Talk:Nick Carter

Accuracy of the Carter family's older half sibiling's name

Many different sources throughout the years have stated the Carter sibilings including Nickolas to have a half sister named Ginger not Virgina.

He isn't jewish. The mother would have to be jewish for a child to become jewish. kingjeff

Um, no. Conversion happens. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 16:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

His father is Jewish. So please add that he also has a jewish heritage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.21.177 (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Source? Meany (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

nick does have a daughter!!

It doesn't say Nick has a daughter.It says Nick's first step-mom and dad have a daughter named Virginia.!!

nick is mormon

I think you're confusing him with Paul Walker. He isn't a Mormon unless he converted recently or something... Ah, I see About.com trivia says he's a Mormon for some reason,[2], but this almost certainly not true, or it'd be at least somewhere else on the net or in Jane Carter's books. Mad Jack O'Lantern 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Change The Picture

He looks terrible in that photo. Please change!

Baby16 21:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC) I TOTALLY SECOND THAT MOTION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.40.91 (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

His tattoo phrase is incorrect.

The tattoo that he used to cover up Paris Hilton's name has a skull and cross bones, and the phrase 'Old habits die hard'.

Nick Carter has never confirmed to dating Julie. Because there is no evidence to back that up, I don't think it's an accurate enough fact to be credited on Wiki.

Nick Carter has never confirmed to dating Julie. Because there is no evidence to back that up, I don't think it's an accurate enough fact to be credited on Wiki.

On September 29, 2006, Nick Carter claimed on The Howard Stern Show that he lost his virginity to Debra Lafave when they were classmates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.13.70.100 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC) By publishing changes, you agree to the Trems of Use, and irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the and the You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative (Briefly describe your changes) This page is a member of 1 hidden category (help) :

References

Nick's other movie...

Hi! Was just wondering, how come his earlier movie, the one which was kind of a remake of the Sleepy Hollow, not mentioned here?

Also, yah, I agree with the earlier comment, please change the featured pic... Thanks!

Kaos2dafrack 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect?

Why is this article semi-protected? It barely sees any activity. --MgCupcake 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nick's Myspace page

He now has a Myspace page, which he updates fairly regularly with video blogs. [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.20.131 (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Whitney loves Nick SOOOO much, she just loves him.

50age b43ge

sh643d we 0ent56n h5s rather 3arge b43dge 5n the 50age ca-t56n. 5'0 s6rry b4t 0y 2eyb6ard 5s 0a3f4nt56n5ng. can th5s 0essage be 4nderst66d/ can any6ne he3- 0e f5x th5s -r6b3e0/ -3ease.^MY♥_INchile 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== cardiomyopathy ==<

He recently announced to People magazine that he has been diagnosed with cardiomyopathy.<------slytheringal>

I've changed the picture

I think the other picture was a bit old, so I've changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hojalata (talk • contribs) 19:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very bad article

That's all I have to say. Jermor (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I'd agree. They say nothing about his work as a director of movies, nothing about his girlfriend who he has been dating for over 2 years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.236.136 (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry, religion and political beliefs??

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sing your posts by typing four tildes Your IP address will be deleted. Encylopedic content must be Work sumbmitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed-by anyone- subject to ∈ As there is nothing in the current article to any of the above. I don't believe though that he has been vocal about politics. Gaelic Rules (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He has Jewish and Blackfeet ancestry, and he's a Christian. I don't have any source at hand though. Need to find them first. Krystaleen (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Carter and Spaulding are both Anglo-Saxon in origin. I don't have a source, but I'd suggest he was of English descent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.68.21 (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In that book his mother wrote there's a section about his ethnicity/heritage and religious belief but I don't have the book.--Krystaleen 04:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting Nick Carter doesn't have any Jewish/Blackfoot ancestors, but it's fairly obvious he has considerable British (primarily English, Scottish, Welsh) ancestry.

"Spaulding" is an English name that came into America via the Puritans (English protestant) during the 1600s. http://www.genyourway.com/sp-hist.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.68.21 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course he has English or European ancestry, it's a given. But his father is Jewish and Nick had a blackfoot tattoo on his chest, when asked about the tattoo he explained that he has a Blackfoot root.--Krystaleen 05:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nick Carter (musician). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715163726/http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/12/tv_realty_tv/main1798485.shtml to http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/12/tv_realty_tv/main1798485.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usmagazine.com/news/nick-carter-opens-up-about-excessive-drug-alcohol-abuse
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130411050431/http://kaos-online.com/2011/05/26/man-of-the-moment-nick-carter/ to http://kaos-online.com/2011/05/26/man-of-the-moment-nick-carter/

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) 15:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

why doesn't this article mention the rape and assault allegations? 2606:6000:61C8:2600:F006:3955:CF16:D726 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)anonymous

Seconded. Whether he was convicted or not, the allegations are a serious and significant thing to have happened and shouldn't be left off his page.119.224.85.209 (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This article definitely ought to have the sexual assualt allegations. I heard it in the news before, and i couldn't find it here. Thus, this article is suspect is practicing historical negationism. Not only did the victim of the assault, Melissa Schuman , speak to the credibility of the assault. His own brother, Aaron, did albeit they are feuding right now. Schuman case: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/entertainment/nick-carter-sexual-assault-case/index.html Aaron feud talk: https://radaronline.com/photos/nick-carter-sexual-assault-accusations-exposed-aaron-carter-feud/ Ap4lmtree2 (talk) 11:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Substance abuse

Question: When did Nick started drinking at 9 years old? 108.46.251.85 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why are the children's names on Personal Life? Plus, I put relationships subheading to separate the topics. 108.46.251.85 (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

LGBT categories

Over the past few weeks, there's been a long-running editwar between anonymous IPs over whether Nick Carter belongs in "LGBT" categories or not. First an anonymous IP adds him to Category:LGBT musicians and Category:LGBT people from the United States (which would not be the correct categories even if he is LGBT, because the LGBT musicians category is quadrantized into individual "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" and "transgender" subcategories, and Category:LGBT musicians from the United States also exists as an occupational subcategory), and then another anonymous IP removes the categories, and then another anonymous IP readds them. But none of the anon IPs ever use an edit summary, or a post on the talk page, to explain why they're adding or removing the categories. I've personally witnessed this process repeating at least three times now even though I don't normally pay any attention to this page at all, and from perusing the edit history I see that there have been additional incidents of this that I wasn't privy to as well.

Because categorizing people as LGBT is frequently misused as a form of attack editing against people that certain online denizens simply don't like (e.g. Justin Bieber) and/or a form of involuntary outing, people cannot be categorized as LGBT without sourcing being present in the article to support that they're out as LGBT. This article currently does not contain any content or sourcing to support that Nick Carter identifies as LGBT — on a Google search to see if any sources were possible, I did find this, which is kind of ambiguous about how he does or doesn't self-identify his sexuality (he kind of says he's bisexual and not bisexual at the same time), so it's not clear-cut one way or the other and requires dewbate. I think it's a no, personally, but I can imagine that other people might feel differently. all I actually get is sources about Aaron kinda sorta calling himself bisexual in an interview and then half-assedly walking it back a few days later, with no sources for Nick being LGBTQ-identified at all.

Note that Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States is not affected by this — inclusion in that category does not necessarily imply that the subject is LGBT, as it is entirely possible for straight people to be pro-LGBT allies. That category has also at times been removed as part of this editwar, but I have not personally removed it pending resolution of this discussion as it doesn't directly imply anything about Nick Carter's own sexuality (though obviously I have no issue with the fact that somebody else chose to remove it afterward, as I don't know enough about Nick Carter's views to litigate the question.)

Accordingly, I've removed the sexuality categories and applied a week of semi to the page to prevent the editwarring, and would like some input from other editors on whether categorizing him as LGBT is warranted or not. Also, if I keep running into repeat spins around this maypole even without actually having any active interest in this page at all, that implies that there aren't enough people actually watching the page anymore, so it may need some new active watchlisters to help control the issue in the future. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed Category:LGBT rights activists from the United States because of the same lack of evidence in the article. We need sources and article support for any of these. Elizium23 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with removal until there's adequate sourcing in the article. For a point of clarification: Unless I'm missing something, this is about Aaron Carter (Nick Carter's brother, or someone else entirely). Urve (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Gah, you're right. I didn't even really pay careful attention to the name involved, and just glossed right over that in search of whether it supported queerness. In other words, that's even less valid than I already thought (and note that even having missed that it was about Aaron instead of Nick, I already didn't think it was solid.) Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good use of semiprotection per BLP. I looked for sources and found none. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Baby News

Nick's nickname is not, I repeat, NOT Junior, so I don't where that came from. and Found out something big: Nick and Lauren are expecting their third child.108.46.251.85 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Legal Confusion

Okay, can someone please tell me how was Nick's sister BJ and brother-in-law Mike Ashton even involved with the restraining orders? It was only Nick and Angel who filed against Aaron. I even found of it myself right here.

1. https://www.tmz.com/2019/11/20/aaron-carter-restraining-order-court-brother-nick-sister-angel/

2. https://people.com/music/aaron-carter-twin-sister-restraining-order-extended/

3. https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8530283/nick-carter-restraining-order-against-aaron-carter

4. https://www.etonline.com/aaron-carters-brother-nick-granted-1-year-restraining-order-136773

5. https://www.eonline.com/news/1095408/nick-carter-granted-one-year-restraining-order-against-aaron-carter

See? There was no mention of BJ or Mike in any of the articles. 108.46.251.85 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Contentious unproven allegations

Unproven allegations have been repeatedly added to, and removed from, this article. An IP editor has made a legal threat in relation to the material being included. I blocked the IP range under the policy on legal threats. However, I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material. For convenience I am posting here a copy of comments by Daniel and myself posted at WP:AN/I. JBW (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely no issue with the block for NLT, obviously that's black and white. And on the face of it, I agree that removal of sourced information is generally revertable with minimum thought. But let's take a step back here and think about this. I think it's fair to say that this person is either the subject, or someone associated with the subject. The sentence they are trying to remove is sourced, so agree that it has the right to be included. But is it a fair representation of the sources and situation (WP:NPOV)? For me, no. It doesn't mention that he denied the claims. It doesn't mention any of his viewpoint. Right now, that paragraph reads to someone who doesn't click thru to the source as if the only thing that 'saved' him was the statute of limitations, and does not even touch on the fact that he denied the claims. In my view, I can just about understand the removal of content by a person closely associated with the subject, given the emotion they would feel reading it presented the way it is. I feel like we can make some changes here to benefit the presentation of the information, and improve the content around this paragraph to make it more reflective of the situation (and hence, neutral). Thoughts? (Pinging those who have edited the article recently @Vedbas:, @Johnnie Bob:, @CodeTalker:, and blocking administrator @JBW:.) Daniel (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am largely inclined to agree, Daniel. In fact on reflection I wonder whether a friendly explanation and warning might have been better than an immediate block. I will look again at the disputed content, and if I find I am substantially in agreement with your view I shall remove it, and I suggest that if anyone thinks it should be restored they seek consensus before doing so. In dealing with negative statements about a living person we should err on the side of excluding material if in doubt. JBW (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Privacy

I have removed names and exact dates from non-notable family members that we do not need to include, per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Elizium23 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations

I feel that the sexual assault allegations in regards to Nick Carter should be added as it's a matter of public record. Initially I added all 3 incidences that had been reported to police, as well as statements from Nick Carter where they were reported. The edit was reverted on the basis no charges were laid. Nick Carter is a public figure and there for the allegations, which are notable and well sourced should be added per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I have added the blog of the initial Melissa Schuman allegation as the many news reports refer to it and Nick Carter's statement is based on the blog so I within the context it's important to add the primary source. Also it seems this has been discussed above in "Controversy" where 3 different users agreed the allegations should be added and then again in "Contentious unproven allegations" where the main point of contention was neutrality. In my edit I added sources and comments from alleged victim's, police and Nick Carter / his representatives. (Redacted) Pinging @Meters: and @Beauty School Dropout: who reverted my edits so we can hopefully come to a consensus. Persianprince99 (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianprince99 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I came across this talk page on Dustin Hoffman, which I found interesting as the proposed changes were written by his publicist (COI was stated). I thought it may be a little useful as a way of comparison as allegations were made, he replied but nothing very significant came of them

There is also this article on Morgan Freeman where allegations of harassment have been documented under the "Personal Life". In this case the allegations were not credible but they were still included. I'm including this as the article was reviewed and given GA status

Now I know that just because other articles have been edited in a certain way doesn't mean it has bearing on how this will be edited but I thought it was a good talking point and a bit of a framework to how allegations, regardless of veracity, can be documented in high quality articles.Persianprince99 (talk) 06:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Your ping failed. You cannot add a ping to an existing, signed comment. Repinging user:Beauty School Dropout for you.

As I said in my edit summary: We don't normally discuss accusations unless they result in convictions, let alone ones that don't even result in charges. Meters (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your reading of the previous discussions is badly flawed. As user:JBW posted after the material was removed in June: I think there is a good case for keeping the material out of the article, and I ask that anyone thinking otherwise should seek consensus here before restoring the disputed material. You restored the material, and more, three times, before bringing it to the talk page. Meters (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Meters for your help with pinging and I apologise for my ignorance regarding the 3 edits. I understand with BLP allegations need to be treated carefully and while usually they aren't added unless there is a conviction there is a stipulation with public figures "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." In regards to the discussion between user:JBW and user:Daniel the edit in question was a one line edit stating allegations were made and then dismissed. My edit was substantially different as it included quotes from multiple parties and multiple sources.Persianprince99 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

He was not convicted in any of these cases. He wasn't even charged in any of these cases. They are simply accusations about events from many years ago, and we have to assume that he was innocent. The material has been removed multiple times by various editors. You need to get consensus to include this material.

It may be that editors decide to include some version of this information, but as it is it is there is far too much detail, and it is unacceptably WP:POV. Starting off with "Nick Carter has been subject to a number of sexual assault allegations throughout his life." is not a neutral, for example. Meters (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, re-reading that sentence I would be happy to leave it out. I agree there shouldn't be any assumptions on innocence or guilt, which is why I added the detail I did to cover all sides. I think there is a tendency to argue including the material leads people to make assumptions about innocence but I argue that including the material is vitally important to keep people from making assumptions. I think it's fair to think that people are likely to come to this page knowing about the allegations but not knowing they were dropped or dismissed for e.g.Persianprince99 (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how my edit is too detailed and issues you have with neutrality? From my POV the detail I added was to succinctly describe the allegations, the police statements and Nick's statements. I was considering extending the quote from Brian Littrell saying that the group stand by their bandmate so there's no misunderstanding with his intent. In a revision I would also remove Nick's friends name as he isn't a public figure.Persianprince99 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on sexual assault allegations

Is the inclusion of sexual assault allegations in line with BLP policy for public figures?Persianprince99 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why are you opening an RFC over whether this is a BLP violation when the discussion on whether to include this has not reached consensus yet? Meters (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that this is the editor's attempt to get at a consensus on that question.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:The RFC question appears to presuppose that the decision of whether or not to include this information is determined simply by whether this is a BLP issue. That's not correct. If it is a BLP issue it does not go in, but that does not mean that it should be included if it isn't a BLP issue. If it isn't a BLP issue then we're just back to the original thread again (where the BLP issue should have been raised in the fist place) to determine consensus. The RFC was opened long before any consensus in the existing talk page discussion could be reached. Meters (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Maybe I'm wrong or not quite understanding but the reason my edit to the article was reverted by yourself was because the allegation didn't result in a conviction and that isn't normally included, to me that seemed to be referring to normal BLP policy but not accounting for the public figure section that allegations belong in the article if they meet certain criteria. Rather than addressing the public figure criteria you simply reiterated the fact they aren't normally included so that's why I opened the RFC.Persianprince99 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You opened the RFC prematurely, and you still seem to be assuming that BLP is the only concern here. It is not. I've already pointed out that there is far too much detail, and that the coverage is not neutral. I'm not against mentioning this material at all, but certainly not in the way you have presented it. Meters (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

For my part, yes, I understand the argument you're making. But I don't think this is going to be all settled out by one RfC or two. Getting this article back into FA shape is going to take time and multiple corrections.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel we got off on the wrong foot due to mistakes I've made in procedure due to being a new user. At the time I created this RFC BLP seemed to be the only issue cited and issues of detail and neutrality weren't brought up. So at this point do we agree that the allegations should be acknowledged in the article?Persianprince99 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that has not been decided, and that discussion does not belong in this RFC. You've gone from assuming that your material will be included as is if it's not a BLP issue, to assuming that the material will be covered in some form.

