Talk:Tiffany Cianci: Difference between revisions

 

Line 105: Line 105:

It seems like you are committed to maintaining the neutrality and sourcing standards of this article. I’ve looked at the reversion, and I can see why you undid the changes.

It seems like you are committed to maintaining the neutrality and sourcing standards of this article. I’ve looked at the reversion, and I can see why you undid the changes.

I realize that removing instead of addressing the Maryland legal history makes the rest of the additions look suspect. It likely appears that I was trying to spin the narrative rather than improve the record.

I realize that the additions look suspect. It likely appears that I was trying to spin the narrative rather than improve the record.

I am not asking to revert the page back entirely. However, there are some significant factual errors in the current version, including a misspelling of the subject’s name and context that isn’t supported by the citations. There is also sourced information regarding her legislative testimony that is missing.

I am not asking to revert the page back entirely. However, there are some significant factual errors in the current version, including a misspelling of the subject’s name and context that isn’t supported by the citations. There is also sourced information regarding her legislative testimony that is missing.

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.

Hello, I am the author of this draft and would like to clarify that I do not have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. I am not Tiffany Cianci.

I would also like to list my WP:THREE:

1: This profile in the New York Times, which is long, heavily focused on the article’s subject, and from a reputable outlet.

2: This profile in the Washingtonian, which is also long and heavily focused on the article’s subject. Washingtonian is less well known than the New York Times, but is still well read and has won several national awards. Washingtonian focuses on news local to the Washington, DC area, and this article’s subject lives in the DC area.

3: This article in the Dallas Morning News, which is a reputable local Dallas newspaper that provides significant coverage of the article’s subject.

As some added context, I would like to note that I was inspired to write this article after seeing the article for influencer Harry Sisson. Like the subject of this draft, Sisson’s article is based on several newspaper profiles about him directly or including significant mention of him, as well as noting his significant social media following. HannoC (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HannoC, I’ve reviewed the draft again and agree with the recent comment by @ToadetteEdit (“Might be notable, but it is best to remove the social media pages as citations first.”).

The opening statement generally establishes the subject’s notability, in this case “an American influencer known for her support of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and criticism of private equity”, so it would be good to see some reliable sources supporting this sentence.

I note that even with your recent edits, half the page (the first 3 paragraphs) is about material that has no bearing on Cianci’s claimed notability (influencer known for her support of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and criticism of private equity). I do think some of this needs to be trimmed, especially given some relies on her own LinkedIn account.

The material about her first TikTok post, and adovcacy of HB 2404, rely solely on her TikTok account: In the context of the draft, I’m not comfortable that its inclusion meets the reliable source/ notability guidelines. Where is the evidence, from a reliable source, that she is an influencer? Let’s find and use that source to establish that, independent of her posts from her account. I feel the Tikitok citation in teh final paragraph should also be similarly removed.

Please see what you can do and ping me again and I’d be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you both for the feedback. I have added a source to the opening statement that I think sufficiently supports it. I’ve reduced the content in the first three paragraphs a bit further. I did leave in a line about her lawsuit against the four seasons, because it was reported on by several local newspapers and I think is relevant as a lawsuit brought by her against her employer (much like the larger lawsuit against Unleashed brands). I also left in a line about her educational background, which is now tweaked to only rely on a source reported in a DC-area magazine (rather than LinkedIn).

The material about her tiktok posts + HB 2404 has also been changed to solely use non-social media sources.

Currently, the only social media source here is one establishing her birthday, which is used in conjunction with a newpaper article to establish her date of birth.

Is this ok? Thank you again for the feedback. HannoC (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment summarizes what I would say. Yes, the topic is notable which is the reason why I wrote “Might be notable”, but from using a tool, I can also find a high number of links from TikTok, X, YouTube etc, which are not reliable sources. And so the objective is to remove those links and, where possible, replace them with reliable ones. If there is no reliable source, remove the corresponding link. If you feel that the concerns have been addressed, you can resubmit it again for review. ToadetteEdit (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not convinced Tiffany Cianci is notable, at least not as an influencer – the two profiles in the WP:THREE @HannoC shared above that I’m able to read (the Dallas Morning News one is paywalled) are indeed significant coverage of her as a person but in the context of the battle about the gym. The references supporting her being an influencer do not provide significant coverage – the NYTimes one does not mention her in the text, it only shows her picture live-streaming, which sure, that does support the claim that she was live-streaming, but anyone can livestream and not be a notable influencer. From what I can see of the sources they only support that she was involved in a legal battle about a gym and I don’t think that is enough to be notable. Lijil (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Might be notable, but it is best to remove the social media pages as citations first. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 11:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR) but presently it is not clear that it does. As you may know, Wikipedia’s basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. Please note that many of the references would appear to be from sources that are NOT considered reliable for establishing notability and should be removed (including blogs, company websites, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Spotify etc). Also, if you have any connection to the subject, including being the subject (see WP:AUTOBIO) or being paid, you have a conflict of interest that you must declare on your Talk page (to see instructions on how to do this please click the link). Please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft’s talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject. It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg “I think the page now meets WP:AUTHOR criteria #3, because XXXXX”). Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page and I would be happy to reassess. Cabrils (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Reference:

