Talk:Colleen Ballinger

Why isn’t the fact that the accusations of misconduct were done with minors mentioned in the lead?

What the title says, the fact that her misconduct was with minors is an important piece of information that should be included in the lead. Aardwolf68 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Because they were only accusations on social media that were expressed in salacious terms, so they were picked up by the press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Late reply I apologize, but the fact that they were against minors in particular is an important detail. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

See the detailed discussion about this on this Talk page's archived discussions. This was discussed in detail and at length. Ballinger has never even been accused of (let alone prosecuted for) any crime, and the accusations of mildly inappropriate conduct against her are amply covered in the article and appropriately mentioned in the Lead. Anything more would violate not only WP:BLP but also WP:GOSSIP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:DUE and WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Child grooming accusations

[1] [2] are these sources good enough? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

No: Please read the comments from this page that are archived in recent months. It was agreed, basically, that the word "groom" does not accurately describe what Ballinger was actually accused of. The meaning of "groom" is "to become friends with a child with the intention of trying to persuade the child to have a sexual relationship". There is no dispute that she was never even accused of this, so the word "groom" as mentioned in the press is totally misused and was used simply for sensational and salacious purposes by the press and is unencyclopedic. After very thorough discussion, it was agreed to include the material that is included under the heading Accusations of inapproprate conduct, and in the Lead. See also WP:BLPGOSSIP, and WP:DUE. Compare WP:BLPCRIME, noting that Ballinger has not even been accused of any crime whatsoever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Move the "Accusations of inappropriate conduct" content to the semi-standardized "Controversies" heading, instead of burying under "Reception" 47.14.87.195 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Controversies should NOT be used as a standardized heading. See WP:CSECTION. The present heading is exactly accurate and was extensively discussed on the Talk page. See the Talk archive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Placement of allegations

Can we talk about why the allegations section is a subheading under "Reception?" This does not seem appropriate to me. The allegations are a real-world matter separate from the critical commentary about her creative work native to the "Reception" heading. It seems to me that the allegations should either be their own heading, or a subheading of "Personal Life" as it's sufficiently real-world to fit there. Rob T Firefly (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Somewhere in the archives is the consensus that resulted in this, if I remember correctly. WP:CSECTION played a part of the discussion, but I don't have the energy to go back over it all again. It certainly shouldn't be under Personal life though: as this is how some of her material was received, 'Reception' deemed more suitable at the time, from what I remember. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

There was, indeed, extensive discussion, and we did not want to violate WP:CSECTION. This was not about things in her personal life: it was about things she is accused of doing in her career and in the promotion of her career to fans. Over a 15-year comedy career, Ballinger had generally positive reception from fans and audiences; few negative fan interactions were reported until 2020, and the subsequent accusations by a few young fans, and their viral repetition on social media, caused Ballinger's general reception by fans and audiences to turn negative, so I think it belongs in "Reception". Note that there has never been any kind of criminal charge or civil lawsuit, or any kind of official investigation of these accusations, and as at least one source suggested, some of the accusers were social media influencers whose career benefitted from the accusations. It is not the place of Wikipedia to adjudicate whether, and which, accusations against a living person are true or significant, only to summarize the noteworthy aspects of what the press covered. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Ssilvers

I've glanced at the extensive discussion at the time, as well as the WP:CSECTION you quote, to make sure I have all the facts; and I too believe you all were too strict in your decision not to separate the negative backlash. In the WP:Section you refer to, all the examples of "Reception" where negative and positive feedback are together in the same section are applied to inanimate books and works of art (Catcher in the Rye, In Search of Lost Time, the film 2001). On the contrary, when "Controversy" is applied to people, specific controversies are always separated in a new section (see the given examples: Michael Collins Piper, Mel Gibson, Kanye West)

With other articles supporting this view, there's no reason why the controversy should not be highlighted in a new section. I understand the reluctancy to separate it at the time so not to fall into Recentism, but enough time has passed to objectively state that there was a serious negative backlash after the accusations and her vid that has affected her public perception. Right now, this article is doing a disservice to the Neutral Point of View by obscuring the negative parts of her work/persona and highlighting only her best aspects. Treewizzard (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

It's simply untrue to say the article does not reflect a neutral POV. We cover the recent controversies in some depth. Regarding what other articles do: there is no need to ignore the MOS to lower standards on this article to reflect what other poorly constructed articles may do. - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat I would like to get into why I believe this article to be partial, but I would need more time and perhaps that's better left for a different discussion. I'll stick to the different section discussion here.

I'm not quoting to you random subpar articles, I'm quoting the examples given in WP:CSECTION as the ones to imitate. If you deem them unacceptable, I do not see how this is not half-following the guidelines of WP:CSECTION up to the point we feel it's appropriate.

Again, I believe the separation of the controversy is a discussion that should be reopened. WP:CSECTION does not explicitly prohibit Controversy sections: on the contrary, they can exist when they cover a specific event, "For a specific controversy regarding the topic, when such topic takes a prominent place in the reliable sources on the topic" (although the term "Controversy" must be categorically avoided). The example given is a separate Controversy section in an article: Rick_Ross_(consultant). Again, I'm quoting the same WP:CSECTION that you use to argue against this practice, so I'm not sure how these supporting arguments do not factor in in any way. Treewizzard (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@SchroCat I completely with @Treewizzard that it would make a lot more sense for the part of this article covering the allegations against her to be moved to a different section. There are options other than an outright "controversy" section, if that's mainly what is being opposed here. It could be moved to the end of the career section, as the allegations and subsequent coverage did have a pretty major effect on that. There's other articles with "Public image" or "In the media" sections (like Hugh Grant). Perhaps this is just me, but I would very much expect "Reception" to contain to critical reaction (whether by media or audience) to an artist's work, not a timeline of allegations about their personal conduct. I just do not think sticking this information in at the end of "Reception" is terribly intuitive for the casual reader, and almost gives the impression of it being hidden away... which I imagine is probably what Treewizzard was referring to with the POV comment. Not that I think the overall tone of this article has a POV problem; after all, the section about said allegations is a very small percentage of the overall article and is even careful to include opposing viewpoints. But considering how much of the post-2023 conversation surrounding Ballinger has been dominated by discussion of the allegations and (regardless of their truth or falsity) their enormous impact on her life and career (the Vanity Fair article being a perfect example), it does seem a bit weird for that to not be slightly more central. Just my two cents, and sorry for the long-windedness, but I think it is perhaps worth re-examining. Gravelove (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I still think not, but let's see what any others have to say. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• Agree with the others above. The misconduct accusations have nothing to do with the reception section, and putting them there is an obvious misinterpretation of WP:CSECTION and of Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism. --Cavarrone 08:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

If anyone has a better idea about where to put it, then please make a proposal and we'll see if there is a WP:CONSENSUS for any particular place in the article. I still think that the best place for it is under Reception, as the content is noteworthy only because of the way the press and social media received it. The accusations themselves are not noteworthy, as Ballinger was never accused (let alone convicted) of any crime, but rather of poor judgment in interactions with fans. Certainly it does not belong in the "personal life" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

217 References?

Isn't that a little much for a You Tube star? Based on length of the article alone, I would think this woman is one of the most important women in history ever. I realize that most of the article was probably written by her PR people, but should there be limits on length based on something? I don't have an easy answer, this just feels excessive to me. Scopius (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Scopius According to the stats 63% of the article was written by @Ssilvers: and 27% was written by @Brojam:. If there is too much detail or too many references, they are very likely responsible. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)