This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
I've updated the section to pair it down and only repeat what's in the sources. I don't really see an issue with POV anymore. Would like discussion/consensus before removing if possible. Sock-the-guy (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. It honestly just looks like worse writing and OR. What source is calling the meme sarcastic, for instance? I can try to ping the editor who made those changes when I get to a computer. Probably tomorrow. 2600:8800:7180:8D:119C:7997:3C5:C24B (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@helpfulwikieditoryay I don't see any sources saying that the meme was about a comment from Meghan. Unless you can add a source for that then I think your edit should be reverted. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sock-the-guy and @Helpfulwikieditoryay, I haven't seen the original meme, but the sources don't support the current wording. The Goal.com piece doesn't support the wording, and USA Today says "It was also discovered Albert liked a meme celebrating Megan Rapinoe’s injury in her final professional match." The Athletic says "This is a notable section given that Albert also engaged with social media posts that both wished for, then celebrated, Megan Rapinoe’s injury to close out her career..." None of these say anything about mocking a Rapinoe comment. Alyo(chat·edits)07:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm just trying to keep it as objective as possible. The meme Albert liked was in response to Rapinoe joking that god caused her injury, and it sarcastically said from a Christian standpoint it's stupid to believe god causes injury to people. I don't want to make any statements about her "celebrating" the injury when that was 1) objectively not stated in the post she liked, and 2) clearly not the point of the post. But I also don't want to defend Albert by saying she felt Rapinoe "attacked" her religion and was saying attacks on Christianity are dumb because that would be biased towards Albert's point of view. As a neutral (not religious, not atheist), I don't think either person did anything wrong, they were just sharing their beliefs about whether it's god's fault that the injury happened, even if it offends the other party (Rapinoe saying if god existed it would be god's fault, and Albert saying it's silly and anti-Christian to believe god causes evil). The best way to phrase it would be to say Albert liked a meme mocking Rapinoe's joke that god caused the injury. Or perhaps "in response to" Rapinoe's joke would be better, because Christians felt like Rapinoe mocked them first, so this keeps it neutral and not on anybody's side. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Again, if you have reliable source stating any of this feel free to include it, but right now mentioning anything about a comment from Meghan is unsourced WP:OR. Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources I find are biased towards the Christian side (i.e. saying Albert was morally right because Rapinoe mocked god first). There are articles about Rapinoe getting backlash from Christians but not Albert specifically. So I think it's better to just leave the article as is. It doesn't necessarily need to mention Rapinoe's joke. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I see that as your own bias coming through when you say that though. When I look at this, I have to question if we are reading the same thing. This isn't a "christian standpoint", it's an account that pretty obviously leans into slightly offensive/shock humor. It's...kind of clearly the "point of the post" as you say. It's not a meme "mocking Rapinoe's joke that god caused the injury", it's just celebrating the injury and mocking Rapinoe. Now that I've seen the post and the account, I very strongly disagree with what you're saying. It's a bro-humor account that is not remotely pro-women, cmon now. The sources are very clear on this, and there is no reason, policy-based or otherwise, to caveat the sentence with "mocking Rapinoe's comment that it was a punishment from God". Alyo(chat·edits)14:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I believe you, but that still doesn't change the actual post that Albert came under fire for. That meme quite directly and clearly mocks Rapinoe and her injury, and the sources all state that. Does the backstory of Rapinoe's comment explain why that instagram account was mocking Rapinoe with those specific words? Sure, but it's still mocking Rapinoe, and the account is not remotely coming from a "christian standpoint". Alyo(chat·edits)00:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the actual post. This source states Rapinoe's joke that god isn't real because she got injured offended Christians, including Albert who then liked a meme mocking Rapinoe's beliefs. It would be the most correct to say Albert liked a meme mocking Rapinoe for her comment in November that she doesn't believe god is real because of her injury. I think that sounds a bit like an attack on Rapinoe though because I know Christians will get upset at that and blame Rapinoe for "mocking god." Perhaps "Albert liked a meme opposing Rapinoe's atheist beliefs in relation to her injury." Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the most correct to say Albert liked a meme mocking Rapinoe for her comment in November that she doesn't believe god is real because of her injury. I'm sorry but no, it would be most correct to say that Albert liked a meme mocking Rapinoe's injury because that's what all of the sources say. All of the color that you are adding is original research, or WP:synthesis. One source that says "The post had a backstory" does not support us saying "the meme opposed Rapinoe's atheist beliefs in relation to her injury". That sentence isn't supported by the sources, and would require us to make huge assumptions about the inner beliefs and motivations of everyone involved. Alyo(chat·edits)21:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She did like a meme implying that Rapinoe's injury was from god. That's a factual, source-supported statement. Please don't remove it from the article. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The meme implied it's ridiculous to believe it was an injury from god. The meme was NOT agreeing with Rapinoe that god (if real) would be responsible for her injury. The meme was mocking Rapinoe's beliefs. We have a source that states the meme was in response to Rapinoe's comment, and the information in the source should be included. If you don't want to make assumptions, then don't. We will say nothing about the emotions or religious arguments implied by the meme, and we will simply say Albert liked a meme in contrast to Rapinoe's atheist joke that god would be the cause of her injury. Or you can leave out the information about Rapinoe's joke and leave the article as is. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpfulwikieditoryay, both me and @Sock-the-guy disagree with you, and your explanation also differs from the way the vast majority of sources presented the issue. It does not appear that consensus is going to be on your side, so please don't edit war further over this. Alyo(chat·edits)14:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really trying to come to a reasonable compromise here. Neither side should be attacked for their religious beliefs. Regardless, the current phrasing on the article is completely unsupported by sources. Goal.com says nothing about the meme being interpreted as a celebration of the injury. All it says is the post was "aimed" at Megan Rapinoe. The current wording of the article should be removed. All I did in my last edit was remove it because it's not in the source. I also think removing it entirely is the best way to compromise, because we don't need any religious opinions about what it means for god to be responsible or not for injuries. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article also does not say anything about celebration. Wikipedia does not compromise with bigots, nor do we remove content just because it might offend a bigot. You are wasting time on this.
I am not wasting time. It's important to get unbiased information on wikipedia. You misinterpreted a single phrase from what I said and refused to talk about the point of the discussion. Goal.com does not say Albert liked a post saying the injury was any kind of punishment. The current wording is wrong. Please don't resort to namecalling. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't get to interpret what the meme says, and the majority of sources do not support what you are saying. Your source also does not say the meme was in response to a comment, just that it has a 'background.' I will also note that scrolling through the webpage for that article pulls up a surprising number of incredibly biased and conservative-leaning articles. I would sincerely question that it even passes the "reliable source" bar here. Sock-the-guy (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was arguing against interpretations of what the meme says, which is why I removed the personal interpretation of the meme from the article. I simply said Christians' interpretation is different than the editor's interpretation, NOT that I wanted either interpretation in the article. Christians were offended that Rapinoe (jokingly) thought the injury was from god. Now the article states they believed Rapinoe to be correct and that it really was god's fault? This is bizarre. The article is currently written as the exact opposite of the objective information. I agreed to a compromise where we leave out all personal interpretations of the meme. But now it has been reverted back to incorrect info. Interpretations of the word "backstory" also don't make sense. Backstory means providing context, leading up to an event. Yes, the meme Albert liked was about Rapinoe's comment, that's the context of the comment. That's what backstory means (Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com). Of course it is mostly conservative sources who are offended by Rapinoe's joke, that's exactly the point I am making. Conservative sources are going on and on how Albert was wonderful to like the meme fighting back against Rapinoe's "offensive" comment. I found the most unbiased source possible. The Washington Times article was very good about simply stating the meme was about Rapinoe's comment, not at all defending Albert or saying it's good to like the meme because it's good to mock Rapinoe's atheism. It neutrally states that the meme was about the comment and left it at that. Leave out personal interpretation about Rapinoe's comment being offensive or inoffensive. It doesn't matter if Albert was offended as a Christian. Just say she liked a meme about to Rapinoe's comments. The article as currently worded is an incorrect interpretation, and I thought we had already settled a compromise where we simply leave it all out so nobody gets to chime in about what the meme means to atheists versus Christians. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sock, commenting from my phone. Until you can find a single reliable source (note that the Washington times is not considered reliable for controversial subjects or BLP), we cannot put that in the article. Also please stop with your false dichotomy of christian vs atheist which there is also not a source for. Because not all christians are homophobic.
