Talk:Alicia Machado/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Undue weight about weight

Hopefully, we can achieve more balance in the article about her weight gain; the subsequent embarrassment due to Trump's actions and attitudes; the bulimia and anorexia which was a result - that lasted for five years; and perhaps the small victory she has achieved by becoming a U.S. citizen - who is now able to vote against Trump and campaign for Hilary. I think this is known as poetic justice.

Also, her weight issues are in the "Career" section and then reiterated in the "Politics" section. Is this really necessary? In this article such repetition appears to be WP:Undue.

And, I am thinking this issue is only tangentially related to her politics - these could be separate issues - imho. However, I'm noticing Trump has been directly quoted about her weight in the politics section, "She was impossible" and that "[s]he was the winner and you know, she gained a massive amount of weight and it was a real problem. We had a real problem. Not only that, her attitude, and we had a real problem with her." I think this needs to be countered with the serious health problems that developed as a result.

And, I am thinking there are much larger and more significant issues that both Presidential nominees have to be concerned about. Just look at the significant issues that emerged during the debate. So, is it really necessary to have any discussion about her weight issues in this article? To me, this really seems trivial. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(Question: can we really demonstrate irrefutably that her eating disorders were a result of Trump's comments? It's not outside the realm of possibility that her participation as a pageant contestant may have had a significant contribution to this as well, and that was a result of her own career choices, not Trump's comments.)2601:1C0:5D00:4200:0:0:0:A6F6 (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, this actually covered in current reliable sources. There is more discussion below. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments and statements show that you are not committed to a NPOV. It doesn't matter that you personally oppose Trump and want to bias this article in order to make Hillary look better by granting credibility to this person. Examining your statements: "the subsequent embarrassment due to Trump's actions and attitudes" is an opinion, "the bulimia and anorexia which was a result" is an opinion, "I think this is known as poetic justice." shows your bias against Trump, "can we really demonstrate irrefutably that her eating disorders were a result of Trump's comments" no, this is not possible. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for more details. Avangion (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Please do not attribute to me motivations that I do not have. If you think what I am proposing is biasing the article - then I have to wonder. What I am proposing is called covering all relevant points of view. What I have stated is covered in reliable sources. The subsequent embarrassment due to Trump's actions and attitude is a fact that is covered in multiple reliable sources. The bulimia and anorexia which was a result is a fact covered in reliable sources and the story that goes with it. Rather than spouting off with accusations - try reading the latest news coverage pertaining to Alicia Machado. I don't know how you have survived on Wikipedia since 2006 with this attitude. I am quite amazed. Especially, to be so easily offended by a the "poetic justice" comment. It appears you are looking for dirt or something like that. In any case, I think your arguments so far a weak, especially by including aspersions aimed at another editor. Yes, I am truly amazed. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Also, it seems to break up someone else's post like this is a sign of disruptive editing. Are you afraid someone will read what I wrote? By the way I remedied the situation (see above). Steve Quinn (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And, I am thinking there are much larger and more significant issues that both Presidential nominees have to be concerned about. Just look at the significant issues that emerged during the debate. So, is it really necessary to have any discussion about her weight issues in this article? To me, this really seems trivial. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, because it is a significant event in her life that caused a lot of controversy and reliable sources can be used to substantiate these events. Avangion (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This seems kind of circular, is this all you have? Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In this video (at 1:50), just now on Good Morning America Machado says, "He tried to do a new show" about her weight, as if he was trying to help her lose weight. Video shows her working out with Trump in a gym. Here's the 1997 interview with Trump in the gym and Machado appears very happy that Trump is helping her, with a "really great trainer. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• But Trump, as co-owner of rights to the pageant, said he would never let that (her lose the Crown) happen. "We had a choice of: termination or do this," he said. "We wanted to do this."Source
• "I asked him to please send me to a trainer or a nutritionist or something because I needed some orientation, and he sends me to a gym in New York," she says. "When I get there, there are 80 reporters waiting to watch me sweat. I thought that was in very bad taste." Source Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you follow-up by reading what's in the press you will see those videos are not the whole story. She recounts her feelings of embarrassment and mortification during the whole episode. She states in the press that she was blind-sided by Trump. Also, being Miss Universe she knows how to smile under duress - and that is what the video shows. So, the video is actually misleading. And being called names by Trump embarrassed her as well. I think she was traumatized by the whole process. There is a direct connection between this and her bulimia and anorexia that occurred for five years directly afterwards. So, we need to make some corrections to this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• The problem with 1997 sources is these are outdated (so to speak). She was only 20 then and still obligated with the crown and related obligations. It is the time in between then and now, where the real story has started to come out. Basically, she was mistreated by Trump - if you read the news for the past couple of days you will see what I mean. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

