This article was nominated for deletion on 28 August 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article should adhere to the gender identity guideline because it contains material about one or more trans women. Precedence should be given to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, anywhere in article space, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. Some people go by singular they pronouns, which are acceptable for use in articles. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise. Former, pre-transition names may only be included if the person was notable while using the name; outside of the main biographical article, such names should only appear once, in a footnote or parentheses.If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBTQ+ WikiProject, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why does the article give her own opinion of 'center-right' when in 'political views' there is a third party source that describes her as far-right? Surely, third party sources are more objective and so should be instead in the intro, and not buried deep below?
There are also two third-party RS in that section that describe her as simply "conservative". Inline attribution has been used throughout the article, which is appropriate when there's not a clear consensus among reliable sources. Xan747 (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Conservative' doesn't imply it's center-right... it's more like an overall category where all right-wingers can fall under, so no... nothing to do with where in the spectrum it is (but if we don't go with The Advocate's description because no others have it, then I suppose just having that word would be better than that 'center' nonsense out of an obviously biased source...) 92.21.87.105 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went spelunking through the edit history of this article, and my impression is that the article is in a state where involved editors are all reasonably happy. Much of the past wikidrama revolved around whether to describe her views as alt-right, and as an essentially uninvolved editor I am reticent to touch off another battle by modifying the lede. I might suggest that if you feel very strongly about this to create an account, make at least 10 edits and four days after creating your account you can modify the article yourself. Talk page comments count as edits. Xan747 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any discussions in the past about this, so maybe others can opine if they wish, then after however much time someone else can add it with another edit request (but what if no one else responds?) - I did not notice this drama, though... editors just changed it from that, to conservative, then https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blaire_White&diff=prev&oldid=907963956 to the current version... with no one subsequently apparently saying anything, or trying to change it again (unless I missed it, I only read summaries)... which is absurd, I repeat, as usually the site doesn't just repeat whatever propaganda the article's subject blurts out within the first few words... 92.21.87.105 (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're definitely gonna have a hard time at trying to get that changed to far-right, especially considering I can't think of many news outlets that would go so far as to classify her as far-right. All sources I find say "conservative", "right", "right-wing". Perhaps they haven't listed her as far-right because that is not what she is? Its laughable that you want to classify her as far-right when I can't think of a single opinion she has that could classify her as such. EytanMelech (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessarily "laughable" to label her views as far-right, but I know very little about them and in any case it doesn't matter: we go by what sources say, and since what few we have are divided, that's what we should (and do) report. Ultimately saying where she falls on the left/right political axis is less informative than describing her views on specific issues, which we also do. Xan747 (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, that even a majority of the sources from news outlets who are politically opposed to her do not call her far-right, and the few instances that do are mostly focusing on one specific aspect of her political positions that don't necessarily have to do with a left-right issue. The general consensus of sources is that she's definitely right-wing, but she is not considered far-right to the media. Even RationalWiki doesn't refer to her as far-right. EytanMelech (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'd ever use RationalWiki as a source in an article, their Infoboxes classify her as both alt-right and far-right. Down in the categories their classifications include Alt-right, Alt-lite, Antifeminism, Crank magnetism, Homophobes, Internalized discrimination, Internet kooks, Islamophobes, Plagiarists, Racists, Sexists, and Transphobes. (I omitted a few positive/netural categories because I get to be POV in talk within reason.)
Simply because you personally can't think of any of her views that might qualify her as alt-right doesn't make it laughable that someone else can.
Here on Wikipedia we have to stick to RS, which is why I declined the OP's request. It would be nice if further discussion in this thread were limited to why or why not implement their changes based on policy and sources. Xan747 (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well... based on sources, as suggested earlier, we could go with just conservative if that's what the majority say, which would still be an improvement on the current (sole?) Insider which, of course, quotes her... (if primary sources aren't usually used for subjects' articles why are secondary sources quoting them acceptable? ps. weird thing, but EytanMelech seems to insult User:Rugbyfan22 on their userpage, for some reason...) 92.21.87.105 (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Competence in what, wikitext? It's even more basic than html, wish I was competent in actual programming. What's editing like this got to do with anything, anyway? I'm following all policies... you aren't (and... could my hunch that it's just because they proposed article deletions be the reason...?) 92.21.87.105 (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've no idea what you're implying, but I don't see the point of this discussion if you can't even explain why you use your page to insult that person. 92.21.87.105 (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lede should mention that sources are divided on her political alignment, with two saying conservative, one saying far-right (or alt-right, I forget which) and herself saying center right, with inline attribution mentioning the name of each source. Standard NPOV of not taking sides in disputes, but describing them. Does make the lede wordy, but I think this will be the best way to avoid future controversy about which label to apply. Go ahead and draft the revision, then ping me when you're ready for the edit and I'll have a look. Xan747 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede, it says that Multiple videos by White have spread misinformation or half-truths. First, the two sources only point to one video each in which White said something false, and in one case she admitted her error and took down the video. These two sources do not therefore consitute sufficient evidence for the general claim being made. Perhaps I should make the point another way. How many prominent left-leaning YouTubers have put up two or more videos with inaccuracies in them, and whose Wikipedia page has a sentence in the lede about 'multiple videos spreading misinformation or half-truths'? Second, while those two cases are elaborated on in the body, there is nothing about the more general claim of 'multiple videos'. When you include a claim like this, you are implicitly suggesting that there is a unusual level of misinformation being put out, rather than the regular amount one would expect from activists and youtubers. Perhaps that is the case, but if so, such a claim should be made clear and elaborated in the body and of course properly sourced. LastDodo (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the media matters source is 404'd and has not been archived. it plainly is not in the newsweek source. i was going to just remove it, but im unsure how best to reword the surrounding sentences. 2birds1stone (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Can the info of assigned male at birth be added to the Early Life section? I had to do some off-Wikipedia googling to piece together she was AMAB, transitioned, and identifies as a transgender woman. Transgender could mean AFAB, AMAB, or otherwise, so this article isn’t giving the right context for her identity. To be clear, I am *not* asking for deadnaming or a pronoun shift. —2601:8C0:380:35C0:80A4:AB22:4B58:2082 (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Also worth noting that if her having done those things required piecing together sources, that may constitute as synthesis, which Wikipedia disallows. We'd want reliable sources, or clear statements from herself publicly, to write that information in wiki-voice. —Sirdog(talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: Also worth noting that if her having done those things required piecing together sources, that may constitute as synthesis, which Wikipedia disallows. We'd want reliable sources, or clear statements from herself publicly, to write that information in wiki-voice. —Sirdog (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)