Talk:Gina Carano

Pronouns

Carano uses boop/bop/beep pronouns on her twitter. There is no coverage of her gender identity however and I don't think she is being particularly serious. Any thoughts? Caius G. (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Controversy

On July 31st Gina Carano joined a protest to end sex trafficking. Posting a photo to Instagram Carano stated in her caption that I was proud to be a part of this today. It didn’t trend. It wasn’t apart of the right agendas apparently.. Carano implies that this movmenent should be gaining greater recognition than the Black Lives Matter Protest that was occurring at the same time. For this comment, she received praise from numerous supporters of the [Qanon] movement. Multiple comments using the hashtag [WWG1WGA]

Carano also received criticism for changing her [twitter] name to "Gina Carano boop/bop/beep" mocking the common practice of identifying personal pronouns such as they/them. Fellow co-star in [The Mandalorian] [Pedro Pascal] features he/him pronouns in his own [twitter] bio. Noticing this difference, Carano responded to those criticising her by starting "Pedro & I spoke & he 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."

Controversy section

As much as I personally don't agree with Carrano's views, User:DabYeetDab seems correct in that the newly placed "Controversy" section violates WP:BALANCE. Taking a larger perspective, virtually every public figure is subject to Twitterverse critics. Unless the issue being criticized becomes independently notable, it seems like gross overkill to create an entire "Controversy" section because a few people were offended by her comments.

I would also note that User:Koreanidentity10000 added another controversy today, to David Cross, that was remarkably overstated, non-neutral and unbalanced. It involved another celebrity referring to Cross specifically, so that would reach the level of independent notability and not "some tweeters criticized the person." I trimmed the Cross content to the raw facts as best I could. I would suggest that an editor inserting highly non-WP:NPOV content in incendiary language perhaps has an ax to grind and is not editing responsibly.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Well Tenebrae, thanks very much for editing this David Cross controversy section. But don't make these assumptions towards me next time; I have no "ax to grind" because I don't have an ax. I'm just posting the facts and remained neutral as much as possible so that people like you can edit this. People with reputations like Cross need to learn to watch what they say, and it's all for the greater good for people to learn from their mistakes.-User:Koreanidentity10000 Reedited 2:36pm Nov 27th, 2020

You say you have no ax to grind. Then two sentences later you start grinding it: "People with reputations like Cross need to learn when to keep their mouths shut ... to learn from their mistakes." Wikipedia is not a place for you to work out your grievances toward "people like David Cross" or anyone else. If you continue trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your personal feelings about people who "need to learn when to keep their mouths shut," then admin intervention will be called for.

Your edits also do not show you as anyone who "remained neutral", and editors are not supposed to write any personal essay they want and expect others to "make these balanced edits."--Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again Tenebrae, thanks for everything, I'll ask you for help if I need it. -User:Koreanidentity10000

Carrano's views has garnered significant media attention from major news outlets as Forbes, Telegraph, and Newsweek. If the "Controversy"section violates balance, it should not be deleted en masse, but edited to improve any biases.146.151.113.93 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to rework the section as written to make it read more neutrally and encyclopedically. I'm a journalist and editor for a living, and I couldn't do it. The "Criticms" section needs a complete top-to-bottom rewrite, including making it much shorter. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's pretty unfortunate that the Wiki article doesn't include one sentence about these controversies. I have little interest in the subject matter itself, and am more concerned of censorship. 146.151.113.93 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Political Views?

Pro Thanksgiving Pro military Anti censorship Anti cancel Culture Anti masks voter Fraud conspiracy theory https://mobile.twitter.com/ginacaranore

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/mandalorian-gina-carano-anti-mask-fraud-trans-b1724073.html

https://filmdaily.co/news/gina-carano/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markpolowing (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That first link you posted is a dead link. Her real Twitter page is at https://twitter.com/ginacarano

Her Twitter messages are not a clear indication of her politics. Her being from Texas is not a clear indication of her politics either. An encyclopedia cannot make guesses even if it seems obvious, and an encyclopedia must wait until better clearer sources are available. The standards required of biographical articles is high, you will probably need to wait until she directly states her politics in an interview. She is a sports person turned actor, she's not a politician, her political views might not even be important enough to add to the article even if she did clearly state them. -- 109.76.196.68 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would argue in light of recent events, particularly recent news articles about her contract with the Mandalorian TV program not being renewed because of an Instagram post, that her actual political beliefs are still not relevant. However, my feeling is that the interpretation of her statements by some as anti-semitic and fascist is relevant to the extent that it influenced her employment. I strongly feel that Wikipedia itself however must not attribute those interpretations to the statements, nor in any way imply that they are correct. Rendall (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional controversy information

I removed uncited information regarding the social media support for Gina Carano. If there are sources for it, we should probably find ones that mention that her support comes entirely from the same reactionary influencers who incited the harassment campaign agains Kelly Marie Tran, and the support for her is due to her propagating discredited QAnon conspiracy theories. I also added Antivax conspiracy theories to her claims, but I'm not 100% certain if they are mentioned in the source. The Mary Sue has more information about that. We should also probably mention her tweeting her support of the January 6 terrorist attack on the US Capitol. 213.233.88.151 (talk) 11:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The article claims she "falsely suggested the existence of voter fraud". This must be changed, since there were of course instances of voter fraud. 193.180.10.21 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC about Criticism Section

This request for comments has two parts; (1) does the information in the criticism section merit inclusion in the article at all and (2) if so, does the current presentation give WP:UNDUE weight (multiple paragraphs under its own heading titled "Criticism")?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's not great to have a separate "Criticism" section (see WP:CRITS), and we want to avoid recentism, but I feel like in this case the events have been covered widely enough that they merit inclusion. Given the length of the article I don't think that the two paragraphs about the controversies give them undue weight; it's a relatively small portion of the article. I wonder if there's a better section heading, maybe "Political views" or "Social media activity"? Srey Sros^talk 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Yes. The information can be in its own section or merged into any pertinent other section. 2. No. Two paragraphs on different events do not overwhelm the rest of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
• To answer the questions in reverse I do think it is giving WP:UNDUE emphasis to trivial social media happenings. The section as it is phrased now seems misleading to me, (maybe that's WP:NPOV or WP:TONE) Carano is a fighter turned actor, not a political figure, but people were trying to compel her to make political statements and get behind causes which she wasn't going to do. She received abuse on social media (and unfortunately who doesn't) and she's perfectly entitled to call out that abuse from "cowards and bullies".[1] It is quite something to misrepresent that as her having called her critics cowards and bullies. The suggestion from User:SreySros to present her "Political views" seems more reasonable, present her views first then responses to them, not the fireable-offences that social media imagines she has committed. (Given the previous criticisms of her acting, I'm surprised the article doesn't have any comment on how her acting in The Mandaloriain
  It does seem to have received coverage from reliable sources so while I think sources are being poorly presented I accept that in principle a better version might be justified. There are some people with an ax to grind here and a lot of caution needs to be shown because of WP:BLP (specifically: tone and balance and attack, all seem to apply). So I guess I should try to make this easier for anyone reviewing the discussion and summarize that as: 1. Maybe 2. Yes (undue, needswork). -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to stick to the sources here. Our own interpretation(s) of what happened is irrelevant. We must summarize the reliable sources about her, covering each aspect and viewpoint proportionally to how much it is covered. The two paragraphs seem to me to be appropriate summaries of the sources cited. As for this edit summary, we must remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We report what the sources say, not what we think they will say.

Are there specific words or phrases whose tone is objectionable to you? To me the tone seems pretty neutral. It seems that you specifically disagree with the framing of she called her critics "cowards and bullies" but denied accusations of racism. The source that is paraphrasing says (with an ugly comma splice) 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.". I think it's pretty reasonable to paraphrase that the way the article currently does. Her cowards and bullies comment seems aimed at the people calling her racist, not specifically at online abusers. Srey Sros^talk 04:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The tone was actually less neutral, and the paragraphs longer before I truncated the long quotes to simple paraphrases. Having escessively verbose quotes from Gina Carano explaining herself puts too much emphasis on her side of the story.

I disagree that the section should be renamed "political views". Her "political views", are notable only because the criticism she received for using her platform as an actress in a popular series to spread thoroughly discredited conspiracy theories and misinformation - things she doubled down on in interviews with right wing outlet The Federalist, and some Gamergate youtubers.

In a similar vein, her opening a Parler account is notable only because she was criticised for choosing parler of all options, a far right platform. Yet someone is insisting on removing "far right" despite the fact that that is what the site is.213.233.88.151 (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It is an editorial decision to include it all, (1) those decisions matter, that is the starting premise of this very discussion. People with an ax to grind are subjectively interpreting the sources,(2) in ways that I do not believe are objective, not properly following the policies of WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. You can call it summarizing but it takes selectively quoting to present people screaming on Twitter as if they were reasonable critics or serious commentators. This is a biographical article about Carano, of course it should have "too much emphasis on her side of the story" it's literally supposed to be her story. (I'm not convinced joining or leaving a social network is newsworthy, let alone encyclopedic or notable enough to include in a biography. If Parler is worth mentioning at all then you should look closely at the Wikipedia article for Parler which does not call it a right or far-right social media site, but very carefully calls states instead that it "Posts on the service often contain far-right content".) The edit by RCarter to remove vague phrasing and weasel words[2] is a good start, the section needs a lot more cleanup if it is to stay. You're perfectly entitled to think what you will about Carano or her politics but that doesn't make any of it encyclopedic.

By all means include more criticism of her stiff acting, but don't feed the social media trolls and armchair activists desperately trying to cancel Gina Carano. It was disingenuous when they tried to do it to Rosaria Dawson[3] and it is lame that they are trying to do it to Carano too. (Actress is not politically aware! News at 11. Actress repeats dimwitted conservative talking points that millions of American voters also believe. Stop the press!). It's another social media tempest in a teapot that just barely managed to get mainstream media attention. It is not an important part of her biography, it is not a defining part of her life. It is something might barely merit a mention if it was written a bit more objectively. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Rosario Dawson didn't express any opinions on social media. A civil lawsuit against her family, that was dropped months ago, was dug up on twitter, caused a minor stir and was forgotten in a couple of days. The controversies surrounding Gina Carano have been ongoing for several months, and covered by multiple reliable sources. The two are not comparable. Also, wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not "social media trolls and armchair activists". That being said, if you can find any reliable sources that show the criticism agains Gina Carano comes from internet trolls, feel free to find it and add it. So far, the only people I saw making this claim are Ethan Van Sciver and his Comicsgate crew. I hope you understand why they are not considered reliable sources. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

People on social media purporting to be fans of the show tried to cancel Dawson based on nothing more than entirely unfounded allegations. People on social media have been trying to cancel Carano based on dim tweets she has made. It might be a reason to lose some respect for Carano but it is crazy that people think it is appropriate to try and get her fired over her lack of savvy.

Yes Wikipedia relies on WP:RS reliable sources to WP:VERIFY and help show that things are WP:NOTABLE but Wikipedia is still under no obligation to give WP:UNDUE weight to the latest social media kerfuffle. The reliable sources are talking about criticism (from unreliable anonymous sources) on social media. Twitter types are blinkered and think the world revolves around other people like them, but it really is not important it's been blown out of all proportion. Some people got annoyed on Twitter but this campaign to cancel Carano hasn't gained any traction, it is not as significant as you seem to think it is. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The controversy has been deemed notable enough to be included by regular contributors who's word has more weight than either of ours. The consensus to include it is clear and you have failed to provide a single convincing counterargument. With Rosario Dawson, there was no controversy. The controversy surrounding Gina Carano has been going on for months and was covered by reliable sources. Based on that, it was deemed worthy of inclusion. What you believe about her critics is unimportant. Wikipedia reports on what reliable sources say.

Also, it looks like while you are here arguing for the removal of the criticism section, using talking points taken word for word from comicsgate youtubers, other anonymous users have been deleting entire sections and references, and adding uncited claims. I see signs of a coordinated effort here. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• @DabYeetDab, 2604:2d80:6d80:a900:ad46:d022:bb01:1c5, 74.98.217.210, and 2603:8080:3a05:5900:140a:ff90:321f:ebee: There is an ongoing RfC about this section. Please stop removing it. Edit-warring won't get anything done and just wastes everyone's time, including yours. If you think the content is undue, say why here but don't remove the content until we reach a consensus. This is the whole point of RfCs. Additionally, a lot of the conversation here has focused on our own interpretations of what counts as legitimate criticism versus abuse, or concerns about the inclusion of criticism of her being unencyclopedic. Our job, and our only job, is to read the reliable sources about the subject and summarize what they say in this article. Each aspect and viewpoint in the article should be represented proportionally to its coverage in reliable sources. If someone has a Twitter dispute and that dispute is covered extensively in reliable sources, then we must include it in the article. This controversy seems to be one of the most notable things to happen to Carano, and just because we think it's petty or transient or meaningless doesn't mean we exclude it from the article. Every editor has their own POV, that's inevitable. We must prevent our own POVs from spilling over into the article, and the way we do that is by simply relating the reliable sources. Srey Sros^talk 20:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Her blocking Twitter accounts is not needed o n here. If I was to put "Stop animal abuse" in my Twitter bio, then go on a celebrities' Twitter account and spam them hurtful things, and I was blocked, does tat mean that celebrity then supports animal abuse. Likewise, if a Twitter user puts "BLM" in their bio then spam's Gina's comments, and she blocks them, that doesn't make her racist. If someone is going to then accuse her of racism because of that, they are clearly not being neutral or objective, and are trying to point blame and negativity. Therefore, whatever source is saying that, should not be used on this article because it very clearly has a negative bias. Likewise, Gina opening a Parler account, where all she did was repost her Tweets, is nothing "controversial" or notable. A source saying that it is, is also clearly trying to push an agenda because they have a negative bias. In itself, opening a Parler account, objectively just another social media platform, and doing nothing worthy of note with it, and only using it to repost Tweets, is extremely biased. Lots of celebrities will repost Tweets to places like Instagram. Is THAT controversial? No, because there is nothing wrong or bad about it. That is all Gina did with her account on Parler, so to put that in this section also carries over the negative bias form the source and puts it on this article.DabYeetDab (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

