Talk:Raven-Symoné

4027:

some random, controversial statements that social media and some media outlets gossip about for a few days doesn't automatically make it worthy enough to be included in an encylopedia. And clearly, as was also pointed out, the content was written and displayed in a highly non-neutral and POV manner, which some could say resembled an attack section. To me, the section header itself, "Controversies with racial overtones," was the clearest indicator of the section's inappropriate intent. Beyond the obvious undue weight issues overall, some of the content was just pure nonsense. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that controversial statements by a celebrity should only be included in their article if they have a significant impact culturally or in the person's life or career, and of course can be verified by high-quality sources. I don't think any of those conditions are met in this case.

2547: 609: 1923: 1905: 582: 1754: 1727: 1260: 1647: 1626: 691: 619: 1657: 1857: 3756:

down and inside out, you must be crazy. Then you came up with the most asinine objection I have ever heard, that it's not weaved into the rest of the article. No, we do not weave fact about controversies in the career section. Please look up Knowledge policy. Just because you don't like that the media has been centrally focused on Raven Symone for the last three weeks and would rather not like the information in the article doesn't mean you get your way.

1764: 1250: 4561:

She made a statement. Big deal. It's her job to voice her opinion. Shock jocks say controversial stuff all day long. What will her statement mean if Trump isn't elected? What will it mean ten years from now? What will it mean if she doesn't carry out her threat? It's meaningless fluff, because nothing's happened yet. Knowledge isn't a newspaper and it's not our duty to catalog every asinine thing a talk show host says. Case in point: the

1521: 1229: 2067: 1869: 1552: 1422: 972: 752: 219: 1994: 550: 1973: 1358: 1334: 292: 464: 436: 2137: 1368: 3607:, among others. Is someone going to add a new subsection every time she makes a comment regarding race? I should also add that, of the six current subsections, the one about her views on hiring people with "black names" is perhaps the most disturbing because of its extensive length and detail; it easily could have been adequately summed up in just a few sentences. Finally, simply having the words " 3021:

purposes unless and until it gets followed up by a confirmatory statement in another media venue — I won't even take a musician who tweets the title of his or her new album seriously until the record label's followup press release goes out, because I've even seen cases where something as seemingly simple and straightforward and uncontroversial as that still turned out to be incorrect information.)

3513: 268: 2304: 405: 526: 1468: 1450: 4142: 3645:

careers that have prompted short-term media coverage and social media backlashes. But then the incidents are quickly forgotten and have no lasting, significant impact on the person's life or career. And it is that point in particular that should determine if a comment or an incident is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I think

3405: 3564: 474: 4709:, which includes "Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue..." The fact that Raven-Symonè's opinion is expressed as a "promise" doesn't strike me as significant enough to make a difference. 4565:

article discusses a few of his more noteworthy controversies, but it also provides context and reaction and isn't focused on things he's saying now. Similar conversations have occurred above (See "Controversies with racial overtones" section) about the subject's controversial statements. Reading them

4531:

I disagree. Threatening to leave your country over a minor thing like the candidate from another political party winning is a major statement. Especially for someone who is on a nationally televised talk show. I am inclined to keep this section on the page until Ravaven-Symone retracts her statement.

3912:

have partly disagreed with, anyway. That stated, the content that Drmies removed was presented in a way that is not close to ideal, as noted above. I do think that the content belongs in the article, though, but with better wording and formatting (including cuts where needed), whether it's integrated

3755:

You have a lot of flipping nerve coming in and deleting that much material without first discussing. Don't ever do it again. You come in and take it upon yourself to remove an entire well-sourced section of material without first discussing like that and you think I am not going to censure you upside

3644:

Thank you, Cyphoidbomb. Your points are very good and relevant. Also, just because a celebrity says something controversial or polarizing doesn't mean it's notable enough to be included in an enyclopedia. With regard to Stern and many others, yes, they have made an endless number of comments in their

4560:

is disruptive and the honest thing to do would be to self-revert until you have consensus. You clearly think the content is important, which is why you submitted it--I don't dispute that. But as I have clearly articulated, the content is being presented with no regard for long-term historical scope.