The Washington Times is not an unusable source on Wikipedia. All the other sources I find are deeply biased and trying to make Albert sound like some righteous warrior. This website is not bad, and this article specifically was totally unopinionated. I'm sure the tiktok account is horrendous, however that isn't the topic. Albert was not following the account. Albert liked a post. The rest of the content of the account is irrelevant. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Christians were offended that Rapinoe (jokingly) thought the injury was from god. so what? this article is about Albert, not Rapinoe or the injury or Christians at large. We have no source that says she was offended, was lashing out, or anything like that.
Now the article states they believed Rapinoe to be correct and that it really was god's fault? Err, no it doesn't. The article literally says nothing about Christians. FWIW, I don't ascribe the beliefs of a misogynistic instagram account to the rest of christianity.
Regardless, I've now added two more sources, so if there are going to be wording changes I would actually endorse use of the word "celebration" (or mocking), as in "Albert's social media history also revealed she had liked a meme celebrating/mocking Megan Rapinoe's injury in the 2023 NWSL final". I think that is the actual crux of the controversy, not whatever culture war stuff was backfilled around this. Alyo(chat·edits)14:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a source showing Albert was disagreeing with Rapinoe's joke that god (if real) would be responsible for injuries. The current wording of the article implies Albert was agreeing with Rapinoe's joke which is the exact opposite of what happened. It should be corrected in the most neutral manner possible. Most sources you posted don't mention the meme Albert liked, and the only one that mentions any "celebration" was an opinion article that says it "appears" celebratory, not that it was. Which is 100% correct. The reason Albert was criticized for this is because the meme "appeared" offensive, even though we understand from her perspective she was mocking Rapinoe's atheism, so it truly was not offensive, but it still appeared offensive and she should be more careful. It's about respecting Rapinoe... not that the meme implied god punished her, because it didn't. That's the controversy. The sources that don't even mention the god joke should be removed because they're useless, or they should be moved to a different location in the article because the references don't match the sentence they are next to. And the wording should be more neutral. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Until you have sources stating what Albert's viewpoint and intentions were this is just a paragraph of synthesis and original research.We have a source showing Albert was disagreeing with Rapinoe's joke that god (if real) would be responsible for injuries is not a factual statement. Can we stop with the moving of goalposts and let this rest? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sock-the-guy fwiw, even though I obviously agree with you on the merits, I do think the current version of the sentence is a little wordy and could be improved. Do you have any objection to switching the focus of the sentence to Albert's "celebration/mocking" of Rapinoe's injury as per the sources I added?Albert's social media history also revealed she had liked a meme celebrating Megan Rapinoe's injury in the 2023 NWSL final. I don't mind losing the final clause since the religious controversy is probably less notable, in a lasting sense, than Albert mocking a senior member of the USWNT. Alyo(chat·edits)19:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to talk about Albert's intentions at all. I don't care if she's offended. Saying she "celebrated" an injury is a wild guess at her intentions that we have no evidence for and all evidence points to that being false. The fact crucial to the event that Albert was referring to Rapinoe's comment, not to the injury out of the blue, is necessary to tell the truth in our phrasing. Saying she reacted to the injury instead of Rapinoe's comment is lying by omission. I'm open to more compromises if you have ideas. I believe it is fully fair to write "Albert liked a meme mocking Rapinoe after she made a joke about god not being real because of her injury." If the reader wants to, they could interpret that as a celebration, as a punishment, as defending god, as mocking Rapinoe herself, as only mocking Rapinoe's joke, as anything they want, because we just told the truth and didn't claim anything about Albert's intentions. I think that's extremely fair. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpfulwikieditoryay I'm sorry, but I think you have a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We do not evaluate "evidence" as editors. We cite what sources say. Our sources say she liked a post that "celebrated" Rapinoe's injury. Thus, generally speaking, we are justified in using the word "celebrated". I do not have to guess at her intentions. I do not need to look for evidence otherwise. I am not saying that Albert celebrated the injury, just that she liked a meme which did so. The majority of the best sources covering Albert's instagram use have discussed the transphobic video, and have said that she liked a meme that celebrated Rapinoe's injury. Anything beyond that is you, or another editor, substituting their own judgment in place of what the sources say. The fact crucial to the event that Albert was referring to Rapinoe's comment... is quite literally you substituting your belief of what Albert was referring to when you have no sources that can back that up, mostly because Albert never said anything about this. You are guessing at her intentions. We might assume that Rapinoe's comment was in the mind of either the instagram admin, or Albert, or both, but it's still just an assumption, and we cannot turn it into Truth. What you are asking for is WP:Synthesis.
We are not going to write "Albert liked a meme mocking Rapinoe after she made a joke about god not being real because of her injury" because that would be a misrepresentation of how the sources present the issue. The sources I have added do not discuss the realness of god or how Albert intended her instagram activity to be a defense of her faith. You are the only person saying that.
Ok that's fair. Thank you for your help. The part about the realness of god wasn't talked about in the article but it was in the quote in the article, so is it not ok to use? The main part I object to is saying the meme celebrated the injury when that is guessing at the intentions of the meme. The ESPN and Guardian sources at least explain the controversy was due to the meme "appearing" celebratory without accusing the meme's intentions. We should leave out the word celebrating entirely because it's a personal opinion that is not supported by sources. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are four sources that say "celebrated", two of which directly say "the post celebrated..." and two of which say "the post appeared to celebrate". That is far more support than the average sentence on Wikipedia has. I don't know how you can say it isn't supported by sources. It's the most supported sentence in the entire article. Alyo(chat·edits)17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the controversy is about some people interpreting the post to be a celebration of the injury. But Wikipedia shouldn't pick and choose to show one opinion of the controversy while deliberately leaving out information that makes it the complete opposite of what we're writing. Even "appeared to celebrate" is very biased, but it'd be better than celebrate. This wording was only added into the article after I said it was wrong. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the final time, no. The controversy is not about "some people interpreting the post to be a celebration of the injury". You, and only you, dispute whether the post was a celebration of the injury. The controversy is about Albert liking a social media post about Rapinoe's injury. Our sources are in complete alignment on this point, and there is no information available to me that shows the "complete opposite of what we're writing". Saying there is "more backstory" to the post doesn't change the fact that it was still celebratory/mocking. Both can, and probably are, true. I'm done responding until you include reliable, independent sources backing up what you're saying, because we're just going in circles. Alyo(chat·edits)13:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already posted a second source that states the fact that the meme was after Rapinoe's comment, but it was not responded to yet.
You rejected the first source, even though Wikipedia states it's generally ok to use. "A majority of editors regard The Washington Times as generally reliable for topics other than politics and science." The WT is considered reliable for sports articles by Wikipedia. Especially because this specific article was written so neutrally, it's bizarre to leave it out when Wiki guidelines says it's fine to use.
Wikipedia says it's even generally ok to use for simple politics: "The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available." And that the thing it's not actually ok for is conspiracies and legal matters: "The Washington Times should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially about living persons."
How about another compromise. Just quote exactly what the meme and Rapinoe said. "Albert liked a meme saying "[quote]" after Rapinoe made a comment saying, "[quote]."" That way it's impossible for there to be bias and you can just read what it says. Although it would be simpler just to add the source that Wikipedia says is acceptable. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with this source; it was one of the first that came up when I searched. It directly states Albert mocked Rapinoe after Rapinoe made the god joke. I checked the website and I don't see any political bias here. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
