Jump to content

Talk:Sydney Sweeney

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

Time to update the profile image?

[edit]

It's 5 years old now and it's a bit.... booby. Maybe we can find something more recent and more neutral? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with women having breasts? SlapperDapper (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

political party

[edit]

She is a registered to the Republican party of Florida, can that be added? Armandlee (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC) — Armandlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqjcvoo175hgf1.png
https://registration.elections.myflorida.com/en/CheckVoterStatus Armandlee (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the significance of her political party? As an actress in non-political media it is irrelevant as it is for other similar figures. Please explain why her political party is import ant enough to be featured. 23.93.172.237 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's in The Handmaid's Tale, that is political media. Armandlee (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All media is political media Efermax (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deepred6502 (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Political affiliation (when known) is always reported on Wikipedia for actors, usually in the Personal Life section. Why should it be different here? SuperSardus (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those actors or actresses are involved with political activism. Sydney Sweeney has been publicly apolitical. It is not atypical for individuals to register with the dominant party in states in order to vote in party primaries.
Her last political comments were from 2020 and pro-legalized abortion, in favor of Planned Parenthood, pro-BLM, and pro-LGBT. We can speculate about the registration all we want (it is possible that her opinions have changed) but it is not warranted on a celebrity's Wikipedia page.
It should absolutely not be included. (Or pretty much any other celebrities voter registration information if they're generally apolitical.) SickNWristed (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She has spoken out on politics. You have proven my point. Armandlee (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should be included only if it's reported by a solid, reliable source (and preferably more than one). WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:TIMESOFINDIA are not very good sources. See WP:BLP Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. Tristario (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the other user that it’s not significant enough, at least for the info box. If you must include it, maybe a brief mention in the Personal life section, but until she gets more involved in politics beyond just registration and privately voting, leave it off the info box Ryanjackson10 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's a public figure. No one forced her to become an actress. Armandlee (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a subject’s political affiliation in the context of a politically charged event is contentious and requires careful sourcing.
WP:BLP:
"Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
The guideline also states:
"The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."
Its pretty straight forward. Source it. Otherwise it just appears as editorial bias. DocLG (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is a public figure's pollical party contentious? Armandlee (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the provided WP:BLP link. As of now, her political affiliation does not appear to be attached to reliable sourcing, and is instead relegated to unreliable culture warfare. Wikipedia does not and should not participate in the latter. I also left a message on your talk page regarding your attempts to force changes in this article despite there being an active conversation without consensus for your version. TNstingray (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are forcing your own opinions on this article. The Florida voter registration is not enough? Armandlee (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on this article. I came over here from PendingChanges, and I assessed what the status quo of this article was per WP policy, which currently supersedes your currently unreliably sourced opinion. And even if it was reliably sourced, this conversation is still active so it is still inappropriate to make the change. TNstingray (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do have an option on this, clearly. You are trying to shut up others and have threatened me. You need to look at your own bias. Armandlee (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is the state of Florida's own website unreliable? Armandlee (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a primary source, and we would be inappropriately performing original research (WP:OR) to interpret what that means, as well as violating WP:BLP as already cited in this discussion. The burden of proof is on you to explain how the inclusion of this detail is not in violation of WP policy. TNstingray (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what you have showed is a bias. You have shut others up and threatened those have a different opinion if this article. Armandlee (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have done nothing of the sort. I have only interacted with you and you alone, and warning you when you are in violation of Wikipedia policy is not a threat. TNstingray (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are withholding information on a public wiki and threating me by adding said information. Armandlee (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are (understandably) frustrated that your edit doesn't have consensus. Believe me, I've been there. I encourage you to read up on Wikipedia's different policies that all users have agreed to follow when we come to edit this amazing project. TNstingray (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is there. You are have a clear bias that wants to withhold information on a public figure. You are being unbelievably snide about it. Armandlee (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has not been established in this discussion section. TNstingray (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to show consensus withdraw the threats you made earlier. Armandlee (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made no threats to withdraw. I informed you that you were in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I would rather you learn from your mistakes, and stay to be able to voice your opinion, rather than potentially face administrative action. TNstingray (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did threaten me. Armandlee (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it probably shouldn't be included, at least not in the infobox. It could be included under the jeans ad controversy section, since it's been covered by multiple sources in relation to that, but it could be a case of too soon. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 17:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you opinion is it's ok with withhold information on public figures? Armandlee (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just not relevant to the career of this article's subject. It could be notable later down the road, but as it stands right now it's not as noteworthy compared to other information relating to her career. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 17:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources provided for this claim. A primary source isn't unusable, but unless reliable secondary sources pick up on it and offer their own interpretation, it's a matter of WP:DUE and WP:OR to make unsupported statements on the matter. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/03/sydney-sweeney-jeans-ad-republican-voter-registration
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/sydney-sweeney-voter-registration-republican-b2801164.html
Are these not reliable? Armandlee (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are definitely better sources. Now, the question is whether the information is relevant, and where to include it... I could potentially see an argument for a brief mention alongside the American Eagle ad (I think someone above said as much), but I don't think it needs to be in the lede infobox, because that would be too much of a political assumption in Wikipedia's voice. Mentioning it in the infobox would only be appropriate if she was an outspoken advocate for Republican politics. Mere registration to vote is a far cry from that, but perhaps worth mentioning alongside her recent marketing controversies. TNstingray (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact it's being left out is political. The actor has explicitly engaged in queer and left leaning media. Viewers have a right to information of her politics. Armandlee (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to give WP:AGF and WP:CIV a read before continuing. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The actor has been criticized for years about her politics. Here is a clip of Drew Afualo from August 2024. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-vv46qy41X/?hl=en Armandlee (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly better, given this is a BLP I'd see like to see more sources but I can definitely see us including the infobox political party parameter and maybe a short one or two sentence summary of the situation added to her personal life section. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again the actor's politics have been discussed as far back as 2023. Armandlee (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, where are the sources for that since you appear to be a subject matter expert on the political inclinations of Sydney Sweeney. And as regards the Instagram reel you shared above, that is decidedly NOT a reliable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Instead of ignoring the discussions on the talk page, using unreliable sourcing, and attempting multiple times revert your own additions to the article reverted by other editors, work with everyone to come to a consensus. Particularly on a BLP. This isn't a tabloid or news article. You appear to have a very personal attachment to this being added which raises concerns of WP:NPOV. Even if consensus is reached and the addition is made to the page, that does not excuse this type of conduct. DocLG (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing how this is controversial. Reporting on a public figure and the coverage she got. Armandlee (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get the issue we were having when discussing this topic previously. Wikipedia is not meant to be for reporting, especially reporting on individuals. Take a second to look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the subsection WP:NOTNEWS. Also we have a productive discussion on this in the talk page topic below. It's not about the content being controversial. It's about ensuring that potentially contentious content is not added unless it can be reliably verified as fact and determined to be relevant for inclusion. DocLG (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again how is it "potentially contentious"? Please state your reasons in this discussion why and how it applies to this public figure. Armandlee (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is a political affiliation. In the US, political affiliation is inherently polarizing which can cause disputes, disagreements, conflict, etc. To make sure I’m clear, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be included because of that. It might help if you define it so we can see where we don’t agree. DocLG (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with anything. You are purposefully withholding information about a public figure. You are not answered the question, let me restate it. How is it "potentially contentious"? Please state your reasons in this discussion why and how it applies to this public figure Armandlee (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I broke down how it is potentially contentious in my response. But, there’s always going to be disagreement on what is or isn’t “contentious”. I would like to have a good faith discussion about this, but after your last response you seem to be intentionally ignoring my response to you for some reason. Leaving this here unless there’s new input. DocLG (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not explain yourself. I haven't said anything that would not be of good faith. You just don't want to explain yourself. Armandlee (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless a celebrity has made public statements regarding politics, the norm is to not include voter registration information. This applies even more so to countries like the United States. EX: Tucker Carlson was a registered Democratic Party member for many years in order to vote for the more right-leaning candidates in party-restricted primaries.
Wouldn't be too much of a shocker if it is the same thing here. Florida is a Republican-leaning state and this voting behavior isn't unusual there. SickNWristed (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/trump-praises-sydney-sweeney-amid-american-eagle-jeans/story?id=124347376 Armandlee (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a social media post by Trump. SickNWristed (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's been reported on by NBC, ABC and many reliable sources. Armandlee (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She registered as a republican after the 2024 primaries and before the general, so it is definitely not the same here. D4R1U5 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user reverted the reversion of their own addition of this topic and wrapped the content within a hidden comment. It was still being added to the article without explanation or proper sourcing—just hidden from the majority of casual readers. I’ve removed it and added a hidden comment in it's place pointing here, per WP:DONTHIDE, which states that a comment should be added directing users to the talk page given the ongoing dispute and the lack of consensus.
There's some discussion on this topic Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hidden text/Archive 1#Inappropriate uses. It might be acceptable in non-BLP contexts. Would love to hear thoughts on this. DocLG (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The government is the ultimate publisher of repute. Her voter registration does not need secondary sourcing unless the material is too complex for the average reader to comprehend2601:46:C47F:5A0:1870:36F2:4BFE:BC33 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
It's common for residents to register with the state's dominant party to vote in elections. We have no idea why Sweeney registered as a Republican.
This (at least should) applies to every, mostly apolitical celebrity.
If she endorses Vance in 2028? Okay. SickNWristed (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are editorializing. Just reporting her party is saying absolutely nothing just she's a member of the party. Armandlee (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only 40.5 of registered voters of GOP. Armandlee (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
are GOP Armandlee (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she's been politically active enough for her party registration to be on her biography, based on the sourcing I've seen. If there is an article about the AE jeans ad (sigh), it'd be appropriate to mention Trump's mention of it and other reporting. This is all based on current information and of course could change at any time. Skynxnex (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is your threshold for public figures involvement in parties? Anything that is more than nonzero is editorializing. Armandlee (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are not going to add it to infobox, I do not see why it is not worth mentioning in the personal life section at the least? That would be withholding information for no good reason. D4R1U5 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there are no solid sources backing the info up. There's also a reasonable argument to be made that it is undue. Red Fiona (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If she regularly donates to the Republican Party, attends their conventions, and/or publicly supports Republican candidates for political offices, etc. then I think mentioning her political party affiliation would be fine and WP:DUE. But without additional context, the addition would just be trivial and irrelevant. Some1 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withholding information about a public figure is editorializing. The reader should make that decision not wiki writers. Armandlee (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, withholding information about a public figure is not editorializing. Editors make decisions about whether to include or exclude content about a pubic figure based on multiple policies and guidelines. And the consensus so far, which is policy, is to exclude this information about her registration, and I support exclusion as it is not even remotely relevant to her biography. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the record is true, there's no reason why it can't be mentioned briefly, some non-politicians have added it, even if they're not actually actively involved in politics. Cbls1911 (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely encyclopedic content that warrants a mention of some capacity in the article, even if not in the infobox. D4R1U5 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Party registration does not mean endorsement in the United States. Tucker Carlson, for instance, registered as a Democratic Party member in order to vote in their primaries. SickNWristed (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Others will disagree with you yet the no's get there way? Armandlee (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
their Armandlee (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a basis to add it to the infobox, but it seems warranted to reference it in the section relating to Personal Life or the section relating to the jeans advertisement. It is clear from the source and from companion reporting from other sources (e.g., the BBC at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v3w62ekq2o) that the endorsement by President Trump was also done in conjunction with him learning that she is a registered Republican. Without the additional information in that section at least, the article is incomplete.Homagetocatalonia (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I came here from the BLP/N thread. I'm a little bit concerned, from a BLP perspective, with making wiki-voice statements regarding a BLP based on a primary source. If mention of her Republican membership is made I would prefer that to be an attributed statement citing the secondary source that reported on it. A party membership not expressed by the BLP is of very low relevance and I'd honestly weakly support excluding the information altogether until such time as she says it's something that actually matters to her. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's plausible that Sydney Sweeney registered as a Republican to vote in the state's primaries. We have no clue. Her only stated political opinions were three brief mentions in 2020 of politicies opposite that of most Republicans. II similarly don't think we should include that. She's mostly apolitical so this is a WP: BLP violation. SickNWristed (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is entirely a sourcing one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a violation.... it's a documented fact that serves to more fully inform the public's perception of the character of an individual. The fact that she is registered as a member of a party is important and relevant, regardless of lack of public, political statements, endorsements. It became a headline story when Trump praised her only after learning that she is a registered Republican. Taquim (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, her political party registration is not important and relevant, as evidenced by the sources not providing any context to explain to the reader why it is important or relevant. And the fact that Trump praised her is insignificant when he posts to Truth Social 17 times a day, and in the same post he praised Sweeney, he also slammed Taylor Swift as a woke loser, and you certainly won't find editors clamoring on her talk page to include his insignificant ramblings. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and this is one of them, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a tool for celebrities to be glazed, obvs. Armandlee (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SickNWristed: Your efforts to sanitize Sweeney's page seem to indicate that you are either a huge fan willing to bend/hide facts to preserve her pristine image, or you are her paid publicist. Either way, more respect for objectivity would serve this page well. Taquim (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neither a fan or her publicist.
    I arrived here from the BLP/lock request pages. The simple truth of the matter is that the supposed controversy is widely overhyped (just one who mentions it) by right-wing commentators as part of a culture war narrative.
    What part of the article is non-objective? Half of the U.S. is Republican. However, even if Sydney Sweeney was a member of the Democratic Party, it shouldn't be mentioned, as she has never commented on politics.
    As I've told you before, we have no idea why she registered as a Republican, and it's very much possible that Sydney did so to vote in closed primaries. This is remarkably common in the United States. SickNWristed (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy this is some talk page, sorry for editing without consensus but the present age is really not a reliable or high-quality source. Look up Sydney Sweeney and all you'll see are articles about this. It's is definitely relevant to her person. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].
    It goes on but you get the point. As for the unknown reason behind her party affiliation, it doesn't matter because she is in the Republican Party whether ideologically she agrees with Trump or the MAGA movement isn't relevant. We are not labelling her a conservative. JetLowly (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sources also describe the controversy as overstated.
    I struggle to think of any mainstream Democratic politician or commentator who is upset about the American Eagle campaign. I do see a lot of Republicans talking about it, though, as already noted. The controversy is already mentioned in due proportion into the article: "The advertisements drew the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators, who alleged that there was a "woke" backlash against her, a claim that was described as "exaggerated" by news agencies."
    Sydney Sweeney has made absolutely no comments about politics (outside of three, brief, apparently ghostwritten tweets in 2020) in her life. It is absolutely undue and a concerning WP: BLPN violation to imply to readers that she holds X or Y political position. To be blunt: She's better known for her bosom than her politics. It is absolutely undue to have half of the article to be about Trump's daily social media diarrhea. I and others doubt that any of this is going to be anything warranting more than a brief mention in 2035. SickNWristed (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the other 3 sources given for that sentence mention it being overstated, only the present age does. I have personally seen this discussion going on on tiktok, where all culture wars happen. No, mainstream Democratic politicians and commentators aren't commenting on it as it's largely by average civilians on the internet. I don't want to add this because of Trump talking about it but it's part of it. She is already known for politics in another controversy about her family having MAGA hats as another writer mentioned.
    At this point, she is associated by many people politically, not by her bosom which would be almost entirely by men. Whether or not her party affiliation is to be included in the infobox or not will be up to consensus but SickNWristed's part should be kept as I believe it sums the situation up better than the current version does, of course that'll be up to consensus as well. JetLowly (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact you are saying women are only tits and ass is highly offence and you need to apologize. Armandlee (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly Armandlee (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If she were a democrat I would still argue it needs to be there. Armandlee (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Armandlee (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She registered per the articles mentioned after the primary. Armandlee (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN

[edit]

I've posted a link to this discussion from WP:BLPN, hopefully someone with additional familiarity with how BLP would affect whether or and how we report this can weigh in with some insight to existing consensus on how this has been handled in the past. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are editorializing. Armandlee (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might need to take a break from this topic. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to edit another topic. Armandlee (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, nobody can say between your talk page messages and here that we haven't tried. Shame. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation

[edit]

Should Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation be mentioned in the article? If so, where (in the infobox, body of the article, or both)? 23:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Survey

[edit]
  • Not Yet I am concerned about using a non-WP:ABOUTSELF source for party affiliation of a BLP. Should Sweeney say something about her politics that would change my perspective on this. Simonm223 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards Not yet as she hasn't directly addressed the matter herself, and as noted in the prior discussion, there are reasons one might register for one party even if they ultimately vote a different way. WP:DUE is a concern as well given the coverage so far. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose due to the reasons mentioned by Simonm223 & Locke Cole. Although, after I read through the *Discussion* section, I'd have to say my opinion is that Sweeney's party registration is a little more than gossip at this point. Hammelsmith (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been sourced by multiple well known newspapers. How is that gossip? Armandlee (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC) — Armandlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • No, or at least not yet. If she openly supports/endorses the Republican Party, then I would be fine with including that information in the body of the article (but not in the infobox, because her party affiliation is irrelevant to her career and notability as an actress; notice how Beyonce, who has openly endorsed Kamala Harris, does not have the "party =" parameter in her infobox). For now, this party registration stuff seems like WP:UNDUE, trivial WP:BLPGOSSIP. Also see WP:VNOT, which says that just because the information is verifiable and sourced does not mean it should automatically be included. Some1 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. Party affiliation should be considered if it’s an established part of the subject’s public life, not merely tied to a single event which has not been verified as intentionally political to begin with. DocLG (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Locke Cole's given reasons above (and my own). SickNWristed (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Simonm223 and Locke Cole's reasoning. Right now, this is trivial information, and we're not so quick to just attribute everyone to their registered political party just because we could. Contrast this with, say, Jon Voight or Sean Penn, who have been overt with their party affiliates and has been widely commented on beyond a simple aside as a side issue for a single event. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No given poor citations (I would say poor for any article never mind a BLP) and undue weight (logic similar to Some1's. Red Fiona (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed information, if it don't mention even a single word , that would be an ulterior motive. Cbls1911 (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet, per previous users. Until she makes a public statement about that, it's just WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP (not the mention the fact that "leaking" this information is probably an attempt to intensify the current pseudo-controversy, for whatever purpose that may serve). At best, this should be mentioned in the section about the Jeans ad and not in the infobox. Psychloppos (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP:BLPGOSSIP says to avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject (emphasis added). Her alleged political affiliation really doesn't seem relevant considering that she is not a politically charged/active celebrity. This info would tiptoe into WP:NOTNEWS/WP:TABLOID, WP:TRIVIA, and probably also WP:RECENTISM. We all know this is only being brought up because of one dumb commercial, which will likely be forgotten within a year and become nothing more than a footnote in Sweeney's career. pillowcrow 17:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Just because content can be sourced, doesn't mean it is automatically suitable for inclusion, and there is no indication this information is relevant or significant enough to include. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Unless she gets into activism (and 3 tweets are not activism), this is an irrelevant piece of data. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Some1. Irrelevant gossip does not belong in WP articles, and we should resist the American trend of politicizing more or less everything. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. She is an actress. I can see relevance in cases like Clint Eastwood, but this isn't the case here. An encyclopedia is supposed to weigh on the facts given in an article: we show facts relevant and enduring/ lasting to a lemma together with reliable sources. By "enduring/ lasting" I mean that relevant content would be found in several reliable sources - not just one due to some recent event, see also WP:RECENTISM. AnnaS. (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

I think it makes sense to have a section of the article dedicated to the AE controversy and for her party registration to be mentioned there, especially since the president has now commented on it—if that doesn't make it relevant then I don't know what would. It probably could be left out of the infobox, although I am unsure what the convention is for party registration in infoboxes. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should be making decisions on what information we include about a BLP on the basis of Trump's random utterances. I'll be honest: I'm not very interested in speculation on the politics of an actor derived from an unfortunate line read. I've read past articles interviewing Sweeney discussing how being an early-career actor, even a successful one, means taking the work you can get. Sweeney has not spoken about her politics nor, to my knowledge, has she made any explicit statements regarding the American or world political climate. As such, who she registered with seems like deeply irrelevant trivia. While she is a public person, even public people deserve the level of care WP:BLP requires and her party registration is currently TMZ level gossip. I do think the controversial advert is due mention along with the context of what made it controversial but I don't think we should be interpreting primary sources to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An actor who's days away from kicking off her Oscar campaign. I can't help but think some users are here to make sure some publicly available information is squashed. Armandlee (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't personalize content disputes. I don't think Wikipedia should speculate about living people even if they perform in morally repugnant advertisements. This is because I think Wikipedia's BLP policy is more important than using an encyclopedia to right great wrongs. I'm not trying to "squash" anything. I just don't think the existence of a voter registration card in her name is encyclopedically relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. Many people may use wikipedia as their only source for a person's biography and if there are making an economic decision like buying a ticket to one of her upcoming movies there are people in her orbit that would like to retain their job and would see editing her wiki for economic reasons. It is relevant to an encyclopedia. Editing information out makes the intention of a website for all to use to gain insight null and void. Armandlee (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VNOT says While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. (emphasis mine) Some1 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's very funny how this inclusion of one word is only controversial right before an actor is kicking off their Oscar campaign. Funny timing on that. Armandlee (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny indeed, and considering your contribution history consists entirely of edits to Sydney Sweeney and the associated talk page, focusing solely on her party registration, I suggest you take Locke Cole's advice above[7] and the advice given on your talk page from a different editor: User talk:Armandlee#Welcome to Wikipedia! (some_advice). Some1 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I am interested in this topic because I'm seeing wikiusers getting twisted in knots over one word. Clearly Locke Cole and your self are getting personal and not me. May I suggest you focus on another topic? Armandlee (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if no one noticed actually actively intervening in this article is the other one non-Extended Confirmed Protection user. Cbls1911 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are coping so hard finding out she's a Republican from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with WP:BLPSTYLE can be precarious. Although WP:BLP rules do evolve, the rules have to be strict, especially "Summarize how actions are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language & let facts alone do the talking." Sweeney's choice of political party may be more noteworthy than mere gossip, yet WP:BLPPRIVACY is still all-important: "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." Hammelsmith (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody forced her to register to become a republican nor did anyone force her into public life. Those were the actions of a person with agency. It is not contentious, loaded nor imprecise. Armandlee (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why Wikipedia selectively require fake discussions to protect certain individuals' edits in recent years, given their needs, the discussion process has different benchmarks, and in fact only care about their own arbitrary judgment. Take this entry, someone want to hide this message and insisting on removing it completely from the tentative version, perhaps it was some Democrats who liked her, or perhaps some Republicans who weren't particularly happy about it. Regardless, I'm sure this decision is unusual, and I wonder how long this arbitrary approach will last. Cbls1911 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not many Wikipedia editors are not Democrats, Republicans or even Americans at all. Nor do all editors who concern themselves with BLP matters care much about the living people they are discussing. For instance: I was entirely unaware that Sweneey was in any movies that would have been Oscar eligible, contrary to certain assertions above, because, honestly, I don't give two shits about the Oscars. I'm a Cannes sort of guy who really enjoys the styling of directors like Coralie Fargeat and David Cronenberg. It's best not to speculate about the underlying motives of editors, per WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your attempt to pretend that there's nothing wrong with current editing trends, but looking at the editorial tendencies of other modern figures...it seems hard to pretend that there isn't a problem.Cbls1911 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a clear problem with the moderators being biased against the right. They are making up rules for this page that doesn’t exist on any other page. If you look at Adam Sandler’s wikipedia page it saids he is reportedly a registered Republican even though he has never publicly talked about politics. The moderators need to get over themselves and include her political registration as a Republican on her page. If she came out as a registered Democrat we wouldn’t be having this conversation we are having now and it would already be on her page. LoonLaker10 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could assume that’s true, or you could read what people actually said and respond to that, instead.
It would be a more productive use of your time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeans ad controversy

[edit]

Should it be added to the article? Lots of coverage:

And just in case there was doubt, here is a WP:RS saying in their own voice that Sydney Sweeney is "not Hitler", so that issue can be put to rest: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/other-voices/article311543169.html TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a recent bullshit cultural war thing, it will die soon. Kind of creepy that Ted Cruz would weigh in on it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MaxBrowne2 I agree. Can't fit every minor controversy into every article. If this doesn't end up impacting her career, or sparking a reaction beyond social media seethe, I don't think it warrants inclusion. Kaotao (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly meets the guidelines for notability. It's doesn't matter what I think about the controversy but personal opinions on it should not determine inclusion into the article or lack of it. Theofunny (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and think the section should be restored (the deletion also removed another, unrelated news item). Regardless of one's opinion, it is a national news story that is a relevant part of this biography. This is not an overly long page. Removing it seems inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages that catalog major and minor news items. Iandaandi (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am 100% sure that nobody's going to give a fuck in 10 years (or even 2 years). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:CRYSTAL argument, which is an explicitly forbidden rationale on Wikipedia. If the controversy passes WP:GNG - significant coverage in two reliable sources - it should be included. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you are ok with withholding information in the present based on present day speculation. Armandlee (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No celebrity (who is generally political) should have their party registration listed. In the United States, party registration is often used strategically to vote in closed primaries. SickNWristed (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She registered after the primary per the sources I gave. Clearly you are not actually reading the sources provided and jump to a conclusion that fits your viewpoint. As others have pointed out I can't help but think you are part of her team in some way. She's about to kick off her Oscar campaign and I'm thinking some of the wikiusers are here to cover for her. Armandlee (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure how to put this, but I have a feeling that, in this case, when it comes to that jeans commercial (due to its eugenics undertone), there's something about it that still matters culturally. Maybe it sounds like nonsense now, but still, it should be re-edited, but with trimming. I can work on it if you guys don't disagree. Lililolol (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth including, even as a minor few sentences within Personal Life - it may be insignificant within wider popular culture but it will contribute to Sweeney’s future perception and inform public knowledge of her. Hauntbug (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hauntbug It... will? You can't just decide that something will have lasting significance. Kaotao (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will! She has received a significant amount of criticism, alongside some praise, to such an extent people are exposing electoral records suggesting she’s a Republican voter. The “lasting significance” is evident in the public response, which is how this site defines notability. If you’re writing an article about a public figure, a narrative that placed her in headlines is obviously necessary to include; even briefly. Reminder that this website has an entire page about the Bud Light boycott, so it’s not exactly alien to fleeting culture war discourse. Hauntbug (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hauntbug Lots of reasons to believe that there might be a lasting impact beyond generating two weeks' worth of reactions on social media (the point of all ads, many beating this one without being mentioned on Wikipedia), no proof that there will be. Why don't we run ad campaigns on all articles on people?
As for the Bud Light boycott:
"Forbes reported that AB InBev was facing a "permanent" 15% drop in their stock price that they would be unable to revert as the company's stock continued to slip."
"Sales continued to decline and by July 2024 Bud Light had slipped to third place, behind Modelo Especial and Michelob Ultra." – Over one year after the boycott began Kaotao (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added a section regarding the jeans to the article for American Eagle Outfitters, as I feel like it's better belonging there, within the context of the brand. Nguyk (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link that from this article? Armandlee (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know why the reference to her Republican party membership keeps being removed? It is a statement of fact that is relevant to the on-going media coverage relating to the American Eagle commercial. Given the way that the story has been told along political lines, it is relevant to reference this. Furthermore, all the sources provided as citations are legitimate news sources that present the facts without offering any opinion on this. MrPaperwings (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Including in the article the reports of a subject's political party registration brought up ongoing concerns that should be addressed. Since this is a WP:BLP, any addition should be reliably sourced, especially when likely to be contentious (because publicly endorsing or associated one political party or another has never caused controversy. /s) some, but not all sources used had questionable reliability. In consistency with biographies of similar public figures, party affiliation is usually included prominently as a direct statement of fact when it’s a well-established aspect of the subject’s public life, not just mentioned in passing or tied to a single event. Just because it's in the news this week does not mean it belongs in the article. It shouldn't be too much of a problem to discuss these things and include it. Possibly in the context of the controversy as an indirect statement. I'm open to discussing any aspect. DocLG (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and your detailed response. I think this is relevant to the context here. Sure, this advert and the controversy surrounding it might be resolved soon, but there is relevance when mentioning her political affiliation when referencing the advert and how it tied into broader politics. There's no interest in adding any opinion here, just the facts. But I think there is genuine relevance that may be useful as historical context as much as in the current response to the advert and Sweeey. The Guardian article should suffice alone for a reliable source that is consistent with other living biographies. MrPaperwings (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reportedly the President (Trump 47) said something about someone else's reporting that Ms. Sweeney identifies as Republican. A neutral statement could be included about the press, but there are so many other historically NOTABLE biographies for whom reliable documentation of notability is available (but discounted). Is this a venue for debating whether or not 'the Wikipedia process' deal evenly with all biographies? I think not, but I firmly believe that a neutral and factually objective and well-documentated (simple?) statement could be included about the current Sweeney-focused discussion in the press. MaynardClark (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with and appreciate both of the above replies. DocLG (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been discussed by multiple reliable sources ([8][9][10]), it should be included. KnowDeath (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also 12 Cbls1911 (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the current controversy about the Jeans ad is bullshit and will probably be forgotten in two years (at least I hope it will, because it certainly deserves to). However, the article should not just be stating that the campaign "drew the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators, who alleged that there was a "woke" backlash against her". There was indeed some (pseudo) backlash from "some left-wing social media users" (as currently stated in American Eagle Outfitters) with some left-wing media choosing to amplify that (1) and conservatives then amplifying that again for their own purposes (because it makes the left look stupid, I guess). The article should mention this IMHO. Psychloppos (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How big the backlash was is a separate discussion. The problem is that in the current version of the article about Sydney herself, the description suffers greatly from the POV, which tries to "aggressively" convince the reader that the backlash did not exist and that the whole thing was a right-wing propaganda attack. This is a blatant conflict of interest, which only looks more ridiculous when the authors of the article ask to protect page from vandalism against the actress. The version of the conflict in the article about the jeans themselves looks much more neutral, since the conflict is described in detail and with equal mention of the parties' opinions, instead of trying to pressure the reader into making certain conclusions. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't really a conflict and it is being hugely exaggerated by right-wing propaganda sources? We aren't here to push partisan misinformation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing Wikipedia, not participating in cultural or political wars. If sources describe it differently, so should we. Our opinions and views should not influence it. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I said. We should go with the facts and not pretend that there is some kind of conflict over this. I agree that we should not push partisan misinformation. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you completely misunderstood what I wanted to say and just continue to treat this article as a place to debate views on the topic instead of writing a neutral and balanced wiki article about it. Well, at least I tried, sorry. Solaire the knight (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could pretend that's true, or you could assume good faith. Don't worry, I won't let anyone push left-wing misinformation either. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that there has been partisan misinformation from both sides : unless I'm mistaken the Guardian article about that pseudo "backlash" was published before the right-wing sources started commenting on it. It seems that misguided left-wing outlets were trying to exaggerate the issue by reporting about "outrage" where there was none, possibly as an attempt to generate clickbait. Currently the right-wing side seems to have an advantage only because the "controversy" was so ridiculous to start with.
Anyway, I agree that the article about the jeans is more factual and correct about this issue. We should try to do something similar. Psychloppos (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot to say about this too, but we are not here to search for the "truth". The version of the section in the article about jeans is much better in this regard, since it does not try to influence the reader and develop some "version", but simply describes the view on the topic from different sides. Not to mention that, as far as I remember, articles about living people are under special control when describing such things. Solaire the knight (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "some" social media users and apparently one tiktok referenced in the Guardian don't seem to be a very Notable backlash? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't really strong sources to establish that this is an encyclopedically significant thing. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Guardian source mentioned above and it says that the supposed left-wing side of the "controversy" is "some social media users" (unnamed) and "a tiktok video" by someone who is also unnamed. I haven't seen any sources saying any notable people have commented on it.
If we're going to start treating every issue mentioned in one (or even a few!) Tiktoks as notable, we're all going to have to do a lot more typing. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And frankly the Guardian source is the strongest of the sources mentioned above for the voter registration piece. Others included things like WP:RSP loser WP:NYPOST and a Variety article that didn't even bother to look at the Florida documents themselves but just said that she "reportedly" had registered. Simonm223 (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there was no real controversy to speak of: just some nobodies on social media to whom some outlets (some left-wing, some not) misguidedly decided to give unwarranted importance as media outlets in general often do, which in turn gave their right-wing equivalents a great opportunity to ridicule "the left", wokeness, and so on (and give even more importance to this ridiculous non-controversy). The whole thing is beyond pathetic, there's not denying that. Which is why we should mention it in a neutral, factual way. The American Eagle article mentions "some left-wing social media users" and that is pretty accurate IMHO. Psychloppos (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sydney_Sweeney&oldid=1304593672"