3432:

I think we might be getting a little carried away with the depth of coverage of these controversies that the subject is involved in. She, like the other ladies on The View, was obviously hired to be provocative an it doesn't seem sustainable to write paragraphs every time Raven-Symone says something

3313:

Sound spellings? You mean phonetic spelling? Fame has nothing to do with the inclusion of that information. We don't write content with fans in mind, we write content for people who have no idea who the subject is or how to pronounce her name. If you didn't know who the subject was, that pretentious

2997:

to have meant. But there are numerous problems with this. Firstly, even if you accept the accuracy of their conjecture it's still unclear whether she's coming out as "lesbian" or "bisexual". Secondly, there are numerous celebrities who are entirely heterosexual, but consider themselves allies of the

4026:

The primary issue is not about the sources, as concerning as they may be, but rather about the importance (notability) of the content itself. As Drmies appropriately alluded to in his edit summary, it's simply "a collection of factoids chained to the news and twitter cycle". The fact that she makes

3144:

I don't think either of them should be removed. BLPCAT is meant for cases where the news or tabloids report that the subject is in a same-sex relationship but the subject hasn't commented on the matter, not where the subject has stated that it was the legalization of same-sex marriage that made it

4712:

If Trump is actually elected, and if R-S actually establishes permanent residence in another country and attributes that fact to his election, then it might be appropriate to put her in a category like "Persons who expatriated themselves because of Donald Trump's election". For now, however, the

4656:

and I deleted from this article took some liberties with the source. The cited article is written in first-person singular and says 'While I assume she means "elected" rather than "nominated"...', the disputed passage changed it to 'Many have speculated that she meant to say "elected" instead of

3715:

a "racial controversy"?? For heaven's sake, both of those women were black! So if she says she likes Halle Berry as an actress more than Angela Bassett, or that she prefers Tina Turner as a singer more than Janet Jackson, are those going to be "racial controversies" also? Can we at least agree to

3020:

by it. (Twitter, in fact, is almost never a very good source in and of itself, for that very reason; it lends itself so easily to miscommunications and misinterpretations and inferences and assumptions and meaningless goofoffery that a statement made on Twitter is almost never good enough for our

2744:

to NOT discuss her sexuality openly and we usually err on the side of caution until the person self identifies as such. The writer of the piece has taken upon himself to say she has come out, which in all appreances it looks like she did for the most part, without actually saying the words, "I am

3178:

I guess it would be categories that are "LGBT" but not "gay" or "lesbian." The fact that she is in a same-sex relationship makes her LGBT, no matter what labels she does or doesn't use for herself. But it would be wrong to use a "lesbian" or "bisexual" or "queer" category, because Raven-Symone

2114:

The so-called upcoming fifth album has not seen any action since January, with a fifteen-second sound bite interview on some red carpet event when she claimed she was working on it. Since then, nothing has been published about her progress, she's got a full time job on a TV sitcom, and the album

2951:

Its actually Michael Martinez who wrote that "Raven says she is a lesbian" when she did not use those exact words. Her representatives clarified that she supports gay marriage. Maybe mention that the media took her statement as a signal of her coming out or some such words, I don't know. Again,

3598:

section is extremely concerning. I see from the editing history that the section didn't even exist until a few months ago. I seriously question whether a lot of that content is even important enough to be included in an encylopedia article. Many readers could look at it as a tabloidish, attack

2874:

actually, not true. Her statement can be considered a primary source, and there is no issue with using primary sources if a reasonable person can easily draw a conclusion. Esp in the case of identity, the best source is the person themselves - this is a rather special case, and must be treated

1542: 2712:

this source? The headline reads: "Raven-Symone says she's a lesbian, grateful for legalized gay marriage". The first sentence reads: "(CNN) -- Raven-Symone, who played 3-year-old Olivia on the 1980s sitcom "The Cosby Show," indicated for the first time Friday that she is a lesbian.". It is

3803:

also be notable and significant enough to be included in an encylopedia and, if it is, be presented in a balanced manner. This content, in my opinion, isn't even close to meeting those basic standards. Please address the specific concerns listed above by the other editors.

4500:

I removed content submitted in good faith about the subject claiming that she will move to Canada if Trump is elected president. I did so on the grounds that there is no obvious lasting academic benefit to including this information, particularly when she hasn't actually

3848:

Cyphoidbomb, thank you very much for replying to my intial concerns so quickly and being so willing to help resolve this issue. I had no idea you were an admin until I read Drmies' comments a few minutes ago. And thanks to the other editors for giving your input.

