Jump to content

Talk:Susanna Gibson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft talk:Susanna Gibson)

Notability

[edit]

There is quite a lot of news regarding Gibson but currently no article. Because of the sensitive and personal nature of her recent controversy, I think it is important to create an article and present a fair overview. YordleSquire (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I'm submitting so I apologize for any errors in advance. YordleSquire (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV characterization of controversy

[edit]

In order to prevent any sort of bias in the characterization of the controversy. I have used language straight from the headlines of the majority of the Reliable Source. In particular the phrase "live stream sex acts with husband" YordleSquire (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

TJMSmith (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns

[edit]

My revision of the article on 10Oct2024 has been reverted back repeatedly by another editor. This Talk is my attempt for us to come to consensus rather than additional tit-for-tat revisions. Let's begin with the first paragraph (copied below), which I believe is poorly sourced and violates standards of Biographies_of_living_persons and as such must be deleted immediately without discussion. I did so after explaining why and inviting the other editor to discuss. The other editor apparently disagrees with my assessment, and continues edit_warring in reverting the article back to the form that violates BLP.

Susanna Gibson is a nurse practitioner and former sex worker [the linked Wiki describes behaviors that articles about S.G. do not describe. The sex worker claim violates BLP standards] who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2023.[c.n. (citation needed) ] During the campaign, the Washington Post reported that she had performed sex acts live for money on the Chaturbate [ recommend delete; "for money" is journalisticly inaccurate; "Chaturbate" is obscure, confusing, commercial, and too much detail.] video streaming app.[c.n. to WaPo article] The incident resulted in the race capturing the national spotlight in an unusual manner for a Virginia legislative election. According to Politico, it was the first time that a politician's sex video has spread on the internet. [recommend delete those two sentences from here - such detail belongs lower down if at all].

The introductory paragraph could read as follows:

Susanna Gibson ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2023.[c.n.] During the campaign, the Washington Post reported that she had performed sex acts live on a video streaming app. [c.n.] Following her political defeat in 2023, Gibson founded a 501(c) nonprofit and a separate political action committee, both advocating against non consensual distribution of intimate images, gender-based and sexual violence, as well as intimate privacy violations.[c.n. to press articles about myownimage.]

The bio box's metadata includes "website" which should list myownimage.org. Pmcc3 (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki for Chancellor Joe Gow could be a model for the S.G. wiki. Pmcc3 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory paragraph is supposed to summarize what is already in the article. As it currently stands, I believe it does so.
S1 - Business insider and a number of other sources have described what she did as sex work. It's an accurate description that is well cited. The sex worker Wikipedia article is not very relevant but if you want to unlink it, in the spirit of compromise I do not object. It also summarizes the first paragraph of the body.
S2 - I've removed "opponent leaked" from the sentence based on your concern. The "for money" portion is supported by multiple sources including the Washington Post. Chaturbate became a significant factor in the controversy so I think it's reasonable to include that detail. Business Insider's headline: "The future of abortion rights in Virginia may depend on what voters think of Chaturbate". It's also a fair summary of the second paragraph.
S3 - I think it is an ok summary of the incident as described in the third paragraph of the section, but I will not object to removing that specifically.
S4 - It summarizes the content about the incident and speaks to its significance. Politico's recap of the incident is worth including and is the focus of the fourth paragraph.
Regarding your proposed introduction, that would cause problems regarding biography of living persons. A press release is not a reliable source. It's also not what she's relevant for although her activism could be noted in a fifth sentence in the introduction. Vagenie1 (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you mentioned Monica Lewinsky on my talk page. It's worth noting that out of 80 sources used in that article, only 13-22 (9 total, so about 10% of the total sources) are introduced in the section on the scandal. In contrast, on this article, we have 14 citations and 10 are directly about the incident with the incident referenced prominently in the rest as well. Our article should reflect the sources. Vagenie1 (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues were discussed a year ago. The main issue is distinguishing a single event versus a biography of a (living) person. That discussion was archived 21Sep2023, and since then S.G. lost the election and formed an NGO. The latter biographical information would sustain this article; without it, the article is a single-event topic, not a BLP (cf. at 'newsy' in the discussion).

The Business Insider link was not in the prior revisions. It's use of 'sex worker' is poorly sourced. The original WaPo article puts 'tips' in quotation marks because they are not tips in the sense a reader might think. Streaming a Mario Kart session doesn't make a person a 'formula 1 driver.' Chaturbate should not be in the introductory paragraph for the reasons I noted already; it could be later in the body text, if at all.

As a point of comparison, there is no mention of 'sex worker' in the article about Joe Gow, and Gow and his wife are unapologetically seeking revenue (dollars) on paid porn sites like OnlyFans, according to news stories. You're not going to succeed in inserting 'sex worker' into S.G.'s article - Wikipedia will police that for its own legal protection. I suggest that we try to reach agreement elsewhere.

Apparently you misread my phrase "press article" as "press release". Here is the article that I was thinking of.

So, I hope we may be coming to an agreement on the wording. I think a mutually agreeable introductory paragraph that doesn't violate Wiki's BLP policies could be the following (with each sentence accompanied by at least one appropriate source, not shown here):

Susanna Gibson is a nurse practitioner who ran unsuccessfully for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2023. During the campaign, the Washington Post reported that she had performed sex acts live on a video streaming app. It was the first time that a politician's sex video had spread on the internet. Following her political defeat, Gibson founded an NGO advocating against non consensual distribution of intimate images, gender-based and sexual violence, as well as intimate privacy violations.

