Talk:Gina Carano/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tags on Social Media and Political Views section

I figure this is going to need discussion. I'm personally ambivalent. Don't really care one way or the other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a point to the tags - nobody has really given any specific things they'd want to trim from the section (aside from "remove the entire thing", which seems like a nonstarter given the extensive citations to a wide variety of course and the fairly heavy media coverage.) Section tags aren't supposed to be marks of shame, and I'm not seeing a broad agreement here that the section is undue - if nobody has a specific, concrete issue with the section and an accompanying suggestion that could reasonably happen, I'll remove it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

As long as improvements need to be made, I think that the tag deserves to be there. See above comments in "Social Media and Political Views section". — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 21:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's been a week with no severe objection, so my plan is to replace the current Social media and political views section with the following and remove the tag. I'll give it a few days to see who says what.

Social media controversy

Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian and being dropped by United Talent Agency. This started after clashing with activist users on Twitter about support for the Black Lives Matter movement and worsened after changing her Twitter profile in a manner that some thought transphobic and of mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. She later changed her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said, "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & [support] freedom to choose.” In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that her critics interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat[ed] people based on their cultural and religious identities"

References

Pinging the last people to have posted on the talk page to see if there are any objections, or a consensus to override any objections. I'm not pinging those that simply redacted BLP issues or answered edit requests. If anyone wants to ping someone they think I missed, by all means go for it. Angry Red Hammer Guy, Aquillion, Sangdeboeuf, Acousmana, Wikibenboy94, Crossroads, PraiseVivec, Vaselineeeeeeee, SreySros, Gershonmk, Morbidthoughts, Wertwert55, Rendall. I think that's everyone from the past 250 edits on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - not an improvement on the current version. Acousmana (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - this is a brief, well-sourced and fairly comprehensive summary of the subject. I don't have any objections. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - This entire thing got entirely out of hand, with constant edits from both sides trying to push viewpoints. The proposed one is very well-written, neutral, and tries to stick to the facts of the matter rather than reactions to it. Personally, I'd keep the statement that she was "pressed" to support Black Lives Matter, as that's what the source described the situation as being, and probably rewrite the opening sentences to be less wonky, but it's good otherwise. Wertwert55 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  I went with clashed so I could avoid writing several sentences about how the activists pressed her to support, she didn't want to, some were really mean, she called them bullies and all that back and forth. If people want more details than clashed there are plenty of sources cited. That's my reasoning anyway. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: What started in August 2020, the backlash or the social media posts?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Backlash. From the Vanity Fair source "In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano" "Carano replied on August 4." "In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps change the wording to Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian and being dropped by United Talent Agency.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll buy that for a dollar. Updated the prose. I'm open to any other copy editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not an improvement; the wording/punctuation for one could be better. Also, her being fired from Disney is referred to at both the beginning and end of the paragraph when really they should be together. (I've not really been following this and only commented the once. IMO the discussion has been overblown.) Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I like it. It is much shorter and pithier than the existing version, and seems to lend a more fair weight to recent events. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 17:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Also, Wikibenboy94 may have a point in that there are small improvements that could be made, but overall, I think the quality is acceptable. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to any copy editing anyone has to offer. I'm sure the writing isn't perfect, but I think the amount of information and detail is where we should be. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose; not an improvement. For one thing, this would change it to a WP:CSECTION, which isn't a great way to organize things - a political views section is much more neutral and generally preferred. For another, the language in the new version seems a bit more emotive and opinionated - the current version (which it seeks to replace) is a more dry recitation of facts, whereas the proposed replacement characterizes people as activist users, uses WP:WEASEL wording for that some thought, and opens the section with an awkwardly-worded bit about Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media... It generally smushes multiple distinct things that all received significant coverage together in a way that's a bit awkward and hard to read. And it cuts several things that received significant coverage for no clear reason. I don't see any issues with the current version, but this proposed replacement is both less neutral and more poorly-worded, while omitting important aspects of the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

  Activist users is a direct quote from the source. It states the BLM twitter issue started with "Some activist users" as opposed to the current statement of "Twitter users." The current version specifically slants the coverage in our sources. I expand on this a bit above with some more examples of how our current prose is not very neutral or true to the sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have a couple problems with the proposed version. Maybe it's just me, but there are a few excerpts that seem grammatically clumsy and hard if not impossible to parse. These would be easy to fix, so I'll put them first:

  1. Backlash... Agency (the first sentence). Readers have to dig through three nested prepositional phrases before they get to the meat of the sentence (that she was removed), and ...led to her removal from TM and being dropped by UTA is just begging for some parallel verbs. "...led to her being removed from TM and being dropped by UTA" maybe?

  2. This started after clashing... and worsened after changing... We need Carano (or "she") as a subject for both of these clauses.

  3. ...after changing her Twitter profile in a manner that some thought transphobic and of mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people.: I don't understand what's going on in this clause grammatically. What is the "of" doing?

Besides the grammar issues, there's quite a few neutrality errors as well:

4. ...some thought transphobic... The current article text (Carano was later accused of transphobia after modifying her Twitter profile in a manner that appeared to mock preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people.) is well-sourced, and this modification is whitewashing. (Vanity Fair: "...Carano made dismissive remarks about trans pronouns."; Newsweek: "...she was accused of transphobia by seemingly mocking people who write their preferred pronouns in their Twitter bios..."; Den of Geek: "She’s also been dismissive of adding pronouns to her Twitter bio...").

5. She later changed her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said, "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & [support] freedom to choose.” This is 30% of the proposed paragraph by word count, and 25% by character count. It's far too much weight on her denial, an aspect that got relatively little coverage, and WP:MANDY applies here.

6. In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that her critics interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. This, again, whitewashes the controversy. Cutting the description we currently have (...that compared "hating someone for their political views" to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust and included an image taken during the Lviv pogroms.) removes well-sourced, important information and deprives the situation of valuable context.

Overall, I appreciate that this is shorter, and I think our current version could use to lose some length, but this version is the wrong way to go about doing that. It gives undue weight to her denial and not enough weight to the well-sourced descriptions of what she actually did. Sorry for the long post here, but I wanted to spell out the issues I saw and offer ways to fix them. Srey Sros^talk 20:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the point by point critique. I agree on the first sentence, it could definitely be tidied up. For the second point we could go with "This started after Carano clashed with... worsened after she changed" to tidy that up as well. The of in point three is just a typo, so that can be cleaned up.

As for 4, "changing her Twitter profile in a manner that brought accusations of transphobia and of mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people" would bring it closer in line with current prose and avoid the "some" that is there now.

With 5 I agree that the quote is long, but I thought her full explanation would be helpful. Perhaps move the full text to a footnote, like we do for the conservatives/Jews text? We can use a small excerpt as we do now and then allow the reader to see the full text with a hover if they care to.

I disagree that point 6 is whitewashing, although I'd be interested in seeing some alternate phrasing for that. The sentence I used was one of the two we have in the article now. Perhaps using the first sentence or coming up with a succinct way of combining them is the way to go?

Again, I appreciate the long post, because I feel to get a lasting consensus on this we're going to need to hash things out and compromise. Now that I'm getting feedback we're in a position to develop a shorter, more neutral section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Sorry for the delay, I've been away from this page for a while (I typed up a response here a while ago but I guess I never sent it, oh well). The main issue I have with the current version of the article is that it doesn't actually tell the reader what Carano did wrt the pronoun thing. We include a lengthy quote, verbatim, of her defending herself (which has WP:MANDY issues), but we never actually say what she did; we only say how people reacted to it. The article says she changed her Twitter profile in a manner that led to accusations. If we don't want to say exactly what she did for length's sake, we have RSs, as I pointed about above, that support that her profile appeared to mock preferred pronouns. Under the current article, for all the reader knows she could have written "I hate trans people and preferred pronouns" in her profile.

