Talk:James Charles/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Request

I think its deceptive to include part of a quote when if used the full quote should be included "spearheaded a makeup revolution among men, particular among teenagers, nearly all of whom consume...well, just about everything...online" (from https://www.independent.ie/style/beauty/who-on-earth-is-james-charles-the-beauty-vlogger-who-brought-gridlock-to-a-birmingham-shopping-centre-37760216.html ). The remainder of the sentence radically changed the meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.226.233 (talk • contribs)

Mention of child sexual misconduct controversy in lede

No expert on the situation here, but considering how significant this is (Morphe cutting business ties with Charles among other things), I think mention of this should be in the lede section. --Bangalamania (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it'd be appropriate in a lede, as per other articles with people that have been in controversy. It should be mentioned in a more appropriate section imo as most people know him for makeup tutorials, and not the accusations. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 03:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations are very serious and should be included in the lede, more so when they are done to minors, and receive extensive media atention from reputable media sources such as The Guardian, BBC News, or New York Magazine. Articles for other personalities with sexual assault allegations include, Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Michael Jackson, among others, and this is done so accordingly per WP:DUE. All these articles include extensive paragraphs in the lede about these allegations abiding to MOS:LEADREL. Understandably, it becomes a defining aspect of a person's life when it occurs that it becomes very much worthy of inclusion in the lede. Therefore, I agree with mentioning it in the lede.--Chlorineer (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of discussion about how "serious" these allegations are when that's completely missing the point of the lead. The lead establishes notability and summarizes the most important parts of the body. Per MOS:LEAD, information about the allegations and Charles's various controversies in the lead, if included at all, should be included in proportion to how crucial they are in explaining Charles's career and image. A consensus needs to be reached about that, not whether the allegations should be taken seriously in the first place or not or if the age difference was large enough for it to be considered misconduct (which it was). I, personally, would caution against having it in the lead at the moment. All of the examples provided by Chlorineer are of people against whom allegations were made years ago and whose reputations and legacies have been significantly impacted by them in the years since, with sources to prove this. The allegations against Charles have all come out within the past few months, meaning that including it in the lead might cause the article to suffer from recentism, even if mentions of it are from reputable news outlets. I want to know what others think about this as well. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point about recentism, and how it may affect our ability to write this into the lede in a manner consistent with the project. However, you also make a cross-comparison with other articles involving notable people who were accused of sexual assault, and while they did happen at least a couple of years ago from now like you mentioned, I do personally recall (at least for Kevin Spacey and Prince Andrew, Duke of York) that inclusion in the lede was added soon after (at least a week) into the scandal. If you still disagree with inclusion of this mention in the lede now, the question becomes, when should we do this then? It's been established that the allegations against Mr. Charles are true. Mr. Charles was demonetized on the platform that helped him rise to fame in the first place (YouTube). Mr. Charles has lost corporate sponsorships, and while events surrounding the sexual assault allegations started surfacing in late March (at least 7 weeks from today), nearly every media article since then, involving Mr. Charles, has been about these sexual assault allegations. I used Google News and other news aggregates to search for the news stories, so please correct me if I am wrong with this assessment. --Chlorineer (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

It's been over ten days since I added a rationale for inclusion and there's no feedback on it. Thus, I'm planning to write a brief and well-sourced paragraph to the lede pertaining to the various child sexual misconduct allegations. I'll add it here to give editors the chance to comment on it before it gets posted. --Chlorineer (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the bold step and added it to the lede. I don't see the need for it to be well-sourced, as the accusations are already sourced in the article, but if needs be we can cite those sources. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bangalamania. It looks great. --Chlorineer (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't fix an edit summary

W/re: the botox, I meant WP:TENYEARTEST. —valereee (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"denies knowing their age" source

Hey, Zartley, do you have a source that shows Charles currently denies knowing their age? —valereee (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

As the user also added that Charles denied knowing these boys' ages at the time later on in the same edit, I assume that's what was meant. I have changed the wording in the lead to reflect that. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

The man is currently facing charges of grooming children. 162.223.2.135 (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 03:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's what I found:

• "Early this year, James Charles was accused of grooming underage boys." Source: Vujić, K. (2021, May 12). A Guide to the Many, Many Scandals of James Charles. The Cut.
• "the influencer...was accused by one teenager of grooming..." Source: Godwin, B. C. (2021, April 2). James Charles: YouTube star admits messaging 16-year-old boys. BBC News.
• "Unpacking the online-grooming allegations against YouTube and TikTok stars James Charles..." Source: O’Connor, F., & Haylock, Z. (2021, May 12). A Complete Timeline of the James Charles Allegations and Controversies. Vulture.
• "Charles posted his first response to allegations of 'grooming' and 'pedophilia.'" Source: Tenbarge, K. (2021, April 2). Teens said beauty YouTuber James Charles sent them sexual messages. Here’s how the explosive sexting scandal unfolded. Insider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlorineer (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, IP. The problem is that these aren't charges. They're accusations, which is different. —valereee (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained maintenance tags