4640:. According to this policy, Knowledge "considers the enduring notability of persons and events... ost newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". We should be slow to add material on the issue du jour to articles on politicians and political subjects.' 4598:

has reverted the content for the same reason I have. If you restore it, it will be considered edit-warring, and your editing privileges are likely to be interrupted. Very preventable, though. Ammodramus, would you care to elaborate on your rationale? Thanks,

2810:

Note how she still dodges the identity question. She has been clear in the past that her personal life was her personal life. This is a coming out of sorts, but I don't think we're ready to call her a lesbian. She could potentially be put in a LGBT category.

3145:

possible for them to get married if they wished and talked about their same-sex partner. Ms. Raven eschews a number of labels, but not using categories because of that is following the letter of the law at the expense of the spirit and impeding navigation. –

4505:

anything yet. Raven-Symone's job is to make hyperbolic statements on a daytime talk show, and the inclusion of this information only serves to sensationalize her sensational comments. There is a longstanding community opinion that we should take care to

2119:

is policy and says we cannot chase rumors or predict the future. Therefore I think it is inappropriate to herald a section header with "Upcoming fifth album" and it should be reduced to perhaps usefully read "2008–present: Self-titled album and tour".

2841:

It is not by any means a leap of logic to see that her original comments were were meant to indicate her orientation. It seems she likes to be coy and cryptic on Twitter and leave the public to figure it out for themselves. But on Knowledge we are

2763:. There is no rush here, and possible the subject will comment further or not. We also might get more reliable sources to discuss this as well and we can use them. We don't have to be the news here. What do others think? Maybe get imput from the 3010:

satisfied at all that the story as it exists right now is sufficient for us to describe and categorize her as LGBT on Knowledge. In fact, immediately upon hearing this story in the first place I could already see that people were inferring a

2805:

I agree, I think much of the media here is engaging in OR, by calling her a lesbian. She hasn't yet said this. In fact, she could like women, but not identify as a lesbian, strangely enough. I think this source gives her complete statement:

4646:'We need to subject this material to the test of time to see if it has long-standing significance. If we don't do this, then articles on current politicians will degenerate into collections of context-less paragraphs on ephemeral issues. 3015:

more than she'd actually said. No matter what interpretation the sources are applying to it right now, they're not good enough for our purposes here — we need more clarification from her than she's provided so far as to what she actually

4649:'If Sasse v. Trump proves to be more than the talk of a few news cycles, we'll have plenty of time to add it to the article; and when we do, we can write it up in view of its long-term significance rather than in the heat of the moment.' 2163:

Wow, the writing on this page sometimes reads like it wasn't written by a native English speaker. I don't have any interest in fixing this article, but someone who cares might consider spending some time on basic spelling and grammar.

3630:, doesn't have much coverage for controversy. And as I've noted two discussions upward on this page, if a person is hired to be controversial, how much effort should we expend to note everything they've done/said that is controversial? 3083:

a valid source in and of itself, and that particular tweet (which is exactly what we were already discussing, so kindly spare us the "here's some new information for you" spin) is still too open to interpretation as to what it means.

2658: 2430:

Strongly Thirded, it barely looks anything like her! There's a much better one further down the page, and it's also more recent being from 2011; I propose removing the current picture at the top altogether and replacing it with that

2998:

LGBT community and have thus pledged not to get married until their LGBT friends can too — and that could just as easily be what Raven-Symoné actually meant, that things have progressed enough that she now feels like she can marry

234: 3163:

Which LGBT related categories should be placed in the category section? I also agree, due to the fact that African-American categories are placed in this page, that LGBT categories should be here as well, but I am not sure which

3689:

it's decided that any or all of these incidents are important enough to be included, then I believe that each of them should only be a few sentences or a short paragraph at most, and all of the subsections need to be removed.

3927:

Well, true, and that's why I said "disparaged", not "forbidden". Sure there are cases, but I didn't see yet why this should be one. Some of the content may belong in the article, certainly, but not when done in this fashion.

2143:. Maybe in that section we could just say "Symoné confirmed of working on a fifth studio album." and nothing else since there's no update. Also a "Untitled fifth album" should be included in her discography section. 153: 3002:

without compromising her principles as an ally. Thirdly, people do sometimes tweet random stuff that doesn't actually mean anything significant, or is meant in a joking context rather than as a serious statement.

2393:

Doesn't anyone have a better photo of her to post up in here? The main photo posted makes her look twice her age and other uncomplimentary stuff; she is so much more attractive than that. What's the matter with

5221: 540: 2739:

it. I think the writer of that piece is actually engaging in OR by saying that she came out. I just think that the wording should be tweeked possibly. The subject of the article has been very careful in the

1068: 1107: 305: 1882: 1737: 341: 4514:

move to Canada in protest, and makes a big stink about it, that might be a different story. But simply making a melodramatic proclamation to do X if Y happens is of questionable encyclopedic value.