The first main change that I would support here would be trimming the quote from her (potentially replacing it with something like She later adjusted her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal "helped [her] understand why people were putting them [preferred pronouns] in their bios.”), and the second would be to include the RS description of what she did wrt pronouns, either by writing it out explicitly or doing what the previously stable version did and saying that it appeared to mock preferred pronouns. Srey Sros^talk 18:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I made both of those changes, how does it look now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros forgot a ping. Also I wanted to add it's been a pleasure working on this with you. Your feedback has been perfectly civil and very constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you as well, this has been refreshingly civil for such a controversial area. The new version seems a lot better. I've played around with the wording a little and come up with a possible edited version at my sandbox, I'd be interested to hear what you think. I don't think I made any substantive edits, but I've reordered things a little and changed some wording. Srey Sros^talk 19:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

That looks a-ok to me. The only thing I might change is "That same day" to "The same day", but that's a pretty minor quibble. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, ah nice catch, I like that better. I like the flow of it better, so I'll boldly edit it in and see if people like it. If anyone thinks it's worse (or simply not an improvement), feel free to revert it. Srey Sros^talk 19:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - This is better than what's currently in the article but there are still some WP:UNDUE flaws. Newsweek is not reliable post-2013 per WP:RSP due to its clickbait nature. Second, focus of the social media criticism should be on the citations that report on the impact on her career rather than the blow by blow recounting of Vanity Fair months before she was let go. So it should be written to what citations 3-7 can support. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair all the sources say roughly the same thing. I'd prefer to distill everything down into a paragraph and then reference at the end, but I assume most people here would prefer to see citations per sentence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support - While there is some room for including consensus POVs, I feel that this is a WP:Neutral and fair, accurate summary of the situation. I particularly like that this summary does not editorialize by implicitly asserting that any particular interpretation is true (i.e. that Carano's tweet was, or was not, transphobic) Rendall (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - This version is a complete mess, it leaves out her anti-mask tweets and election fraud conspiracy theories which are a major part of the controversy, and doesn't fix any of the real issues, i.e. fluff texts and weasel words. 46.97.170.19 (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please remember WP:CIVIL. Calling someone's work a "complete mess" is very rude. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's no problem Angry Red Hammer Guy, they've been very combative since the start and I just try to read the parts that actually apply to the current discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, here's an updated version taking into account the constructive feedback. Some grammar changes, cut down on Carano's quote about pronouns, expanded the bit on the conservatives/Jews flap that ultimately led to her firing. Also removed newsweek as a source since it wasn't needed anyway. I've also left out the Den of Geek source because I seriously doubt its reliability and we have plenty of higher quality sources to draw from.

Backlash beginning in August 2020 to a series of controversial posts on social media led to her eventual removal from The Mandalorian and being dropped by United Talent Agency. This started after Carano clashed with activist users on Twitter about support for the Black Lives Matter movement and worsened after she changed her Twitter profile in a manner that led to accusations of transphobia and mocking preferred gender pronouns used by transgender people. She later changed her profile after speaking with Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal. About this she said, "I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to.” In February 2021 Carano shared an Instagram post that that compared "hating someone for their political views" to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust and included an image taken during the Lviv pogroms. Carano's critics interpreted this as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. Shortly afterward, Lucasfilm stated that Carano was no longer employed by them and would not appear in future Star Wars projects, citing her social media posts which they said "denigrat[ed] people based on their cultural and religious identities"

References

Any other criticism would be appreciated. We're at about a 50/50 split right now, so hopefully we'll be able to get consensus soon and remove the tag of shame from the section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support I think this is an improvement. Shorter definitely seems better. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 01:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support While I believe some of the sentences could use some commas or even be split into two, the statement as a whole continues to judiciously, distinctly separate the editorial voice from the criticisms. In this version, Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia but tweets were criticized as anti-Semitic and transphobic, for example. Excellent WP:Neutral Rendall (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support In general, a better summary of the events than the previous version. Might still need some light copyediting though. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Since I posted an updated version there have been three supports and no opposes, so I'll give it to tomorrow and then edit the section and remove the tag. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Your new version didn't adress any of my previous criticisms, so I'm still opposed. The old version was clear, easy to follow, professionally written and encyclopedic. Your version is all one paragraph, that has sentences starting with "This started..." and "About this, she said:...", which are not only unencyclopedic, it's not even something someone with basic understanding of the english language would say.

You still give too much undue weight to her own defense of herself, and you use dodgy language instead of describing the criticisms she got as they were, so even User:SreySros's points have been ignored.

Your version also didn't restore any of the reverences to any of the anti-lockdown, antivax and election fraud conspiracy theories she was spreading, which were properly sourced and were a major part of the controversy. There's also still no mention of her association with Ben Shapiro and the Comicsgate hate group, which is probably the biggest indictment of her character.

The previous version wasn't good, but this is a massive downgrade. Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is. This is not consensus. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on content not contributors, especially in the case of Rendall where you believe you see an agenda when they was referring to the text saying there were accusations rather than something was factual. Also we're not here to "indict her character," rather we're summarizing the most significant things found in the body of reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. My agenda is to maintain WP:Neutrality. As a personal aside, I despise anti-Semitism and racism more than most, which is why I'm careful not to dilute its meaning by flinging the accusation at whomever annoys or disagrees with me. Rendall (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality is not false neutrality. If reliable sources say what Gina Carano said was transphobic and antisemitic than that is what wikipedia will say. Reliable sources are neutral. Fringe gossip mills are not. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Three quarters of my post was on content and the remaining was on one of the arguments in support of your change - consensus on wikipedia is determined by quality of arguments, not majority vote, and Rendall seems more concerned about whitewashing Gina Carano than improving the article.

Your changes are also not shorter as User:Angry_Red_Hammer_Guy claims. If anything, your version is longer, because it's bloated with pointless fluff and convoluted sentences that are neither gramatically correct, nor encyclopedic, as I have mentioned before. The reason why it's shorter isn't because the wording is better. It's shorter because you arbitrarily singled out two details of the controversy and cut any mention of the rest.

Also, a lot of contributors seem to completely misunderstand what the Gina Carano controversy is all about. This is not about Gina Carano making dumb tweets in a vacuum. This is about an ongoing problematic behavior that she doubled down on even after being told by her employers multiple times to stop. Her persistently using her celebrity status to clash with transgender advocates, spread harmful pro-trump rethoric, conspiracy theories on Covid 19 and voter fraud, as well as other alt right nonsense is the whole controversy. One singular ongoing issue. Her opening a Parler account and willingly and knowingly associating with Ben Shapiro, as well as online hate groups that are part of Comicsgate and QAnon is simply the latest development.

Please look up Tila Tequila for another example of an alt-right sweetheart. Gina Carano's article should be handled the same way in my opinion, considering that, as I stated above, her controversy over her anti-trans, pro-trump rethoric and her association with the far right, are the single most notable things about her right now. This article should be examined by veteran contributors versed in political topics like User:Snooganssnoogans. I'm tempted to call him in, actually. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. A little while ago SreySros made what he calls a "bold reword/restructure" of the "Social media controversy" section, and it remains the current version. Please take a look (if you haven't already), and propose changes to this new version rather than continuing to disscuss an old proposed edit. Also, I would reccommend being very careful about how you call in other editors, because depending on the situation this could be seen as Meatpuppetry. Some less risky options are listed over at Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building. Thanks, — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

​*what she calls, per my user page and the GENDER magic word, accessible through the {{they}} template.

Also, I think the relevant guideline here would be WP:Canvassing (meatpuppetry is when someone recruits another person to edit WP, rather than calling in someone who already is an editor). I would welcome any thoughts on or criticism of my edited version. Srey Sros^talk 20:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros: Thanks! I will try to remember your pronouns for the future. Also thank you for clarifying the difference between canvassing and meatpuppetry, it helps. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 23:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@SreySros: The page on WP:Canvassing lists "Editors known for expertise in the field" under "appropriate notifications". User:Snooganssnoogans is known for expertise in all things connected to the alt right - in fact, he participated in discussions of every article even tangentially related to it, and always came out on top of every discussion, effectively representing wikipedia's voice on these issues. He's infamous even outside of wikipedia. And considering who Gina Carano's enablers are and who's rethoric she's regurgitating on social media, she is connected, whether you like it or not. This is the kind of topic Snoogans should at least look at. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Angry Red Hammer Guy: The new version still claims she was "pressured" by activists to support the Black Lives Matter movement. This is false. She was liking tweets from alt right personalities disparaging the movement. This version is whitewashing. Her pushing conspiracy theories is still unmentioned.