Valereee and DGG, you both added maintenance tags without explaining why here. I thought I should write something on the talk page to give y'all the floor to explain. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

For me some of the language sounds like it was written by his PR firm. He "amassed" followers. He became cover girl's "first male ambassador". He "first ventured into". And then on the other end I feel like there may be undue weight placed on the sexting controversy. This isn't a 35-year-old sexting with 16-year-olds. It's a 20-year-old, now 21. I think we need to take into account that this is still a very young human. I don't think the sexual misconduct allegations deserve more than a few sentences, not three paragraphs. And the whole Tati Westbrook thing...really, also three paragraphs? It's a nothingburger, a couple of beauty bloggers who used to be besties and had a fight. —valereee (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: I'll admit that some of my wording, despite merely being an attempt at diversifying the language used, probably did come across as sounding promotional. I can remove and replace two of the examples you gave ("amassed" and "ventured into"), but saying that he was *CoverGirl's first male spokesperson is not undue. It's supported by the source used (it literally shows up in the title of the article) and was the focus of articles from a bunch of other RSs (The New York Times, The Washington Post, HuffPost, USA Today, CNN, Time, BBC News). Also, personal opinions on whether or not the sexting controversy is "that bad" acting as influences on if it should be in the article introduces more bias than what's already there. I'll reiterate what Bangalamania said, which is that we should be looking at what the sources are saying. You also never explained why you added the copy editing tag, so if you could, that would be helpful in resolving the issue. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ambassador is almost certainly CoverGirl's marketing department's current term for spokesperson. I don't object to 'first male', just 'first male ambassador.' That's what I mean by copy editing -- taking out stuff like that. —valereee (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"Ambassador" is the term used in both the Time and BBC sources I listed, plus in Vox, The Hollywood Reporter, Vanity Fair, HuffPost, People, South China Morning Post, The Guardian, and Fox News. All of these are RSs per WP:RSPSOURCES, and it seems like "ambassador" is used more frequently than any other term. In any case, "ambassador" and "spokesperson" are synonymous with one another. I'm not sure what the problem is with this wording. benǝʇᴉɯ 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, I agree with the inclusion of the {{Cleanup-PR}} cleanup tag and that further work to address the issues behind it's addition is needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I also think the page has a promotional tone, until you get to the sections on his controversies, which are bloated. A lot of this needs to be condensed so it doesn't read too much like a newspaper combined with a promotional piece. But I disagree with the above that we should only have a few sentences in the entire article on the sexting/Tati Westbrook controversies as all the reliable sources on Charles mention both in detail. His sexting and 'cancellation' definitely need to be included in the lede, and there seems to be silent consensus for this (see above). At this point, it's arguably what he's most (in)famous for.

Maybe off-topic but it needs to be said: I personally sympathize with the argument that he is a young adult, but from a legal standpoint – and the standpoint of his career (Morphe cutting ties) and YT demonetization – he is seen as an adult allegedly grooming and sexting a minor, which is serious no matter the age gap. This is the way all reliable sources are framing the situation. –Bangalamania (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact something is widely covered while it's happening doesn't mean we need coverage this detailed. I think we could reduce the coverage of Tati Westbrook by at least two-thirds for sure. The other is ongoing, but IMO it's too much until/unless he's actually charged with something. Until that happens, there is no legal standpoint.

And I don't think you can say there's silent consensus when this whole sexting scandal is practically brand new and when at least one other editor has objected to BLP violations here, which @Tbhotch did just a few days ago in the above section. I'll ask @Dreamy Jazz to drop back in, too. —valereee (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've cut some of the bloat from the lead. Will that work for others here? I'll make the other cuts I think are needed in small edits. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the lede was becoming bloated, it looks good as it is now, thank you! Yes the scandal is relatively new, but Morphe cutting ties and demonetization of his account are pretty significant events which should be included in the lede. I am unaware what BLP violations Tbhotch was referring to as I was not watching the page then, and they have been revdel'd, but I assume that was about obvious defamatory information. The silent consensus I was referring to was inclusion of the current controversy in the lede. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Tati Westbrook section

Here's what I'd like to cut this section to:

