Talk:Kaitlin Bennett

Incident at Ohio University

Hi all. I'm a new user and wanted to discuss adding some information about the incident that happened recently at OU. Should we possibly update the page with that incident? It seems she's getting quite a bit of media attention from both sides and this may be a spark for her to gain more attention overall. I also think it's important that the university's police department responded to her claims about stuff being thrown at her. I'm not sure if this kind of response has happened at another university, so it might be worth mentioning. Rheathe (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi yes I agree with that but I also wondered if we could put that shes an undeniable ass in there somewhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anila3 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Proposed for speedy deletion: - A "correspondent for Infowars" has no credible claim for being a journalist, let alone a notable one - The only other claims for significance appear to be shooting a sign with an AR-15 and ... drinking a gallon of milk? Tpth (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Rebuttal: Infowars is journalism, just apparently not journalism you approve of however she is a notable person as per the GNG since she has in depth coverage about her life in multiple reliable sources so you are wrong. Newsweek, USA Today, the Washington Post, Salon.com, Cincinnati Enquirer, and NY Post are right! She is pro gun of course there is coverage of her shooting up signs and allegedly hailing satan vis a vis drinking milk to piss off PETA.Ndołkah (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Get her page deleted, she does deserve the platform! Saintrxse (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (she meets the GNG and had multiple reliable sources including newsweek, washington post, usa today, cincinnati enquirer, salon.com) --Ndołkah (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• 'KEEP' Bennett stands out among her peers because she dares to be controversial. She has been mentioned and interviewed in multiple news media. I have added neutral contents and fixed some refs. Note: I don't agree with her views.SWP13 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the template at the front of the page

It said "it might not meet the GNG". Well, it obviously just passed AfD, and therefore by definition it was judged to meet the GNG. Please do not add the template unless consensus is reached here on the TP. XavierItzm (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Pete Buttiggieg's husband Chasten's comment's

It is not a violation of biographies of living people because it is simply based on undisputed footage of the person in question. People have the right to know that a major presidential candidate would have to "think about" whether "love has no age" regarding adult-child relationships, and this was caught on tape! It should be included.Ndołkah (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It is disputed, and your reasoning is not based on Wikipedia policy. (see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS) If you think this belongs in the article, you can start by showing some impeccable sources.- MrX 🖋 12:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I need only a reliable source and a video of him saying that is reliable enough as it is a primary source!Ndołkah (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah, No, you need reliable independent secondary sources. And for this, more than one of them. Guy (help!) 11:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Right here, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANCTjFZD_08"

Correct, that is an example of an unreliable source. We will not be using it. See WP:RSP#YouTube. - MrX 🖋 12:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

How is it unreliable? It's from his very own mouth? Are you saying we can't use Meet the Press quotes form Trump because it's not secondary? SMHNdołkah (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia, according to WP:COPYLINK. See also WP:YOUTUBE and WP:VIDEOLINK. Meet the Press is already a reliable source, so content from their original channel is usable. - MrX 🖋 00:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ndołkah, we don't know who took the video (though it's likely to be Liberty Hangout, and thus unreliable). We don't have third-party verification of the people involved. We don't have reliable third party sources commenting on it and establishing that it has significance (there is essentially no cost to posting a YouTube video). We don't know if it's been selectively edited, or even if it's a deepfake, and we have every reason to distrust the source. Even if it passed WP:RS (spoiler: it doesn't) it would fail WP:UNDUE especially since there are living people involved.

I think by this time we're out of synonyms for "no" so I'll leave it there for now. Guy (help!) 16:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How you know it deepfake tho?Ndołkah☆ (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

should we mention how many hits her videos on youtube get?

Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we see a couple sources that have taken note of that information? - MrX 🖋 13:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't we site YouTube itself? It's in the millions now I think.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020

There should be a paragraph under "media attention" or perhaps a separate section to explain the attention surrounding her alleged public defecation at a fraternity party. This was the source of multiple trending hashtags and is referenced in several of her attempted interview clips. Greenfeever (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BLP, won't be included unless it receives significant attention from reliable sources, which hashtags are not. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Party

Her political party is clearly Republican. Shouldn't that be changed? Tym2412 (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nazis

We have content added as follows:

In April 2020, Bennett courted further controversy after leaked messages from 2017 posted by her and others to Liberty Hangout had appeared online, containing anti-semitic messages. One member in the group chat wrote: "Can't wait to get back to being normal Nazis".

