Talk:Alicia Machado

Untitled

Birth 6 of December of 1976 as Joseph Alicia Machado Fajardo in Maracay, Aragua State, Venezuela.

From 1979 to 1983 she studied classic ballet and soon she danced contemporary dance during eight years.

In 1993 she graduated as bachelor in the mixed grammar school " Calicantina " of Maracay. That same year she began studies of Administrative Sciences at the UNITEC.

In 1994 she made sporadic commercial in Caracas with the agency of models that directs the Hundredth Mariela.

In June of 1995 she became Miss Venezuela. In 1996 she won Miss Universe. In 1998 she carried out the soap opera " Samantha " in Venevisión. In 1999 she traveled to Mexico while carried out the soap opera " Hell in the Paradise ". She has two brothers - 16 years old (Francisco Arturo Machado Fajardo) and 31 years (Arturo Jose Machado). Her papa is called Arturo Jose Machado and her mother Marta.

"In 2004–2005, she can be viewed almost twenty-four hours a day on several cable-television channels in Latin America in a commercial for a dieting product."

This should change to something less cynical like "she has pursued a career as a TV commercial model with particular success in promoting a dieting product" -Franzconde 19:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

Machado was engaged to baseball player Bobby Abreu. However, it only listed his last name on this site. I have added more detail as to who he was. -Moisanite 16:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Edit

Added the missing "d" at at the end of acknowledge in: "All her hard work was acknowledge when she won the Midia Award" under the Personal Life Section. -Burst3 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Please read it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

According to WP:BLP, an accusation is not a conviction, and that is exactly how we treat it in the article. An accusation in court, and an accusation by a federal judge presiding over that court - reported by Reuters, BBC, Associated Press, across the world, is highly notable and easily fulfills any criteria for notability. In addition, these sources are all accepted as WP:RS project wide. Avaya1 (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You sure do know a lot about Wikipedia policy for someone who just started editing... what was it, yesterday? Today? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In particular this material, added by a brand new account, created yesterday, which appears familiar with Wikipedia lingo (see edit summaries), is a BLP violation. Daily Mail is NOT a reliable source. The AP story by itself is not sufficient to include this info as it's essentially speculation. See all of BLP but especially the part on WP:BLPCRIME: "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.".

Add to that that it's almost certain that the addition of this info is politically motivated (i.e. it likely violates WP:NPOV) and special care needs to be taken with regard to this biography.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Look, the burden is on those who want to include it. I'm removing it per WP:BLPCRIME. Start an RfC if you want it in, in the meantime don't put it back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're claiming I'm a new account, since I've been editing Wikipedia for over 11 years. There is no speculation here. We are reporting exactly what is described in the reliable sources, which fulfills all the criteria accepted on this encyclopedia for notability, BLP, and reliable sources. There's no argument here, since this material (a serious court case that made international headlines) would always be accepted for a BLP, by consensus in thousands of articles, for any public figure on Wikipedia.Avaya1 (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

My apologies on the new account thing. Clicked the wrong account. But the BLP issue still remains. Again:

"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."

And if you've been around that long then you should know that you can't edit war to include potentially BLP violating material in an article without getting consensus. The burden of proof is on you. The unless a conviction is secured is pretty clear, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And funny how this material wasn't notable or important enough to include for the past ten years, but all of sudden, today, a day after the presidential debate, this material about an accusation from years ago all of sudden becomes "oh my god we must include this!". Bullshit. It wasn't notable before, it's not notable now, it violated BLP then, it violates it now, even if someone wants to use it for political purposes. ESPECIALLY if someone wants to use it for political purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone speaks a single language. I'm sure you'd be completely blown away by many things that could be added to pages like Kosovo War that have been around since 2000 but aren't due to a language barrier. Always feels like the en. part of this place is a wholly different world sometimes.Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

But Machado is a public figure. She has starred in telenovelas, films, TV shows, been a Miss Universe. The dispute about her weight gain was featured in many RS at the time (BBC, etc). She is currently involved in a political dispute and using her celebrity to intervene in the US election - see the NYTimes article in May, now there is obviously more extensibve coverage. The accusations against Machado were featured in multiple RS and the article as written clearly states they were accusations. Thus they are proper to mention in the article. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures

"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a ridiculously broad definition of "public figure". Basically you're saying "if they're notable enough to have an article they're a public figure". No. And this isn't about an affair. It's about ... wait for it, wait for it, wait for it... a crime! As in BLPCRIME.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you want to be legalisatic about it, Machado is clearly a limited purpose public figure "a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted:[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

First, we're not a court of law. Second, even by that definition, the key is "those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". The issue involved is the boyfriend/judge thing. Has Machado "thrust herself to the forefront of this controversy"? No. Because this isn't a public controversy (though something else is). Is she running around talking about her ex-boyfriend and the judge? No. Her notability and this issue are unrelated. You are just trying to use her notability from one thing, to smear her for another and then claiming that one makes the other ok. It doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See here for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/27/alicia-machado-miss-universe-weight-shame-trump-speaks-out-clinton NPalgan2 (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation in repeating allegations that have been reported in reliable sources. The Daily Mail is in fact a reliable source, its recent story provided links to the 1998 news reports that Machado had been accused of driving her boyfriend away from the scene of a shooting, allegedly by him, and of threatening to kill a judge. To provide balance we provide her view that she called the judge to thank him, not to threaten him. TFD (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't revert (deleting reliably sourced material), 4 times in a row added by multiple users, anyway. That is just pure edit warring. So I have filled in a 3RR on this. Avaya1 (talk) 03:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Information suspected of violating BLP policies should be removed pending consensus. The section as written before was highly misleading as the wording heavily suggested she was guilty of a crime. Knope7 (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If there was a version that heavily suggested that she was guilty I missed it. The versions I saw all summarised the RS articles and noted that the charges were dismissed for insufficient evidence. Which version do you mean? Could you suggest a preferred phrasing? NPalgan2 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"accused in court" sounds as though she was a criminal defendant. Starting a section with that is, IMO, strongly suggests she was indicted. Knope7 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"accused in court" ' oh yeah, I missed that. It was even worse than I thought - "accused in court" as in "someone present inside a courtroom made the accusation" not "accused in court" as in "charges were filed". Yeah.... sketchy as hell.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It weasn't just some random person in court, she was accused by the prosecutors. In the words of the BBC, "One of the best-known figures in the international beauty business, the Venezuelan Alicia Machado". The judge appeared on national television and accused her of threatening to kill him. These are clearly notable events involving a notable person. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh? So the prosecutors filed charges against her? Got a reliable source for that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Venezuelan legal system belongs to the continental law system, and seems to be quite different from the US one. I'm not sure the how far in the process (by their system's standards) things got before the investigation was abandoned. I have used the phrase "charges" which suggests spurious precvision above and you're right to haul me up on that. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the how far...' <-- that right there is a pretty good reason for you to drop it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Kind of off-topic, but I'd like to add that if anyone knows an admin that's currently online they should let them know that this article needs semi protection right now. RFPP is notoriously slow and not the ideal place to request immediate protection. Lizard (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It is crystal clear that there is significant opposition to adding this content and several editors including me believe that it is a BLP violation. The attempts to add it in the last 24 hours coincide with IP editors trying to add slanderous insults to the article. This is highly politicized. Such controversial, poorly written POV pushing content should stay out. Any NPOV content must gain consensus before being added. Those who propose to add this should rewrite it neutrally and cite it to indisputably reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't think anything is gained from conflating vandalism and "poorly written POV pushing content" with disputes as to whether RS material falls on one side or the other of slightly ambiguous BLP rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPalgan2 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@NPalgan2: When there is a concerted and politicized attack by vandals and POV pushers on a biography of a living person, heightened vigilence and great caution are in order. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

She is more than a "limited purpose public figure." She had a career as a beauty queen, actress and nude model in Playboy. If she had not done that then there would have been no article about her. Cullen328, the matter is under discussion at BLPN. TFD (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: So you really think that we should include POV pushing, politicized, unsubstantiated allegations about models who appear in Mexican Playboy? That link is dead, by the way. Or beauty queens? Argue that point all you want, but do not add the content to the article without gaining consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen. We need to discuss the sources first, and then decide what to add to the article, if anything. Also, Trumps's misgivings are not a good reason to malign a living person.Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. Because the policy of NPOV says, "An article should...strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Editors with their different views can never agree on what is or is not relevant but they can agree on what reliable sources have decided to publish. If you think the media is biased, then write to them and tell them to knock it off. Or get Wikipedia policy changed. In the meantime, I plan to follow policy and expect other editors to do so too. BTW some links go dead but fortunately the information is available in multiple sources. See for example an article from yesterday's Daily Mail: "Sex on a reality TV show, a Playboy photo shoot, a threat to kill a judge and claims that a drug lord fathered her baby: Behind 'Miss Piggy' the beauty queen turned Clinton campaigner 'fat-shamed' by Trump."[1] TFD (talk) 13:48, 29 September 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)

WP:BLPGOSSIP

I have removed content that plainly implicates WP:BLPGOSSIP and other concerns:

• Wikipedia is not a repository of allegations of celebrity sex tapes.
• People en Español is not an acceptable source for this kind of inflammatory information. This is not to say that the publication is unreliable in every context (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), but in this context (living person, sex-related material) it is insufficient.
• The remaining source, El Universo, does not appear to support the bald statement, in Wikipedia's own voice, about a tape. My Spanish is lackluster at best, but the article refers only to un supuesto video (i.e., a supposed or alleged video). Completely insufficient to make the much more definitive claim in text.

So I've removed all this content and replaced it with just-the-facts text, stripped of innuendo and unsubstantiated gossip, cited to two reliable, English-language sources (MLB.com and the Orlando Sentinel). Neutrality^talk 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Good work. I reinstated some material that had been removed without explanation, but I should have looked a lot closer at the actual text and the sourcing. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Birth of child appears to be incorrect information – should be deleted

If you follow the link, the source turns out to be a prosecutor's report, which itself is repeating a statement by one person, who was subsequently executed. This doesn't strike me as reliable. It seems to me more likely that, as a public figure, Machado has attracted a fair bit of batshit attention from various journalists. Theonemacduff (talk) 05:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Y I have gone ahead and removed it. Thanks for pointing this out. Neither of the sources adequately supported the statement, in Wikipedia's own voice, about the child. The sources say only that a anonymous informant within a Mexican drug cartel said something to authorities in a "preliminary investigation" which later leaked to the Mexican media. This kind of unverified, unverifiable gossip, literally from anonymous drug lords, patently violates WP:BLPGOSSIP. Removed. Neutrality^talk 05:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

BLPGOSSIP says, "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true." Univision News is a reliable source and it is true that prosecutors said the drug lord was the father.[2] Similarly Trump was never convicted of calling the woman "Miss Piggy," and when we report it we just report what allegations were made rather than state them as facts. TFD (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Your mention of Donald Trump is completely irrelevant other than to demonstrate that you are acting here out of ideological and political motivation. That is not a proper role of WP editors. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@184.189.217.210: You just violated Wikipedia’s fundamental principle Assume good faith. @The Four Deuces’ comment is an example on how facts* and allegations* should be displayed. Nika de Hitch (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Assumptions don't stand before explicit evidence to the contrary. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention Trump in this discussion thread. However, the reality is that policy should be applied evenly. Just as we can mention unsubstantiated claims made by Machado against Trump, we can mention unsubstantiated claims made by judicial officals against Machado. It does not matter how credible the claims are (we are not validating them), but the degree of coverage they have received in reliable sources. It is not "ideological and political motivation" to support equal treatment of Trump and his detractors. We should follow policy, report what sources say regardless of which side they help or hurt. We have the two least liked and least trusted presidential candidates in U.S. history and it is not our role to protect either one of them. TFD (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• The Four Deuces, please tell me that you didn't just say "it is not our role to protect either one of them". It is. For both of them. You have swore a blood oath to protect the BLP when you started editing it. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not all allegations are equal. We require non-obvious facts to be verified by a reliable source. We do not require all non-obvious facts to be proven in court of law. I think it's fine to mention that Machado has alleged Trump called her those names as long as we specify the claim comes from her and we don't use language like defamation because that evokes a legal claim that has not been actually been claimed in a court. This story has gotten way more attention and publicity than the boyfriend situation. The names used may not have been recorded but there are reliable recordings of Trump talking about her weight being a problem in the 1990s and repeating that her weight had been a problem the day after the debate. All of this can be backed up by reliable sources. The boyfriend drama may warrant a much more abbreviated mention, but as I've mentioned elsewhere on the talk page, we should be careful in how we use legal language. As written previously the section gave the erroneous impression that she was indicted. Knope7 (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not mention Trump in this discussion thread. -- So someone impersonated you when TFD wrote "Similarly Trump was never convicted", which is what I responded to?

It is not "ideological and political motivation" -- complete and utter bullshit. This article, and WP generally, is not a debate forum about Donald Trump. Talking about Donald Trump here is completely irrelevant to this page. The only reason to do so is the "ideological and political motivation" that you have made explicit by framing the discussion in terms of "equal treatment of Trump and his detractors".

However, the reality is that policy should be applied evenly. -- I'm not a frequent editor at WP, but even I know about "other stuff exists". -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The information is not 'incorrect' as such. If you go to https://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/public-records/StandardSearch.aspx and search for Dinorah Machado, declaration of residence, you can see that her full name is Dinorah Valentina *Alvarez* Machado (note that the mother definitely is Alicia Machado). This seems, as a matter of everyday logic, to suggest that her father is El Indio. This document may not be suitable to include in WP without a reliable secondary source discussing it, but its existence and undoubted genuineness should be a factor in the decision whether or not to include the older sources discussing the Attorney General of Mexico's claim about Dinorah's paternity. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't do "everyday logic". We do reliable sources. As a reminder, the WP:BLP policy applies on talk pages as well. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, the coverage of her interrelationships with the judge and the boyfriend in recent articles, within the last few days, is meager. I doubt it qualifies as significant coverage, and no new facts have emerged since 1997. So how useful is this story, really?

Compared to her career, the publicity surrounding her weight gain, and Trump's behavior toward her back then and now, which is still the same (noticeably unapologetic), and all the facets of her life - compared to all that - this story is really insignificant. It seems to be getting to the point that any coverage of this, in this article, is Undue - imho - which also happens to be emphasized as under the BLP umbrella, whenever we cover a living person. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between what is significant if you were a reporter writing about her and what is significant to her Wikipedia article. Say for example you were a reporter. People get shot every day, make phone calls every day, so you decide not to report on it. But as a Wikipedia editor, we accept that reliable secondary sources determine what is significant. See "Balancing aspects": Articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." TFD (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Controversy concerning history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the Associated Press:

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1998/Ex-Ms-Universe-Accused-of-Threat/id-d65cc3f9dbf8d64445e420ccedcd3a5a

Machado threatened to kill a judge while making a phone call. This is a credible news source and this controversy should be included in the Wikipedia page. Avangion (talk) 06:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Avangion: You state that Machado threatened to kill a judge when the facts are that she was neither indicted nor convicted of any such threat. It is a BLP violation to say that she threatened the judge unless she was convicted of that. She has no criminal history since she has been convicted of nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a substantive accusation that is credited by a credible news source. Your standard of evidence would require scrubbing thousands of Wikipedia entries. Facts do not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law in order to be included on Wikipedia. I believe that including the fact that a famous person was accused of something criminal and this was done via a credible source merits inclusion, and not doing so would be a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. As long as only the truth is included, i.e. that only the accusation is stated and there is no mention of whether it is true or not, it demands inclusion in the article. Avangion (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll add this link to where she admits to these allegations on CNN. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8OnvlWSHg Avangion (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

It's NOT credited by a credible news source. Read your source again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL, I never thought a liberal would say that CNN is not a credible source.

The CNN host asks her if she was the getaway driver in a murder and if she threatened to kill a judge, and she answers by saying "That happened 20 years ago." 74.98.32.123 (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the record, I guess the entire OJ Simpson article should be scrubbed too using that logic. Nevermind that she just admitted on CNN that it happened and that she's "no angel" and that "the past is the past". How much do they pay you shills? 80.201.32.145 (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

John F' Kennedy, how many of you guys are gonna show up here? You're what? The fourteenth? Sixteenth? Twentieth brand new anon account who's shown up to try and turn this page into an attack page in the past 24 hrs? No, no, no, this is not a coordinated effort, not at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

We cannot say someone did something unless reliable sources say she did. Reliable sources say the judge claimed to have received an anonymous death threat and traced the call to her. She admitted the call, but said she thanked him for being a fair judge during the call and did not threaten him. So we need to provide both versions of the story, and not come down for one or the other. Should also note that the same judge subsequently decided not to proceed further against her on the accessory to murder or threats to kill charges. TFD (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can find a credible source that supports her side of the story, then it should be included as well. Avangion (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing an article because it reflects negatively upon someone's political choice is shameful. AP - Associated Press is a reputable news source in which Avangion's link is sourced from. 71.200.52.61 (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that is is the definition of a reliable source. It is the source through which many stories from other news organizations are sourced from. Avangion (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be reporting what sources are reporting as possibilities or contradictory statements. This is not about "let's throw all the factoids out there and let the reader decide"--this is a BLP in which allegations or reports of allegations have a negative effect. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• What is wrong with letting the reader decide? As mentioned above OJ Simpson's page includes allegations of a murder for which he was never convicted. Are we to remove those allegations from his bio because they have a negative effect?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Rusf10, Wikipedia articles are neither Facebook threads nor Freshman Comp exercises. I strongly suggest you read WP:BLP very carefully. I also consider you exercise (or grow) editorial judgment: this woman is no OJ, and her "case" would never have been one if she hadn't gotten caught up in this election cycle where all of a sudden everything needs to be talked about--for a day, or maybe two. "Allegations" if poorly sourced to begin with are UNDUE and negatively reflect on living people. And that is a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
    • You can cutoff the condescending tone, I'm not a high school or college student. I read the BLP article and it says "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." Therefore, I have concluded the following: As Miss Universe, Alicia Machado is clearly a public figure. The allegations are mentioned by multiple reliable sources (AP, etc.). The allegations are totally unrelated to the election, they were made almost twenty years ago and should have been included in this article long before now (why they were not, I don't know). And readers still should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Perhaps you believe they are too stupid to think on their own and need your guidance. Purposely leaving out information to steer them in one direction or another is just wrong.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No, already explained above. There is a difference between "public figure" and "notable enough to have a Wikipedia article". "I'm not a high school or college student" - yeah, that's sort of obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, she did not "get caught up in the election cycle." She decided to write a book about Trump,[3] spoke with Trump on Jorge Ramos, and joined the Clinton campaign. She has injected herself into the campaign, Clinton has repeated her remarks and made a commercial about her, presumably with her consent. TFD (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Explain it again because it was a really poor argument. If someone truly is a public figure then they should be notable enough and the opposite is also true. "I'm not a high school or college student", meaning that I'm not a kid, so don't talk to me like one, genius.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No. "Notable" and "public figure" are not synonyms. Else, there would be no point in having a BLP policy, or having that policy distinguish between public and non-public figures. Not that hard to understand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

She has put herself into the public light on her own, her criminal history, even allegations, should be included with this article, they are in fact relevant as it goes to character. Rebuttals can and should also be included, provided they are sourced correctly. As stated above, if we decided that accusations themselves cannot be included, then there would be thousands of pages that will need to be edited in order to bring them to the same standard that some of you want to hold this page to. It appears there are a lot of people who really dislike one of the American presidential candidates and as such are letting personal opinion sway them. Let's try and keep Wikipedia neutral shall we? Please add the information into the page where it belongs. RTShadow (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: "criminal history, even allegations, should be included with this article, they are in fact relevant as it goes to character". Do you think Donald Trump's article should include his child rape allegations? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The article subject has no "criminal history" - she has not been arrested, charged or convicted of any crime. Someone making a claim on a TV show is not equivalent in any way to a formal legal proceeding. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Additional info

Muchada gave an interview to Jorge Ramos in March before she became a citizen.[4] I think we should mention this although per PRIMARY and SYN we should just report what MMfA and HuffPo write and not use the actual interview to argue whether it bolsters or detracts from her current claims.[5][6] We should also mention that Hillary Clinton congratulated her in May on deciding to become a citizen. TFD (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you want to add about the interview? As far as Hillary's congratulations, nah, it's not notable enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 September 2016

Please remove the categories referring to the subject as of Cuban and Canarian descent. The words "Cuba" and "Canar-" do not feature outside the categories, therefore this is unsourced. All ethnicity and religion categories need solid sources, they must not be guessed by a person's name or place of birth.

Valentina Cardoso (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd have to agree with that. Neither Cuba nor the Canary Islands are mentioned (much less cited) anywhere in this wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

Circular References

The entry states that Trump made a derogatory remark relating to her being a Latina and a maid during her reign as Miss Universe (1995). The reference for this is a New York Times article that quotes Hillary Clinton making that claim during the first 2016 presidential debate. The New York Times article was written the day before the entry in Wikipedia and cites the Clinton claim from the debate (disputed by Trump), rather than any factual evidence that Trump made the remark more than 20 years ago.

Would you mind signing your post? Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, not clear what the point is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Awards section

I propose we do this properly, the way we do it in K-pop, for instance: only list notable awards. That means, as far as I can tell, is scrap everything except for the TVyNovelas Awards nomination, and that one needs a citation. Haha, *edit request* Drmies (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support This seems to be an effective way to determine only notable awards and eliminates dime store statuettes (metaphorically speaking). Steve Quinn (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight about weight redux

It seems an anonymous IP and an editor disruptively responded by visually interrupting and splitting up my above post with the same section name - minus the "redux". Apparently they are so concerned they have to fragment my message. I corrected the placement of the IPs post, who posted their question right after I finished my statement [7], - I fixed it so there would be no interruption.

But, the other editor's comments still has fragmented the rest of my post [8], [9]. Apparently what I wrote concerned the both of them so much they seemed to have to visually disrupt my post. It is interesting that this was an IP and an editor who engaged in the same tactic. Also, surprisingly, the red-linked editor joined Wikipedia in 2006 and edited with this displayed attitude. I would expect this from a much less experienced editor - not someone who has been editing since 2006 - for ten years. Also, look at the extra editing effort I have to do to sort this out and explain this to other editors involved on this talk page.

Anyway, I am copying and pasting that post below so a real discussion can take place. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight about weight again

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) 23:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, these assertions are based on current news coverage during the last couple of days. The 1997 and 1998 references are no help in addressing these issues because they are outdated. Those might be useful in conjunction with current coverage - but it is not likely they are useful on their own because it is almost twenty years later and things are different. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You're right, we probably need only one or two sentences about this that include Trump's comments (which makes it notable). The question is where to mention it. Yes her weight gain had an effect on her career and she's supporting Hillary Clinton because of her poor relationship with Trump (which falls under politics).--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote above, the article only tells half the story. Just noticed a video by Occupy Democrats posted on Facebook, makes it look like her eating problems were Trump's fault. The story deserves a whole paragraph to tell the whole NPOV story. I'll think about writing one. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe--but not with a video posted on Facebook. Please find more reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Machado's feud with Trump is a fairly big story. It started 20 years ago and was apparently a media story at the time as Trump invited several reporters to watch Machado work out and spoke about her weight gain on Howard Stern. The Clinton campaign was already using the Machado's experience with Trump, with Machado's cooperation, before the debate. Clinton mentioned Machodo during the natioanlly televised debate and Trump tried to jump in ("Where did you find that?"). Trump also mentioned Machado the next day on Fox and Friends and apparently has mentioned her again today at a campaign rally. Machado herself was on Anderson Cooper's show yesterday talking about her issues with Trump (and the allegations she drove the getaway car for her then boyfriend which I think should be added back with better wording) and is currently being more widely searched on google than Kim Karashian. (per Buzzfeed) So basically, this story reaches back 20 years, was part of a nationally televised debate and has been widely discussed in the media, and Machado herself has participated in making this a media story so I think it does warrant at least a paragraph, but probably a short section in the article.

Another way to lessen the undue weight problem is to expand on other things in the article like her career as an actress. There probably are more reliable sources that could help us provide more context for who she is and what her career has been outside of her feud with Trump. Knope7 (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this discussion seems to be going well. I am glad editors are actually working together rather than focusing on all the negativity. And moving on, I agree with all the suggestions. Perhaps a paragraph or a section is appropriate.

Knope7 has given a really good summation of what happened and where things are right now. And I think it is a good idea about expanding on other things such as her career as an actress, and the context for who she is and what her career has been outside of her feud with Trump. By the way, I saw that Anderson Cooper interview video too. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To follow up on adding more to her career outside of the Trump feud, here are a few sources I have found. I'm sure we have editors who are fluent in Spanish who can probably find more reliable sources to expand the article.

• Alicia Machado Proud of Her Role in Univision Sitcom
• Alicia Machado Back on TV as the Beautiful, Manipulative “Madame”
• Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado Resumes Musical Career Knope7 (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

In 1997, Machado said she developed buliminia and anorexia before she was crowned Miss Universe 1996 on May 17 1996.[10] Trump bought the pageant Oct. 24, 1996.[11] Since she says she developed these illnesses before she met Trump, I so not think we should state as a fact that she developed them as a result of Trump. TFD (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know what synthesis and original research is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So have you. And you are aware that it applies to what we put into articles not about how we assess reliable sources. If we have conflicting claims in reliable sources then we need to determine how to report them. You have decided that what Machado says is more reliable than what AP and other respected media say. The problem is that we have reliable sources reporting different stories she has claimed. I suggest we cannot say as a fact that she developed anorexia etc. following her meeting Trump because she has changed her story. Of course it would not be a problem at all if you did not insist that we report everything she now says as fact, rather than using intext citations. TFD (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So have you - sure, but I'm not the one trying to do WP:SYNTH and original research. you are aware that it applies to what we put into articles not about how we assess reliable sources. - again, yes, but you ARE proposing to put something into the article. Quote: "I so not think (sic) we should state as a fact that she developed them as a result of Trump". Then: "You have decided that what Machado says is more reliable..." - uh, no, I haven't decided anything. As pointed out above, the sources say the same damn thing that Machado says, there's no contradiction, which is why there's no need for your super-duper-synthesis-sleuthing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

TFD I have to say, thanks for pointing this out. This will have to be taken into account, and a review of current day news reports are in order. (Just when I thought I had it!) Steve Quinn (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this. Is this back to the drawing board? Steve Quinn (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To briefly outline a possible way to write this up. I think we have to start with saying she experienced bulemia before the Miss Universe content, and it seemed to be factor for her being underweight (by six pounds) when she was crowned. Then we can bring in the weight gain, that she did ask for help during the late part of her reign, and discuss what type of help she was looking for. At least according to her, Trump unilaterally decided to bring her to gym under the glare of (how many) journalists.

He did comment - Just like other people, this is somebody who likes to eat. This is on the record in the press, right? We can say she felt humiliated because she is the only one who can say how she felt and it is reasonable. Also, if he called her fat and such names this would bring on humiliation unless she were made of stone. I mean, let's face it, Trump was at least insensitive about her feelings.

However, reliable sources have not said insensitive. Move to the present day, and we will have to do some work to sort it out. I think the two most balanced articles that I have come across is a New York Times article [12] and a Politifact (POLITIFACT) article [13] . Both of these seem to give both sides of the issue. I think it is the NYT article that mentions the 1997 Washington Post article. I think it is best to pattern what we write after the NYT article and the Politico article. I'd like to hear other input from other editors on what they think. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is being discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia

For information purposes, I'm posting the links to two other discussions about this article:

• WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alicia_Machado
• WP:Village_pump_(policy)#Public_figures_with_charges_against_them_not_found_guilty_and_never_conclusively_resolved

-- Softlavender (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia_Machado#Relationships

at Alicia_Machado#Relationships the article links to

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/print.jsp?ymd=20060612&content_id=1501609&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb&fext=.jsp

where it says:

Phillies outfielder Bobby Abreu recently broke up with his fiance, former Miss Universe Alicia Machado. Turns out Machado has been starring in their native Venezuela on a risque reality show called "La Granja," or "The Farm." (Redacted)

The article just states:

Machado once dated professional baseball player Bobby Abreu; the couple later split, calling off their engagement.

If it's news that he broke up with her, why aren't his reasons newsworthy? --tickle me 02:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tickle me: I read that link you provided and it does not include the content you quoted. Either you provided the wrong link or the article has subsequently been changed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

And the reasons are not newsworthy and anyway, this isn't a newspaper.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia_Machado#Relationships contains two links, I copied the wrong one. It's this one:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2005-05-15/sports/0505150013_1_jason-varitek-giambi-cantu

If it's trivial that they split it should be trivial that they dated in the first place, too. --tickle me 06:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read the above comments again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

According to CBS News, her fiancée Phillies outfielder Bobby Abreu "reportedly called [their engagement] off [after] a reality show she was on revealed video of her apparently having sex with a housemate."[14] While it may be trivial, reliable sources have decided to cover it. TFD (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not a newspaper and there's no need for us to include, as you say, "trivial", gossip.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Alicia_Machado#Career

At Alicia_Machado#Career the article links to

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/50862.stm "Beauty queen in attempted murder trial"

where the BBC covers exactly that topic, whereas the article just cites a triviality mentioned in passing "After winning the Miss Universe title in 1996, Miss Machado announced that all she wanted to do was "eat, eat and eat". Seems to be a specious choice. --tickle me 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tickle me: That reference was originally put in the article to support a section which several editors (including me) believed was a violation of our WP:BLP policy, and which has been removed. The reference remains. You are free to draft a new section that complies fully with BLP policy and another key policy, the neutral point of view, and also does not devote undue weight to unproven allegations from the 1990s that resulted in no indictment and no conviction. Post your proposed change in a new section on this talk page. If you gain consensus, it will go into the article. If not, then it won't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit request regarding her weight

Here's the way the article is now: During her reign as Miss Universe, Machado made headlines when it was reported that she gained too much weight and the Miss Universe Organization was considering replacing her with her runner-up, Taryn Mansell of Aruba. After winning the Miss Universe title in 1996, Machado announced that all she wanted to do was "eat, eat and eat" and she asked Trump for help losing weight.[1] Machado retained her title. Trump called her "an eating machine", generating controversy.[2], proposed edit it in italic. (Sorry, my reference-editing program, "ProveIt" is not working.) Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I just read the article you're using to support this claim and summarizing it as "she asked Trump for help losing weight" isn't really an accurate statement. This article reads more like after being pressured to lose weight, Machado asked for a trainer or nutritionist but instead was subjected to Trump's embarrassing publicity stunt at a gym. I see other editors above have already addressed this with you and also believe your summary may misrepresent the source a bit. Is there a reason we shouldn't continue this discussion up there? It's hardly stale yet. Lizzius (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It's time to make practical edits to the article, which has BLP issues with Trump and bias. Your suggested edit is okay if you insert, "asked Trump for a trainer" Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think either belongs in the place where you have suggested the edit. Frankly, if you want to include the entire summary of the incident, is must be done in such a way that it reflects the duress Machado was under to lose weight, and the humiliation she was subjected to at the hands of Trump and pageant organizers. Anything less is simply not an accurate summary of the source you have linked to. Lizzius (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think my first simple suggestion is a start. The weight issue has gone viral, deserves unbiased elaboration. Her weight is an issue in the swimsuit contract. Can't believe this is on Administration lock! Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Raquel Baranow: The article is protected (locked) because of ugly and crudely sexist BLP violations and edit warring. This is an entirely appropriate use of page protection.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just think it's outrageous that this page is locked, this page gets over 150,000 views yesterday and is then locked with bias and I get a warning on my Talk page from @Callanecc: about sanctions regarding BLP. I'm not the one who caused BLP problems, I'm trying to fix them, this article is terrible. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Pages aren't unprotected because they receive a number of views, in fact that makes it more important that they are protected to ensure that BLP violations (which have continued on this talk page which is only semi protected) don't make it into the article (even if they are only there for a short period, with that many views it is very likely that someone will load the page while the BLP issues are there). As the message on your talk page says "it does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions". If there are changes you want made to the article then you need to propose that those edits be made, get consensus for those changes (or demonstrate that they are BLP violations - so consensus isn't needed) and an administrator will assess your request (see Template:Edit fully-protected). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's discuss the simple edit I wanted to make, that's ALL I want to do, I agree about the criminal charges, there was no evidence for that and there is no extradition request for her. I disagree with @Lizzius: Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Three-minute CNN video of Trump in the gym before reporters with Machado, 1997, Trump calmly, rationally discusses her weight problem, calls her beautiful, the weight trainer is one of the best and is really trying to help her. Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

BLP violation: This article has demonized and slandered Trump. (Etymology of "Devil": Greek: διάβολος or diábolos slanderer or accuser) and no one seems to care. Very sad! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

All that source does is support the fact that Trump and his campaign have the (obviously biased) opinion that they "helped" Machado. Your edit does not qualify the "help" as such, and instead states it as unambiguous fact (which it isn't). Lizzius (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It says in the article that she asked for help, it's a direct quote from her, how is that "obviously biased"?! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Let me clear up what I've said a bit. I have trouble summarizing this source as asking Trump for help without qualification because it simply doesn't represent the what the source is trying to say. Perhaps you could summarize it better as "after mounting pressure to lose weight from Trump and other pageant officials, Machado asked Trump to assist her with orienting toward a healthier lifestyle. Instead, Trump arranged for members of the media to be present at a gym Machado visited at the direction of Trump, unbeknownst to her." I know this summary also has a few problems (not the least of which is my poor sentence structure), but to me we need to establish a few things: there was mounting pressure from Trump et. al. to lose weight, Machado asked for assistance as a result of this pressure, and the assistance Machado received was not at all what she expected and served to embarass/humiliate her. Also of note is that this source actually refutes some of your other claims, namely that Machado was at risk of losing her crown as a result of the weight gain: "No matter what the poundage actually was, the stories about Machado being on the verge of losing her crown were bogus, says Miss Universe President Maureen Reidy. "We did not consider taking away her crown," Reidy says. "We're not about being thin; we're about being physically fit.""

The bias I was talking about is in regards to your second source. That story is reporting the opinion of Trump and his campaign manager. They certainly can't be used to substantiate claims that aren't supported by other sources, but they can be used to support something like "Trump claims he helped Machado". However, whether or not that claim belongs in the article is another question. I hope that clears up what I meant when I called the second source biased, and why I don't support summarizing the first source as your suggested edit does. Lizzius (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I agree about losing her crown, how's this revision? "After mounting pressure to lose weight from Trump and other pageant officials, Machado asked Trump to assist her with orienting toward a healthier lifestyle. Trump arranged for 80 reporters to "watch her sweat" in a gym, which she thought was "in very bad taste". Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that's fair, so the article would read like this? "During her reign as Miss Universe, Machado made headlines when it was reported that she gained too much weight and rumors began to spread the Miss Universe Organization was considering replacing her with runner-up, Taryn Mansell of Aruba. The rumors were eventually denied by the Miss Universe President.[source] After winning the Miss Universe title in 1996, Machado announced that all she wanted to do was "eat, eat and eat" and Trump later called her "an eating machine", generating controversy.[1][2] After mounting pressure to lose weight from Trump and other pageant officials, Machado asked Trump to assist her with orienting toward a healthier lifestyle. Trump arranged for 80 reporters to "watch her sweat" in a gym, which Machado thought was "in very bad taste".[same source] Lizzius (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, with one minor word added to accepted version (in bold): "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. The rumors were eventually denied by the Miss Universe President.[source] After winning the Miss Universe title in 1996, Machado announced that all she wanted to do was "eat, eat and eat" and Trump later called her "an eating machine", generating controversy.[1][2] After mounting pressure to lose weight from Trump and other pageant officials, Machado asked Trump to assist her with orienting toward a healthier lifestyle. Trump arranged for 80 reporters to "watch me sweat" in a gym, which Machado thought was "in very bad taste".[same source] @Callanecc: @Cullen: Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Raquel, thanks for the edit request and your work to get this going. I'm going to wait until at least a couple others have a chance to comment before I make the change (as so far it's just you and Lizzius). Hopefully in the next few hours as people start to become active today. I'll leave the edit request template there so it's obvious where the discussion is and others can find it.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

---

We do not know what Trump said to Machado because, according to her, he "whispered it," and we only have her account. TFD (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Has Trump expressly denied the allegations? During the debate he asked where Clinton found that. When he brought up Machado the next day on Fox and Friends he said he remembered Machado and what a problem she was because she gained weight, again I heard no denial. We know that Trump called Machado "an eating machine" and referred to her weight as a problem on multiple occasions. If Trump has made a clear and direct denial, I think we can include it, but we should also then include the quotes which affirm that he did in fact make negative statements about Machado's weight and it was recorded. Knope7 (talk) 02:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course Trump hasn't denied "the allegation". He doubled down on it. This is Trump we're talking about: [15].Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not he has denied the allegations, it does not elevate them to facts. I think any reasonable person hearing someone of Muchada's background recall what someone said to her twenty years ago could not with certainty believe it happened. That is not to say it did not happened or probably did not happen, just that we do not know. We had the same problem in previous elections with Ashley Todd and Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. On the other hand, other allegations turned out to be true. TFD (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

why is Alicia Machado full-protected instead of semi-protected

The article Alicia Machado is full-protected rather than semi. For what reason? Angela Maureen (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit-warring and the repeated addition (and removal) of material potentially violating WP:BLP. Both named accounts and IPs were involved; full protection avoids either side of the various disputes from having an upper hand by the exclusion of the other. The subsequent talk threads here confirm there are many contentious edit proposals to be resolved - better they are discussed here and a consensus found, than we return to rapid-fire addition/deletion in the article proper. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that some of these disruptive activities were coordinated off-wiki (at the Donald Trump sub-reddit and who knows where else), the full protection needs to be extended for longer than just a couple of days.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Has already been extended another week to allow consensus to form on the various points. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 30 September 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)

Suggest addition of this article to Category:People associated with the United States presidential election, 2016

I would do this myself were in not for the locked status of this article at this time; Let me suggest adding this article to the following category:

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I made this into a formal edit request because I think we can all agree with it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Euryalus (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Date ranges

In the section regarding her television work, the date ranges should conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style by using en-dashes for ranges of years instead of hyphens (per WP:DATERANGE). Thanks in advance! --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Secondarily, the Filmography and the TV Shows sections should be merged. Perhaps the "TV Shows" section should be classified with the subheading "Game Shows" or "Reality Shows" in the Filmography section. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this one will need consensus (or at least a few nods). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Done as uncontroversial as there have been no further comments on this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This article, as it currently stands, does not contribute to Wikipedia's true purpose.

Article talk pages are not a general forum for the discussion of subject or Wikipedia. Please contribute by participating in discussions on this talk page to improve the article so that changes are proposed which met Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I happened to be reading about Jimmy Wales, and I bumped into a Businessweek article from 2005, when Wikipedia was under fire for having published (and left in place for several months) a clearly libelous article on John Seigenthaler, an editor at USA Today. (The controversy hit the mainstream media, and it was a big enough deal that it has its own Wikipedia article, titled "Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident.") The Businessweek article interviewed Wales about "New Pages": who writes them, who verifies them, who edits, how editors are identified, and so forth; what Wales said in response to questions applies not just to "New Pages," but all pages. Wales said this, when asked whether "[readers] should cite Wikipedia": "No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either -- the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias should be solid enough to give good, solid background information to inform your studies for a deeper level." (Bolding mine.) No, Jim Wales is not the final word. But I think the same thing: Wikipedia is a start, not a finish, and it's where I go to get a decent once-over on a subject and the corresponding references, from which I can begin my own investigation. There's plenty of RS'd, non-"gossip" information out there on Ms. Machado's encounters with the law in Venezuela and with Mexican narco-traffickers. But I wouldn't know that, the way the article currently stands, and I would not be able to make my way to the sources, nor be able to make my own evaluation of their veracity and relevance, because this has all been scrubbed from the article -- and the article locked down. It simply defeats the purpose Jim Wales enunciated -- give a good backgrounder with which to start further research -- to have left out all reference to Ms. Machado's controversial career, simply because her article had been subject to a nasty case of edit-warring. There's a way to put the info in the article in a balanced fashion and give readers their own chance to look into it further. But the article does not, because it has been over-edited with respect to neutrality and BLP -- and behind the scenes, at that (at least, for the average Wikipedia user). This particular opacity is not good for Wikipedia's reputation. Bruiserid (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC) References I agree. An interested reader coming to this article to learn about the issues and debates in society currently surrounding Machado would be left woefully uneducated, and left with some rather glaring holes in their understanding of the issues surrounding her in the public fora. Plenty of editor are actually rather proud of such inadequate and incomplete presentations, and defend the exclusion of some rather prominent points pertaining to the subject, proclaiming "Wikipedia is not a newspaper!" Which is true. However, to the detriment of the reputation of the work, things may have swung too far in the opposite direction, where I'm not sure what exactly Wikipedia IS any more regarding articles about things in the political realm other than an exercise in Wikilawyering, navel gazing, partisan bickering, and battleground mentalities. Marteau (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Picture

We should have a picture of Machado. Does anyone know if there are any in the public domain? Google images provides lots of pictures, some of which may be in the public domain.[16] I prefer the wrapped in a flag, which was carried in th Independent[17] and other mainstream publications. It is current and relates to the current dispute in which she is involved. TFD (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think that any of these images are in the public domain? They all look like airbrushed model shots to me, done in professional photoshoots where presumably copyright was created. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

I do not know if any are, but or how to find out. But we do have photos for lots of biographical articles, so I thought someone may be able to find one. TFD (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The Purpose of this Article

Callanecc complains above that this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's true purpose. However, it's hard to edit an article that's locked and is constantly patrolled by editors and admins worried about WP:BLP. If this problem exists for the biographies of other famous, living people on WP then WP may have to give up on all such biographies. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If you get consensus, an administrator can make changes. The WP:BLP issue is of course bogus. It prevents us from making claims that are not in reliable sources, but does not stop us from presenting information published in reliable sources. Once the election is over, we will probably be able to restore weight to the article, as most of the editors return to their normal interests. In the meantime readers can always go to mainstream news sources if they want to know about the subject. TFD (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Callenecc deleted DISCUSSION of Machado's appearance on a television reality show even though I was careful to include trustworthy sources. It's tough to get a consensus on anything if I can't even discuss it. This makes me wonder whether free speech on WP is limited with respect to biographies of living people. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• 1) RSs are discussing Machado's appearance on La Granja (without calling it sex and making the point that it could we have been simulated and scripted) e.g. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/donald-trump-alicia-machado-meltdown https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/09/30/donald-trump-tops-his-own-reputation-for-undisciplined-campaigning-with-twitter-rant/ft1ZM5z7ZNt7D8IxNPqQDN/story.html

2) Abreu's relationship with Machado was over at that point, that definitely should be noted.

3) Trump's tweets about Machado's alleged sex tape and the 1998 trial could well end up being what swings the election against him, and thus of world historical importance. This makes it the most significant reality show alleged-sex tape ever, so the topic really should be discussed (making the caveats mentioned in RSs.)

4) Machado knew she was being filmed on La Granja. She may regret the scene, the way Trump may regret his appearance in the Playboy porno that dropped yesterday, but WP:BLP doesn't care - still included.

5) WP:DEADLINE but wikipedia's utility to the world is greatly diminished if, at the time of maximum interest in a particular topic, wikipedia remains completely silent about it. NPalgan2 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• You are making a category error with respect to this project when you use the words "free speech". Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech. We are a project to build an Internet-based free-content encyclopedia with articles written by volunteer editors who agree to adhere to a number of foundational policies and other rules and guidelines that help us create articles which are neutrally-written, based upon reliable sources, place due weight on content within sources, treat article subjects with respect and sensitivity, avoiding tabloid sensationalism and poorly-sourced claims, etc. So yes, you are correct, "free speech on Wikipedia is limited" because "free speech" is not the purpose of the project — writing an encyclopedia is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Indeed. This article is basically worthless to anyone interested in getting up to speed on the issues surrounding Machado as it pertains to the election, and as you point out, to issues which may very well sink Trump's candidacy. Marteau (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Please, if you want to improve the article, suggest changes (as in, change X to Y with a reason and reliable sources), gather consensus to support the change, then post an edit request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign

Links to disamb page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuddle (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Fuddle:  Fixed, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for expanding other portions of the article

As I have mentioned previously, I think part of fixing this article requires expanding non-controversial portions of this article to give a clearer picture of Alicia Machado outside of events of the last few months. For example, there is no early life section. I think editors who speak Spanish could be very helpful as many sources about Machado are written in Spanish.

I would propose adding the following on her work as an actress after the sentence about posing for Playboy, based on chronology:

Machado was cast in the comedic soap opera Una familia con suerte where she played a woman who fell in love with her brother's enemy. The show began airing in Mexico in February 2011 and in the United States in October of that same year.

The same source can also be used in an "Early life" section for the facts that she is originally from Maracay and is of Spanish and Cuban heritage. Knope7 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be helpful. TFD (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There's the claim she's related to Gerardo Machado, but can't find RS. Most of the references to Machado that aren't about Miss Universe, 1998, the paternity claims, or Trump's tweets are in very tabloidy Spanish language sources. NPalgan2 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm confident more is out there and it can be found with the right searches. For early life, this source might be a better source than the one I previously provided for heritage, and it says her father was a Spanish immigrant and her mother was Cuban. (That source also gives a decent run down of her various projects. I don't think the Wikipedia article in its present form really covers her singing career.) To further fill out a short early life section, there were probably things written about her at the time of her Miss Universe win. I would imagine a short biography would have been put together and she probably would have been asked about her background in interviews.

For later events, Machado does appear to have had a number of acting roles, she participated in multiple reality shows, and she has released albums as a singer. Searching for Machado with the titles of some of her work is one way to find sources more connected to her career. I would also recommend searching for Alicia Machado in major Mexican newspapers as it appears several of her career endeavors have been based in Mexico. Knope7 (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Washington Post in 1997 said she was Cuban and Spanish. This article is also good for the time period right before she gave up the Miss Universe crown.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/16/alicia-machado-cancer-seno-mama-doble-mastectomia_n_4613141.htm (Redacted) NPalgan2 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The relevance of that second source to the Wikipedia article should probably be discussed in its own section of this talk page as it is sure to be controversial. Knope7 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I've removed a bit (but haven't deleted it), I'd suggest getting agreement on the less controversial stuff before getting back into BLP territory. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Machado declined plastic surgery - unusually for Venezuelan beauty culture. Note yet another RS gives a paragraph to the controversial stuff http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/opinion/alicia-machado-vs-donald-trumps-machismo.html NPalgan2 (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Early life

Machado is originally from Maracay, Venezuela. Her father is a toy store owner who immigrated from Spain and her mother's family immigrated from Cuba prior to the Cuban revolution. Machado took to performing at an early age. She began dancing at age 4 and acting at age 12. Machado attended college for a year and half but left to pursue modeling and appearing in commercials.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knope7 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• That's good, but should be 'emigrated from' twice. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Y @Knope7: I endorse your proposal, but I agree with @NPalgan2’s remark that 'emigrated' should be used instead of 'immigrated'. Nika de Hitch (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Once there are a few more comments (or no further comment indicating that people don't have a problem with it) I'll action this (as a level 2 section before "Career"). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:04, 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][18]

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)

Protected edit request on 4 October 2016

There is a malformed link to the Hillary Clinton campaign in the section under Personal life#Political views. Please fix. Thanks.

—Мандичка^YO 😜 01:33, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 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)

• ... and her desire for peace between the two Chinas Marteau (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)