Jump to content

Talk:Gina Carano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 213.233.88.151 (talk) at 13:26, 1 February 2021 (→RfC about Criticism Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Strikeforce's 145 division is called Middleweight, and 135 is Welterweight, not Featherwight and Bantamweight

http://www.strikeforce.com/fighters/

CRISTIANE SANTOS - WOMEN'S MIDDLEWEIGHT CHAMPION NICKNAME: CYBORG FIGHTING OUT OF: CHUTE BOXE ACADEMY - BRAZIL HEIGHT: 5 FT 8 IN WEIGHT: 145 LBS AGE: 24 RECORD: 10-1

SARAH KAUFMAN - WOMEN'S WELTERWEIGHT CHAMPION FIGHTING OUT OF: ZUMA MARTIAL ARTS - VICTORIA, CANADA HEIGHT: 5 FT 5 IN WEIGHT: 135 LBS AGE: 24 RECORD: 11-0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delinquent1904 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WEC?

I read a Grappling/MMA magazine two days ago stating that Dana White was considering having Gina Carano fight on WEC "if they could find her a suitable opponent". Dose anyone know or even heard about this? --Dandvsp (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight class

Is there any controversy surrounding the weigh-in? Because the inconvenient-yet convenient "2.75 lbs. of clothing" sounds like a publicity stunt cooked up to capitalize on her looks and titilate male MMA fans. 71.154.4.63 (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree i think the 2.75 seems a lil exaggerated 99.226.241.84 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her first weight in was 142.75, her final weight was 141. 1.75 pounds (not 2.75 as you claim) for cloths isn't out the question when you take into count the skirt she was wearing at the weigh in. I weight 6 pounds more fully clothed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.63.111 (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

American Gladiators reported her weight to be 155 lbs on their show that aired on 1/7/2008; should this weight be trusted? MikeDawg (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. She fights at 140 for EliteXC, the commissions give you a 1 pound allowance for non-title fights, so 141 is probably what she weighed in at for her last fight. I've heard that she has at least some difficulty making that weight, though, so I'd say 155 is probably accurate (or pretty close) for her walking-around weight. The overall trend for WP:MMA is to use their fighting weight, and most of the time someone will update that with whatever they weighed for their last fight. Given that she doesn't have to "make weight" for American Gladiators and her weight is only really important for fighting, it's probably better to leave it at 141 for now. Gromlakh (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to notice the original change [1] because only the English unit was modified, giving an inconsistency. The change was unsourced and was contrary to the American Gladiators page, which lists 141 lbs. Gimmetrow 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I added a section about her MMA weight issues and someone keeps deleting it. I tried to make it as unbiased as possible. Please watch for this and revert it back if the anonymous user keeps doing it. Dumbwhiteguy777 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She tipped the sacle at 144.5 for her last fight, so even going by fighting weight, she's not 140. Please stop changing it back, Gery shaw ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.166.18 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the main article now locked and who's the troll that kept changing her weight back to 140 ! She hasn't made 140 in years ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmitNHB (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Town of birth?

There is no town called Dallas County - that's usually used by some suburbanite who wants to claim Dallas as their hometown. So where is she from, really? 70.2.65.44 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MuayThai.com profile has Dallas, TX as her birth place. ConayR (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert 3

Many rumors indicates she is appearing in Red Alert 3. A character named Natasha. Look at this video.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly true. Madlozoz, 4 june 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.142.250 (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"the third most searched person on Yahoo![1] and the first on Google"

Should this not instead be worded as: the most searched person on Google and the third most on Yahoo? For two reasons, google is more widely used, and the higher award should be credited first. -NeF (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Girls was a Cult Film?

Since when is a reality show called a cult film? Secondly in the same paragraph is says the "film" is based on true events? It is a reality show. Come one who wrote this? MPA 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Mom's name

I see that her mom's surname is reported on this page as Cason and other media reports it as Teepee.Did her mom remarry or which one is the correct madien name.(MgTurtle (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

She's not 11

Age is wrong. Two different birthdates listed as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.108.183 (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://twitter.com/GinaCarano has over 16 thousand followers and its a verified account, http://www.facebook.com/ginacarano she puts links from her twitter account to this account thus proving its hers and she has over 57 thousand fans on her facebook, http://www.myspace.com/ginacarano she has over 79 thousand friends on her myspace account. its worth adding but if you disagree dont just delete the links please contact me first. thanks.--Pauldonald86 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kickboxing record

I noticed we only have one fight in a table but apparently Gina has 12 wins or such in Kickboxing..... anyone care to go through and add the rest of her fights to that record table? Otherwise, we've already got in the infobox that she's got 12 wins and I think a record table with only 1 fight on it when there should be more looks dumb. I will remove it in a few days if no one adds all her kickboxing fights to it. I just don't have any internet access besides wikipedia to do this myself. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gina Carano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gina Carano/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I had read wikipedia about Gina Carano and it said she went to University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

This article, http://www.gershsports.com/Gina_Carano.htmsays she went to the University of Nevada, Reno.

I don't know much about editing wikipedia, but I wanted to bring this to someone's attention.

Thanks for looking into it,

Breakaway11 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 07:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Gina Carano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gina Carano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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..[1] 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."[2]

  1. ^ Carano, Gina. "Sex trafficking protest". Instagram. Retrieved 25/10/2020. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ "Statement on pronouns".

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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 Srostalk 18:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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".[2] 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)[reply]
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 Srostalk 04:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[3] 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[4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @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 Srostalk 20:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gina_Carano&oldid=1004190045"