The current article states at [12], “Cianci was sued by her former landlord in 2014 over unpaid rent. Her former landlord was awarded $27,384 in unpaid rent and legal fees.” That was to original outcome of the case, however, that ruling was overturned on appeal in the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in 2016, with the Cianci Parties (myself and my husband) being named as the prevailing parties. The Boyds later opted to settle the case prior to it returning to the lower court for a new trial.

This is a Link to the Appellate Court Ruling: https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/default/files/unreported-opinions/2016/0753s15.pdf

Correction Requested: The case was later overturned on Appeal by the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

Second Reference:

Later in the Article at [13] it states that: On June 8, 2023, the arbiter issued a ruling stating that Cianci’s franchise termination was justified, that she would be unable to operate a non-affiliated gym in competition with The Little Gym, and that she must pay The Little Gym’s legal fees. In the judgment, the arbiter wrote that Cianci’s “credibility in some areas is suspect” and found that she did indeed illegally use The Little Gym’s branding and intellectual property.

However, In the same Court Ruling cited in that Article at [13], it is made clear that Tiffany Cianci was also listed in the Arbitrator’s ruling, as a “Prevailing Party” when the Arbitrator ruled that TLGI and Stephen Polozola has engaged in intentional defamation of Tiffany Cianci, which made the Ciancis Prevailing Parties as well.

Further, the Arbitrator’s Ruling is Still pending before the Appellate Courts of both Arizona in Division 2, and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
This can be verified in the Pending Commercial Case Docket here: https://www.appeals2.az.gov/.

Correction Requested: I request that the article be corrected to state that both parties were deemed prevailing parties and the ruling for TLGI is currently under Appeal awaiting a ruling.

Conflict Disclosure: I am the subject of this article, Tiffany Cianci. I can provide Court Documents if requested. TiffanyCianci (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page was recently rewritten in a way that I believe is inconsistent with Wikipedia’s standards. I have reverted this page to its previous iteration. Many citations do not seem to support their respective sections and in some cases contain plainly wrong information.

For example, the line “She supports legislative efforts such as the SBA Transparency Law proposed by Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, which would require transparency regarding loan defaults in private equity-acquired franchises.” is cited with footnote 19, which links to a video that does not mention the SBA transparency law.

In another instance, the claim “As of 2023, more than 100 franchise owners have sued Unleashed, accusing the company of changing the terms of their contracts, misleading them about the expense and difficulty of ownership, and imposing requirements and fees that make their businesses unprofitable” is cited with footnote 14. Footnote 14 leads to an article that says that just 54 franchise owners are suing, not “more than 100.”

In a third instance, footnote 17 links to a blank page.

In addition to these errors, many of the sources cited here seem to show a conflict of interest and amount to promotion of the article’s subject. A number of them link to media appearances by Cianci, Cianci’s social media accounts, and even Cianci’s own website. Many of these sources are also unreliable, as they feature people like RFK Jr. (who is not an expert on anything relevant here) or Cianci herself.

A number of these edits show signs of blatant advertising. For example, WP:IBA identifies “Name-dropping of more famous people, groups, media” as an example of basic puffery. The article does this by adding a section listing media appearances on prominent media outlets. The article also name-drops additional prominent media outlets and tech companies in its TikTok section.

I believe other edits here are against the WP:EDITORIAL standards. For example, the edits claim that forced arbitration clauses and NDAs are dangerous. This is not a neutral tone. HannoC (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi {{ping|HannoC}}: EmmaSpaceBison (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC),[reply]

It seems like you are committed to maintaining the neutrality and sourcing standards of this article. I’ve looked at the reversion, and I can see why you undid the changes.

I realize that the additions look suspect. It likely appears that I was trying to spin the narrative rather than improve the record.

I am not asking to revert the page back entirely. However, there are some significant factual errors in the current version, including a misspelling of the subject’s name and context that isn’t supported by the citations. There is also sourced information regarding her legislative testimony that is missing.

I know the current errors aren’t your fault, and I’d like to correct them.

How would you suggest we move forward to fix the factual errors and integrate the missing advocacy details without compromising the neutral point of view?

I appreciate your help here. (EmmaSpaceBison (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]