The bigger problem still remains however, namely that this is just a list of separate incidents, that appear to exist in a vacuum. There is no mention of the fact that Gina Carano has been engaging in this sort of behavior persistently. Listing two or three incidents or even all of them isn't going to do this justice without the proper framing. The reason why I believe at least her parler account and her DW interview should be mentioned is because they give context to these seemingly separate instances. To an uninformed reader, the current version gives the impression that Gina Carano is a celebrity who on a couple of occasions tweeted dumb shit.

It doesn't matter what events you add, what gets removed and how the wording changes, you can's leave the biggest problem with this section unadressed and expect me to give a different opinion. Gina Carano has been criticised for using her platform to promote pro-trump rethoric and spread conspiracy theories about Covid19 and wide spread election fraud. She also opened an acocunt on far right social media platform Parler, and associated herself with fringe far right influencers and pundits, including Ben Shapiro. These details need to be included. Her conspiracy theory tweets received wide coverage, and should not be left unmentioned, and her association with the Daily Wire and the Fandom Menace paint a broader picture of wat kind of a person she is. They are key information to understanding this entire controversy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. We follow the sources, and that is what sources say. If you'd like different prose you should provide reliable sources and the prose you'd like to see instead of attacking other users. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You said focus on the content yet you're the one who keeps ignoring my comments on the content in favor of accusing me of attacking other users. The source is a vanity fair article. That same article also backs up all of the things I have been saying since I started commenting on this talk page. You cannot say we go with what sources say when you're arbitrarily ignoring things in that very source.

• Two months ago, Carano made dismissive remarks about trans pronouns. She's also shared unproven theories about both the presidential election results and COVID-19 mask mandates.
• In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans accusing her of racism on Twitter after some followers highlighted posts she had liked that mocked or cast aspersions on Black Lives Matter protests.
• "Carano was actually vehemently hated by Star Wars 'fans,' you know the ones," Josefina Vineyard wrote to Vanity Fair. "They felt like featuring a muscular woman in the show was 'SJW Pandering' or some such nonsense. The best thing happening in live-action Star Wars at the moment, and they were angry at it for featuring a female MMA fighter for three episodes ... suddenly those same fans love her."
• The uproar quieted for a time, but Carano reignited the controversy in the aftermath of the November 3 election by promoting unproven theories about voter fraud, and also shared memes that questioned the value of wearing a mask to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
• When she announced her move to Parler, it was interpreted as a provocation, and critics of her actions began demanding her removal from The Mandalorian.
• While her defiance alienated some who previously looked up to her, the scores of supportive replies to Carano’s recent Parler message suggest she has also drawn new admirers from the right side of the political spectrum. "It's been very strange to watch a person go from being a controversial figure for all the wrong reasons to being controversial for better reasons," Vineyard observed. Carano's Parler account, for what its worth, looks nearly identical to her Twitter feed; the actor appears to be double posting the same right-leaning memes.
• But even as Disney/Lucasfilm continue to grapple with a divided fandom, one thing that Star Wars will never be is apolitical. Politics is baked into Lucas’s original story about a band of scrappy rebels taking on an evil empire. It’s possible, in this case, that Carano views herself as a rebel—even if many of her previous admirers would say she’s gone to the dark side.

The very source you're citing has literally all the information I'm asking for, minus the holocaust post, her getting dropped and the Ben Shapiro interview, because all that came later. If you want to insist on having the claim that Carano was pressured to support BLM, then what is your argument for leaving all this out, including the part where she liked posts disparaging the movement)? It's all there, clear cut, black and white. Are you going to finally start acknowledging my criticisms? 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Because her being pressured to support BLM is what kicked off the set of dominoes that led to her eventual firing. I'm not of the mind that we need to cover every single thing that happened and every tweet someone was critiqued for, just the ones that had a direct effect. Looking at the weight in sources the BLM tweets, the pronouns and Jewish person/American conservative were the big three. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the sources really say that; only Vanity Fair even uses the term "pressured", and none of the others really say anything comparable, so using it to lead the entire section or treating it as if it was the root cause is pretty [WP:UNDUE]] (and even Vanity Fair doesn't seem to call it the root cause.) From Vulture: This was not Carano’s first brush with social-media controversy. In the past few months, Carano has used her social-media platform to mock COVID mask mandates, spread conspiracy theories about the legitimacy of the election, and like posts disparaging Black Lives Matter and pronoun usage. From the Washington Post: In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement. I also take issue with the use of the word pressured, which seems a bit non-neutral in tone and which only one source uses - in particular, Vanity Fair's framing directly contradicts the way the Washington Post described it, which strikes me as more neutral. If we use the Washington Post as the main source instead, everything about that aspect of the controversy can be easily summarized into a single sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I removed the "cowards and bullies" quote because I don't think it adds anything unless we want to get into further discussion in the article about how she felt she was being harassed, and I re-added activist before twitter users because the sources don't support it was just a general population of twitter users, rather it was a specific subset. Otherwise I don't have any issues with your change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: please put the references to her spreading conspiracy theories back. There was no reason to remove them. Also, by now reliable sources have covered her new contract with DW and the Ben Shapiro interview, as well as the fact that the support she's getting comes from the toxic "anti-SJW" side of the internet. All of these are key elements of the controversy. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As the examples given by User:Aquillion show, other reliable sources cover her conspiracy theory nonsense as well. I don't see what your criteria is for determining which of her tweets are "the big three". Your choice appears to be arbitrary. That being said, As I mentioned before, you are completely misrepresenting the controversy. This is not about separate controversial tweets with separate consequences. There wasn't a single tweet that generated controversy and consequences. There IS an ongoing social media behavior. EVERYTHING she has said and did contributed to Star Wars fans asking her to be fired, and her eventually being dropped by Disney and the talent agency. It is all one issue, and you cannot just cherry-pick individual episodes to frame them like they exist in a vacuum.

And another thing. This part: She later removed the words from her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal had helped her "understand why people were putting [pronouns] in their bios.” doesn't appear in any of the sources. It's a misrepresentation of what actually went down. It also creates the false impression that the pronoun controversy ended when Gina Carano removed the words words and issued some kind of public statement or apology when this is not what the sources say. Her saying she talked to Pedro Pascal was ONE reply to ONE tweet, and even though she removed the offending words, she continued to antagonize the transgender community. The sentence above should be changed to "She later removed the words from her profile, but later tried justifying them by saying she can put whatever she wants in her bio." which is what the sources say. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll address your second point first. I looked at the sources listed at the end of this sentence: She later removed the words from her profile, saying that Mandalorian actor Pedro Pascal had helped her "understand why people were putting [pronouns] in their bios.” The Washington Post says this: She later walked back that sentiment, citing a conversation with actor Pedro Pascal of “The Mandalorian,” in which she said her co-star “helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios.” The New York Times says this: She said she talked with her “Mandalorian” co-star Pedro Pascal, who “helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios.” Deadline says this: She later walked that back, saying Mandalorian star Pedro Pascal “helped me understand why people were putting them in their bios. I didn’t know before but I do now. I won’t be putting them in my bio but good for all you who choose to. I stand against bullying, especially the most vulnerable & freedom to choose.” All three of these sources mention this quote, and all three of these sources end their coverage of the "pronoun controversy" with these sentences. Considering this, I don't believe any change needs to be made to the sentence in question.

Now for your first point. The Nazi related instagram post is the most notable part of the controversy, because it had the greatest effect on her life. As for the other two, (the pronouns thing and the BLM thing), they seem like they were a bigger part of the controversy than the posts about masks and voting and stuff. If the notability of these two got accurately assesed, I wouldn't be against more notable events replacing them in this section, as long as they are written neutrally. However, I think that making the "Social media controversy" section longer by adding all the small details would give too much weight to recent events. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <talk> <email> 16:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Angry Red Hammer Guy: The fact that other sources don't mention the fact that Gina Carano in fact doubled down on the "beep/boop/borp" thing AFTER she claimed she spoke to Pedro, only shows that their reporting is incomplete. Carano's tweet about talking to Pedro was one reply among many to a random tweet from an anonymous twitter user. Her comment in which she claimed the transgender community is bullying her for putting "three small words in her bio", was not.