References

This does appear to be true, but The Independent is not what it once was and this is a striking claim. I do not find similar language in other reliable sources. Is this WP:UNDUE? It does look it, to me. Guy (help!) 21:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Good catch. I rev-deleted the name of a person who allegedly made the comment (as it's not in the Indie source), but I must admit I didn't look to see how many sources in had been covered it. No, I'd leave it out unless it gets more widely covered. Black Kite (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theorist

As of 2020 she morphed into a full-fledged conspiracy theorist. ToddGrande (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

References

"Bennett's Liberty Hangout"

This may be nitpicking, but officially Justin Moldow, who I believe is her husband is in charge of Liberty Hangout. Should the article state this? Gtbob122 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Civil Rights Advocate?

She has only advocated for gun rights, and is against abortion, women's suffrage, and other civil rights. This label is horribly misapplied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1200:C40:F027:A2E3:8C0C:EBC7 (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, just expressing a view does not make you an advocate, wielding a gun at graduation does not make you a campaigner. She is a Youtuber and nothing else. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

The far right comments about where she works are incorrect and slanderous. 2600:100C:B007:8BAB:89E9:A802:FD32:D477 (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. In addition; Wikipedia is not censored simply because you disagree with it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Furthermore:

• It's in writing, so it would be libel, not slander.
• It's not libel if it's true:
  • Liberty Hangout is her and her husbands page and she has contributed per cited source. There's a reason Liberty Hangout redirects to this page.
  • She has contributed to Infowars per cited source.
  • InfoWars starts off with "InfoWars is a far-right American conspiracy theory and fake news website". See that article's talk page FAQ for the justification. Thus the use of "far-right conspiracy theorist website" in this article seems justified.
  • Good luck with trying to claim that Liberty Hangout isn't far-right.
• So, where's the libel? You might want to read WP:NLT before continuing. Meters (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Added ref for Liberty Hangout as far right. Meters (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

"Liberty Hangout" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Liberty Hangout. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Liberty Hangout until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

"Gun Girl" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gun Girl. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 27#Gun Girl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

NPOV Improvements

I have tried to improve this article by removing particularly egregious examples of Wikipedia activism. I have added a variety of reliable sources stating that Bennett is a "conservative gun rights activist". Some of the sources that were already present say the same thing. I removed the Media Matters sources as, per Wikipedia, they are "a politically left-leaning, nonprofit organization... known for aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its 'War on Fox News.'" Including Media Matters opinions as sources on a conservative activist is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. After removing those articles, I only see one remaining source that claims she is "far-right" (probably WP:CIRCULAR). A slew of other sources, as I have referenced, say that she is a "conservative gun rights activist". And Liberty Hangout is repeatedly stated to call itself libertarian. Simply put, the claim that Bennett is far-right does not meet the requirements of WP:V. I removed the entirely unsourced claim that she is an anti-LGBT activist. She may or may not be anti-LGBT but none of the sources I reviewed mention it so it hardly seems that it is a defining characteristic worthy of inclusion in the first sentence. The AR-10 that she carried was a civilian semi-automatic weapon. Changing the AR-10 article link to read "AR-10 military rifle" is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV so I reverted it to the previous language. I have removed other unsourced claims of which I see no mention in the sources. I have left in the extensive criticism in "Media attention", the demeaning "gun girl" nickname, and, for now at least, the photo (which replaced a better quality one). My goal is not to turn this into a wonderful fluff piece for Bennett but rather to improve the accuracy of the article. (But I can only do so much.) TXAggie (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Just look at the videos of her asking college kids about trans rights and you’ll be convinced she’s anti-LGBT.--Ritzy nanak (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Bennett crapping her pants at Kent State party

Should we put this in the media attention section? She did get lots of attention for being worried about trans people using the restrooms while she can’t make it to one herself. --Ritzy nanak (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We definitely should put it in the media attention section. Other than being the girl who opened carried the AR-10 she is also well known for crapping her pants.

I believe that this is an important part of her biography with numerous sources available. While the story has never officially been confirmed Kaitlin has also never officially denied pooping her pants.

This is at least related to why they were throwing toilet paper at her, an incident already in the article. Even if it's completely false, it rumor has lead to real life action against her, so including the story for context while making clear it's never been proven (unless there are on-the-record sources reported to have witnessed it in a reliable media report) seems warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:E728:2:0:0:0:F (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

Change Civil Rights Activist to Guns Rights Activist.