In 2019 one of Charles's longtime collaborators, Tati Westbrook, uploaded a 43-minute long video accusing Charles of disloyalty and making various other accusations. Charles uploaded an 8-minute response video which became one of the most disliked videos on YouTube before it was deleted, and his subscriber numbers fell. He posted a second 41-minute video addressing the comments made by Westbrook which presented evidence that refuted many of Westbrook's accusations and led to renewed support for Charles and criticism of Westbrook. Westbrook later removed the original video from her YouTube channel and in 2020 posted a followup video accusing fellow YouTubers Shane Dawson and Jeffree Star of manipulating her into making the original video. The controversy sparked media analysis relating to cancel culture, the alleged toxicity of YouTube's beauty community, stereotypes of gay men being predatory and profits made from online drama. —valereee (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I think this version is better as the article doesn't need to include the title of the videos, nor does it need to include specific subscriber numbers. The version in the article is very wordy, and as such we don't need to have this extra wordiness through specific numbers of subscribers. Although this newer version could be changed to include more of the sidenote "Person X said James Charles did this", I don't think this is necessarily useful as this section focuses on the Tati Westbrook controversy and not the "Person X said James Charles did this" controversy. However, I would definitely like to see subscriber counts removed and generalised to gained/lost. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this version is definitely better, although I would say something like "his subscriber numbers fell considerably" (we don't need actual numbers, but we do need to distinguish this from regular YouTuber ups and downs) and change "online drama" to "online controversies" (or something similar). –Bangalamania (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Made those changes, drama > feuds work for you? —valereee (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That's great, thanks! --Bangalamania (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

sexting section

In early 2021, when Charles was 21, several 16- and 17-year-old boys accused him of sending unsolicited nude photos and pressuring them into sexting with him. On April 1, 2021, Charles posted a 14-minute-long video to his YouTube channel titled "holding myself accountable", in which he stated that he did send sexually explicit messages to two 16-year-old boys. Charles called his past behavior "reckless" and "desperate", saying, "to the guys involved in the situation, I wanna say I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I flirted with you and I'm really sorry if I ever made you uncomfortable. It is completely unacceptable." Later that month Morphe released a statement saying they would be cutting business ties with Charles and YouTube temporarily demonetized Charles' channel.

That's brilliant! I've changed the section header to "Sexting controversy" (if anyone has any different or better wording, please let me know), as "sexual misconduct" can apply to a lot of things, and crucially that doesn't seem to be the term used in most RS. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

public image section

Okay, the last thing is the two long paras in the public image section detailing bonehead tweets and the mugshot challenge. Are these even important enough to include? —valereee (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I took that out as trivia and therefore undue negativity in a BLP, but happy to discuss! —valereee (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee The Ebola controversy was written about in detail by writers from The Cut, HuffPost, The Hollywood Reporter, and Associated Press, and has been addressed since then in articles from Vulture and The New York Times. The Mugshot Challenge scandal was addressed by People, The Daily Dot, PinkNews, and The Independent. His partying during the pandemic was discussed in Vulture, People, and The Independent. Per WP:UNDUE, "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public". I think an argument can be made that the paragraphs should be cut down, but I think it's fair to say that there should be some inclusion of these controversies based on the fact that they've been covered extensively in RSs. Plus, even if a consensus is reached that this information is trivia, per WP:HTRIVIA: "Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists." benǝʇᴉɯ 21:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Benmite, I think we need to apply the Wikipedia:TENYEARTEST to these. Yes, they were news at the time. Will they be in his obit? In my opinion they'll all be reduced to "A frequent focus of controversy, James Charles was particularly known for X, Y, Z." With X, Y, and Z being the three biggest -- at this point that would be Tati Westbrook, sexting, and ?. In my opinion the ebola tweet will not appear in his obit. The fact this gets coverage while it's happening is just because all these outlets need to feed the beast, and these stories get clicks. —valereee (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: For starters, saying that articles written around the time of an event aren't suitable to use as sources because "outlets need to feed the beast, and these stories get clicks" basically rules out using any articles as sources for anything that happened around the time they were written, and as far as I know, there's no guideline that forbids that. I already refuted the argument that the Ebola controversy wasn't notable after it happened by bringing up two separate examples of it being addressed in articles from RSs written in 2021 and 2019, respectively. Some more examples from RSs: PinkNews (2020) and NBC News (2021). Like I already said before, per WP:UNDUE, your opinion about what you think might be notable should not take preference over its presence in reliable sources. Also, the ten-year test and asking whether or not something will appear in someone's obituary are two very different things, as an obituary is usually about the size of an average Wikipedia page's lead section, which does not cover every single thing in the body, while the ten-year test merely asks if certain things are being focused on too heavily that might not be relevant in the future. As I've already established, this controversy is clearly still relevant today. benǝʇᴉɯ 05:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, the arguments you're making are dealt with in policy at WP:RECENTISM. Yes, the further out we go from an event, if that event is being mentioned less and less often, we decide it's not important enough for inclusion, even if it was heavily covered at the time. Eventually the person or event is covered in retrospect, in a NYT obit or maybe in scholarly works, and the amount of weight that retrospective coverage gives is what we're aiming for, too. This guy's only been famous for like four years. We can't even apply the ten year test yet. The fact we can still find mentions of some of this stuff in what amount to actual lists of everything someone whose brand is based on attracting attention has ever gotten attention for doesn't mean we should list them all, too. If in ten years it's still being mentioned as something important -- and maybe the ebola one will be, it might have been the first and so end up in his obit as part of a sentence starting, "From the very start of his career," or something -- we can add it back. But for now I think listing all those minor dramas are fine to just include that he's had a lot of drama. I added that into the lead and body, see what you think. —valereee (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: I'm not saying that we should include it in the lead, just in the body. Again, I already refuted the idea that coverage of this specific controversy was solely a result of recentism by showing articles from 2019, 2020, and 2021 which all mention the situation, several of which are not lists of prior controversies. Also, the ten-year test is not a test of whether or not something that happened ten years ago is relevant today, but something to ask oneself when adding information. It's a hypothetical test about whether or not said information will be relevant ten years after it became known, or if too much of the article is being devoted to this information based on its potential relevance in ten years. Although it's hypothetical, it can be solved better if some time has passed and an event or subject is still being discussed years after it first became relevant. In this case, the Ebola tweet is still being talked about. I think the idea that "if it's still being talked about in ten years, we can add it back" is irrelevant to this discussion since, as you've said, he's only been famous for about four years now. For all we know, in 2027, James Charles could be completely forgotten, or he could be the most famous person in the world. In any case, this discussion is happening here and now, and I think we should make a decision based on the information we have today, which shows that this controversy is still being discussed in reliable sources as well as many other sources. I agree that the weight given in retrospective sources should be proportional to the weight given in the article, but I think if we trim the controversy down to a sentence or two, that would do the trick. benǝʇᴉɯ 18:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, 2019, 2020, and 2021 are all quite recent. If in 2027 news stories are still discussing the 2017 ebola tweet, we can add it. Until then, IMO, this is trivia, and another editor has agreed. If you really think it's important, I think you'll have to open an RfC, as the Wikipedia:ONUS is on the editor who wants to include information to gain consensus. —valereee (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: Yes, the point is that they're recent, since the controversy is not as recent. Are you suggesting that the only way for this discussion to work is to postpone it to 6 years from now? Also, I've requested a third opinion. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, I'm saying they're so recent that we don't know yet if they're important enough to include, and we have no deadlines here, and the onus is on the person wanting to include the content, so, yes, that's what I'm suggesting. :) Another opinion is always helpful, but I'm not sure that'll be enough to include these, as we've already got a third opinion below in this thread from DJ.

Ben, my concern here is that this is a BLP, and one of someone young who (until this recent alleged shit) was just doing bonehead stuff most young people get up to. He was like 17 when he tweeted some of this stuff. Thank god I wasn't famous when I was 17, Jeez. We should err on the side of being kind, and yes, in another six or so years, we'll know. IMO listing even briefly everything he's ever gotten criticism for is both trivia and undue negativity for a BLP. It's enough to say he's been involved in a lot of online drama. —valereee (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: Still waiting for a third opinion, but in the meantime, I should point out that your arguments for why this controversy and any other controversy should be left out of the article boil down to WP:NOTHARMINGANYONE and WP:CRYSTAL, neither of which are legitimate reasons for leaving something out of an article. Also, the "we should wait 6 years" argument seems to just be an avoidance of this discussion entirely.

WP:BLP states that if something meets the three core content policies (NPOV, verifiable, and not original research) and uses high-quality sources, then it can be included. Yes, the burden of evidence lies with me, but I've already provided that evidence, and what I'm suggesting we add to the article is not going to cause further harm to Charles since it was already heavily reported on when it happened and continues to be reported on to this day. Yes, extra care needs to be taken when writing articles about minors, but Charles is no longer a minor, even if he was when he tweeted about Ebola. I could use examples from other pages showing that someone doing something controversial as a minor doesn't exempt editors from including said thing in their article so long as it's reliably sourced, but this should already be clear. Basing your decision about whether or not to include something in the article on personal opinions about how "kind" Wikipedia articles should be, beliefs about the supposedly objective severity of what he did, and your own guesses about how relevant something will be in some amount of years introduces bias into the article, which is exactly the opposite of what we're trying to do here. We need to base it off of policy and the information and sources we have at our disposal right now, because this controversy happened four years ago. We're far past the point where any information written about it in the past two years could be considered a result of recentism. benǝʇᴉɯ 00:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this discussion seems to have moved away from the two other things that were removed, but both the Mugshot Challenge controversy and his partying during the pandemic were addressed in the aforementioned NBC News and Vulture articles from 2021. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, no, my main argument is that this is trivia and unduly negative for a BLP. The reason I'm arguing so hard about it (normally I would just let this kind of small stuff go) is that this is a BLP. Ditto the mugshot controversy and partying during the pandemic. It's all trivia, and IMO it's unduly negative for a BLP.

And as I've already pointed out, we already do have a third opinion. DJ is our third opinion. Another opinion would only be #4, and even if that went your way, it still wouldn't provide consensus for including this content. You'd need at least two more people, and if you somehow got that, I'd open a section at BLPN because I believe this is an issue of undue negativity at a BLP. —valereee (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as trivia. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Kelly Rocklein lawsuit

James Charles is currently in an ongoing lawsuit with a former employee Kelly Rocklein, who worked for him for six months in 2018 before she was fired. Kelly claims that James overworked her as well as stating that she was underpaid while working for him. James has responded to these allegations I recommend looking it up for yourself tho because I have missed several of the claims as there are just so many and all are inhumane and horrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaki-Pitt (talk • contribs) 17:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zaki-Pitt: I hope you don't mind me moving your comment to a different section so others can reply to it better. Please also remember to sign your posts by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~".

As for the Rocklein lawsuit, this has been mentioned by a number of reliable sources, so I also think it warrants inclusion. As Wikipedia is not a news article, we need to give the claims due weight. But I think a brief summary along the lines of

In a May 2021 lawsuit, Kelly Rocklein claimed she was illegally overworked when working as a producer for Charles in 2018. The suit also claims she was wrongfully dismissed from her job following an injury, that she was not paid the minimum wage (and in some cases not paid at all) as well as seeking damages for emotional distress. Charles denies these allegations.

is appropriate. Tagging Valereee, Dreamy Jazz, Benmite and Chlorineer for their views. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that there are enough news articles about this to make it more than just routine coverage. We don't need to have much on this and I think this probably enough length wise for now. Based on the sources this lawsuit has been in the works for several years (with arbitration and attempted settlements), and as such I think this will likely appear in future sources as the lawsuit proceeds so I suspect this will have enduring enough notability for at least a mention somewhere. Not sure if it needs it's own section (i.e. section for Lawsuit), but as it stands the structure of the article requires the use of a section for this. However, if other editors think this is too much like news, then that's fair enough. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Meh...it's so recent. Are we really sure it's not just a nothingburger? —valereee (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

If you think it needs removed, then you have my support to. My thought was that a lawsuit going on for this length of time is probably more than just simple trivia. However, it was borderline for me anyway and a fresh look does suggest that it might be best to wait for its inclusion? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC) (added to at 22:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC))

I don't mind mentioning...maybe without a section head? —valereee (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree that the section head is excessive, I just wasn't sure how else to format it without that. I'm also ambivalent about it being included at the moment. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Sexting controversy vs. Sexting admission

Hey, @Benmite, so what's your feeling on this? I think "controversy" is inherently negative when we have "admission" as more neutral. —valereee (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There's discussion of this at WP:CSECTION, FWIW. —valereee (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You know, I'm not sure any of these things actually need a section head. Just the section heads themselves, since all of them are about negative things, probably are non-neutral. —valereee (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: They definitely do require section headings, as they're each about separate, notable instances. Something being "inherently negative" does not make it unduly so, and there are plenty of articles about public figures (Kevin Spacey, Noel Clarke, Armie Hammer, Marilyn Manson, Chris D'Elia, Louis C.K.) with entire sections devoted to sexual misconduct allegations made against them, regardless of whether or not they were ever brought to court, because of the impact that those allegations had on their career and legacy.

In any case, I would opt for using a heading that's broader in scope than "admission". The section in its entirety is about the accusations and his response to them, not just that he decided to post a video in which he admitted to sexting with minors. "Allegations" and "accusations" would probably be better, as most reliable sources either refer to them as allegations, (USA Today, Gizmodo, The Independent, HuffPost) accusations, (People, PinkNews, Entertainment Weekly, Entertainment Weekly again NBC News) or both (The Daily Beast, BBC, The New York Times, BuzzFeed News, The Daily Dot, The Daily Dot again, The Cut, The Verge.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benmite (talk • contribs)

Hm, I was thinking the admission was the more important point, but that's not important enough to argue about. However, I do think whether or not these need section heads may be part of the BLP undue negativity issue here. It doesn't matter what other articles do. They could be wrong, too. —valereee (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

dob

This needs to be widely reported in reliable sources. I don't think a single mention of the date he turned 21 in a marginally-reliable source is enough. —valereee (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: WP:DOB states that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." The Insider source uses a video posted by Charles himself in 2020 as a source for this, in which he literally says, "Today, the day that I'm filming this, is May 23rd, and if you know me, it is my birthday, and not only is it my birthday, okay, it's my 21st birthday, which, obviously, is the legal drinking age here in America." On WP:RSPSOURCES, Insider is not considered unreliable, let alone deprecated, and regardless, the operative word from WP:DOB is "or". Another Allure article from 2019 reads, "According to Just Jared, on Friday, May 24, the 20-year-old announced via Instagram Stories that he's canceling his nationwide 'Sisters Tour.' Charles, who turned 20 on Thursday, May 23, began the video compilation by thanking his fans for their birthday wishes." They also embedded an Instagram post from Charles himself in the article from May 23, 2019, which reads, "thank u all so much for the birthday wishes today 🥺 I’m not just a kid with some blending brushes anymore... I’m officially 20 years old!?" The main concern with WP:DOB is privacy and whether or not the person in question is comfortable with having their birth date publicized, and since both of the secondary sources mentioned refer back to primary sources posted by Charles himself, it's abundantly clear that he has no problem with this information being public and there is no problem with confirming that this information is legitimate. His date of birth can and should be included in the article. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

If that's the argument you're using, you need to link to all of those. We try to be pretty careful about dob. —valereee (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The Insider article is already used as a reference, and I can add the Allure article. Not going to add the Instagram post or the YouTube video, as a secondary source is almost always preferable to a primary source. benǝʇᴉɯ 03:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

We can use iffy sources for noncontroversial things. That doesn't mean we can use them for everything. For BLP DOB, we need it to be widely reported in reliable sources. —valereee (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

So:

1. Insider saying in May 2020 that he got drunk on May 23, his 21st birthday.
2. Allure saying in 2019 he turned 20 on May 23rd.
3. Teen Vogue is saying it somewhere, you say?
4. We've got Charles marking his own birthday twice, once in 2019 and in 2021, on his twitter feed or YouTube, and saying he turned X today.

I mean, it's certainly arguable that he doesn't mind having his full dob out there. These aren't the greatest sources. I just don't know whether this rises to it. —valereee (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

DOB edits

Look, Benmite. I'm making these edits to try to protect a living human being until we have consensus. Why are you making them? What is your reason for insisting the edits you want to make be made now, before we have consensus? We have no deadlines, but in the meantime people can be hurt. Why? —valereee (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: My intention with any of the edits I've made has never been to hurt anyone, but I am a bit confused as to what exactly it is that's being protected here. Is this about the date of birth? As I've already stated, WP:DOB states that you can add a date of birth so long as the sources used are "linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public", even if their date of birth has not been widely published in reliable sources, so long as the sources used aren't deprecated or patently unreliable. I've given very clear examples showing how Charles evidently does not object to this information being publicly available and how the sources used to back his date of birth up are reliable enough to use. It would be one thing if this information wasn't made readily available on the internet by Charles himself, but it has been. I added the date of birth back because it makes no sense not to include, and I have no clue where the idea that anyone will be hurt because James Charles's birthday is on Wikipedia came from. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a living person we're protecting. There is no deadline. Let's get consensus first. —valereee (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: Please answer my question about what is being protected or who is avoiding being hurt by leaving out his date of birth. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

He is being protected/hurt. This living person. —valereee (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: How could this hurt him? benǝʇᴉɯ 01:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

People's exact DOB can be used to doxx them. It's not okay to publish these. —valereee (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee: Are you saying that you don't think it's okay to publish anyone's date of birth on Wikipedia? benǝʇᴉɯ 02:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, I'm saying that per policy, we don't publish exact birthdates that aren't widely published in reliable sources. —valereee (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, doxxing is publishing someone's private information. Charles has published this information himself, and so have two different sources. benǝʇᴉɯ 02:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that he's posted his dob to social media. Our policy is that the dob must be published widely in RS. —valereee (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn’t the rest of that sentence at WP:BLP (or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public) cover this scenario? We have both a reliable source, and multiple years of Charles publicly announcing his birthday. There doesn’t seem to be any ambiguity about his comfort with this birthday being public information. I realize this is the same point Benmite made in the previous conversation. I’m similarly not following how censoring his birthdate here follows either the spirit or text of WP:BLP. POLITANVM ^talk 03:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm, I'd want to see something besides tweets. If the subject, for instance, had their full birthdate published on their website, that would work. But just tweeting "I'm 21 today" or whatever, no. —valereee (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, I don’t believe Charles has a website beyond his social media pages, so that seems like an impossible standard. I don’t follow how one might reasonably infer that Charles would object to his birthdate being public, given he’s done everything he can to make sure people do know his birthday. At a quick glance, he’s posted about it across Instagram ([1][2][3]), Twitter (In his bio, Tweet about a Wikipedia death hoax including a screenshot of this article with his birthdate, 21st Birthday Tweet), and TikTok ([4]). That he includes his birthday in his Twitter bio should be enough on its own. And we have Teen Vogue stating his birthday as well. POLITANVM ^talk 13:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm, our requirement is widely published in reliable sources. I'm questioning whether having even a few RS saying 'turned 20 on May 23' is enough. His twitter bio says his birthday, not his birth date. If it said May 23, 1999, I'd be okay with us saying, "Clearly he doesn't mind." I have pretty strong opinions when it comes to BLP issues, so you may find that others will agree with you. Personally I just don't understand why anyone feels strongly about including something that to me feels unimportant -- I literally can't figure out why anyone would argue over including negative trivia or blp birthdates if we aren't absolutely sure. I think our standards need to be really strict when it comes to blps. We can't be sloppy about our coverage of living, breathing humans who can be hurt by us. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Very respectfully, your case here seems primarily founded on your personal opinion about birthdates, rather than the text of the BLP policy. Looking at the "or by sources linked to the subject" part of that policy, what reasonable person would look at all of the very public birthday announcements and assume they'd object to their birthday being public? I agree the standards need to be strict. This case far exceeds those standards.

I agree this is a pretty unimportant thing to discuss. It caught my eye while doing RCP, and I didn't expect to spend much time here. But I'm somewhat confused at how one could be so dogmatically opposed to including a birthdate that the subject themselves publicly announces every year, and that has been in this article for years. We are absolutely sure he's comfortable with his birthday being public. If frequent public announcements don't meet the standard, what does?

Either way, here is James Charles's 2017 tweet saying "James Charles Dickinson (born May 23, 1999)". Of course, he's quoting from his own Wikipedia article, but we don't need another reliable source since we already have at least one (Teen Vogue) and Self-Published Sources should be fine for something as uncontroversial as his own birthday. But there is unambiguous evidence that James Charles has no privacy concerns about his birthday. POLITANVM ^talk 14:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm, I believe there've been multiple discussions of using a subjects own "I'm thirty today" tweets, but maybe start an RfC at WT:BLP or BLPN to clarify? If everyone there agrees with you, I'm fine with it. I have spent way more time trying to protect the article of someone I have zero interest in than I would like. I cannot understand why this article is so important to folks. It's a frickin' beauty youtuber. Why does anyone over the age of 14 even care about this guy?

The tweet quoting WP from years ago doesn't convince me;lots of people think of tweets as sort of ephemeral, and that was particularly true the further back you go in time. Teen Vogue isn't enough, IMO, they didn't say his birthdate is X. They said he turned X on month-day. That's not the same, IMO. And even if they had, that would just be one. We need multiple. It needs to be widely published. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I've asked at WT:BLP. —valereee (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll start a discussion at WP:BLPN. POLITANVM ^talk 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Politanvm, probably best to start it in only one place. No objection to BLPN, but if you start it there, direct the discussion at WT:BLP there. —valereee (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, crossed threads. I'll engage at WT:BLP. POLITANVM ^talk 15:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Most of the responses to your query at WT:BLP seem to be in favor of including the DOB per WP:ABOUTSELF and due to a lack of any sources that say otherwise. Unless you want to take this discussion to WP:BLPN, is it fair to say we can include his full DOB? benǝʇᴉɯ 01:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, yes, I think we can include full dob per that discussion, which seems to have consensus that a verified social media account of a non-minor article subject saying about themselves something along the lines of "today is my 50th birthday". I'm going to add it to WP:BLP as soon as someone closes that discussion. Actually I can probably close the discussion since I didn't provide an opinion. :) —valereee (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite, with that consensus at WT:BLP, we still do need Charles' tweets to be cited for his dob so that future editors will know he is good with this. —valereee (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Benmite ping for good measure —valereee (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'll add that at the reliable sources noticeboard, there was a discussion about Teen Vogue (one of the sources I added to support his date of birth) here, and most editors seemed to agree that it was a reliable source. Vogue is already listed as an RS on RSPSOURCES, and regardless, a source doesn't have to be confirmed as an RS in order to be used for DOB so long as the subject has made it clear they don't object to it being widely published, as I've already stated. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Benmite, let's just wait until we have consensus. This is a living human being who can be hurt by this. If you want to list all the sources that state his full birthdate, that would be a start toward that. Not "who turned 21 last May 23". It has to be "James Charles' date of birth is January 1 1995" or whatever. It can't be "I turned 21 today". It can't be one source says his birthday is October 8 and another says he was born in 1992. It has to be multiple reliable sources (or his owne website, or his manager's website, or his CV, or whatever) saying his full birthdate is X. —valereee (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:MjolnirPants

James Charles

Hello, I did check the next citation and couldn't find any information backing "significant praise from a number of celebrities." Such statements lean toward WP:PROMOTION and should be avoided if not clearly verifiable. Also, respectfully, the edit you reverted contained additional sources for another statement, which I stated in my summary. Please check what you are reverting before you do. Thank you Throast (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Throast, you checked the next citation and missed the part where they said the announcement was met with widespread praise and mentioned the hashtag that emerged as a result? Odd, as that bit was rather hard to miss; it's why I inserted the text in the first place. I mean, they even quoted Katy Perry in the third paragraph.

Also, if you don't like your additions being undone, perhaps don't include them in the same edit in which you remove sourced content for spurious reasons. I can see you've already added them back in, so I don't know why you're even bothering to complain about it here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Throast, this kind of discussion should be had at the talk page of the article, not the talk page of another editor. —valereee (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There really is no need to get worked up, I'm trying to resolve an editing dispute here. I guess "celebrities" is what I'm having an issue with. The article states that "many on Twitter" praised the announcement and subsequently quotes Talia Mar and a few non-celebrity supporters of Charles. Katy Perry was part of the CoverGirl shoot, which makes her announcement on Instagram promotional by nature. If there is no other source to back up "significant praise from a number of celebrities," I suggest changing it to "significant praise on social media." What do you think? Throast (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not worked up, and there's even less need to assume I am. For future reference, imagine anything I write that seems annoyed to be spoken aloud with a chuckle to get a better idea of my tone (if I'm ever upset about something, I'll almost always say so). I'm not an angry person, I'm a goofball with a filthy fucking mouth.

Note that the article gave the hastag #CoverGirlJames, which returns a great deal of verified tweets, almost all of which are celebratory (I had to scroll 2-3 pages worth down before I found an unverified one). I'll note that my original addition didn't mention celebrities, and I only added the word after another editor popped a {{who}} tag there, as a bit of appeasement. But the source didn't specify who, which means we don't really have to, either.

Your suggestion looks good to me, feel free to make that change, or if you don't, I'll do it in a few minutes. I'm going to copy & paste this whole conversation to the article talk, per Valereee's suggestion, because she raises a very good point.

Also, check out the very top section, Music before you go. Maybe add a song or two, or just find something to listen to while you edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) MOVED The vote is 8-7 in favor of a move, and the strength of arguments is in favor of a move. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted below, the page views are dramatically in favor of the Internet personality being primary for a term with respect to usage; the next most visited article (the painter) was outvisited 65684-134 in August 2021 (nearly 500 times more views). The primary argument against the move is "recentism"; the relevant policy shortcut WP:PTOPIC notes A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term. I see no argument that any other topic is the primary topic with respect to long-term significance; and the various crystal-ball assessments that this Mr. Charles will not have long-lasting prominence must be dismissed. The only conclusion is that James Charles (Internet personality) is the primary topic. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

---

• James Charles (Internet personality) → James Charles
• James Charles → James Charles (disambiguation)

– everyone searched for James Charles, only his photos appear in the Pictures section of Google Search. 176.88.30.25 (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Skeptical: James Charles (painter) seems rather notable, while the makeup artist and Google suffer from obvious WP:RECENTISM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support The pageviews [5] are undeniable, and make this page a primary topic. 162 etc. (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PTOPIC; the long term significance of the internet personality is likely to be less than the alternatives such as the painter. I will also note that Google Images is a terrible metric of relative prominence, as the correlation between the number of photographs of an entity and their notability is tenuous at best. BilledMammal (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too recent. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per WP:PTOPIC, the first criterion (present usage of this James Charles being far greater than all other James Charleses combined) easily applies. As for long term significance, for better or worse, an online presence this substantial provides a much greater opportunity to maintain and expand notability into the foreseeable future than having paintings on public display. Puhala,ny (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. "only his photos appear in the Pictures section of Google Search". Well, duh! The others died many decades before the advent of the internet. Doesn't mean they're any less important. No primary topic here. Pure WP:RECENTISM. Clearly no long-term significance has been established for this young man. I can't imagine "internet personalities" will have any long-lasting notability whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom, gulf in page views is insurmountable.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Pageviews show he has been the primary topic for months and months and will be for the foreseeable future. Let's not be biased against someone just because they weren't born in the 1800s. Station1 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. On a practical level, this James Charles is who most people looking for "James Charles" on Wikipedia will be looking for, and the page views support this. Arguing if he will fade into obscurity in the future seems a bit like trying to predict the future. WP:CRYSTALBALL needs to be considered alongside WP:RECENTISM (Yes, I agree that the Google search argument isn't a good one). Long term? If this JC is no longer the primary person people are looking for when they search "James Charles", we can always move the page back. –Bangalamania (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. 99% of people who type in "James Charles" in any search bar—whether it be Wikipedia, Google, YouTube, Twitter, Bing, or wherever—will be searching for the Internet personality. His article is longer than the other three James Charleses combined. Let's do the majority of Internet users a favor and save them a click by changing the title. Songwaters (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Page views do not tell the whole story. The significance of this guy is unknown, long term, and doubtful. His fame and therefore the number of people looking for him is similarly dubious long term. So better to leave the DAB at the base name for now. Andrewa (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrewa and long-term significance.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support The overwhelming majority in pageviews, with a monthly ratio of 50:1 at the very minimum and often much larger (currently about 600:1), has been sustained consistently for two and a half years, so it really is a bit late to cry RECENTISM. There is a clear primary topic and the reader is obviously helped by this move. Lennart97 (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Readers will still find the article easily enough. Recentism issues still absolutely apply. When compared to a painter who died in 1906, a couple of years is very very recent. Grayfell (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.