3685:

Beyond the problem with the content itself, the fact that six separate subsections were created only increases the prominence of this very contentious information because of the big, bold headings.

700: 592: 4532:

The defense of "she is supposed to be hyperbolic" does not cut it for a threat to leave the nation that you were able to build such a successful career in. Words are important. They mean a lot.

5184: 3380:

The many 's during the quotes in the controversy section make the section seem condescending and far from neutral. At the very least, "transracial" should not have because it is used properly.

4250: 5306: 5216: 1153: 1002: 5042: 1175: 3448:

I agree. I think it's a little out of hand. It needs to be cut down and phrases like "the backlash to Symoné's remarks was swift, widespread and severe" removed and written more neutrally.

5366: 1094: 1023: 1164: 1081: 4010:. IMO, 99% of the sources do not meet the threshold for BLPs. So, if any of that material is to make it back, it will require a much higher quality of sources to warrant inclusion. - 3777:

and me admins; either way, we seem to disagree with you. I think it is a serious BLP violation. And there's two more editors here who disagree. It is best not to restore that section.

1674:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 5236: 1794: 1005: 564: 5346: 1709: 1699: 5123: 5256: 1431: 1344: 681: 671: 5376: 1887: 2263:

to "tell by looking at her", and your URL does not meet the criteria for reliable secondary sources, and your link to the "One Drop Rule" appears to betray your own racism...

5311: 5291: 1037: 854: 384: 5351: 3115:

I added information from a recent interview in which she explicitly acknowledges that she is in a relationship with a woman, but also explicitly rejects the label "gay." --

3544:

section, it talks about Symoné's break-up twice in a row. Please remove the second mention; it's a little unnecessary to talk about the same thing twice in a row. Thanks.

147: 5276: 5226: 1811: 4657:

nominated...' This is not a reason to excise the passage, but it's a signal that the editor who inserted it might be a bit casual about the fidelity-to-source thing. —

1125: 1019: 5381: 3228:

she twice referred to her "gayness" and not bisexuality and mentions not needing a beard or having a man by her side. It's sounds like she just admitted she's lesbian

2326: 1675: 2825:

Fair enough. I would not include the category, for now, but if others think it should be added, so be it. I saw one category readded, but will not revert for now. --

5411: 5341: 5231: 2044: 2034: 647: 5361: 5251: 4973: 4969: 4955: 4863: 4859: 4845: 4440: 4436: 4422: 4300: 4296: 4282: 1847: 1837: 1062: 3611:" in the section heading could indicate to some a motive among those who are inserting all this content into the article. I certainly hope that is not the case. 5371: 4941: 1133: 4251:

https://web.archive.org/20070313211144/http://blackvoices.aol.com:80/black_news/black_history_month/articlecanvas/_a/bhm-star-raven-symone/20060221023209990001

2333:

Sure, the first and third sources look acceptable. Go ahead and add the cats but you will need to work it into the article prose along with inline citations.

5416: 5396: 5206: 775: 389: 5391: 5386: 5116: 4687: 4119: 3298:

Some people are so famous that a sound spelling is not needed. 0h I cannot stand how insulting this site has gotten lately. What are you people thinking?--

2572: 1801: 1670: 1631: 881: 828: 535: 446: 372:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 3256:

I'm sorry, but to use that source to say that she's a lesbian would be drawing a conclusion that the source did not make, something that, as explained at

5331: 5316: 2989:

Indeed, the problem here is that the sources are taking what she actually said, which is basically "I can get married now, yay", and inserting their own

1608: 1598: 632: 587: 79: 4254: 4240: 5321: 3036:

gessh, why can't I articulate a point like that, I guess that is why I am a math teacher and not English :) I would agree with what Bearcat said :) --

2693:

Can this material please be worded to match the citation. she did not announce that she is a lesbian, well not in so many or those words. Thank you.--

2010: 1188: 889: 4388: 5406: 5286: 5266: 5035: 1806: 1306: 1129: 705: 5356: 5246: 1396: 1316: 492: 364: 230: 44: 5241: 3904:; in cases of controversial figures like West, having the content in the career sections of the article is commonly not the best solution. And 1158: 1147: 789: 4801: 3734:. For the material to be restored it needs to be woven into the article where appropriate, the editorializing avoided, and not as a separate 1487: 1478: 1455: 301: 85: 3486:

Ok Melonkelon, I have abridged the section astronomically and removed the sentence you took issue with altogether. Hope this helps! Cheers!