Kaitlin Bennett is a GUNS rights activist, NOT a civil rights activists. She actively fights against the rights of trans citizens. Miss Kae Oz (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. If there is no opposition I will make this change shortly. Hobomok (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be already done? Don't see "civil rights activist" anywhere in the current article or in any revision in the past few months Cannolis (talk) 08:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The article says conservative activist, should that be changed to right-wing or far-right?

ˆˆˆ

Alt-Right

Does anyone have sources specifically describing as being part of the alt-right? I can't seem to find any, and there's nothing in the article that makes references to the alt-right. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

The citation that actually has "alt-right" in its title may be a start; Turning Point USA's blooming romance with the alt-right. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ValarianB, Yeah that's the only citation I saw that had a reference to the alt-right. However, nowhere does it state that Bennett is part of the alt-right. All it says about Bennett is that she wrote her resignation letter to TPUSA, where she "made some pointed claims related to the racist 'alt-right.'" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Even if her herself being alt-right isn't clear, can the rest of my edit stand?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi 3family6. Which part exactly? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything but the alt-right descriptor. That was only a small part of my edit.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to list out 3 different political positions at the end of the lead (and somewhat redundant). The article already states that she is a "conservative social media personality." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Isn't "far-right" important to distinguish from "conservative"? How about "conservative and far-right social media personality"?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly is your source for far-right? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d This source was one I'd already provided, this and this also use the label.

3family6 Hmm, I'm not fully comfortable with those sources.

• The Sacramento Bee is a decent newspaper, but the source you provided is not even a news article. It's just a video with a two sentence description. I did some digging and it seems that the source you provided comes from an actual Bee news article. As you can see, the "far-right" label is only located in the subheading and it seems to have been written by the same Floyd guy that's in the video. However, in the main body of the article (written by Benjy Egel), Bennett is referred to as a "conservative personality known as “Gun Girl.” The article mentions that the "video caught the attention of far-right activists on the internet" but it's not fully clear who they are referring to. Per WP:HEADLINES, we should never use the headline of an article as a source since those are usually written for click bait purposes and by non-professional journalists. I'm pretty sure this would extend to sub-headings too.
• Same deal with Pink News. "Far-right" is only used in the headline and not in the main body of the article.
• As for The Post Athens, this would fall under WP:RSSM. I would be extremely hesitant to use a tabloid student newspaper for a contentious label to a BLP, especially when the paper is not even well known. However once again, "far-right" is only used in the subheading. In the main body of the article, Bennet is referred to as a "a viral gun rights activist turned conservative media figure and provocateur" and how she advocated for "conservative voices on campus."
• Overall, these are pretty weak sources and they only use the far-right label in the heading or subheading. The best sources we have in this article, the WaPo, Forbes, etc. exclusively refer to her as conservative. If you're really determined to use the far-right label, maybe we could bring this up to WP:RS/N or WP:BLP/N? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize that The Athens Post was a student paper, I agree that's not a good source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Here: [1], we even use it in this article. TucanHolmes (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi TucanHolmes, I can't seem to find where that source refers to her as "far-right" or "alt-right." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I accidentally pasted the wrong link (same outlet). Here's the actual article: [2]

Using this notoriety, she's gone on to be a controversial figure of the alt-right movement. One of her most recent outlandish statements included her willingness for women to give up their right to vote so she could continue to carry guns.

So yeah, it says that she's a "controversial figure of the alt-right movement". I'll continue looking for more sources. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

TucanHolmes, No problem. 3family6 actually brought up this exact source @ Template talk:Alt-right footer. I explained the problems I had with it here. I agree it is the best source we got so far, but we would still need much better sources for a BLP. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I’d like to add this Snopes article (https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/02/21/liberty-hangout-holocaust-tweet/) (cited elsewhere in the article) and this article from The Week (https://www.theweek.co.uk/105769/why-everyone-s-talking-about-kaitlin-bennett?). The former refers to her as alt and far-right, and the latter article is tagged as alt-right. I think Bennett can comfortably be described as both alt and far right, both in tags and in the article’s lead, as she is referred to as such in at least three reliable sources here due to her stance on various issues, her actions, and her affiliation with infowars. Her Liberty Hangout is also referred to as far and alt-right in these articles, so I do think that can also be changed in the second paragraph instead of allowing them to define the group themselves. Hobomok (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with describing her as far-right/alt-right. But neither of the two sources call her that. The Snopes article calls Liberty Hangout "far-right" not Bennet. They refer to her as a "Right-wing social media personality." And the Week calls her a "Right-wing US social media activist sparks protests at university campus." Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, then I think it is time that the article’s lead and tags reflected her as far and alt-right as opposed to a conservative and guns rights activist. The majority of articles here and don’t explicitly say “Bennett is a member of the far-right,” but The Week article is tagged as alt-right and the Snopes article goes into detail about the alt and far right movement in relation to Bennett, the group she’s founded, and the organizations she’s worked for. Consensus on this section of the talk page among editors seems the same. She should be labeled and tagged as such. Sorry for formatting and/or any curt response; I am currently working mobile. Hobomok (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. Per your own admission, you say "The majority of articles here and don’t explicitly say “Bennett is a member of the far-right.” Therefore, it would be improper and a violation of policy to label her as far-right/alt-right. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m saying there doesn’t need to be a sentence in these two articles that say, verbatim, “Bennett is a member of the alt or far right” to mark her as such. The Week tags articles with her as the subject as “alt-right.” Snopes explains that the group she founded is far right, discusses her previous employers as far right and conspiracy theorist organizations, and it quotes the SPLC about far right groups and activists in an article about her. It is very clear that she can and should be described as such. Multiple editors feel this way, and by your own admission you have no problem describing her as such. I think trying to separate Bennett from the alt and far right requires quite a bit of distance from her actions, positions, and statements. She should be described as such per consensus here, her affiliations, and descriptors from at least three articles. Hobomok (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

What is your proposed text? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

alt-right/far right should appear with or in place of conservative in the lead, and her liberty hangout should be described as far right instead of libertarian. Alt right and far right tags should also be added to the article. Hobomok (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

We may be able to describe liberty hangout as far-right instead of libertarian. But, we wouldn't be able to replace conservative with far-right/alt-right since sources don't describe her as such. As pointed at before, and in the articles that you linked, sources describe her as "right-wing/conservative" or as a gun-rights activist. When you say alt right and far-right "tags", do you mean catergories? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

List her political positions / views?

Her notoriety comes from campaigning and promoting of various political views?

• Pro gun rights
• Against abortion
• Against transgender rights
• Presumably against wider LGBTQ+ rights
• Pro christianity (and christian education in schools)
• Against publicly funded universities
• COVID views - against masks, against mandatory vaccinations
• Against the BLM movement
• "Anti-feminist"

I would assume the list could also continue for conservative/republican economic policy too?

Some work would obviously need to be done to ensure NPOV in the content and titling of such sections, but it seems like something that would be valuable to add, as although her initial claim-to-fame is from being the "Kent State Gun Girl", she has maintained a presence through such ongoing campaigning on now a far wider variety of issues. 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:23 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• I thnk all of this is covered by the generic term "Republican", isn't it? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
• This is also a question of notability (and, of course, the availability of reliable sources). She is notable/infamous for her activism (her positions on gun rights are already covered by the article) and for her contributions to media outlets (InfoWars, Liberty Hangout), but her political views aren't that notable in of themselves. She's an activist/(social) media person, not a politician or celebrity. TucanHolmes (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@JzG: - I disagree it is really covered by the term "republican", or at least to an unambiguous degree. Republicans (like any other party) can widely differ in their views (and this also changes over time, the Republicans of the Founding Fathers era were much like that of today's Democrats in many senses, and visa versa!) To quote part of your userpage, "the US Environmental Protection Agency was started by Richard Nixon, after all - but it has become axiomatic on the right that climate science is a liberal conspiracy"!

@TucanHolmes: - Notability is a fairly good thing for us to think about on this. To put an argument for it however, her "social media" notability is of a political nature. She's not a politician in herself, but is definitely a political activists. It sort of makes sense to cover the views of a political activist (i.e. to say what their activism is for/against).

Also, I think it's worth noting that "notability" seems to matter on wikipedia more with regards as to if a person should/shouldn't have a page, and less about the contents of that page. Most people with a wikipedia page have an "early life" section, but most of those people's early life is in itself not notable. It exists as part of the page to provide context and a fuller picture of that person.

I definitely would say I'm of the opinion enumerating her views would prove valuable. Your point about notability however does make me wonder if we should aim for a somewhat brief enumeration of her views so as to not let it take over the article unnecessarily? 176.251.175.52 (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You make some good points, but we need reliable sources to back any claims about political views, especially with regard to WP:BLP (that's why I mentioned the issue of notability; most of the coverage about her in reliable sources doesn't focus on her political views). TucanHolmes (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are very right there. I guess it's one of those things that would be a "task to do when possible" for the article. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Liberty Hangout should no longer be considered "libertarian"

Their public political opinions for some time have been discernably non-libertarian, but as of (at least) August 31, 2021, they are explicitly anti-libertarian:

https://twitter.com/LibertyHangout/status/1432566216128966659

They have in their own words embraced an authoritarian Catholicism.

Attempt at a serious conversation about the party incident

I understand hesitancy of appearing to attack the subject about the whole defecation thing, but I believe it warrants at least a mention in the article due to how big the rumor is, along with its seemingly never ending staying power. We can see through the history that it is going to continue to be a point of contention here and we can try to address it responsibly.

The article currently states: "In February 2020, Kaitlin Bennett went to Ohio University to ask President's Day trivia questions, but was confronted by an extremely large crowd of college students opposing her, with some throwing toilet paper, drinks and other objects at her."

The reader may ask themselves "why did they throw TP?". SO I suggest adding something along the following:

Along with students throwing toilet paper at Bennett, chants of "Where's your diaper?"[3] and "shit your pants”[4] were heard in reference to an unsubstantiated rumor that she defecated her pants while attending a Kent State frat party.

I don't mind the line being reworked or adjusted for readability or neutrality if others want to change it a bit. The two sources aren't exactly scholarly, but they are generally considered reliable. Both refer to it being unsubstantiated, while Rolling Stone calls it pervasive and Slate boils it down to a joke. I don't want to swamp the section with multiple lines on the alleged incident.

Update: The Daily Dot is generally considered reliable, and reported a similar incident at the UCF campus[5]. New York Post has another article but editors don't like using them for politics.

Outdatedpizza (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Done.Outdatedpizza (talk) 08:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image changed

The original image could be construed as intentionally unflattering. I inserted the image from Commons, along with a link to Commons at the bottom. Outdatedpizza (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted a change. The previous image is so unflattering it could be considered a BLP violation.Outdatedpizza (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Can this be done again and have the display picture changed? It appears the same unflattering photo is being used again, what a coincidence... /sarcasm 142.186.16.25 (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Bing/bong pronouns

Bennett’s instagram lists pronouns as Bing/Bong not she/her 2601:18C:4200:3190:19A0:EFD0:BF8F:D087 (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

As those are not pronouns, we really do not care. ValarianB (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated"

Why is the page saying unsubstantiated rumors in regards to her pooping her pants? There are literally PHOTOS to prove it. 2601:300:4002:5CC0:1C05:50C3:37AB:F1FA (talk) 14:01, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You should be over the moon is included at all. Sources say it is unsubstantiated, and personally agree since you can't see the face of the pooper.Outdatedpizza (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hasn't she admitted to it multiple times? We need to change the Known For section to include "Shitting her pants" in addition to the lesser known incident of carrying a rifle at her school. DestradoZero 08:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DestradoTensai (talk • contribs)

"Pants shitting incident"

Should there be a section dedicated to this alleged incident and how it is often used against her in internet discussions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8B16:2D01:5419:E776:6CA4:CCB2 (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph on it.Outdatedpizza (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It honestly shouldn't be relevant, social media gossip isn't what Wikipedia should involve. The rumor/incident has nothing to do with her relevance (to be clear it's her advocacy for gun rights). And what was thrown at her doesn't need to be explained either, just the fact items were thrown is fine enough, everything thrown at someone in any event doesn't need an explanation as to why it's one item and not another. 142.186.16.25 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

As this person has been met with protesters who chant things about the incident, a short description of the event is justified to explain the protests. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

But the protests weren't due to the "event" so that's honestly irrelevant. The protest is about her political beliefs but the protesters just use the event as an ad-hom attack to use as additional verbal ammunition. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

10/4 restructure

Did a decent sized cleanup. Mostly MOS, but some could be hot. Removed some poor sources (mostly the primary source lined at the end) and moved stuff around. Let me know if anything appears off.Outdatedpizza (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITEOutdatedpizza (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

conversion to Christianity?

the citation does not support the assertion that Bennett was non-Christian before marriage, and that theirs was a Catholic wedding. i read though the cited source several times and amidst the gay-baiting that distractify.com does of her husband, i can see no mention of his religious denomination. ValarianB (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)