Draft talk:Rachel Chandler

Just a reminder that given the insane conspiracy theories about her, this article should strive to document only what is actually legitimately reported in non-conspiracy articles - using conspiracy sites only as sources to show the the conspiracies exist. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone pointed out there was a stray "conspiracy" sentence in an unrelated section, removed that. They also tried to separate out "Personal life" into two sections (Early vs Personal) but on a short article I feel it's better to keep them together - it's just "was born here, went to this school, married him, divorced him, married him and had a child" - no need for two sections. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The "Q-Anon and Conspiracy Theories" section is only four sentences, out of 21 sentences - it does not seem WP:UNDUE although if there's a way to shorten the sentences without sacrificing the info by all means please copyedit. I don't foresee it going beyond the four sentences unless new debunks are done, etc. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, I find this content problematic for a few reasons. Primarily, I question whether the subject qualifies as a notable person and if an AfD nomination is apt to quash the issue. Additionally, the posting of QAnon driven "insane conspiracy theories" simply because they exist seems gratuitious, and gives undue credence to the unsubstantiated speculation that the aformentioned group is known for. The sources cited fall under WP:unreliable sources (acknowledged already by you), which brings me to question both the value as it relates to a private individual's biography, and the intended goal in posting it. Lastly, the addition of the opinions around images on the subject's social media accounts appear uncessarily sensationalist. On your point from 14 October 2025, adding a “debunk” would still introduce the false claim itself, thereby amplifying harm and violating WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP1E principles. This subject is not a public figure in this context, and repeating unsubstantiated conspiracy allegations whether to endorse or refute them serves no encyclopedic purpose. I am assuming good faith on your part, and request that you consider allowing the neutralization of the article, put forth by multiple editors now, to stand. FlederMaus9 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we want the same thing here, but ultimately most people googling Rachel Chandler are likely doing it because they're told "oh she bathes in baby blood and flies on Epstein's plane" because of the prominence of the Q-Anon stuff - so having the article focus primarily on her modeling and career and public attention for her marriage and life, then having a separate section clearly labeled "Q-Anon and Conspiracy Theories" seems the best route - what you call "neutralizing" is just wholesale deleting the entire section rather than offering any effort to improve it - with respect, that is not "neutralizing", that is "deleting". I think the section is well-sourced and relevant,and it should be clear to anyone reading it that on the basis of her having once flown with a grocery magnate, she's now falsely accused of everything from Clintons to Trumps to Bushes to Genocide to Satanism to Wayfair to Epstein, etc. I don't know her personally - but my edit history should be clear that I'm trying to introduce actual normal notable facts about these people while documenting the very notable slurs against them. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 00:15, 15 October 2025 (UTC)