content in dispute seems inappropriate even if the ref was stellar. It's also far more than is due, it's soapboxing, and it steps into SYN in ways inappropriate for a BLP.
Looking closer, I'm not clear where "excessive" comes from, so removed it as well. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Is this Forbes Contributor Interview, and Forbes Contributor interviews with the subject in general, appropriate for WP:BLPSPS/ WP:BLPSELFPUB claims about Ray's personal and early life? Also, is ForbesCon appropriate for sourcing her decision to not join OnlyFans? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 19:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Previous discussions include:
it would have been contested by Ray already
That's completely irrelevant. We're not here to provide a soapbox for Ray. --
Hipal (
talk)
22:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
BLP requires consensus to include– then let's work to develop a consensus. By refusing to discuss, which it seems like you have by simply repeating previous material and not diving deeper, it's borderline disruptive. You still didn't answer my four questions. I'll copy them down here if you'd like:
[8] -- Hipal ( talk) 17:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Asking for a clarification is fine, as long as you aren't demanding. Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine. I do not think I have been overly demanding in asking for which quotes you are meaning when you cite differences. I don't know how to tell you more bluntly that I should not have to find your arguments for you. With regard to your most recent response, I would recommend you take a look at WP:DROP and how "Just Drop It" comments stifle productive conversations. If anything, I see such comments as uncivil; feel free to strike if you agree.