5296: 5271: 3165: 3064: 2937:

That's why I said "CNN speculates that ..." or some variation is acceptable. CNN is a reliable source, and CNN's speculations are notable.—

2432: 2395: 2374: 2001: 1978: 1574: 771: 496: 4109: 3799:(edit conflict) AmericanDad86, "well-sourced" content in and of itself by no means automatically qualifies it to be included. The content 5401: 5326: 5211: 3387: 3299: 2416: 2293: 1777: 1732: 1121: 1075: 822: 5188: 4539: 2490: 1789: 1392: 1382: 1339: 500: 304:. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the 2807: 5261: 4951:

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

1282: 2358:

Currently, on with Oprah, she insisted she is 'American' and not 'African American' because she relates to all other Americans. --

2327:

http://www.firstpost.com/topic/place/hollywood-hollywoods-highest-paid-african-american-actresses-2012-video-MJ_srWPmX7o-113-1.html

491:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 841: 5281: 3649:

does an excellent job of explaining the problem with this type of content. The question remains: What should be done about this?

2846:. We report what secondary reliable sources say. The analysis is done by them, and it seems pretty clear what CNN's analysis is. 1939: 1179: 168: 3206: 3154: 1565: 1526: 1281:

and its affiliated companies on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

559: 487: 450: 441: 99: 30: 135: 5301: 4942:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090523212342/http://www.zimbio.com/Raven-Symone/articles/45/Raven+Symone+not+little+kid+anymore

4260: 104: 20: 3354: 2084: 190: 1785:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

5087: 2363: 74: 5131: 5098: 5050: 5016: 4906: 4811: 4120:

https://web.archive.org/20090724205259/http://www.vividseats.com:80/concerts/the-cheetah-girls-tickets/articles/275.html

3244: 2676: 2638: 2590: 1662: 1273: 1234: 1101: 1012: 984: 848: 764: 416: 253: 226: 5336: 3731: 1930: 1910: 901: 624: 65: 4945: 4255:

http://blackvoices.aol.com/black_news/black_history_month/articlecanvas/_a/bhm-star-raven-symone/20060221023209990001

2449:

then I heartily agree. It's a great picture and would do well in the infobox. By all means let's go ahead with that.

5083:

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

4510:

instead of devoting time to controversies simply because they're fresh in our minds. If Trump wins and she actually

4241:

https://web.archive.org/20090125052842/http://www.pe.com:80/lifestyles/teen/stories/PE_Fea_Teen_raven0125.a11bc.html

3892:

was the last one to remove, I'm stopping by to state that we do sometimes have criticism or controversy sections in

2623:

The biography link doesn't work, and besides that, I don't believe we're supposed to use biographies for such info.

4729: 1088: 835: 249: 185: 129: 4389:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110827135510/http://sohstreetsupply.com/one%20sheets/Raven%20Symone%20One%20Sheet.pdf

2305:"Black America, Body Beautiful: How the African American Image is Changing Fashion, Fitness, and Other Industries" 291: 4762:. Is that right? Shouldn't we either refer to her as Pearman, or as Raven-Symoné if we're observing the mononym? 4123: 3818:

I have just blocked AmericanDad for comments made elsewhere. Perhaps he'll resume this in 48 hours, perhaps not.

3350: 3179:

deliberately refuses to divulge information that would enable her to be accurately placed in such a category. --

4972:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4862:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4439:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

4299:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2446: 2321: 2094: 233:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been 199: 3068: 2378: 2359: 2312: 2208: 1031: 994: 912: 783: 3169: 2436: 2399: 125: 5112:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

5031:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

4244: 3391: 5165: 5127: 5094: 5046: 5007: 4933: 4897: 4793: 3761: 3519: 3491: 3471: 3303: 2956:

that she is a lesbian, because she didn't, in those exact words of course. My head is starting to hurt :) --

2420: 2289: 1278: 990: 810: 373: 109: 5069: 4758:

The subject is referred to numerous times as "Symoné" as though we're using Symoné as a surname to satisfy

4392: 4929: 4802:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080922172216/http://www.teenmag.com:80/seen-in-teen/raven-symone-interview-2

4543: 2888: 2816: 2535: 2494: 2207:

I noticed that this article is in various "African American *" categories, but there is no information or

1922: 1904: 868: 241: 252:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

175: 5181: 4991: