Talk:Michelle Phan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why was the "Controversy" section removed?[edit]

There used to be a section detailing a controversial incident in which Michelle publicly demanded her Twitter followers harass and abuse a young girl who'd criticized one of her videos. Why was this section removed? It wasn't vandalism, as the incident actually happened and was documented by various online sources. I think the section was removed because somebody doesn't want Michelle to be criticized in any way. I've noticed this with other Wikipedia pages. I'm not sure if Wikipedia is as objective as it claims to be. (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There was also another controversy over IQQU, her brand of skincare. It had been heavily documented through screenshots of her reassuring that her products were FDA approved...which they weren't. She ended up selling the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also been a number of controversies surrounding her alleged copying of others' work - I don't think this is someone who can avoid a 'controversy' section, unless someone's deliberately trying to protect her. No need to make accusations or push an agenda, but it needs to be part of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Early life?[edit]

Didn't this page used to have a brief biography about Phan before she became a celebrity on YouTube? You know, her poor background? Why was that removed? It wasn't libelous in any manner. lullabying (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

How about changing "both her father and mother were born in Vietnam" to her parents both emigrated from Vietnam. (reason: the sentense already contains 2 instances of the word "born") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talkcontribs) 15:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Michelle's picture[edit]

Does anyone have a free picture of Michelle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talkcontribs) 10:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As of March 2014, there is a photo. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


aficionado (or afficionado) is spelled wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talkcontribs) 16:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) above issue has been corrected Ebaychatter0 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

one "f" - but it doesn't matter. The whole section is plagiarized from her site and by Wiki rules and MOS must be reverted. Besides, it's useless puffery.Sensei48 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Please help me remove peacock words from the aricle.Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


It seems there is a lot of vandalism on this BLP. Should we protect the page? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I usually think of page protection as generally a short-term solution to a specific attack - either because something has happened in the life of the subject (marriage, arrest) to create a flurry of attention or because a single editor is pushing their point of view or intent on causing graffiti. This seems like random page noise. I get my policy from: WP:ROUGH. EBY (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm tagging the most recent logged vandal, FWIW. EBY (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


I couldn't find a single news cite or reliable resource for this subject besides their own work on YouTube, Twitter, etc. EBY (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. On March 14, 2014, the article has forbes as a reference. Today, March 14, 2014, I added text with a cite from Women's Wear Daily, a third party non-YouTube source. Becuase of the text of the WWD article, she is now wiki notable. Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Can YouTube be a source? Jwoodward48wiki (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Videos_as_references: "YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube. If you want to cite a video you saw on YouTube as a source, such as an excerpt from a documentary or TV program, don't use the YouTube information, but instead find the original movie or TV program's data." EricTN (talk) 08:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


Why does this article make no mention whatsoever of her brother or sister-in-law, Promise? The two have collaborated together on videos, and both have millions and millions of views on their videos. I would think it would be a big deal, not "Oh, yeah, by the way, her sister-in-law also was on YouTube before she met her brother." The fact that these two YouTube stars happen to be related is rather important. Taric25 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)