Talk:Sydney Sweeney: Difference between revisions

Line 86: Line 86:

:https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/07/broad-agreement-in-u-s-even-among-partisans-on-which-news-outlets-are-part-of-the-mainstream-media/ –[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 19:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

::I see no need to introduce the term at all, given that it is commonly used as a pejorative by people both on the left and right, and especially by those prone to believing in conspiracy theories. The article is better off without using such a loaded term. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 02:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC) P.S. I was accused of edit warring right after {{user|Psychloppos}} did exactly the same thing in reverting my change. You can’t have it both ways. [[User:MaxBrowne2|MaxBrowne2]] ([[User talk:MaxBrowne2|talk]]) 02:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

:::No, it’s not pejorative nor loaded: we should not care about the nonsense written on Rationalwiki which ~~wou~~ mentioned as a source in one of your edits. “Mainstream” in “mainstream media” just means “Mainstream”.

:::No, it’s not pejorative nor loaded: we should not care about the nonsense written on Rationalwiki which mentioned as a source in one of your edits. “Mainstream” in “mainstream media” just means “Mainstream”.

:::However, while I find your objection to the adjective “mainstream” entirely unsupported, I suggest that we dispense with it and just write “the media”, because this is what the sentence actually means: the controversy became notable because it was reported and amplified by the media (the ”real”, professional media) and not just by random people on social media. [[User:Psychloppos|Psychloppos]] ([[User talk:Psychloppos|talk]]) 07:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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 has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2024, when it received 11,211,140 views.

Excuse me if I missed something, but I couldn’t find the argument to exclude this confirmed, verifiable fact from the article in the above. Why is this classified as “vandalism” when reported by The Guardian? 82.115.217.251 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all cases, the president of the United States himself commented on the matter; this can’t simply be omitted from the article for whatever BS reason. This IS notable.

82.115.217.251 (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The words of Donald Trump are not one of our notability criteria. His opinions are, generally, non-encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you think of his opinions, he leads the Republicans and is POTUS and this is a claim about her being a registered Republican. It IS notable. 82.115.217.251 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given Don Trump’s penchant for falsehoods, I do not believe we cannot rely on him being a reliable source.

Please show us the policy for including the registration status for all actors. Usually we do not include it unless it is prominent in an individual’s activities. Do you have a citation that Sweeney is prominently involved in Republican activities? Peaceray (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with your opinions on Donald Trump. Sweeney was confirmed to be a registered republican per public records.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/03/sydney-sweeney-jeans-ad-republican-voter-registration

There is a double standard on Wikipedia about political affiliations. You have an agenda. 82.115.217.251 (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have a standard. As per Template:Infobox person#Parameters: Do not use all these parameters for any one person. The list is long to cover a wide range of people. Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject. As per the party parameter: If relevant. Field labelled Political party.

Thus the question is whether her political affiliation is essential or notable & relevant. I think not, but I am open to what other editors have to say. WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS is the operating English Wikipeda policy to decide this. Peaceray (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that it is notable. Firstly, the Jeans ad led to a political debate and became part of this back and forth culture war when it comes to discussion of race and privilege. Through this discourse, it did emerge that she was a registered Republican. This was even addressed by POTUS himself. For these reasons, I say it should be included. NevadaExpert (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We had an RfC about this already: Talk:Sydney_Sweeney/Archive_1#RfC:_Sydney_Sweeney’s_political_party_affiliation, and the consensus is to not include it. Some1 (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting a whole bunch of brand new accounts trying to push this through. I’ve reverted them more than I’m comfortable with even though I think this is a WP:3RRNO situation so I’ve put a notice up on WP:BLP/N asking for additional page watchers. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the BLPN comment: I don’t think it’s DUE based upon the article from The Guardian. That’s nothing like what would be needed to overturn the RfC outcome.

In general, this article has a lot of detail that probably violates UNDUE/NOT. There’s heavy reliance on poor, promotional sources (interviews and other publicity pieces), which seems the reason for these problems. —Hipal (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are satisfied with the current editorial control, but it is actually quite unbalanced. In order to cover up mistakes, they used covering up her personal background as a bargaining chip. I think these operations are wrong from beginning to end. Cbls1911 (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I feel it is acceptable to make a small mention of it in the place where it belongs, but since there has been a recent consensus about this, we would need some truly significant new coverage if we wish to change that decision. Ismeiri (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List political party as Republican, per the Florida voting commission. Milletdeangles (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done See Talk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney’s political party affiliation. Peaceray (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been removing the redundant expansion because of it’s use of WP:PAGESIX (and other poor sources). I think the RSP description for PAGESIX is misleading (“considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons.”, as the RfC it’s based upon specifically identifies BLP info as problematic overall, with editors pointing out salacious BLP articles as inappropriate.

The general topic is already in the article. A paragraph on the same subject in a different section is inappropriate.

If we were to expand upon what’s there, use the People (Raposas, 2025) and Independent (Evans, 2024) references, which are less likely to be contested against BLP’s requirements for high-quality sources. – Hipal (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll find you 10 more sources by established publishers stating the same thing. Her on-screen nudity is mentioned, but it’s impact on her public profile is downplayed. Her personal choice to engage in this sort of activity and attitude towards it needs to be mentioned/highlighted separately. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll grant pagesix (and yahoo copies of articles from it) shouldn’t be used in a BLP, but most of the other sources are reasonable. That leaves the issue of WP:UNDUE, which is a judgement call. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic is already in the article. Is anyone arguing it should be in two different sections? —Hipal (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general topic being in the article does not matter. Her tits are one of the defining characteristics of her career. Also, you keep flip-flopping. You initially argued to remove the info by stating that sources are poor, then at one point you said the info is salacious, and now you are arguing for its removal because the info is already present. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer to my question is “no”?

Please WP:FOC, WP:AGF, and avoid misrepresenting others or edit history. There are many problems here, and all need to be addressed. If more are found, they need to be addressed as well. —Hipal (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll link multiple sources (in due time) and then we can decide which ones to keep. Parminder Sarwara (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already identified two. —Hipal (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MaxBrowne2: please stop reverting without discussion and don’t edit war about one single adjective. The point in specifying that mainstream media reported about the nonsense controversy surrounding Sweeney’s jeans ad campaign is precisely to show why it was relevant.

If it had only been some social media users throwing a fit, this controversy would have been deservedly forgotten after a while. It became a “notable” controversy precisely because mainstream media chose to report, and in some cases to amplify, this ridiculous mess.

By mainstream media we should understand professional media (as opposed to social media: real media, produced by actual journalists) with a wide audience. There’s nothing political about it, it’s just factual. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any claim that it’s verified in this context. I do see that it is used as a pejorative:

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/what-is-mainstream-media.php

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/05/07/broad-agreement-in-u-s-even-among-partisans-on-which-news-outlets-are-part-of-the-mainstream-media/ —Hipal (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to introduce the term at all, given that it is commonly used as a pejorative by people both on the left and right, and especially by those prone to believing in conspiracy theories. The article is better off without using such a loaded term. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC) P.S. I was accused of edit warring right after Psychloppos (talk · contribs) did exactly the same thing in reverting my change. You can’t have it both ways. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it’s not pejorative nor loaded: we should not care about the nonsense written on Rationalwiki which you mentioned as a source in one of your edits. “Mainstream” in “mainstream media” just means “Mainstream”.

However, while I find your objection to the adjective “mainstream” entirely unsupported, I suggest that we dispense with it and just write “the media”, because this is what the sentence actually means: the controversy became notable because it was reported and amplified by the media (the real, professional media) and not just by random people on social media. Psychloppos (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply