Talk:Belle Gibson

Photo request

Can we get a photo please? -- samj _in^out 11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Default App"

The page as written currently states that her app would have been a "default app" on the Apple watch. This designation has vague meaning at best. It could be taken to mean that it shipped on the watch (not true) or that it was featured by Apple (only slightly true). In reality, her only tie-in with the "default app" claim (which I know can be "verified" due to a poorly researched article's headline) was that her app's icon was shown (along with several other third party app icons not included with the watch) on a slide showing the watch's home screen. I'm not sure what the best way to rewrite the sentence would be, but the way it is currently written is misleading. Andrew (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What about "featured in promotional material for the Apple watch"....? Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That would be a big improvement. I went ahead and made the change. Andrew (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

"See also: Munchausen syndrome"

This article is a BLP. All negative statements must be cited. Please provide a cite linking Belle Gibson and Munchausen syndrome before replacing the link. 203.7.99.17 (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Returned the 'see also' wikilink with 2x supporting cites. CatCafe (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of contradictions regarding adoption into Oromo community

@HiLo48, could you please clarify why my edits have been tagged as a BLP issue? They are neutral and sourced from published online data that is easily searchable, and there's no vitriol, attack or bias in the way I have reported them within the content of the article. It's relevant information regarding Belle Gibson's identity. I do not want to edit war but I also see no reason for this information not to be included, and you're very capable of taking it to the talk page too. Hannartt (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they are not easily searchable, because you used The Australian as a source, and it's behind a paywall, so people who don't pay money to NewsCorp, like me, can't see it. And to be honest, I have no idea how that BLP tag appeared. It was automatically generated by Wikipedia itself. Hopefully someone else can explain. But the content does seem rather trivial compared with her cancer fraud. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It's all over the media with a simple news search, [1] and [2], I doubt it's trivial, and the story may evolve over the next few days. CatCafe (talk) 05:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, let it evolve. We have no need to rush. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would feel much more comfortable if there was some considered commentary that could eventually be included on this. The story seems to be unfolding as I write. Nickm57 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

BTW I had no issue with what User:Hannartt and User:123.208.208.155 included, it was accurate and not trivial as per the accusation. It's not a capital offence to cite The Aus when others don't have a subscription to the Aus. Accusing Hannartt of edit-warring with an accusation of 'trivial' was heavy handed IMHO. CatCafe (talk) 05:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I described Hannartt's reversion of my removal as Edit warring because I had already asked for the matter to be discussed here. I'm still not convinced this is significant news, but am happy to see how media covers it over the next few days. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

You should do a google search, you might be enlightened [3], I count at least 14 articles on the topic. And you were edit warring with an IP before Hannartt came along and challenged you. So your initial demand for it to be taken to talk was likely directed at someone else[4]. Anyways, happy days. CatCafe (talk) 06:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was directed at someone else. That doesn't change the message of my request. HiLo48 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

So your comment reprimanding Hannartt i.e. "You have been asked to take this to the Talk page" is untrue and in error. Rather than assuming that one editor will follow your explicit directives that you made to another, you should have taken it to talk. As a deleter it was mostly incumbent upon you to take it to talk. Anyways, have you now got consensus for your wants? CatCafe (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that comment was in error. My message remains the same. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I would remind editors of WP:PAYWALL. Citations behind a paywall are OK to use. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

My comment about the paywall was in response to the initial post here that said the material was easily searchable. Clearly that is not the case when it's behind a paywall. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that Bondegezou. CatCafe (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Give us a break HiLo48, it was pointed out to you that the material was clearly easily searchable with the result being dozens of other non-paywalled articles, which you chose to ignore - and here's the links provided for you again --->[5], [6] and [7]. Your talk page edits are currently obtuse. Please stop using the paywalled The Aus article and your opinion on what is 'trivial' as some sort of excuse. It wouldn't be so widely reported if it were 'trivial'. CatCafe (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Now you're arguing as if the comments I made at the beginning were made after later comments. I find it so difficult to have rational conversations these days. Yes, I made a mistake. None of what is now being criticised was part of that mistake. Please stick to facts and logic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah ditto my friend. Here's a fact and logic; It wouldn't be so widely reported in most of the national press if it were 'trivial'. This page is her bio, and she now claims to be part of the Australian Oromo Community - that's significant in one's bio don't you think? Have you looked at the dozens of other refs I provided, and are we able to restore the Hannartt's text back to the page now? Thanks in advance. CatCafe (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I agreed with your earlier comment - "the story may evolve over the next few days". Recentism is a huge problem for Wikipedia. Let it evolve. HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I support other editors who feel this material should be included. That's 3:1 for inclusion: let's return it, and we can edit the material further as the issue evolves further. Bondegezou (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree Bondegezou. Additional refs can also be added to Hannartt's original contribution. CatCafe (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to the above two editors for behaving as if I hadn't even written my most recent comment. There is some poor faith behaviour happening here. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh and BTW, we don't vote here. We seek consensus, which is rarely achieved quickly. And you certainly haven't convinced me. In fact. the aggressive approach leads to quite the opposite feeling. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, you're the only one here who's taken issue with the content being included. The consensus of this talk section is that it should be. Additionally, as you've suggested, we've let "the story evolve over the next few days", and your allegations of recentism are unfounded - note that it refers to articles "overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens", which is hardly the case here. You clearly don't want the content included, but your arguments against its inclusion are flimsy or absent, and you're policing the nature of the discussion more than you are contributing to it. Talk pages are for discussing edits, not editors, as you will see in the guidelines, so I'm going to leave it at that. Hannartt (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)