Pmcc3 (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider is a perfectly reliable news source and, therefore, sex worker is well-sourced. Chaturbate is core to her notability, per reliable sources, and belongs in the introductory sentence.
The Washington Post headline does not have tips in quotation. Neither does the primary body of the article explaining her activities:
I did misread press article for press release. However, Henrico Citizen, which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, doesn't belong on the same level as the AP, Washington Post, Politico, etc. that have extensively covered her activities and resulting notoriety. Aside from that the phrasing "advocating against non consensual distribution of intimate images, gender-based and sexual violence, as well as intimate privacy violations" is clunky. I'm not opposed to a sentence saying "She has since become an activist for stronger legal penalties against revenge porn." being added to the introductory paragraph (cited to the AP).
Also, I'm not sure if you're representing someone related to this topic but if you are -- might be worth having their attorneys bring it to Wikipedia's legal department's attention instead of making legal threats here. Vagenie1 (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few additional sources for sex work:
  • Slate: " No matter how the residents of Virginia’s 57th District feel about their would-be delegate doing sex work on a public platform"
  • A Virginia Democratic strategist in the local paper: " We are going to have candidates who’ve had some variety of sex work."
  • Washington Post letters to the editor headline: "Sex work does not disqualify a person from political office"
This is more than enough to substantiate the label in addition to the original Washington Post article, Business Insider, and other sources all describing her activities as sex work, any reasonable definition of the term includes performing sex acts for tips. Vagenie1 (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BI article quotes an unnamed journalist - that's what I mean by poorly sourced: Some journalists questioned the Post's decision to publicize the story, with one describing it as "outing a sex worker." The first sentence of the WaPo article puts tips in quotation marks. (Titles are typically written by others and have a different style guides compared to body text. As in legislation, the body text controls; the title and section headings do not.) I haven't read the Slate article.

I am not representing anyone, and I didn't make a threat. My point is that if one reads the BLP wiki page, your revisions clearly violate the rules. Especially if you read the first section of the BLP page, and in particular footnote 1 there, it's clear that Wikipedia is interested in protecting itself legally (cf. "If you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false, and it makes you feel suspicious enough to want to tag it as [citation needed], please do not do that! Please just remove the statement and ask a question on the talk page."). That was my point. We could go back and forth with you adding 'sex worker' and me or someone else deleting it, but to what purpose? At some point, some administrator will freeze or delete the S.G. page, disable one or both of our accounts, or both of those cures. Pmcc3 (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources say she did this for tips. That being said, you may want to take this to WP:BLPN. --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was...she did this for money (tips), which would make this "sex work". Magnolia677 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you cite says "if you see an unsourced statement that would be libel if false… remove the statement." The point is that this statement is not unsourced.
To be clear, the Business Insider article also writes that "a history of sex work may impact the fate of Democrat Susanna Gibson in the 57th" in its own voice. And while Washington Post does put tips in quotations in some instances, it does not in others also in the body as I quoted above and writes that she stated she was "raising money for a good cause".
I feel like we are splitting hairs. She performed live streamed sex acts for money — ie., she was a sex worker. Both of those facts are substantiated by reliable sources meaning there is no WP:BLP issue. Vagenie1 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the last sentence in the BI article from which you quote is simply summarizing the comment earlier in the article from the anonymous person. The WaPo uses quotation marks in the very first instance of the use of "tips" and by its style guide, I presume, they wouldn't keep using quotation marks thereafter. The other sources are derivative from the WaPo article. Your last paragraph provides an opening for consensus: we might agree on the reporting of the actions, but we disagree whether the label 'sex worker' is accurate.

You used it in a revision dated 31Aug24 with no citation; I guess that was its first use in the history. You put it back on 19Oct24 when you reverted my revision of 10Oct24. Our discussion here has convinced me that you are invested in that label appearing in the article for reasons unrelated to improving Wikipedia. So I will take this to WP:BLPN as suggested above byMagnolia677. Pmcc3 (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd you would remove @Magnolia677's comment (I've re-added it). Two editors disagree with your disagreement with the description. And yes, I may have added it without a citation specifically using those words because, as I continue to believe, it is supported by the reporting on her actions. But, since you challenged it, I provided multiple reliable sources using it. Vagenie1 (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coming here from BLPN, there appears to be an excessive focus on salacious details that were picked up by news media, and that focus does not appear to be getting balanced with concerns regarding WP:BLP sensititives or WP:NOTNEWS, especially when it is not clear to me that this individual is even sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. A failed state-level candidate who received media attention only during their political candidacy is not generally going to be notable. If this person is notable and has received enduring, significant coverage of her or her life, then I would recommend that editors focus on news coverage occurring after the election that is more likely to provide a balanced, neutral view of her and her life. Even better would be to rely on sources that are not news articles. – notwally (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLP redux

[edit]

The WP:LEAD is for the most important facts about a person. See also point #3 of the WP:HARM#TEST. Polygnotus (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susanna_Gibson&oldid=1254392741"