As for the question you raised in this RFC, in my opinion it is a WP:BLP violation as you wrote it. Can this material be covered in some form that is not a BLP violation? It's probably possible to cover at least some of this material. I don't think it would be a BLP violation to briefly and neutrally mention well sourced accusations in the case of a public figure. Whether all of the incidents, or even just some of them need to be covered, and if so in how much detail is what needs to be decided (and again, that's not what you called this RFC on). Meters (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Let's be clear this RFC is not about my edit specifically. There have been multiple discussions on whether or not the allegations belong in this article so I am looking to reach consensus on that initially. I am quite clearly discussing issues of my edit under a different section. I simply asked if we (as in you and I) agree that the allegations should be in the article as your original position was "we don't normally discuss allegations without charges" but above you have mentioned to not being against mentioning the material at all so I was seeking to clarify your position. Persianprince99 (talk) 08:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your RFC is very poorly worded, and does not properly address your issue. It can be interpreted as applying to any article rather than just this one, in which case this is probably the wrong place ask it it. Assuming that you mean to restrict it to just this article, you are asking a YES/NO question. A YES means that we can't mention the allegations, but a NO does not mean that we do mention them, just that it is not a BLP violation to do so. I've already given my opinion on this RFC. I believe your edit as written was a BLP violation. Is is possible to mention the accusations without violating BLP? Yes, probably. So what? If others agree, then the RFC is done and we can start working on reaching a consensus on how much, if any, of this material should be included, and in how much detail. You added it four times. It was removed by three different editors. Previous versions have also been removed. As it stands, it stays out unless editors reach consensus on something that can be added. Meters (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand your points but it seems you aren't assuming good faith on my part, which is frustrating and it's also frustrating that you continue to point out all the things I've done wrong with very little help in resolving the issues. I've asked for your input above in the "sexual assault allegations" section and you haven't replied. You haven't given me much to go on with WHY you think my edit was a BLP violation besides the neutrality issue around the first sentence. If I open a new RFC how would you suggest I frame the current issues? Persianprince99 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing at all about whether you were editing in good faith.

Your edit as written was so POV as to be a BLP violation, in my opinion. As to why I am not attempting to resolve the issues, as I've said more than once, you started this RFC prematurely. I'm waiting for it to be closed. If the RFC closes as YES then simply mentioning the incidents is a BLP violation and the material cannot be included, so I see no point in attempting to improve the material until the RFC closes. These accusations cover incidents from many years ago. There's no rush. Meters (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Depends on the coverage level (which translates into broad reader interest). "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This is not noteworthy and relevant, in an encyclopedic context, unless there is a great deal of source material about it, since it was just an accusation that was dismissed and resulted in no charges much less a conviction. I don't know much about this person, so I'm not sure whether there is sufficient reliable independent coverage of this, in more than a short-term news way, to make this worth including. Our general norm is to not include crime allegations absent a convinction, but there can be exceptions. We should be clear on the rationale for inclusion or exclusion. My gut reaction is that this is too trivial and ephemeral, but if, for example, there was a social media campaign against him as a result of the accusations and it is still somewhat ongoing, then it might be worth inclusion, along with the fact that no case resulted from it, since a significant number of readers may be coming here looking for the facts about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense and while coverage level is quite a broad concept I do find the allegations should fit the criteria. There has been considerable coverage from the first publicised allegation in 2006 to present time. In an effort to quantify this the keywords "Nick Carter sexual assault" show 24 million results and Google Trends worldwide over the past 5 years in relation to the search term "Nick Carter" show both "Nick Carter sexual assault" and "Nick Carter Melissa Schuman" as breakout trends. Melissa Schuman is the one of the people making an allegation and also a public figure. Also, Nick's brother, Aaron Carter (also a public figure) has spoken out about the allegations over the past 2 years in a number of well publicised interviews and I'd say a large amount of public interest is coming from that as well.Persianprince99 (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I said I didn't want to get involved in the conversation, but I was just following up & I thought I'd just pop in to make some suggestions with regard to search engines: Google results differ by locale (why? I don't know), so the exact numbers one editor gets may vary from those of another, but they shouldn't differ by an order of magnitude. When I search for nick carter sexual assault, I actually only get 8.6 million results, which is hard to square with the 24 million above. (I am not accusing Persianprince99 of lying: I do not think they're lying. I am just trying to figure out what we did differently.) However, I don't think this is a very good search: It's just going to return every indexed page which has all four of these words in it (I know that that's a simplification). If someone's writing slash fiction about Nick Cage sexually assaulting Jimmy Carter, it'll turn up. If I group the terms thus: "nick carter" "sexual assault", I get two million hits. I would still want to be a little more careful, but all ten hits on the first page are stories about allegations against Nick Carter. But really for an issue like this, I want to know that there's news coverage. So looking in news.google.com, if I do the same search, I only get 2,680 results. Four of the top ten results deal with this Nick Carter & the sexual abuse allegations. Several of the other six help uncover things that we would want to be conscious of in evaluating quantitative indicators like this: Nick Carter is also the name of a British general who was, until recently, the chief of the UK's defense staff. He appears in a number of stories about sexual assault within the British armed forces—including three of the top ten news.google.com hits—advocating for structural changes within the British military to better protect female soldiers & address instances of abuse. There's also a rapper Nick Carter who appears in a list of news stories, another of which deals with sexual assault. (That is, that Nick Carter was not relevant to the sexual assault story, but appeared in the same search result.) That said, all of the hits on the second page of news.google.com results were about the sexual assault allegations against this Nick Carter. It seems likely—but I'm just hypothesising—that most of these 2,680 results are about these allegations against this Nick Carter, but it's worth a little digging. (If you assume that any story about this Nick Carter will include the word 'backstreet', you end up with 1,970 Google News hits from "nick carter" "sexual assault" "backstreet".) I really don't have an opinion about whether this story is notable or not. Pathawi (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You're right about Google. I've just gone to replicate my result and instead I've gotten 12 million results, which is still wildly different to yours as well. I know the algorithm is tailored so perhaps my increased searching has led to more results being visible? In regards to the Google News, that is also a frustrating one, in the sense not all legitimate news articles are shown. For example in my edit I cited a 2006 article from Broward Palm Beach New Times and it only shows up via Google search. I suspect this is partly due to it being an older publication and/or because it is a local news source. I think Google Trends is still fairly indicative that people are searching for it and while the keywords "nick carter sexual assault" can relate to the other Nick Carter's there is at least the qualifying "nick carter melissa Schuman" breakout trend, which only relates to this Nick Carter.

Digging into the Google News side a bit more if I search "Nick Carter" "Singer" "Sexual Assault" I get 2,070 results. To provide some context in terms of notability "nick carter" "backstreet boys" gets 18,800 results, "nick carter" "house of carters" gets 572 results, "nick carter" "lauren kitt" gets 1,790 results and "nick carter" "masked singer" gets 1,610 results. So as far as notability in context for this person you can see that sexual assault allegations are quite notable. In a wider context Nick Carter is named in a number of articles about the #metoo movement such as , and Persianprince99 (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I've looked in a little more at the coverage of the topic and also page views for this article and it seems that the highest monthly peak of 300,000+ views happened in September 2019. and that actually correlates directly with the assault allegations being in the news again. It is the same time Nick filed a restraining order against his brother Aaron and central to the articles were the sexual assault allegations against Nick. Examples here , https://hollywoodlife.com/2019/09/18/aaron-carter-nick-rape-accusations-restraining-order-response/ and here .Persianprince99 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• No (exclude) - This does not meet BLP, and also that’s not the only issue. BLP requires wide coverage by third party cites, not a blog by an accuser. Also seeing notes above of legal threats, request to not include for discussion, dealing with negative statements about a living person we should err on the side of excluding material if in doubt, and it being long ago with him not convicted or even charged. Seems inappropriate for taking to RFC. (Also, it doesn’t seem significant for a biography so doesn’t belong.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and this speaks to the issue with my generalised RFC wording that User:Meters mentioned, the edits that have previously been made cite more than a blog. They were reported on in mainstream media and a police investigation resulted. My edit includes 2 other allegations that have also been reported on and investigated by police. My edit is here , this is the edit from 2019 and this was the edit reversion by someone claiming it was libel, which led to the discussion under "Contemptious unproven allegations" https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nick_Carter_(musician)&diff=prev&oldid=1028570927Persianprince99 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)