And for the last time, the individual episodes don't exist in a vacuum. You're perpetuating the same misinformation that Gina Carano's right wing enablers are spreading, that she was fired because of one tweet. No. By the time she made the holocaust tweet, Gina Carano has already been causing problems with her behavior for months. All episodes, including opening a parler account, the anti-mask posts, and the election conspiracy theories had just as much if not more importance. The holocaust post is only special because it was made after season 2 ended, but by that time, she has given Disney more than enough reasons not to work with her anymore. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If this small a number of reliable sources cover her continued defense of "beep/bop/boop" after she talked to Pedro, I highly doubt that this is notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia page.

Your second point is actually pretty good. This is what Disney said when they fired her: “Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.” Note how it says "social media posts", plural. But note also how it only mentions social media posts that "[denigrate] people based on their cultural and religious identities", which doesn't seem to include her mask/voter posts and the parler thing. They appear to be talking only about the BLM thing, the Nazi thing, and the pronouns thing. It also looks like this is the weight that most of our sources give the events as well. I think that this weight is fair. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> <📧> 16:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And a high number of reliable sources conver her spreading of conspiracy theories and tangling with fringe right wing elements. At the very least there needs to be some mention of the fact that she had a persistent habit of spreading right wing trumpist rethoric on social media, to frame the whole thing because the way it is now, still reads like she made three separate controversial tweets in a vacuum. Context matters. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The posts in question (vaccines, masks, voting, and her Parler account) had little to no effect on her life, and no documented effect on Disney's decision to drop her. Including them would give too much weight to recent events (as per WP:RECENTISM). — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬-📧-ℹ️> 16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I also said "At the very least there needs to be some mention of the fact that she had a persistent habit of spreading right wing trumpist rethoric on social media, to frame the whole thing because the way it is now, still reads like she made three separate controversial tweets in a vacuum. Context matters." Please read more than just my first sentences. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There need not be any mention of her vaccines/masks/voting posts on social media, for they are not notable and do not fit within the existing context. The way it is now, the "Social media controversy" section reads like she made three related controversial tweets. They all pertain to her firing, and her firing pertains to her time with Disney, and her time with Disney pertains to her film career, and her film career pertains to her life. You are undeniably correct in that context matters.

Fight injustice, put these things on your blog, submit an article to a magazine, pass out flyers, make your voice heard using the tools you are given. Wikipedia, however, is not one of these tools. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If that was what I wan't I wouldn't be wasting my time trying to explain myself here. It's this article that I'm trying to help improve.

I'm asking for the controversy to be framed. Just two sentences. One in the beginning starting out explaining that she has been criticised for persistently voicing fringe right wing opinions on social media, and one additional sentence at the end acknowledging that she has received support from fringe right wing voices. This doesn't even need any aditional citations, because all of this is already covered by the cited sources.

Also, by your logic, Gina Carano getting hired by the Daily Wire is also something that should be mentioned. After all, that DID indeed have an effect on her life. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the end of the "Television and Film Career" section, you will indeed find mention of her hiring by the DW.

I am standing by what I said. This section should not be framed with non-notable, out of context sentences like the ones you have previously proposed in this thread. It would be more appropriate, but I would still be opposed to a very short sentence at the beginning that says something like, "Gina Carano has voiced political opinions which are generally held to be Republican views." For reference, take a look at Pedro Pascal's page, and note how his policical opinions are left entirely out of the page. There is no mention of him being a democrat. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Make it "Gina Carano has been criticised for pushing fringe right-wing talking points on social media", and I'll concede That is a much more accurate description. "...generally held to be republican views" doesn't make any sense and isn't even accurate. Her political views are most accurately described as populist right or trumpist, not "republican". As damning as "republican" is it's not very specific.

Her employment by the DW is part of the controversy, seeing as it confirms that all of the criticism levelld against her to be legitimate. The DW is a fringe far right political rag, and Ben Shapiro is a far right pundit. willingly associating with them isn't the same as just getting a new job and that should be acknowledged.

As for the Pedro Pascal whataboutery - the same whataboutery that GC's enablers have tried to push in this article a few weeks ago, all I can say is, false comparison. Gina Carano is notable only because of the social media controversy she's been stirring for over half a year now, with her terrible political takes. Pedro on the other hand is an actor, and not a political one. The most "controversial" thing Pedro has ever done is compare modern white supremacists to 18th century white supremacists, and modern concentration camps to WW2 concentration camps. A completely apolitical, non-partisan statement anywhere outside of post-trump america. For a more accurate comparison, I recommended the article on Tila Tequila, another alt-right sweetheart. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed to your proposed edits because they are potentially libelous, not notable, poorly sourced, and out of context.

How do you recommend making the Gina Carano page like the Tila Tequila page? — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I am down to ONE proposed edit. Leading up the controversy section with "Gina Carano has been criticised for pushing fringe right-wing talking points on social media", and I'll concede That is a much more accurate description." This is not libelous, and it's in line with what reliable sources say. Also, it's not out of context. What we currently have, is out of context. My proposed edit would put them IN context.

You wanted to draw comparisons with Pedro Pascal's article, when the two cases are not similar. Pedro Pascal is completely apolitical and his views are not relevant. Gina Carano on the other hand is notable BECAUSE of the controversy she stirred with her ignorant political takes. Without that, nobody would know or care who she is besides star wars fans, and the few MMA fans who still remember she used to be a thing at one point. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

She was certainly notable before the social media controversy and it's odd that you keep claiming otherwise. Also please find sourcing that says shes been criticized for pushing "fringe right-wing" talking points. Looking at the sources in the article now none make that claim, and I've done some searching and found no strong sources that make that claim. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Angry Red Hammer Guy: the BBC actually says otherwise regarding the phenomenon of 'cancel culture': "Disney severed ties with actress Gina Carano, who portrays a popular character in its Star Wars series The Mandalorian, reportedly because of inflammatory social media posts on mask-wearing and the US election." Recentism is certainly a concern, but that applies equally to the controversy as a whole IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Break

• I definitely don't agree with this edit. Vanity Fair is the only one who describes it that way; pulling that descriptor out and using it to frame the entire section is giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, we are required to maintain a neutral tone per WP:TONE - the sources we use are often not required to, so we have to use a degree of caution when following their language. For something like that I'd expect to see other sources using similar language before we could use it in the first sentence of the section - and instead, we have other sources saying the exact opposite. I also disagree with the assertion that the Washington Post is less in-depth; it says "In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement." That's more neutral in tone, in that it simply reports the facts and doesn't ascribe motivations to the criticism; I don't think it make sense for us to go with the less-neutral tone from Vanity Fair (which is often a more opinionated source to begin with) when more neutral sources are available. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Stating that she was being merely "criticized", and in a vacuum without context, is POV. Especially when WaPo said "public support" and this was changed to "support". And WaPo is no less opinionated than Vanity Fair in these sorts of things. Vanity Fair clearly states: "In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance." [1] We don't do special pleading or whitewashing of Twitter activist behavior. The source is clear on what happened and the factors at play in what followed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Aquillion, you make a good point. When I wrote the (sort of) current version I was more focused on style, flow and compromise between the existing proposals. I agree with you that current version does give undue weight to Vanity Fair's framing of the events, and I would prefer a more neutral wording. Additionally, upon reading through the sources, the "cowards and bullies" comment seems just as notable if not more than the Pascal conversation quote (BBC, WaPo, Newsweek), so I would favor inclusion of that quote as well. Srey Sros^talk 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Mentioning that she called them that without stating what they were doing in return - "pressure" - is even more POV. This stuff against the Vanity Fair source is special pleading and is what is non-neutral. It is the most comprehensive source I know of from that point in time and is therefore better than brief pieces from WaPo or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Crossroads: This "context" you speak of is only mentioned in Vanity Fair. Every other source says she was criticized for not supporting BLM and liking tweets that attacked it, and that she called her critics "cowards and bullies". That is what reliable sources say. That is what the article should reflect. Carano has a repeating pattern of calling her critics "bullies". She called BLM supporters "bullies", she called transgender people trying to explain pronouns to her "bullies" (this was after she claimed she spoke to Pedro, by the way), and in the Ben Shapiro interview, she described her higher-ups warning her to desist from her problematic social media behavior as being "bullied by the company". Gina Carano sure likes to call people bullies at the first sign of any pushback to her behavior. I think there's a term for that. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's simply untrue that this is only covered by VF. Directly below this post (until I replied to it) I'm quoting the BBC source SreySros provided that does not say she called BLM supporters bullies, she called those who called her racist after she didn't post anything online supporting BLM bullies. The other source SreySros provided actually covers the tweets Carano was responding to where she was called racist and a bootlicker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

None of those sources claim she was "pressured". And considering what kind of tweets she liked, and what kind of people support her now, being called "racist" and "bootlicker" don't appear to be inappropriate as criticism in her case. If she doesn't want to be called that, she should consider distancing herself from her current fanbase. I said this in the past and I'll say it again: You appear to be biased in Gina Carano's favor. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

My problem with the "cowards and bullies" mention was how it was framed. To quote the BBC source Back in August Carano was asked to show her support for BLM. When she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist. She responded saying: "In my experience, screaming at someone that they are a racist when they are indeed NOT a racist & any post and/or research you do will show you those exact facts, then I'm sorry, these people are not 'educators.' They are cowards and bullies." Saying Carano was criticized by Twitter users for her lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement; labeling the critics "cowards and bullies", completely reframes how most sources are reporting it. The Newsweek source you linked to even gives examples of the type of bullying behavior she was responding to. The text that was added made it sound like she labeled all of her critics bullies and cowards when it was a response to specific behavior which is covered by sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I don't understand how "Carano blasted 'cowards and bullies' for..." is neutral. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It's an exact quote, but in any case, I'm less concerned with that point than with the excessive focus on a single word from Vanity Fair which isn't reflected in the sources (per WP:RSP many people consider "biased or opinionated", so I'd at least insist on in-text attribution as long as it's the only citation for that.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And again, this is a POV whitewash and absolutely does not have consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish also addressed this above. Vanity Fair is listed in green and the most recent discussion on it is here; hardly anyone mentions bias and those who do are not saying it's biased towards the right wing; quite the opposite. Making it seen like Gina Carano did the beep/bop/boop thing out of the clear blue when that is false is a borderline WP:BLP violation. It's absolutely not WP:NPOV to write the section as though it's a 'Twitter good, Carano bad' narrative when the most detailed, reliable sources are more nuanced. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We must summarize all the sources. No matter how strongly you might personally feel that the Vanity Fair summary is the best source (I disagree; it is a conversational piece that focuses more on opinion than fact, and is generally one of the weaker ones we have), and no matter how fervently you might agree with it, it is WP:UNDUE to pull out what you personally consider the most important word from it and repeated it over and over throughout the section as though that is the only possible interpretation. Note that the part you are repeatedly insisting we give primary focus at the top of the section is a single word two-thirds of the way down the article; the new addition you attempted to add, which has even more severe WP:TONE issues, isn't even in Vanity Fair's voice but is plainly attributed to Rebecca Green. Obviously multiple sources have had multiple different takes and interpretations about what happened; you cannot simply take one of them, when it does not align with the others, declare it correct, repeat it over and over, and insist on downplaying all other coverage. And given the choice between more sedate, neutral language (language that does not ascribe motivation or intent to anyone involved), obviously we should go with the sources that use more neutral language. In any case, as you are aware, you added the second quote from Vanity Fair mere days ago; insisting that it is the status quo makes no sense. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you've insisted on re-adding your contested text, I've added in-line attributions for now (at the very least, with only one source saying it, we should make that clear), and added undue-weight inline tags, since it seems patiently undue to me. I do not understand your WP:BLP claims at all; BLP does not demand, as you seem to be implying, that we always take what you personally believe to be the most sympathetic coverage of a subject, and in any case I don't see that it is actually negative without it. If you disagree, take it to WP:BLPN again, but it seems patiently absurd to me; we cover things as the sources as a whole do, not by putting excessive weight on whatever sources an editor decides are most ideologically friendly. Our coverage of BLP subjects is required to be accurate, even-handed, and neutral in tone, not fawning or defensive. It feels, basically, like your opinion is that most sources have not been telling the story "properly" or in a way that is appropriately "fair" to her, and that putting excessive weight on Vanity Fair (the one source that, in your view, does) is a way to correct for this; but that is ultimately a form of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

We have always given much more WP:WEIGHT to reliable sources that discuss a topic in depth than to ones that gloss over it. You appear to be wanting to "count" sources in some not-clearly-explained way. Vanity Fair is in no way weaker, and discussing opinion is very different from being opinionated (and in no way is Vanity Fair "ideologically friendly" towards Carano's views). The first occurrence of "pressured" is the status quo, and therefore without a consensus to change it, it must stay the same. I never said anything about preferring sources based on ideology; it is you who keeps needing to portray people on Twitter, a site well known for toxic behavior, as doing nothing wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: False. It is not a "POV" whitewash, it is an accurate summarization of what the sources say. I agree with User:Aquillion's edit. If anything, it is you who is trying to whitewash Gina Carano, by pushing a narrative that comes from her enablers. Reliable sources don't claim she was pressured to support BLM. Reliable Sources claim she was criticized for liking posts from detractors of BLM. Stick to what the reliable sources say. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

How about she faced calls to include pronouns. We already use pressured above for the BLM coverage. Faced calls from some fans or similar language matches sources, like this for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick source analysis so we can see on balance the types of wording the sources are using. All sources are left leaning or in the case of Vanity Fair left biased according to mediabiasfactcheck.com, so it's not like we're getting anything whitewashed or right wing slanted. There are a few uses of demanded, from both the Independent and BBC. There's a lot of "faced calls" and some "asked to show support." I think on the whole the sources support the current language of pressured to support BLM and faced calls to add pronouns.

• BBC Back in August Carano was asked to show her support for BLM. When she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist.
• BBC She had faced calls to add pronouns such as 'she/her' on her Twitter bio after Mandalorian star Pedro Pascal had added 'he/him' on his profile. The use of pronouns is common among transgender social media users to help avoid misgendering... However, in response to demands, the actor eventually added the words "boop/bop/beep" to her bio.
• Deadline In November, she made fun of those using preferred pronouns on social media by listing “beep/bop/boop” in her Twitter bio. The action came off as transphobic.
• WaPo In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement. The next month, she was accused of ridiculing transgender pronouns by adding “boop/bop/beep” to her Twitter profile. She pushed back against critics who accused her of being transphobic, saying she did it to expose “the bullying mentality of the mob.”
• The Independent She had faced calls to add her pronouns to her Twitter biography (a common practise among transgender and cisgender social media users to help avoid misgendering). However, in response to the demand, the actor added the words “boop/bop/beep” to her Twitter name, in apparent ridicule of the convention
• Vanity Fair In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No it does not. For starters, mediabiasfactcheck.com is not a reliable fact-checking site, and for that matter, I wouldn't trust any self proclaimed fact-checker that describes any of those sources as "left-leaning". The fact is, you insist on pushing the claim that Gina Carano was pressured when none of those sources other than Vanity Fair make this claim. Based on all sources you presented, she declined to show support for BLM, was criticised for it, and she proceeded to call her critics "cowards and bullies". That is what the reliable sources say. Using non neutral language to cast Gina Carano in a more favorable light is not contributing towards improving this article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

That Carano's claims of voter fraud were "baseless" is not a contentious issue among actual reliable sources; the 2020 United States presidential election was called "the most secure in American history" by the outgoing administration itself (not the outgoing president). Claims of fraud have been "repeatedly debunked". Here's what our sources say:

• The Washington Post: "In November, [Carano] began echoing Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud"
• The New York Times: "Ms. Carano has ... embraced baseless claims of voter fraud after the presidential election"
• BBC News: "She previously questioned whether vote counting during the US presidential election was fair ... There has never been any evidence to support [the] claims of voter fraud"
• The Independent: Carano "openly questioned whether vote counting during the US presidential election was fair ... There has never been any evidence to support [the] claims of voter fraud"
• Variety: "Carano has ... previously shar[ed] misinformation about mask wearing and voter fraud"
• Entertainment Weekly: Carano "shared memes spreading misinformation about mask-wearing and voter fraud"
• The Hollywood Reporter: "she falsely suggested voter fraud occurred during the 2020 presidential election"
• PBS NewsHour: "Carano ... had been criticized for social media posts that mocked mask wearing during the pandemic and alleged voter fraud during the 2020 presidential election"
• Vanity Fair: "Carano reignited the controversy ... by promoting unproven theories about voter fraud"

The majority of these sources (especially those published since November) emphasize that the fraud claims are misinformation, baseless, or not supported by any evidence. Omitting this detail seems like whitewashing.

Regarding whether Carano "mocked" or "criticized" the use of face masks, WP:SAID doesn't apply, since the correctness or carefulness of Carano's statment isn't the issue. Let's look at the sources again:

• NYT: "Ms. Carano has also mocked the use of masks"
• WaPo: Carano "mocked mask mandates"
• PBS: "Carano ... had been criticized for social media posts that mocked mask wearing"
• THR: "she issued contentious tweets, one in which she mocked mask-wearing"
• EW: "she also shared memes mocking the California mask mandate"
• Variety: "Carano has ... previously shar[ed] misinformation about mask wearing"
• VF: Carano "shared memes that questioned the value of wearing a mask to reduce the spread of COVID-19"
• Indy: "She shared memes that seemed to condemn the pandemic safety precaution of face mask-wearing"
• BBC: "She has also questioned the use of masks during the pandemic"

Only the last three could plausibly be called criticism. With the majority of cited sources using the word "mocked", the word criticized looks like another whitewash.

Finally, "Jews in Nazi controlled Germany" is the same as saying "Jews in Nazi Germany". But the majority of our sources specifically say Carano's Instagram post was about the Holocaust:

• NYT: "Gina Carano ... compared 'hating someone for their political views' to the persecution of Jews during the Holocaust"
• BBC: "the actress shared an Instagram story that compared 'hating someone for their political views' to the treatment of Jewish people during the Holocaust"
• PBS: "many online called for her firing over a social media post that likened the experience of Jews during the Holocaust to the U.S. political climate"
• Indy: "Carano compared being Republican today with being Jewish during the Holocaust"
• WaPo: "the actress shar[ed] a social media post that implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany"
• Variety: "One of the posts she shared compared today’s divided political climate to Nazi Germany"
• THR: Carano "shar[ed] a post on social media implying that being a Republican today is like being Jewish during the Holocaust"
• EW: "She came under fire on Wednesday after re-sharing a post, which ... claimed that having differing political views in 2021 was like being Jewish during the Holocaust"

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is everything I was asking for below. Note that I also reworded the sentence that claimed she was "pressured" to support Black Lives Matter. Sources do not support this wording, but they support the claim that she liked posts "disparaging" the movement. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The pressuring is definitely supported, especially by the two cites. The liking of the posts came after. August 2020: Carano did not show support for Black Lives Matter online When the actor was asked to show her support for BLM on social media, she decided not to, leading some to accuse her of racism. and In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance. followed by In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans accusing her of racism on Twitter after some followers highlighted posts she had liked that mocked or cast aspersions on Black Lives Matter protests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Commented below. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Right wing populism category

I've been reverting the addition of this category as it's not a defining characteristic and it is contentious and both of those mean no go on the category. Any other thoughts on this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not a defining characteristic. See also WP:OPINIONCAT. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree in that it is most certainly a defining characteristic. Right wing populism, And I would even go so far as to say Trumpism, sums up Gina Carano's entire social media activity and the kind of people she regularly interacts with. The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

A defining characteristic is one that published, reliable sources commonly and consistently use to describe a person/topic. Most of the sources on the recent controversy don't say anything about Carano's own politics. The only exception I've found is the article by Parker & Couch in THR, which describes Carano as an "outspoken conservative actor", not a right-wing populist. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC) ...and The Washington Post calls her an outspoken supporter of Trump. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was talking about general terms, outside the context of wikipedia. Obviously the Wiki cannot call her that in the article unless reliable sources do. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Social media controversy section is still bad

I have given up insisting on giving a full account on the controversy, including Gina Carano's association with alt right hate-groups, seeing as I was outvoted on the matter. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the fact that this section in it's current form presents a heavy apologetic slant in Gina Carano's favor that isn't present in the cited sources. This is not a neutral article, and needs to be fixed. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

As has been asked before, please provide the prose and reliable sources you'd like to see so it can actually be discussed. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:We've been over this already. She wasn't pressured to support BLM, she was criticezed for not showing support and calld her critics "cowards and bullies". That is what the sources say. There's no evidence of the claim that she "faced calls to include pronouns in the bio". Also, "Many interpreted" are weasel words. The proper wording would be that "she put 'beep/bop/boop' in her bio, seemingly to mock the practice of putting prefferred pronouns in social media bios, leading to accusations of transphobia". After she removed the words claiming she spoke to Pedro Pascal, she later defended her decision to put them there to begin with.

Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany becsause the post was made in response to people calling out her spreading conspiracy theories. This is exactly what I meant when I warned against arbitrarily cherry picking certain moments from the controversy and stripping them of context. The way it's worded now, it looks like the critics' interpretation of her post comes out of nowhere, when in reality, it's the obvious conclusion based on her social media behavior. But no, we only include tha parts that were important and completely ignore the parts that give the important moments context.

I'm not going to spend yet another half an hour trying to write up the exact prose I had in mind only for it to be rejected due to "lack of consensus", when all that really needs to be done is to remove the loaded language and the parts that aren't supported by the sources, and add a brief acknowledgement of the fact that Gina Carano had a history of spreading trumpist conspiracy theories, hencewhy people concluded that she was comparing right-wingers to jews in nazi germany. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be fair to trim her "cowards and bullies" comment down as far as you do, but to include the entire quote would be a little too detailed, and give too much weight to recent events. So I argue against it's inclusion.

"seemingly to mock the practice" is not neutrally worded. Also, no reliable sources have been provided to support the statement that "she later defended her decision to put them there to begin with."

"Gina Carano had a history of spreading trumpist conspiracy theories": I have to oppose this wording, because it is highly contentious and has little to no support in the sources. Also, this would go into high amounts of detail about obscure reasons behind specific interpretations of her recent posts. That would give way to much weight to specific viewpoints and recent events. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 18:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC))

@Red Hammer Guy:I don't understand why "It wouldn't be fair". It's what the sources say, and it's what she does in the comment. It's an accurate, neutral description of what happened. "she was pressured" is not, and only one source uses that term anyway.

"Also, no reliable sources have been provided to support the statement..." Yes there was. We've been over this. In every single source that covers her pronoun controversy, also covers her statement defending it, which she made AFTER she supposedly spoke to Pedro Pascal and removed the words from hwr bio. This very article even had that comment from her until I removed it, because her quotes made up over 60% of the controversy section. And if you scroll up, you will probably find that I told you this already.

"I have to oppose this wording, because it is highly contentious" The wording is mine, I wasn't saying the article should say this in wikipedia's voice. But Gina Carano mocking mask mandates and mail-in voting, and her spreading conspiracy theories about the non existent election fraud are in fact covered in every single reliable source that also mentions her holocaust comment. This is yet again something we've been over already. It was even part of the article but got removed due to a misguided cleanup effort, to remove irrelevant recentism, but in the process, it stripped the holocaust comment and the ensuing backlash from all context. It needs to be restored. There's no reason to leave it out, except to try and whitewash the subject. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For your first point, I have conducted a systematic review of our sources.

• This source includes the full "bullying" quote.
• This source also includes the full "bullying" quote.
• This source words it like you recommend.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.
• This source makes no mention of it.

In conclusion, that quote should not be included in our article. Please wait a moment for me to address your other points. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 23:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC))

As for your second point, I humbly followed your suggestion and scrolled up. In our previous exchange, I looked at three sources that were used in this article, and none of them said anything about her continued defense of "beep/bop/boop". You did not do me the honor of providing any sources that did. I rest my case. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 23:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's in the Vanity Fair article. I told you already. She claimed she was being bullied by the transgender community for putting "three small words" in her bio. She said that AFTER she supposedly appologized. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so one of our sources talks about this, and it includes the entire quote. That means that it isn't notable enough for inclusion in this article, and if we did for some reason include it, we would have to include the entire quote to assign weight according to the source. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(Thank you, by the way, for telling me what source this was in. I somehow missed that.) — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 17:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be certain (since it obviously relates directly to other disputes on this page), is that a general agreement that we should not cite things to just that source alone when no other source says something similar? --Aquillion (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

For anything to be done about your third point, you will need to provide sources that provide their own reasons for interpreting the post as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 00:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 00:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)) (updated 00:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC))

Gina Carano mocking mask mandates, mocking BLM, and spreading conspiracy theories about election fraud is already in the cited sources. What I'm saying is we should put them back in the article like they originally were, and let readers make the connection. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't just include all the random facts that the sources haven't connected to our main subject. We shouldn't go into that much detail about this. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The main subject is the social media controversy, and those "random facts" are already a part of it. Not to mention it still makes no sense why people would conclude she was comparing american conservatives to jews with the holocaust post, if there's zero mention of what her politics are. If there's at least a mention of her other political tweets, the article would be more honest, but the way it is right now, the interpretation of her post and her subsequent firing appear like a completely arbitrary decision, giving readers a false impression of what actually happened. A false impression that isn't coming from the sources themselves, but is the result of the editors' arbitrary cherry picking of what the reliable sources say. I do not understand why this is so difficult to process. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

How about you suggest some sourced prose, then we'll have some idea what you'd like to have in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

We HAD sourced prose in an earlier version! How many times do I have to repeat this. We had an earlier version that did mention her politics and conspiracy theories. It was one or two sentences, properly sourced. I objected to it's removal then because it didn't improve the article - only made it confusing and incoherent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you deign to provide a diff so I have some idea of what you're talking about? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It's this one (the second paragraph). Sangdeboeuf even said we can re-add it. The article was protected at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Carano&diff=prev&oldid=1008637459

I also noticed this one by User:Aquillion, where the edit summary points out that the first paragraph as it is now, doesn't explain why she was accused of racism. Even if we don't include her "cowards and bullies" line, we simply cannot leave out the part that she liked posts disparaging the movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gina_Carano&diff=prev&oldid=1013815823

I guess my main point is, in it's current form, the section only really covers the consequences of what she did, along with a very vague indication of what the backlash was to. The first paragraph says she clashed with BLM activists, but neglects to mention that this "clash" involved her liking posts disparaging the movement. The part about her holocaust comment mentions she compared hating somebody for political views to the holocaust, but hides what kind of "political views" she herself was "hated" for. It strips the controversy of context, and creates the impression in the mind of the average reader that her critics were being unreasonable and completely unjustified, by omiting key information. That is not honest. That is not encyclopedic. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not give a reason for why they interpreted her post in the way that they did. They only provide us with their interpretations. We can't ascribe motives. We can't include every non-notable thing that we think might be a motivating factor. This falls under the definition of "original research", which is something that Wikipedia specifically does not allow. See WP:NOR (or more specifically, WP:SYN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angry Red Hammer Guy (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Not what I was calling for:

• Remove the non neutral "pressured" from the first paragraph.
• Re-add the part where she liked posts disparaging BLM, as per Aquillion's edit.
• Re-add the Vox and Washington Post references talking about her right wing politics (BLP violation removed).

No "original research", no "ascribing" motives, just the facts from reliable sources. Facts that were originally part of the article and there was never real consensus to remove them to begin with. What you want is a skewed and drastically edited version of the events that just so happen to omit nearly everything that Gina Carano did, that caused the controversy to begin with. I don't want to throw around accusations but this looks very much like an attempt at whitewashing. On a side note, while we were arguing, another IP user re-added POV-material that was previously deleted, because for some reason, this article isn't protected anymore. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about your first two suggestions (that's why I keep not addressing them), but "disparaging" might not be a good word choice because of WP:SAID. However, other editors might oppose these suggestions.

You seem to switch between two different arguments to support your third suggestion.

• The first one appears to be that you want to include these things because they are in the sources, and why would we not include them? If that is your main argument, then my counter argument is that they are unnecessary additional information whose inclusion would afford to much detail to recent events. We shouldn't include everything she said on social media just because it was controversial.
• Your other argument seems to be that these other social media posts are relevant because they are the the motivation behind some critics interpreting her Nazi Germany post as "comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany". If these critics said that this was their motivation, then I would argue that this gives undue weight to recent events, and that we don't need to know everyone's motivation for saying everything that they said. But since none of these critics actually give their motivations, I have to call that out as original research. More specifically, it is original synthesis of two things that are in the sources to reach a conclusion that is not in the sources.

Also, please stop calling Gina Carano's social media posts "conspiracy theories". WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 15:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Keeping it short to avoid any further issues. I have one argument: for the article to provide a full coverage of the controversy, so readers can have context for the criticism. No original research needed. Also, my "conspiracy theory" comment was not BLP violation. The "wide spread election fraud" posts were described as conspiracy theories by reliable sources. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This would focus too much on recent events. See Wikipedia:Recentism#Article_imbalance. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 13:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to say something else. Addressing your qualms in such a thorough way is very exhausting. Also, it takes a lot of willpower to not wish ill will upon you. I would appreciate it very much if you either stopped beating this very dead horse (as Crossroads recommends), or started doing more of your own fucking research. — Angry Red Hammer Guy <💬> 00:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The research is already done. This is about what information we include from the sources we already have. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

IP, the evidence is in the sources. Please consider dropping the stick. You have been advocating for POV wording throughtout this page. WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not advocating for POV wording and I have not been advocating for the inclusion of anything that isn't in the sources. "pressured" is POV. I've been advocating for changing that. And Gina Carano's anti-mask rethoric and election fraud conspiracy theories have been covered in every single reliable source that covered her firing. I'm the one telling people to drop the POV wording. I'm the one asking people to acknoeledge the evidence in the sources. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, at the very least "pressured" is plainly not WP:IMPARTIAL language. I could maybe accept attributing it to Vanity Fair, but not stating it in the article voice, not with just a single source. People have gone back and forth on it since it was added, but I'm not seeing that there has ever been a consensus for it; it places extreme weight on, essentially, just one source, without matching how any of the other sources describe the situation at all. We can hold an RFC if necessary, but I simply don't see how this can be considered WP:IMPARTIAL when it's one source using it vs. something like six or seven that don't. The sentence doesn't even match the one source that uses the word (that version of the article states that that conflict was what led to her being accused of racism; the source doesn't even mention racism in the article voice until the next paragraph, stating In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans accusing her of racism on Twitter after some followers highlighted posts she had liked that mocked or cast aspersions on Black Lives Matter protests - we don't even mention that in the article. We can't simply cherry-pick parts of a source based on what editors personally feel best describes the situation; we need to look at all the sources, and everything they say, and come up with an accurate summary of their typical coverage, going for a neutral tone when it's necessary to split the difference. That first sentence plainly doesn't reflect that. EDIT: Also, I note that the dispute tag on it was removed, when the dispute plainly hasn't been resolved and is clearly still active - to remove them, we either need to find a compromise wording everyone can accept, or hold an RFC or otherwise demonstrate a clear consensus for that language. --Aquillion (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Many of the sources don't mention the "liking" of posts, i.e. the Independent and BBC. The biggest issue, based on weight in sources, is not tweeting support for BLM. I give extra weight to the Vanity Fair article because it is clearly the most detailed, dedicating a paragraph and a half of well balanced writing to the topic. It mirrors the BBC and Independent but provides the additional detail of who was asking, and how they were asking, for her to support BLM.