For the last time, Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Not your personal feelings. The consensus on keeping the criticism section is clear. You're the only one going against it and you jave yet to give one objective reason why people should listen to you. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

So... a lot happened over the weekend, I take it? Looking back, I'd say "our own POV spilling over into the article" is a generous way of describing it. To me, this looks more like fans of Gina Carano taking it on themselves to defend her honor, rather than any genuine attempt at building an encyclopedia. 213.233.88.151 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Neutral on whether the information should be included, but (2) if it is included, not in a "Criticism" section. See the points made in the essay WP:CSECTION. I would suggest combining the "Criticism" and "Accolades" sections as "Reception". —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• 'Thoughts: I was asked, as a contributor to this section who pared down the wildly POV essay into something approaching neutral, to weigh in. For the sake of collegiality, I'm responding. I've been off Wikipedia since Jan. 20 because it's hard for me after brutal biographical discussions elsewhere on Wikipedia by people who aren't journalists/biographers, aren't trained in writing bios, and are "going by their gut" to reach conclusions any professional would find objectively wrong. I don't mean to drag on anyone here — the people here seem intelligent and are trying hard, politely and in good faith to reach consensus — but as someone who writes this kind of stuff professionally, biographical discussions on Wikipedia have gotten dispiriting and depressing.

'Anyway, now that I've settled the acid in my stomach by venting a little, I'm not going to take a side but simply offer my professional view. Generally, the political opinions or medical opinions or quantum-physics opinions of an actor/athlete are not notable. But when reaction to such opinions reaches a critical mass in the media, resulting in a significant number of major outlets covering it, then the reaction to the opinions, not so much the opinions themselves, becomes notable. We need to ask ourselves if that critical mass has been reached. Has the criticism been written about in the likes of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter? Then the criticism is notable. If it's just niche publications the general public doesn't see, I would say it's less notable or non-notable.

Conversely: People in the public eye, including actors/athletes, do have the power to help shape public opinion. I think of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when a portion of the public was vicious toward suffers. Actress Elizabeth Taylor showed compassion to Ryan White, a kid who contracted AIDS through a transfusion, IIRC, and that helped steer the national conversation to a more humane place. So we can't immediately write such things off as, "Oh, it's just an actor's opinion." What is the reaction to that opinion? These are all things to consider.

I'm logging out and leaving Wikipedia again for a while, so I won't see any responses to this. As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you want.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is a developing topic; in a few more days this RfC may be moot due to expanding coverage. However, I think we should certainly avoid "Controversy" or "Criticism" headings per WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE. Such sections are invariably POV magnets. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Post firing update

Now that Carano has been let go from Lucas Films, should the information be merged into the “Film and television career” section as the controversy has had a direct impact on her career?—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it works reasonably well as it is and should remain a separate section for the moment. There is a certain indirect quality to the Lucasfilm statement, as if they had not kept her on any kind of contract after The Mandalorian season 2, which you might have expected if they had planned to include her in the show again or in any of the spin-offs. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Article needs protection

There have been a lot of IP users removing content, deleting and changing citations or otherwise making edits that in my opinion could be considered disruptive. Subject's fans have been organizing recently on social media. It's possible this has something to do with them. As an outsider, it shouldn't be my concern, and it's not my place to accuse anyone of disruptive editing, but it may be wise to protect this article for the time being. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Locking the article or at least setting it to flagged edits would seem wise at this point. (I expect registered user will continue to fight over the article in any case but increasing the protection level may be overdue). -- 109.76.194.53 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wording re Holocaust comments

@Jake453: I'm not sure why you reverted ([4]) my edit changing the wording about her recent comments about the Holocaust. You didn't leave an edit summary, which is generally good practice when dealing with non-vandalism edits. I see you earlier altered the text of the article to say that the post was made on Twitter, is that the issue you had with my wording? The cited article says she received criticism on Twitter, but the first paragraph says she garnered backlash on social media Wednesday after sharing several controversial posts on her Instagram story. Srey Sros^talk 22:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I rephrased the sentence too, I don't think the wording Jake used was clear enough. I don't think summarizing it all as Republicanism and the Holocaust is in any way clear enough.

What I do think is clear is that Gina Carano would be better off if she hired a publicist and didn't comment on social media, and although I was skeptical before I think this also makes it clear now that this must be included in the article. I do think the change of section heading was an improvement. -- 109.76.194.53 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If she had hired a publicist this never would've happened and people would remain ignorant about what kind of a person she is. I want these sort of people, and those endorsing them (I'm looking at the Comicsgate movement here) out in the open where people can see them. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Turns out her publicists parted ways with her months ago.[5] -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Imagine my shock. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe the current wording is misleading, and there seems to be an attempt at whitewashing her words under the guise of neutrality. "Carano shared a post on Instagram comparing political intolerance to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany" does not accurately reflect the content of what she said. She equated republicans, and specifically Trumpists being called out for their conspiracy theories and hateful, divisive rethoric with the persecution of jews during the holocaust. There is no such thing as "political intolerance" here. And let's stop pretending that this isn't antisemitic. It is. It's what it's being called, and wikipedia should not be muddying the waters around it for the sake of false balance. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Variety magazine quotes the since deleted instagram post from Carano [6]

“ Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views ”

You can suggest a better summary if you don't like the current one. The article is locked, so propose a specific edit of the form change "X" to "Y" and add the tag {{Edit semi-protected}} with your comment. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The current summary makes it look like she's making some general statement, but her comment is just a generic alt right talking point. Nobody is being "hated for their political views". That's a very dishonest way of framing criticism you're getting for spreading misinformation, promoting q-anon conspiracy theories, supporting the terrorist attack on the capitol comparing Black Lives Matter to nazis and calling them "tyrants and bullies", and spreading straight up unscientific and dangerous nonsense regarding covid lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccines. She was criticised for this, and she compared the criticism she was getting to the greatest atrocity in all of history. She isn't condemning "political intolerance" (which doesn't actually exist outside of alt right echochambers - it is the right who's willing to pay the bail of a murderer like Kyle Rittenhouse because he killed people who don't align with them politically), she's pushing right wing victim-mentality, by dishonestly claiming that free speach means the hateful rethoric of the far right should be uncritically allowed.

My recommended summary would go like this: "She made a poat on Instagram comparing criticism of republicans to the persecution of jews in nazi germany. The since deleted social media post was widely criticised for being tonedeaf and having antisemitic undertones." 46.97.170.253 (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not following the specified format if you are serious about making a real edit request. The source did not actually mention "republicans", and it did not state that her comments were "tonedeaf" so if you want to add anything like that you will need to find reliable sources that say it first, you can't just add your own words. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I expect plenty of reliable sources to cover this in the near future. Her post is easily recognizable as a textbook example of well documented gamergate/ comicsgate/ qanon gaslighting tactics. She's been spending a lot of time on social media cozying up to those people in the mast two months, and now she's using their tactics. If reliable sources ignored that so far, they most certainly won't be able to ignore it now. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Mr. 46.97.170.253 (Oops, did I just commit a thought crime by assuming your gender?), Linda Ronstadt recently compared the deportation of illegal immigrants from the United States to the Holocaust, but she was never canceled for her obscenely inaccurate and offensive statements. Do you agree that we should add Linda Ronstadt's alt-left anti-Semitism to her article, or are you just another leftist hypocrite with double standards against conservatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.214.32 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC) False equivalence and whataboutism (also, pathetic attempt at trolling). Being called out for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories, and promoting hateful divive rethoric, is not comparable to the holocaust. But many people, including historical scholars and holocaust survivors have drawn parallels between nazi germany, and the trump administration, especially trump's practice of putting immigrants' kids in cages. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

And let's stop pretending that this isn't antisemitic. If the above is the quote under discussion, I don't believe it's coherent to call that anti-semitic. Clueless or tonedeaf, sure, but an anti-semite would not hold up the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany as a bad thing, but as a good thing. Let's look at what the ADL defines as anti-Semitism: The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. [[7]] By this light "We should not treat conservatives the way that Nazis treated Jews" (if that's even a fair paraphrase) is an hyperbolic and insensitive statement, but not anti-semitic. That said, it is indisputable that some have interpreted this as anti-Semitism, and that might or might not be WP:DUE, but Wikipedia must not take the stance that Carano or the statement is an example of anti-Semitism Rendall (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle this is to give the quote Variety uses in her Instagram post - avoids having to discuss the description of it, and it is no so long that it raises copyright issues etc. Britishfinance (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The criticism section was nothing but walls of direct quotes from her, until another IP user trimmed them down to the essentials. And I agree with the reasoning they gave. There is no reason to include the entire quote when the the core of her argument is very simple. She's comparing the scrutiny republicans, and specifically trumpists like her are getting for their behavior on social media (and in real life - see also, January 6 terror attack on the US capitol), to the dehumanization of jews proceeding the holocaust. That is what her argument is. The rest are just ww2 history, and doesn't change the essence of her comment. A comment which by the way is thoroughly ridiculous, insulting, and yes, antisemitic. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I maintain that the inclusion of the whole quote is unnecessary and doesn't add any new information. Just makes the paragraph longer and harder to read. In addition, this summary makes absolutely no sense: "comparing political polarization in the US to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany". How do you compare political polarization to the holocaust? She was comparing the backlash to her behavior on social media to the holocaust, not "political polarization". This wording is neither impartial, nor encyclopedic. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Almost every quality RS (from the WPO to the NYT) on this event includes that specific quote from her Instagram, so it is notable and central to the event. Anybody reading this section about this major event in her career will look for the quote. It also resolves issues around having to introduce or explain it, which can introduce POV. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the entire quote is WP:UNDUE. Just being included in news stories doesn't make it encyclopedic. Articles are based on evaluation, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation by published sources, not indiscriminate quotations. As to what Carano really meant, the sources just say: "[Carano] implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" (WaPo); "One of the posts she shared compared today’s divided political climate to Nazi Germany" (Variety); "The actress shared a TikTok post comparing the current divided political climate in the U.S. to Nazi Germany" (Deadline). Any further interpretations need a published, reliable source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC) (edit: see also Reuters and NPR for similarly terse summaries. 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC))

It is hard to see it being UNDUE when it is the specific sentence that created the event, which is quite a material event in her career ? Britishfinance (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

OK then, find a published source that says so. Most of the cited sources refer to a whole series of controversial remarks. The Lucasfilm statement doesn't single out just one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Use the quote itself if it's going to be discussed at all. Any other action is original research. Some readers will interpret it as anti-semitic, others will not. It's not for Wikipedia or its editors to control how it is taken. Just the facts, please. Objectivity is the standard, not one or the other interpretation. Rendall (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm with Sangdeboeuf here. "Carano implied conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" (WaPo) - that is an accurate and properly cited summary of what she said. Everything else is filler. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a journalist's interpretation of what she said. However, the quote plus "...the statement was interpreted as implying that conservatives in America are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany" would be an accurate and properly cited summary of the journalist's view. I would accept that as objective.

As a minor point, the controversy is not over her saying this, but over her sharing an Instagram story written by someone else. Rendall (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources say something similar: "[Carano] compared being conservative today to being Jewish in Nazi Germany" (Global News); "implying that being a Republican today is like being Jewish during the Holocaust" (Hollywood Reporter); "comparing the persecution of American conservatives to the Nazi persecution of Jews" (Daily Beast); "posted on Instagram that being a Republican in America is pretty much the same thing as being a Jew in Nazi Germany" (TheWrap). Adding weasel words isn't going to clarify anything. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure really, the quote highlights what was said, there are of course some who probably feel it provides a rationale, or context, for her position, but in actuality it serves to concretize the idiocy of her statement, while demonstrating her ignorance of history. Saying she "compared being conservative today to being Jewish in Nazi Germany" kinda misses the mark. Acousmana (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How does it miss the mark? It accurately conveys the idiocy of her statement and demonstrates her ignorance of history. It's an accurate summary of her statement and it speaks for itself. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Weasel words Could you be more specific? I don't understand how those are weasel words. To be clear, I'm proposing that the statement should accurately separate the quote from it interpretation. It sounds like you want to say in effect "Carano implied that conservatives are treated like Jews in Nazi Germany", which IMO is editorializing. It is an important interpretation to understanding the conflict, which is what matters, ultimately, I agree. But "Carano said x, interpreted by many sources[ref] to mean A" is fair and accurate. What is your objection to including the actual quote with the interpretation? Rendall (talk) 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"The statement was interpreted as" - those weasel words. The statement wasn't "interpreted as" saying what it did. The reliable sources directly state that that is what her statement is, and that's what we go by. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTE ("It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words") and WP:IMPARTIAL ("Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute"). There are few more heated arguments than comparing your opponents to the Nazis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Parler

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

---

Parler is not "far-right." it is a free-speech platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:701:C002:FD40:5C27:756F:E0FC:691A (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from but you will need to restate your point more clearly if you want it to stick. Some editors are unwilling to separate the platform from the content that often appears on the platform. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Please note that my comment above actually made sense before Special:Contributions/207.255.20.39 vandalized the comment from Special:Contributions/2601:701:C002:FD40:5C27:756F:E0FC:691A changing the meaning of the original comment [8]. It is unfortunate that User:RandomCanadian locked the section without first reverting the vandalism.
If you examine the edit history, and even comments on this talk page you can see it has been an issue recently and there has been back and forth over this for a while. The article was only recently restored to a neutral wording[9] ("social media platform") but there are people who keep forgetting that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and are not even trying to be neutral and objective. Anyway the article has since been locked which hopefully should calm things down a bit. 109.77.207.102 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the change to the initial comment by another user. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)}

I don't understand why this discussion was closed. Parler being a far-right platform is key to the controversy. Just saying she opened a parler account without clarifying what parler is is missing the whole point. Calling parler what it is, a far right platform is neutral and encyclopedic. Obscuring that fact leaves out key information. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Look at the Wikipedia page for Parler. Look at how it is described firstly as "a social network service". Then after that it says "Posts on the service often contain far-right content" but to be objective those two things have to be stated separately and you do not get to summarize and call directly call it a "far right social media platform"[10] because that fails WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is is an encyclopedia and it tries to be objective, so it must separate the social media platform from some of the subject matter that happens on it. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the article. The first thing that sticks out is the infobox saying "Part of a series on Antisemitism". Wether Parler is far right or not, has been a subject of lengthy debates. Regardless of what reliable sources say, one has to be either blind or willfully ignorant to read that article and not come away with the impression that Parler is a far-right social media platform. The whole reason it was created, like Gab or BitChute, is to host far-right content that would get anyone banned from any mainstream website that gives a damn about it's public image. Anyone who's too right wing for Twitter (a website that took over four years to ban Donald Trump despite his flagrant violations of their TOS) or Youtube (a website that still hosts and promotes alt right content and creators, in spite of many years of calls from journalists like Carlos Maza to fix this problem) is too far off the deep end. But none of that is relevant. This article is about Gina Carano. The article on Parler does a good job explaining that the website is a far right cesspool. The fact that it doesn't state it explicitly, because reliable sources on Parler avoid being too direct, is a technicality. The controversy section for Gina Carano on the other hand, doesn't have to split hairs. Gina Carano was criticised for opening an account on the far-right platform Parler. That is what she did, that is what she was criticised for that that is what the article needs to reflect. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Parler is not far-right. Stop lying. Just because the radical leftist Democrat propaganda media claims it is doesn't make it true. Twitter, in fact, is a far-left cesspool that's filled with totalitarian leftist lunatics who place pronouns in their profiles and get people fired from their jobs merely for being conservative. Twitter also bans people for stating scientific facts such as "men aren't women," it bans Jews for criticizing Islamic anti-Semitism (I'm speaking from personal experience), and it bans the president of the United States for calling for peaceful protests. You far-left extremist Democrats smear all conservatives as far-right. You Marxists need to stop lying. Parler is not far-right, and there is no such thing as "hate speech." There is only free speech. You leftist freaks think facts are offensive, so of course you deranged Marxist lunatics smear Parler as "far-right" without any evidence. You need to stop lying now. The only reason the Parler article contains an Orwellian "anti-Semitism" warning at the top of the article is because Wikipedia is dominated by far-left activists such as yourself who hate free speech and tell lies about conservatives in order to silence and oppress us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.120.214.32 (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Lol. This above post is beyond parody. Clearly you took a wrong turn while looking for conservapedia. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, it's clearly us "lying', "extemist" "freaks" who are guilty of smears [insert eye roll]. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone has since changed the text to from "social media platform" to read "conservative social media platform". Again this fails WP:NPOV, a platform does not have any inherent political alignment is merely a platform. A car could be extremely popular with conservatives but that wouldn't necessarily make it a far-right automobile. The nature of the platform and the comments and users are separate things. It shows a lack of objectivity to conflate the two separate matters. -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means we follow the majority of published, reliable sources. If they call Parler "conservative", "right-wing", or "a cheese sandwich", then that's what we say too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

February 11, 2020

The article states that Carano was dropped by UTA/United Talent Agency. The reference immediately following this statement is an article from The Hollywood Reporter about Lucasfilm, it does not mention UTA. Please add the following reference instead, [11] specifically:

Replace X "droppped by UTA." with "Y"
droppped by [[United Talent Agency|UTA]].<ref>{{cite web |date=11 February 2021 |last=D'Alessandro |first=Anthony |title='The Mandalorian' Actress Gina Carano & UTA Part Ways In Wake Of Social Media Controversy |url=https://deadline.com/2021/02/the-mandalorian-actress-gina-carano-agency-uta-part-ways-in-wake-of-social-media-controversy-1234691964/ |website=Deadline }}</ref>

I leave it up to the editor to move (or remove) the Hollywood Reporter reference to a more suitable place, or not. -- 109.77.207.102 (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done. The Hollywood Reporter ref says Carano has also been dropped as a client by UTA, an agency spokesperson confirms.? Britishfinance (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The reference [12][13] does not mention UTA. The article was changed since I made my request. -- 109.76.128.61 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"Fired"

The statement by Lucasfilm quoted in most of the recent news coverage (such as CBS) says that Carano "is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future". While a number of sources interpret this as Carano being "fired" etc., a different article on Deadline says "Carano wasn’t attached to continue" with the series, and that there was no "deal" in place last fall for Carano to stay on. It's not clear how someone can be "fired" from a company they're not actually working for. I think it's best to err on the side of caution and simply report Lucasfilm's statement as saying Carano "would not return" to the role of Cara Dune pending more authoritative sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also in Vanity Fair: "Since Carano is not currently filming anything related to Star Wars, she was not technically fired" and "the Nazi post, which seems to have led Lucasfilm to end its connection with her" (emphasis added). We should avoid implying anything more definite unless a source says so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

"We should avoid implying anything more definite unless a source says so."

"While a number of sources interpret this as Carano being 'fired'..."

I don't see the problem. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

In fact, most of them only say that in their headlines – which are written by copy editors, not journalists. It looks like the copy editors got this one wrong. Besides, it simply doesn't make sense in light of the actual statement by Lucasfilm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Find one official statement from a company that literally states an employee of theirs was "fired". Granted, it wouldn't surprise me if they fired her sooner and just now confirmed it to distance themselves from her (Redacted). Considering the stuff she's been saying for the past six months, including (Redacted), which isn't even mentioned here, despite being covered by reliable sources, it's anyone's guess why she wasn't let go sooner. Talk about privilege. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum for general discussion, and I remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well, so I've redacted some of your more inflammatory statements about Carano.

Returning to the topic, Carano was not actually employed by Lucasfilm at the time of the "firing", as indicated by the two sources I quoted above and strongly implied by Lucasfilm itself. Therefore it's best to proceed with caution and wait for more retrospective analysis and interpretation before we say she was "fired" or "dropped" by Lucasfilm. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. It was my impression that what you call "inflammatory comments" have actually been covered by reliable sources. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I note that the two most reputable sources cited so far, The Washington Post and The New York Times, don't explicitly say she was fired. The WaPo article says the company "sever[ed] ties with Carano ... after widespread backlash" to her Instagram post, but that's somewhat more vague than saying she was "fired". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

I'd like to remind everyone, fans and detractors alike, that objectivity is the guiding principle and you, yes, you reading this right now, are not objective. What actually happened is paramount, and any other interpretation, particularly weaving it into more global trends or situating it into any political framework, is original research and is forbidden. Do not allow any editor to push a political or social interpretation into the article even - especially- if you agree with it Rendall (talk) 09:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I include myself in those of us who are not objective. Even so, it is to be striven for, not subverted. Rendall (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That is an unfairly broad generalization. The only people here are gina carano fans pushing their political interpretation, and everybody else, striving for objectivity. The both-sidesism is uncalled for. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I was speaking generally. If you're being objective, then this reminder was not directed at you. You however might want to introspect about why you metaphorically stood up, waved your hands and said "that's me and how dare you", but I'll leave that to you.

However, if you're interpreting editors who propose edits that are neutral or nuanced, or want to eliminate interpretation, as only "Carano fans", this is exactly the problem this is meant to address.

Fan or detractors, objectivity is the standard. Speaking personally, I am a fan of "holding fast to standards" as should you be. "Fans of Carano" (and detractors) will degrade this article only to the extent that they allow their opinions to infect the article Rendall (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I did not "stand up, wave my hands and yell 'that's me and how dare you'". Also, i made no such interpretation. For days, if not weeks, Carano fans have been whitewashing facts and removing properly sourced content, while leaving long winded diatribes about how it's all lies and slander, outright ignoring any discussion on the topic. Some have even vandalized the talk page. There are no "detractors" of carano degrading this article. All such degrading has come exclusively from her fans. Your wording makes it sound like there are two sides pushing their own political narrative and ruining the neutrality of the article, when in reality, there is only one side: the people running damage control for her. Which is not surprising, because every alt-right talking head on the internet is now rallying behind her. They are the problem. Everybody else is trying their best doing what you're telling us: striving for objectivity. 46.97.170.253 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The standard is neutral point of view, which means representing the views of reliable sources with due weight. You may be confusing objectivity with impartiality, which is part of NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair point. I would argue as an aside that impartiality and neutrality require some yardstick to measure against, but I see your point. Rendall (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a yardstick. It's called "reliable sources". 46.97.170.253 (talk) 13:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop whitewashing facts

Parler is a far-right platform. Not a "conservative" one. Also, "hatred levied at american conservatives"? Since when did Hannity become a wikipedia contributor? 46.97.170.253 (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Jewish bankers tweet

@Vaselineeeeeeee: What is your issue with this addition? How would you improve it?

On December 23, 2020, Carano tweeted an image of Jewish bankers playing monopoly on the backs of naked men, with the caption "All we have to do is stand up and their little game is over." In the image, the Jews sit in front of an Illuminati pyramid; a second pyramid sits on the board, surrounded by gold, cash, a skull, Saturn, and the symbols of various trades, including medicine and law. Like the similar Freedom for Humanity mural, the image has been condemned as anti-semitic. Some have speculated that she did not know the men pictured were Jews.

Gershonmk (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)