Jump to content

Talk:Nancy Rue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why is this page write protected???

[edit]

bro wtf whoever got rid of the “she likes feet” is brain dead asf KendrickIsGOD (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KendrickIsGOD you can view the protection log at this link. Regarding feet, I imagine a few reliable sources in inline citations are going to be required for that claim.
Looking at the page history it seems a bot (robot) removed your feet edit, so yes they are technically brain dead. Commander Keane (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bot, actually. The page was protected because editors kept adding in the "feet" thing with no citation to a reliable source. You might look at Wikipedia's policy on "original research". Joyous! Noise! 15:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reliable sources, all of her books, she literally makes fetish content for pdfiles 148.103.28.20 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her books are not the sources. Someone else needs to write about that in a published reliable source that you can cite. If *I* read a book and analyze the contents, that's original research. If someone writes about that same topic and manages to get it published in a (once again) reliable source, that's something you can quote or summarize and cite. Joyous! Noise! 15:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It is all in her writing. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree, her fetishization of childrens feet needs to be talked about. these are facts from her books, not heresay. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should a controversy section be added to the article?

[edit]

While borderline vandalistic edits such as "She likes feet" are obviously stupid, I feel like a "controversy" section to the article described in a more professional manner could be beneficial. JonAmoeba (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Wikipedia:CRITS. Still waiting for reliable sources on this topic. Out of curiosity, I did a google search and this "topic" appears to come from X (twitter). See Wikipedia:TWITTER. Commander Keane (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean it is pretty valid evidence JHJD11 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. It's a casual observation from an X user. That is not close to reliable. Joyous! Noise! 16:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like an academic study done on this? What kind of evidence do you need? Feet on her mind in every book, no matter the context. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to quote someone from a reliable published source. Someone's wry observation on X is not that. Joyous! Noise! 21:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would a reliable source want to talk about Nancy Rues fetishization of childrens feet? This is a topic that will not be silenced. The evidence is there, in her books. 161.253.25.30 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you say X makes you a bot. Its Twitter 161.253.25.30 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree but don't insult him, this is Wikipedia JonAmoeba (talk) 10:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the controversy can still be made without "picking sides" JonAmoeba (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any means of messaging outside of Wikipedia? I can send some images from her book. JonAmoeba (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JonAmoeba it would achieve nothing, as it would be original research for a Wikipedian to look at pictures from a book and decide that the author likes feet and then add that opinion to the article. Commander Keane (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright 2A02:A31B:2080:9A00:14E6:E3D2:3CDA:92E9 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]