Talk:Rosie Huntington-Whiteley

I frankly don't think it rises to rate mention, but if it's going to be there, I changed the ominous and unspecific "drug paraphernalia" to "bong" which is what it was she was actually pictured smoking. But if someone wants to delete the whole damn thing it would probably be better.Bogan444 (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to reiterate my reversion rationale, in a sensitive issue like this, the article shouldn't claim anything beyond what the source mentions, and the source keeps things generic with no mention of a bong. It should probably stay that way unless another source is offered. As for the claim even being in the article, it seems to have been enough of a news item for Huntington-Whiteley that in the source's brief run-down of her career after talking about her new relationship (which was the subject of the source article), this was highlighted. And in that sense, it's arguably noteworthy enough for inclusion.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Someone has sanitized the Rosie Huntington-Whiteley article. One item removed was that of drug paraphenalia usage. If it is restored, please place in the change comments a mention about removal or restoration of drug and/or drug paraphenalia usage so that it can be easier to observe sanitation changes. While I appreciate updates, sanitization of Wikipedia articles to change them into self-promotion articles is not appropriate. Sanitization is something to be checked as there are various firms that sell service contracts to companies and publicity managers to sanitize (and maintain that status) online information; I drive by one such business's office frequently.AnimeJanai (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I noticed when the content was removed, but the removal didn't strike me as being done by someone only here to remove negative info for pay. That said, if you want to return the drug related claim, AnimeJanai, feel free.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted this deletion of relationships reported in, and sourced to, The Daily Mail The edit summary was "not a gossip column". In my view, that's the equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a poor justification for deleting non-derogatory information about a living person. Publication in the Daily Mail satisfies WP:N and WP:RS.

In my edit summary, I've asked the deleting editor to engage in a discussion on this talk page, and not to repeat the deletion without achieving a consensus here. Other editors' opinions are, of course, also welcome. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The "Personal life" section looks like a load of tittle-tattle. See WP:BLPGOSSIP. Not everyone has a particularly high opinion of the Daily Mail. PatGallacher (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nor of Vogue UK, either?

WP:BLPGOSSIP:

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable...." In my view, yes.

"...whether the material is being presented as true...." Yes, in all four references.

"...whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Relevant to a disinterested article about a lingerie model and actress with ties to nobility? Absolutely.

"Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." No weasel words. Some attribution to unnamed sources. On balance, I think the sources do not rely on anonymous sources overmuch.

"Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit." Not the case here.

So, the judgment calls her are A) the reliability of The Daily Mail and Vogue UK and B) whether in these cases, the Daily Mail and Vogue UK rely too much on anonymous sources here.

Please remember, the raison d'etre for WP:BLP is to require a high degree of reliability before publishing derogatory informarmation about living people. Nothing here is, per se, derogatory. And while one might call this information gossip in the colloquial sense of that word, it is by no means self-evident that it meets the definition of WP:BLPGOSSIP.

I'll STFU now. I'm hoping others will take interest in this discussion. It's applicable across a broad array of BLP's. Thank you for your thoughtful reply. David in DC (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm for keeping the info. In fact, I've reverted such removals in the past because simply calling it "gossip" does sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially when there are adequate sources, as this section has, and the relationships are with notable people. Also, I should note that my revert of FormerIP's edit as vandalism was an accident (meant to good-faith revert it - oops!). That Vogue bio is pretty clearly taken from a 2010-era version of this article.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

In which case, there is still a CIRCULAR issue with the content. Formerip (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Even if everything here was true, I question if this is encyclopedic, we are not in the business of publishing every detail of who might have dated who. PatGallacher (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

No one has tried to include every detail of who the subject has dated. The section limits it to verifiable relationships per available sources.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've reworked the article section to avoid any Copyright Violation issues for insufficient paraphrasing. I've also better conformed the text to the sources and put multiple sources for facts that can be multiply sourced. I do not mean to do this to moot the current discussion, but rather to make sure our delete/retain discussion can be boiled down to its essence.

The section is now as wiki-kosher as it can be, excluding the ultimate question of whether, even well-sourced, it's encyclopedic enough to belong here.

Again, I'd like to express appreciation for editors on both sides of the issue. I've had some bruising talk page attempts to achieve consensus over time that deteriorated into name-calling and personality conflict. This one is the opposite. It's focused on encyclopediocity (word?) and application of an important aspect of WP:BLP. Thank you PG, FIP and Mb. I feel better about WP today than I did last week or last month, regardless of the final outcome of this discussion. David in DC (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

There is ZERO evidence for that. The reference is simply the subject claiming that she was fashionably a victim. Zero independent evidence - delete it. Rustygecko (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply