Talk:Nancy Rue

Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2A02:A31B:2080:9A00:14E6:E3D2:3CDA:92E9 in topic Should a controversy section be added to the article?

why is this page write protected???

edit

bro wtf whoever got rid of the “she likes feet” is brain dead asf KendrickIsGOD (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@KendrickIsGOD you can view the protection log at this link. Regarding feet, I imagine a few reliable sources in inline citations are going to be required for that claim.
Looking at the page history it seems a bot (robot) removed your feet edit, so yes they are technically brain dead. Commander Keane (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not a bot, actually. The page was protected because editors kept adding in the "feet" thing with no citation to a reliable source. You might look at Wikipedia's policy on "original research". Joyous! Noise! 15:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are reliable sources, all of her books, she literally makes fetish content for pdfiles 148.103.28.20 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Her books are not the sources. Someone else needs to write about that in a published reliable source that you can cite. If *I* read a book and analyze the contents, that's original research. If someone writes about that same topic and manages to get it published in a (once again) reliable source, that's something you can quote or summarize and cite. Joyous! Noise! 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Agreed. It is all in her writing. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Completely agree, her fetishization of childrens feet needs to be talked about. these are facts from her books, not heresay. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should a controversy section be added to the article?

edit

While borderline vandalistic edits such as "She likes feet" are obviously stupid, I feel like a "controversy" section to the article described in a more professional manner could be beneficial. JonAmoeba (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. See Wikipedia:CRITS. Still waiting for reliable sources on this topic. Out of curiosity, I did a google search and this "topic" appears to come from X (twitter). See Wikipedia:TWITTER. Commander Keane (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I mean it is pretty valid evidence JHJD11 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, it is not. It's a casual observation from an X user. That is not close to reliable. Joyous! Noise! 16:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Would you like an academic study done on this? What kind of evidence do you need? Feet on her mind in every book, no matter the context. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would like you to quote someone from a reliable published source. Someone's wry observation on X is not that. Joyous! Noise! 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Why would a reliable source want to talk about Nancy Rues fetishization of childrens feet? This is a topic that will not be silenced. The evidence is there, in her books. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The fact you say X makes you a bot. Its Twitter 161.253.25.30 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree but don't insult him, this is Wikipedia JonAmoeba (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
An article about the controversy can still be made without "picking sides" JonAmoeba (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you have any means of messaging outside of Wikipedia? I can send some images from her book. JonAmoeba (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
@JonAmoeba it would achieve nothing, as it would be original research for a Wikipedian to look at pictures from a book and decide that the author likes feet and then add that opinion to the article. Commander Keane (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alright 2A02:A31B:2080:9A00:14E6:E3D2:3CDA:92E9 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)Reply