Back in August Carano was asked to show her support for BLM. When she didn't post anything online, some on social media accused her of being racist.BBC

In August, Carano blasted “cowards and bullies” for criticizing her lack of public support for Black Lives Matter and liked posts disparaging the movement.Washington Post

In early August some activist Twitter users began pressuring Carano to make supportive posts about the Black Lives Matter movement. Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance... In late August and early September, Carano again clashed with fans accusing her of racism on Twitter after some followers highlighted posts she had liked that mocked or cast aspersions on Black Lives Matter protests. Vanity Fair

August 2020: Carano did not show support for Black Lives Matter online When the actor was asked to show her support for BLM on social media, she decided not to, leading some to accuse her of racism. Independent ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "pressured" is too ambiguous without more than a single source to go on. I've changed it to "clashed with fans over her lack of public support for the Black Lives Matter movement" based on the above sources. While not all the sources say fans, I think we can assume that's who they mean, because honestly, who else is tweeting at Carano in August 2020? (Aside from men not liking women in Star Wars, but they probably didn't care about Black Lives Matter.) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, the activists on Twitter, as explained in the Vanity Fair piece, would be the ones tweeting her. None of the pieces above say fans, so I'd say assuming something contradicted by sources is a poor choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The sentence right before the part you quoted says, the friction and conflict ... is out in the open, occurring directly between the actor and the fans themselves, suggesting the fans and activists are more or less the same people. I'm not seeing any contradiction. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

That's discussing Carano's situation in general, There’s less likely to be such a substantial resolution in Carano’s situation. There's no reason to use the less precise language of fans when activists is sourced. Insider offers Some jumped to Carano's defense, calling her critics " SJW trolls" and screenshotting comments in which Twitter users called Carano a "bootlicker" and demanded that she tweet "ACAB" to prove her commitment to the Black Lives Matter movement. They may be fans, but people saying racist piss baby ignorant, You are a bootlicker and a racist stop talking already, so how's it feel being a racist dipshit are probably more on the activist twitter mob side of the fan spectrum. Using "fans" makes it seem like it wasn't a specific subset of the fans, and since we have good sourcing for activist there's really no reason not to use it. We even have Some politely implored while others were accusatory and hostile, the latter of which in part led to her increasing defiance. in the VF piece giving further context. Presenting the information as if it was regular fans that she was clashing over loses the context of what was happening and definitely slants the POV. Even obviously NPOV sources recognize that most of the tweeting was from activists. LGBTQ Nation: Activists are calling on Disney to fire her... Carano changed her Twitter profile to include “boop/bop/beep” and was promptly accused of “mocking trans people” by activists. There's no reason for us to slant our coverage away from that, and to do so introduces a POV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about the reliability of those sources, which are reporting on then-ongoing Twitter drama rather than taking a comprehensive look at the whole controversy. Our own feelings about who is probably more on the activist twitter mob side are insufficient to justify labeling anyone as such. Yes, the activist Twitter users were a specific subset of the fans, but our task is to summarize the sources by giving a general overview. Your own VF quote says Carano again clashed with fans accusing her of racism on Twitter, the word again suggesting the fans and activists are more or less the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately "fans"/"activists" is a minor issue IMO, but calling pro-BLM Twitter users a mob makes me concerned about possible POV motivations. And before anyone asks, I think "lack of public support" can encompass liking the anti-BLM posts as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf, I think "twitter mob" is a pretty well understood phrase. This is the power of Twitter: it's live, it's public, and it's designed to encourage commentary. And with 200 million users, the discussion can invite diverse voices resulting in uncommonly powerful shared experiences. Why is this important? Because when properly amplified, these voices can be characterized as a mob.[2] There are twitter mobs on all sides on all sorts of issues. I'd appreciate it if you didn't imply that I have possible POV motivations. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not a neutral term, especially considering who are most likely to use it and to whom it's generally applied. Sources are clear that the clash was between Gina Carano on one side and the fans (including fans who were also activists) on the other. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Explanation of edit

Wikipedians have determined Daily Wire to be a generally unreliable source at WP:RSP. The related content I removed (originally sourced to 2 Daily Wire articles) is trivial WP:GOSSIP. Who cares about old "will she, won't she" speculations since eventually "she did", as already shown in the article at Gina Carano#Television and Running Wild with Bear Grylls#Season 6 (2021). The two citations another editor added when reinstating the content [3] which I had earlier removed [4] doesn't verify for "three popular television reporting services". Even if one found relevant RS citations, I would still assert WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Platonk (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I added back the information that she was on the television show without discussion about if the show would air or not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Looks good. Platonk (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Is this needed?

Does her recent "explanation" for the holocaust "meme" which ended her carreer add anything at all to the article? This story was over a year ago, as far as everybody ele was concerned. The fact that she's unable to move on from it and has to come out saying "and another thing" every month or so is not notable for enough for an encyclopedia to cover. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a strong consensus to include that information, and it had a tangible effect on her career. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking about this line specifically: In February 2022, Carano explained her offending post, saying that she “shared a meme, I translated into: Don’t let the government pit you against each other or history tells us that could go wrong.” This comment was made a year after the whole ordeal and had no additional effect whatsoever on her carreer. As I said, it just reads like she's unable to move on from the consequences of her own actions. That's not worthy of inclusion, and it's not needed to document her ousting from Lucasfilm. We may as well be including the tweet where she claims the Russian invasion of Ukraine is fake. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The additional line offers further clarification of her original intent when posting the meme. It doesn't need to have had an impact on her career in and of itself, it is new information about a noteworthy event in her career. The fact that the quote was a year after the incident is irrelevant. It also doesn't matter if someone reads it and interprets it as Gina being unable to move on, Wikipedia isn't part of her PR team.

That being said, given the unecessary scare quotes in your first comment, I suspect it's not Gina looking bad that you're concerned about. Remember; Wikipedia is not agreeing with or endorsing her comment, only reporting that she said it. It's not up to Wikipedia to shape people's opinions and that includes not leaving out valid and notable information because we're worried it might make some people sympathetic towards a person we don't like. John Bullock (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

But this is not new information, this was just a rehash of her old explanation, using slightly different words. There's no reason to include it other than to bloat up the section with her explanations. It's WP:UNDUE.

As I said above, I see more value in including something about her denial of the war in Ukraine. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What was her old explanation? I don't see it in the article. Source for the Ukraine views, please? —Pakbelang (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

She tweeted something along the line of the Ukraine conflict being made up by the government to control people, just like the pandemic was. It finally opened the eyes of many of her former supporters (Sophia Narwitz among them) and has been the subject of several jokes on the internet. The media must've compltely overlooked it, but that only shows that they consider the whole Gina Carano situation over and done with.

Ms Carano's recent tweet about this incident that she can't seem to be able to move on from was just a rewording of the original caption that went with the pogrom image, and you can verify that by putting them side by side. Again, it's not "new information". It's old information that she's desperately trying to keep relevant. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably worth quoting the full text of the original offending tweet. It's mentioned in this article (along with her anti-masking stance): https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/02/11/gina-carano-cancelled/ Pakbelang (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this last year. The consensus was no. 46.97.170.50 (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Pakbelang (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

filmography

terror on the prairie link is incorrect. leads to the daily wire page 107.9.156.27 (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Wrong comma in section "Controversy"

In the following line:

Carano was also to produce the film, White Knuckle

There should not be a comma in front of the name of the film. 109.193.33.101 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• No, it's correct. The full sentence is Carano was also to produce the film, White Knuckle, about revenge by a survivor of an attempted murder by a serial-killer truck driver. The name of the film is an Apposition and should therefore be surrounded by commas like that. That said the sentence could use a few tweaks. --Aquillion (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Is, Not Was

She’s still alive, isn’t she? 2603:6011:EF00:C0:9002:C293:3B62:900D (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's just some drive-by vandalism. Thanks for reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2023

She released the movie “Terror on the Prairie” with the Daily Wire on June 14 2022 which scored a high 83% on rotten tomatoes. 2601:8C3:8586:9160:BD68:FED8:B868:7783 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

External links

Hi GenQuest! You've undid my edit to the external links section. Do you really think those links are still relevant?

• Awakening Fighters lists her statistics up to 2009
• ESPN has a Q&A with Carano, again in 2009
• There are two GladiatorsTV links: one called crush (?) and an archived profile, both seem out of date
• The last link is one to men's magazine Maxim, about a "ultra hot photoshoot"

I've should've been more clear in my edit summary, I don't think any of these are needed or relevant in 2023. I'll leave it up to you to change or remove them (or leave it as is, I've got no hard feelings on the matter). Thanks, and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,Soetermans. I think they are more informative as to who she is and how she got to where she is than the borderline MOS and social media fluff, that's why I adjusted the section. Thanks for your understanding. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 06:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey GenQuest, no problem. I meant strong feelings, not hard feelings of course. One thing though, the Maxim article doesn't seem to work, for me at least. I see the following link: http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1783580181001?bckey=AQ~~,AAABnwxt8sE~,TdyFq09iMr7kioKT_wX2C8w8xLyk5_f2&bctid=1853922454001, which doesn't work either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Citations 87, 89, and 90 do not support the proposition that "some fans" questioned why Carano was punished but Palscal wasn't. 88 is a biased Fox News article while the other three are about her firing, not Pascal's remarks. 76.147.2.212 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)