From what I read, she had a hard time losing weight to be in the pageant and when the pageant ended all she wanted to do is eat, the whole story is tragic, worth telling. She had a problem and asked Trump for help Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Either story could be true. Sources don't just become outdated unless they can be discredited. Just because she was younger then doesn't mean she was making up a story. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, you are not holding a neutral point of view at all on any of this, the above editor was correct in that statement. Please refrain from personal opinions, remember we have a standard here at Wikipedia. Best of luck to you.RTShadow (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not only does this comment display incredible bias, it's the sort of thing Cullen would be deleting from the talk page as he did below if it showed the opposite bias. This page and talk page are a train wreck and Wikipedia is once again showing severe problems with its design Demigord (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 October 2016

Please change:

During her reign as Miss Universe, Machado made headlines when it was reported that she gained too much weight and rumors began to spread that the Miss Universe Organization was considering replacing her with runner-up, Taryn Mansell of Aruba.

to

During her reign as Miss Universe, Machado made headlines when it was reported that she swelled to more than 160 pounds (a figure she disputes) and rumors began to spread that the Miss Universe Organization was considering replacing her with runner-up, Taryn Mansell of Aruba.

Rationale: "too much weight" is completely subjective and means different things to different people. What does that mean? To one person, that's five pounds. To another, that's 100. The figure that was reported is more informative (addl cite: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9701/29/fringe/miss.universe/ ) Furthermore the current source cites figures and the phrase "too much" does not occur. Marteau (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Also, "swelled" sounds like a bit of puffery? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"swelled" is the term the source used (WaPo). Marteau (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, actually what needs to be done here is that the "too much" needs to be REMOVED from "gained too much weight". It should just be "gained weight". What the fuck is Wikipedia doing deciding what is "too much weight" in Wikipedia voice? Seriously people, get your BLP act together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that "too much weight" is subjective. However, in beauty pageants, reality shows, etc., it is not uncommon for there to be a contract clause that specifies a limit for weight gain. I don't know it that pageant did, but if so, "too much weight" would be an objective measure, correct? PapayaSF (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it must be verifiable. No reliable source says Machado gained too much weight. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

And ffs, WaPo uses the word "swelled" to CRITICIZE media coverage of the issue! As in "some media used the word swelled which was ridiculous" (paraphrasing).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

And why in the world are we writing about "rumors"??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree "too much weight" is not NPOV. There are conflicting reports about how much weight she gained. I suggest we go with Machado's *lowest* version - she has said anywhere from 12-20lbs in RSs. RSs also reported that Kelloggs withdrew their endorsement and the press attention. Suggested phrasing:

During her reign as Miss Universe, Machado gained what she said was about 12 pounds in weight. The Kellogg company removed Machado's likeness from the cover of boxes of Special K cereal in Venezuela amid considerable press attention. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

References

This 1997 CNN article disputes that Kellogg's dropped the sponsorship due to her weight. Knope7 (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not know how much weight Machado gained, she estimated 12 pounds while other reports put it at 60 and others somewhere inbetween. Perhaps we could just say that her weight gain was sufficient that the Miss Universe people decided to take action. And the reason we are "writing about "rumors"" is that the mainstream media in their wisdom decided to write about them. WP:NOTGOSSIP says we should not report rumors we have personally heard. It does not prevent us from following neutrality and reflecting what reliable secondary sources report.

Here is how Volunteer Marek in another article: "No, that would only be true if we were stating that these recordings are genuine in Wikipedia voice. We're not. We are merely reporting that multiple noteworthy reliable sources have covered the fact that Ukrainian authorities have released these alleged conversations. Come on, every major newspaper has written about it, it's a big part of the picture, it needs to be in the article." [07:17, 20 July 2014][1]

TFD (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 October 2016 - renewed

Please remove the words the words "too much" from the "too much weight" sentence in the "Career" section, as previouisly requested. "Too much" fails verification and is a BLP violation. Callanecc has misapplied our BLP policy for requiring consensus for this change. BLP violations must be removed immediately, with or without consensus. Regardless, we do have consensus, as I am now the fourth editor who supports this change, and no one has opposed it. P.S. Callenec, if you are considering denying this request, I strongly encourage you to seek a second opinion before you do so. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Per (rough) consensus in the section above (I've made this section level 3 so it's easier to see what I'm talking about. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Political views

This subsection should be renamed "Political activities." Most of this stuff isn't about Machado's political views. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• I concur. We don't know much of her political viewpoints except (the nearly universal feeling) that Donald Trump is awful. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• agreed, activities better than views. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Article protection

Hi all,

I've temporarily protected this article because the edit-warring is reaching a fever pitch. I have no idea whether the current version is "right" or not - it's just the version extant at the time the protection is applied. Can we all please discuss the proposed major changes to the article here on the talk page and establish a consensus for what to include or remove. In doing so please note the provisions of WP:BLP.

In passing, a disclaimer: I am not an American and don't care who wins the upcoming election. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Euryalus - I think this is a really good idea.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I am just going to summarise the one side of the BLP dispute as it currently stands. WP:WELLKNOWN says that "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. 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." The BBC, AP, Reuters all covered the Fuenmayor/Rodriguez incidents, and it is noteworthy and relevant (a well known actress accused of a felony and possibly threatening to use her friendship with the country's president to ruin a judge's career or kill him). However, some say that WP:BLPCRIME shows the material should not be included: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." But this material implies that if a person *is* a public figure such material should be included. The allegations against Machado were not discredited in any way, the Venezuelan courts simply determined that there were not sufficient evidence to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. And Machado is a public figure, as a well known actress and someone who is (at the very least) well on the way to becoming a political figure as she campaigns in the current presidential election and leverages her celebrity to do so. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Then go ahead and draft verifiable, NPOV content cited to reliable sources, and propose it here. Be sure that your draft summarizes both sides of the story. Then we will see whether your proposal gains consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

In January 1998, prosecutors claimed that multiple witnesses observed Machado driving her then boyfriend from the scene of an attempted murder and kidnapping in Venezuela. Machado denied the allegations, claiming she had returned home after falling sick while shooting a telenovela. She was subpoenaed to appear in court, where she was questioned for three hours. The judge, Maximiliano Fuenmayor, declined to indict her, stating there was insufficient evidence. Her boyfriend, however, was indicted. Fuenmayor subsequently accused Machado of threatening to have him killed: "she [said] she would make sure, using her friendship with the president (Rafael Caldera), that my career as judge is ruined and then she would kill me”, and claimed that he had traced the telephone number back to Machado. Machado admitted she rang, but claimed it was merely to thank him for his unbiased pursuit of justice. Another judge, Narda Herrera, investigated the alleged threat but did not indict her. The case caused a media sensation in Venezuela unseen since the conviction of President Carlos Andres Perez.

The sources are BBC, The Economist, AP, Reuters and a Venezuelan newspaper El Tiempo NPalgan2 (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

References

" prosecutors claimed that ..." so... no charges were filed? This is exactly what SHOULDN'T be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying that the fact that she was indicted on neither charge means thatthe information should not be included, but I review the wikipedia policies above and argue otherwise. Please engage with that. The Economist and Reuters both remark on the highly unusual level level of coverage in Venezuela - comparing it to the trial and conviction of the president 5 years before - arguing notability. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I gotta say - I don't think she is that much of a public figure. She is not anywhere near the notoriety level of Hilary or Trump, or top tier movie stars or TV stars. I think the view expressed above User:Cullen and Marek is somewhat overblown - maybe quite overblown. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Steve, she's definirely a well knwon actress and celebrity to the hundreds of millions of people in Latin America and the tens of millions of Hispanics in the US. NPalgan2 (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• NPalgan2's proposal (eight sentences and 171 words) would give substantially undue weight to this episode on this bio page. Not only did no trial occur, but in fact no formal accusation ever appears to have been made against the article subject. Maybe this could support a sentence or two at the very most. See WP:BALASP/WP:WEIGHT: "discussion of isolated events .... or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Neutrality^talk 06:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree. Thank you Neutrality. You are making excellent points. I already thanked you for your edits to the article but this time I didn't want to overload your thanks notifications by using the thanks button again. :) Dr. K. 06:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that my version is prolix- wanted to summarise all evidence. For comparison's sake, AP included a detailed paragraph on the scandal when summarising her career when discussing the latest Trump imbroglio: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE_MISS_UNIVERSE_NYOL- NPalgan2 (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• She is a public figure and this is notable. Just because it isn't proven, doesn't mean it can't be included. Bill Clinton's article mentions the women who accused him of sexual harassment, yet he admits nothing. As long as the article makes it clear she's never been convicted, I have no problem with this, there are many reputable sources to back up that the allegations were made. Volunteer Marek, are you anything more than just a liberal tool who wants to portray Macnado as an angel? We also have no proof that Donald Trump actually called her "Miss Piggy" or "miss housekeeping", but you have no problem keeping that in the article.--Rusf10 (talk) 06:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• You wear your bias and political motivation on your sleeve. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a tool for waging ideological battle. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thou is apparently not aware of thine own cabals! Ever read the 'G____G___ controversy' page?Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• At least I'm honest, unlike these other people here trying to keep information out of an article because it doesn't fit their political narrative. My point is, You either have to include everything or include nothing, you can't pick and choose. If you're going to include claims that portray this woman as a victim, then you also have to include claims that portray her as a criminal.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Just because it isn't proven, doesn't mean it can't be included" - actually, WP:BLP means something just like that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"I am not an American and don't care who wins the upcoming election." -- No, but others are and that is clearly the only reason that this material is being added -- to "impeach the witness", someone who has made accusations against Donald Trump on a completely unrelated matter. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Material is being added because the mainstream media has decided to write about it. The mainstream media seems to be lining up in favor of Clinton in this election, according to endorsements and editorial policy so it is not true they are trying to impeach the witness. They have not written for example about numerous hardcore videos of here are that available free on porn websites, according to the anti-Clinton Daily Caller (see "Porn Star Campaigns For Hillary Clinton") and note that none of the editors here are asking that we include that information unless mainstream media decides to publish it. Obviously when individuals make accusations against public figures, the media takes an interest in their credibility, as they did eight years ago with Ashley Todd. That article faced 4 nominations for deletion from people who used the same arguments Volunteer Marek and others are using today. If the media decides to report positive things about Machada, then we will put them in. I certainly have no objections.

Incidentally it is correct that the only evidence Trump called her "Miss Piggy" etc. is her word. You need to explain why we should be reporting it if we think that what judicial officials said about her should be excluded. My approach is to report sourced information in accordance to its weight in reliable sources and not to worry whose campaign that affects.

TFD (talk) 10:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! My point exactly.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You keep going on and on about this "mainstream media" writing about "this" but don't actually provide any mainstream media sources. Anyway, this isn't just about "making accusations against public figures", these "accusations" are pretty well documented and Donald appears to be more or less proud of'em.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They are accusations, we don't know whether Trump actually said these things. ""Just because it isn't proven, doesn't mean it can't be included" - actually, WP:BLP means something just like that.""- Volunteer Marek You have to be consistent, you are not the arbitrator of which accusations are true. I say include everything that been reported by reliable sources, the accusations against Trump are no more provable than the accusations against Machado.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

One problem I see with these accusations and and so forth, is this is really old news - about 18 years ago. How relevant is this today? Current news accounts are a couple sentences at most, sandwiched in between other main story lines about Trump, Clinton, this segment of the debate and so on. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Source determine what is relevant, not us. Certainly Trump's treatment of Machadois over twenty years old, yet it is covered in the media today. TFD (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

" Certainly Trump's treatment of Machadois over twenty years old, yet it is covered in the media today." - yes, unlike this nonsense people are trying to cram in there to attack her.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. We should delete everything that wasn't in the past few years just like Bush's page is basically empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demigord (talk • contribs) 09:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggest phrasing for 1998 episode

Since the debate, an number of indisputable RS have mentioned the 1998 episode in articles profiling Machado, suggesting that it deserves mention in a balanced wikipedia profile. Trump and a number of prominent Trump surrogates have brought the episode up too http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-alicia-machado-trump-20160927-snap-story.html http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE_MISS_UNIVERSE_NYOL- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/alicia-machado-presidential-race.html?_r=0

Suggested (3 sentence, hopefully not undue weight) phrasing including Machado’s contemporaneous denials and her most recent remarks on CNN, taken from AP and NYTimes:

In 1998, a Venezuelan judge accused her of threatening to kill him after he indicted her then-boyfriend for attempted murder. The victim's family accused Machado of driving his getaway car, but she denied both accusations and apparently was never indicted, due to lack of evidence. Asked about the episode in September 2016, Machado told Anderson Cooper: “I have my past. Of course, everybody has a past. And I’m not a saint girl. But that is not the point now.” NPalgan2 (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you making an attempt at language. I think the overall structure is fine. I would delete the word "apparently" as it is unnecessary. Also, the some form of the word accused is used 3 times. Maybe accused fits best here, but maybe "alleged" or some other word would work too. I'm slightly wary of the word accused when criminality is being discussed, although I do think this i written in a way which does not overstate the "accusation." Knope7 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the proposed addition by NPalgan2 with Knope7's edits. Good work guys!

I oppose the use of "apparently" because our Manual of Style tells us not to use weasel words. I oppose including the quote because it is ambiguous. Stating that she denied both accusations and was not indicted is sufficient. I oppose use of "but" and instead think there should be two separate sentences. Here is the language I would support:

"In 1998, a Venezuelan judge accused her of threatening to kill him after he indicted her then-boyfriend for attempted murder. The victim's family accused Machado of driving his getaway car. She denied both accusations and was never indicted, due to lack of evidence against her."

In my opinion, this language is neutral and complies with BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included at all. Both given sources mention this tidbit only in passing. And we're not a newspaper so there's no need for us to include it, per WP:BLP. Just omit it - what exactly is encyclopedic about this information? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

4 sources - NYTimes, LATimes, AP, and the CNN interview. NPalgan2 (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This issue has cleared the bar for sourcing with those impeccable citations and this proposed edit does not lend undue weight. Excellent work. Marteau (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The claim was that there are recent sources which cover this. AP is not recent and the CNN doesn't say what you guys are claiming it says. So there's really only two recent sources which allude to it and both of these mention it in passing - just one sentence out of many many many. Nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is absurd, Marek. The AP is: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE_MISS_UNIVERSE_NYOL- i.e. this week and the CNN Anderson Cooper interview is the NYTimes' direct transcript which agrees with the video. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

That link is not working for me. The only AP story I see is the one from eighteen years or whatever ago.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

New York Magazine covered it online twice this week, here and here. The second article actually talks about how the media is rightfully focusing more on Trump's comments and conduct than on Machado's past, but it does note that her past is easy to find. Knope7 (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• So you say. The latest wording, proposed by Cullen, is some 286 characters, roughly 10% of the current article length. We're talking about an allegation, with nothing proven and no charges filed. The LA Times article has 29 paragraph; this takes up only one. The NY Times article has 27 paragraphs; this takes up only one. The rest of both articles speak about her as a powerful Clinton ally, as having suffered seriously, as having become a citizen, as being aware of how precarious a position she is in...I can go on. So yes, to pick those two paragraphs out of 53 and make that into 10% of our article, yes that's undue. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• well, 1/27 is 3.7% of an article mostly devoted to the weight issue, so having ~10% of the total wikipedia biography devoted to the 1998 case is not that disproportionate. Back in 1998, The Economist found the case notable enough to devote 100% of an article to the scandal. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"1/27 is 3.7% of an article...~10% of the total wikipedia biography...that disproportionate" - I, uh... am I missing something or is your math just plain bad? That seems exactly like the mathematical definition of "disproportionate". And it's even worse if we take into consideration that we're not a newspaper and should stick only to encyclopedic material.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Google says: "Disproportionate: too large or too small in comparison with something else". Unless you are saying the coverage must be exactly 3.7% of the issue, you must admit that the exact percentage will necessarily not exactly match that of sources. The only question is, how much variance is acceptable. If it were at the 50% level, I think your's and Drmies points would be indisputable. But we're talking 10% of the article total, and I'm of the mind to consider that not inappropriate. Marteau (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

" I'm of the mind to consider that not inappropriate", that's great, but 10/3.7=2.7 so more than two and a half times, so yes, disproportionate. Especially since it should be zero since we're an encyclopedia not a tabloid or a newspaper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It sounds good to me, and I also agree with the suggested amendments. I question though whether we need to provide her words to Anderson Cooper, because they are ambiguous. Such comments should only be presented with secondary sources explaining them, but that would provide excessive detail. TFD (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Marek, you are the rudest and most hostile editor I have ever encountered on wikipedia. If this site dies it will be because of people like you. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen ruder. However, I do agree that Marek's snark and insults are uncalled for and out of line. Please do try to be civil. Marteau (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case you haven't seen a lot of foulmouthed editors here, NPalgan2, and good for you--but your response is way out of line. And when it comes to destroying the wiki, let me note that some of your edits on this talk page had to be suppressed and you were alerted by Callanecc of the discretionary sanctions, no doubt pursuant to those edits--so please, no more of this.

I'm not really interested in a pissing contest, and I've given my opinion on how I think this information is undue. Now let's try and keep it cool here. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the quotes from Machado are sufficient without explanation from other sources. No one's interpretation is going to give us a better idea of what she meant. Machado chose her own words and even the lack of substance there tells the reader something about how she chooses to speak about the incident (or not speak abut it) now that it has become part of the Presidential election news cycle. To be clearer, I think she doesn't want to get back into the weeds of what happened and so she's not confirming or denying specifics. We have her previous denials and her current position and that makes me comfortable that we are presenting her response to allegations. Knope7 (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think this should not be included at all. She "was never indicted, due to lack of evidence" and only said something in a court. This is simply undue, especially since there is a lot of more important information. This episode is only notable in relation to the current election campaign and Trump. Hence this can be included on pages about Trump and elections, not on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the allegations against her received considerable news coverage at the time. Instead of citing policies, it would be helpful if you could explain how they are relevant. By my reading, what mainstream media focus on is due, what they ignore is undue. Can you quote a sentence from the policy that says anything different.

Incidentally, her boyfriend was charged with shooting his brother in law. That would seem to be a memorable life event, at least among people I know.

TFD (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Bearing in mind, we can reach a consensus, and it's completely irrelevant as the mods won't want it to show up on her page Demigord (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a perverse sort of history that Cullen has put himself in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demigord (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 October 2016

"Machado won the 1995 Miss Venezuela pageant entering Yaracuy" - should be "entering as Yaracuy. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Better "Machado won the 1995 Miss Yaracuy pageant and then entered and won the 1995 Miss Venezuela pageant." NPalgan2 (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Except I'm not sure there was a Miss Yaracuy pageant? We need sources because I'm pretty sure with Venezuela the contestants are selected to compete at the national pageant then the organisers decide which area/sash the contestants will wear. Also, I'm surprised there's no direct link to Miss Venezuela there. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You obviously know a good deal about beauty pageants - do you have any idea where we could find records? Would Miss Venezuela or Miss Universe have issued press releases describing her early life when she won? We're looking to expand the article. NPalgan2 (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately my expertise - if you can call it that! - relates more to US pageants, and I really only have a passing knowledge of Venezuela. After I posted my last message I went digging for an answer but none of my usual sources - Google News & Newspapers.com - had anything. I think we'd really need a Spanish speaker because when I did a standard Google check, most of what came up was in Spanish. Now that the article is semi-protected I'm going to change to the wording as I had it which is probably the most neutral option. Hope that's OK. I've been following the whole discussion here with interest right from when the article was first protected but there hasn't been much to add. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 October 2016

Can we please delete the sentence "The show is very similar to Dancing with the Stars (U.S.) and ¡Más que baile! (formerly titled ¡Mira Quién Baila!) ("Look Who's Dancing!") (Spain)."

The sentence immediately before the one I propose deleting is this "On February 19, 2006, Machado debuted on a Mexican reality show named Cantando Por Un Sueño ("Singing For A Dream"), a program in the line of the previous Bailando Por Un Sueño ("Dancing For A Dream"), in which the winner has the chance for a dream to come true." So basically the article is saying she was on a show, Singing For a Dream, which is like the show Dancing For a Dream, which is like the show Dancing with the Stars and Look Who's Dancing. That's a lot of unnecessary and unsourced comparisons. It's also worth noting the next paragraph explains she was on the show Mira Quien Baila, a celebrity dance competition which appears to have a lot more in common with Dancing with the Stars than the singing show does. (If anyone's interested this and this confirm her participation and third place finish on Mira Quien Baila. Knope7 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, what?

Here's what our article says:

" Trump called her "Miss Piggy" because she gained weight and "Miss Housekeeping" because of her Hispanic background, allegations Trump has denied"

Here is what the source says:

"On Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, Trump brought up that moment again — and doubled down' on fat-shaming Machado.

"What’s remarkable about the Fox & Friends exchange, other than its cruelty, is that Trump brought up the Miss Universe moment unprompted"

"Trump also didn’t deny, either on Fox & Friends or during the debate, that he called Machado “Miss Piggy” or “Miss Housekeeping.” Machado says Trump called her those names to her face."

I mean, right there, the source says plain as sky that "Trump didn't deny". Yet someone puts into the article "Trump denied" and pretends to sources it with this source. Seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

he later denied it through a spokeswoman (or his campaign manager did made the spokeswoman do). I put in the first two sources noting that he did not deny, then I found Trump's denial and added the third. If anything, the blp should not have the two sources speculating about the time it took for his denil to be issued. I've reverted. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

So um, we have two sources which say "he didn't deny it" and you think it's okay to put in "he denied it"? Sorry, the logic of that escapes me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

And if by "third source" you mean Vox, then obviously that's not what it says. Also, "spokeswoman" denying it is not the same as Trump denying, especially if at the same time his spokeswoman is denying it, he's out there repeating it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Marek, do you ever actually read the links? "Mrs. Clinton had these demographic groups in mind when she attacked Mr. Trump for supposedly calling Ms. Machado, who is Venezuelan, “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.” A spokeswoman for Mr. Trump, Jessica Ditto, said that Ms. Machado’s claims that Mr. Trump humiliated her were “totally baseless” and that he never called her those names." NYTimes Chozick/Grynbaum link. The way you have phrased the article: "She said that, during her year as Miss Universe, Trump called her "Miss Piggy" because she gained weight and "Miss Housekeeping" because of her Hispanic background. On Fox & Friends Trump did not deny the comments and "doubled down" on them." Trump did not repeat misspiggy/housekeeping on Fox and Friends. He doubled down on saying she was too fat. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Read the quotes above. brought up that moment again. doubled down. fat shaming. brought up the Miss Universe moment unprompted. 'didn't deny. Etc. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

But sure we can add that the spokeswoman denied it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Npalgan2, here you are once again trying to rewrite the text so that it says the opposite of what the sources say. Please stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)