Talk:Taylor Winterstein

POV tag

There seem to be significant potential issues with weight here, along with things like the use of the pejortive term WAG and borderline 1E issues. I don't have time to go over this immediately, but I've flagged it because of the way this reads like a hit piece towards a living person, which rings alarm bells if nothing else. - Bilby (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• That is an interesting claim about WAG being a pejorative term. There is a WP article, WAGs, which is over 13 years old, and I see nothing about that take on it in the entire thing! (It's a long article, so perhaps I missed it?) I do see that someone added the page to "Category:Pejorative terms for women", but is this actually OK without the article mentioning this "fact" somewhere? Also see here. On another subject, can you explain 1E? Thanks! RobP (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• The intro has been cleaned up to be more balanced and neutral. Hopefully this will alleviate concern over the use of the term WAG! Al Ligorie (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• @Bilby: As requested above, please explain what you mean by "borderline 1E issues" (with a link if possible) and be specific about what you believe still needs to be done to remove the POV banner. RobP (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm at an event at the moment. I'll go over the article when I have time tonight. But given that the article repeated used a sexist term tor efer to the subject, had various claims that were snyth (and still does) or OR, and still suggests significant weight issues, I think the tag remains appropriate. 1E is WP:BLP1E, although if I thought it actually qualified for that the article would be at AfD by now. - Bilby (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Ok, and glad you don't think a deletion is warranted! But what does this mean "had various claims that were snyth (and still does) or OR" ?? RobP (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Hey User:Rp2006 , Wikipedia doesn't condider WAGs a "sexist" term. Odd. Anyway that term has been removed except where quoted or in the title of a cite, not sure why it's still being mentioned. CatCafe (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I said... but the WAG point seems moot now. However, the POV tag remains. I just worked on this a bit more to try to consolidate info and organize it better. I also did a web search for WP:RS that are not critical of the subject, and came up absolutely empty. So if there simply are NO positive sources to add to the article, I do not see how @Bilby: can maintain it has a POV problem. That banner is meant to call attention to the need to add contradictory material to what is already on the page, but if there is none - what can one do, ask her kids or husband for a positive recommendation? Seriously, it seems what she is doing is now universally being slammed as dangerous, and every day more articles of the same nature are decrying her.. I think that is just reality and the article needs to reflect this. RobP (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • We reflect reality, but we also don't overstate things. My concern is that we are pushing relatively small coverage to create a bigger concern. NPOV is more that just making sure we say something positive - it is about due weight and how much we emphasise things to create an image. At any rate, the event I'm at is still going - I'll have a look when I get the opportunity, although personally I wish these articles would be sent toAFC to try to get a more neutral review rather than being posted directly into mainspace. - Bilby (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
• Just so I'm understanding this, the section on the Somoan measles outbreak which makes up the bulk of this article is about Winterstein initially planning to run anti-vax seminars which she then cancelled, and then meeting in a JFK Jr in a private meeting. Then in the second half of the section is about about her making two anti-vax Instagram posts. Is there something I am missing? - Bilby (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the point is that she is still influencing a nation of 200,000 on the most important issue of the country. https://www.wsj.com/articles/measles-kills-more-than-60-in-samoa-11575630183 The only google hits that come up here in the US on Samoa is on the measles outbreak. The island is importing child sized coffins from New Zealand. If the US had the same level of infection we would have 7 million cases! The Samoan government has been shut down due to a decrease in vaccinations from 90% to 30%. Yesterday, the government jailed another prominent anti-vaxxer, Edwin Tamasese, yesterday. A page on Edwin Tamasese would be notable.--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that the Samoan measles crisis is an important issue. We should provide more coverage about the event - I plan on working on this as well. - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Bilby: By downplaying the seriousness of the Measles outbreak to Samoa and the subject's influence on this - including an escalating death count (as is being covered in the ongoing news) - are you now implying that the subject is not even notable?? RobP (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • No, I'm asking if the seemingly minor invovlement of the subject - two Instragram posts and a cancelled seminar, covered mostly in tabloid press - warrants this much weight in the article. Could it be better handled by having the measles epidemic covered in detail elsewhere, and the coverage here reduced to a paragraph or two specifically about the two posts? - Bilby (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

on the neutrality issue...

To hell with neutrality, anti-vaxxers are dangerous lunatics and do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, especially when they have blood on their hands. 110.174.239.155 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Every section that questions or is critical of Winterstein has a secondary sourced response or rebuttal from her (even her unscientific claims) to ensure neutrality. CatCafe (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I might agree, but this is a living sources and you need good sources saying that. I dream of Maple (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

They are mainly mainstream news sources. Reliable. Normal factchecking would apply. CatCafe (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia goes down the path of treating biographies to different standards depending on whether or not we agree with the subject's ideas, we would be better off giving up on the project. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Bilby: It seems to me that you want to enforce an unachievable standard of neutrality here. Show me the RS positive coverage you think should be added to the article to balance its POV. Shall be use some anti-vaxx sources which I'm sure are praising her for standing up to Samoa - as the death toll from what she continues to preach escalates? RobP (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I haven't once sense we need positive coverage to balance the bad. I have said, above, that we need to treat all biographies equally, but that is a different issue. - Bilby (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
    • So perhaps I misunderstood you. So why is there a Neutrality dispute banner now? What does the article need to be more neutral about in your opinion? RobP (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I say issue a edit lock on this Taylor Winterstein given how politically polarized the 2019 Samoan Measles outbreak has been connected to her though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:BD82:B078:CB27:54EB (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Overwhelming coverage of Winterstein and Vaccination

At last count I was counting 50 useable RS news items covering Taylor Winterstein, over 90% about her and vax. Mostly mainstream news outlets, from over the world and many with national coverage. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Taylor+Winterstein%22&client=firefox-b-m&tbm=nws CatCafe (talk) 08:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

This would appear to be the main topic she is covered for. I dream of Maple (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC) <--- —I dream of Maple blocked sock-puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily User:I dream of Maple , her primary claim to her fame is being married to a NRL star, but we were forced to downplay that in the page as apparently it is politically incorrect to focus on that on wikipedia even though the media mostly mention her WAG status constantly. So that topic must be downplayed on WP. I am not responsible for this censorship in tHe article. CatCafe (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

CatCafe, what we don't do is use sexist terms to refer to someone - "WAG" is not an appropriate way of describing a person. The media you are referring to is primarily tabloid press, and we don't need to follow their lead. There's a good piece on the issue in the Independent. - Bilby (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bilby: I don't really care about the WAG issue. In fact, I had never heard the term until I read this page. But now, seeing all the mainstream coverage using it (not just the "tabloid press" as you claim) I don't see how one opinion piece (the Independent article) automatically wins out in creating a social norm. And again, the WP article WAGs has no mention of it being controversial that I saw. More importantly, you have not answered my repeated requests to specify what more needs to be done to make this article more neutral. I believe that banner should now be removed. If you do not, specify why. RobP (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

It is not just the one article, but I thought it explained things well. We have a good essay here at Wikipedia:Writing about women - fundamentally, we don't need to use sexist terminology (defining a woman based on who she is married to using a disparaging acronym) in order to state that she is married to an NRL footballer. We can do that without using terms such as WAG. As to the rest, I had responded to you above - my understanding was that we were discussing due weight. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

User:I dream of Maple, I am happy to reintroduce the football WAG (wife and girlfriend) topic again if you agree and think it would add aditional scope. Her fame associated with her husband is mentioned by almost every source, not just tabloids (ie tabloids such as the Daily Mail). Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

If she were just noted for her husband, wouldn't this be a redirect to her husband's article? Some content on her relationship could be included, but the article should focus on what Winterstein herself has done. --I dream of Maple (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC) <--- —I dream of Maple blocked sock-puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what you suggest above regards the content mix has already been done. CatCafe (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok.--I dream of Maple (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC) <--- —I dream of Maple blocked sock-puppet of banned user - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLPBALANCE, a policy, states: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone (emphasis added). Facts can be verifiable and true, but still be piled on excessively or indiscriminately, turning what should be an encyclopedia article into a running diary of malfeasances. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Tyler Winterstein.gif

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

references in infobox

@Akrasia25:, I removed citations in {{Infobox person}} per WP:INFOBOXREF which states: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious" (emphasis added). Infoboxes simply summarize and repeat crucial information already in the article, similar to MOS:LEADCITE, and footnotes in infoboxes are often visual clutter. I also removed "education = No tertiary qualifications" because this seems contra to guidelines at Template:Infobox_person#Parameters ("e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant"), and seems rather pointed to exaggerate negative aspects of a person. Out of the three footnotes ostensibly verifying her lack of degree and qualifications, the only one that explicitly raises the issue appears to be a self-published blog, which likely violates WP:BLPSPS and should not be used for any BLP claim, regardless of the author. Generally, infobox fields are simply left empty when not applicable (we wouldn't list "death_date = the future" or "occupation = not an astronaut"). Neutral and verifiable facts can still be given undue weight and prominence. The only other change I made was changing "known for = Anti-vaxxer & wife of ex-NRL player" to "known for = Antivaccination advocacy", as I feel it reads more formal, less gossipy and tabloidy (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not a news site, and should read like one, even if daily news is used to build many articles). Your feedback is welcome. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and your arguments make sense and I learned something too. I might just leave the references there in case there are updates and someone can see where the info originally came from and that that information had a good citation.--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)