Talk:Sammi Giancola

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sammi Giancola article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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 sourced must 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.

Biography: Sports and Games

	Biography portal 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
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Television

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Football: Women's football Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's sport: WOSO Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bh603612.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Jersey Shore (TV series) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 21:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Giancola

@Flyer22 Reborn: I get that you wanted to get another word in, but reverting a perfectly fine and sourced edit is becoming disruptive editing. You could have left a message on my Talk, or the article's talk instead. It is also bordering on edit warring; are you aware that with that you reverted me 3 times collectively? WP:3RR

And you edited it three times in succession [1]-[2]-[3] just having a monologue with yourself on the Edit summaries. This is the first time I have seen this on Wikipedia.

You've stated the article sourced is likely "assuming" her name? It's an interview article, and she has "Samantha Giancola" listed on her own Twitter [4]. That is her confirming clear as day her name is Samantha, but you have a personal hang-up about this. Since you're disputing it, perhaps an RFC is the best option. Because you're rejecting WP:SELFPUB and disputed a cited source which is an interview with the subject, not a third-party article where authors often make faulty assumptions about celebrity backgrounds. DA1 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to discuss this with you, I would have brought it to the talk page. Your RfC is a waste of time. I stand by what I stated here and here. You added the unsourced "Samantha Rae Giancola" to the article. I reverted you. You then added it again, and I reverted again, stating, "None of the sources call her 'Samantha.' That is why this keeps getting removed. Per WP:BLP, stop adding it." I was specifically referring to the sources in the article. I reverted you twice on that, and WP:3RR notes exemptions; BLP violations fall under exemptions. You then added "also known as Sammi Sweetheart" even though it's in the infobox. Did I revert you on that? No. You then added "Samantha" yet again again, this time with this source, and while stating that WP:SELFPUB applies because Giancola uses "Samantha" on her Twitter account. When I reverted here, it was clearly solely to reply to you because I did not feel like taking the matter to the talk page, and editors get a notification when reverted. That was not a "monologue with [myself]"; that was a reply to you. Obviously. I clearly reverted myself soon afterward. As we can see, the vast majority of reliable sources do not call her "Samantha." So far, you have only offered one WP:Reliable source calling her that, while pointing to the subject's Twitter page as another source. It's still the case that neither source states that her birth name is "Samantha." And you've provided no reliable source stating that "Rae" is a part of her name. Reverting unsourced material, including material about Giancola, is not "a personal hang-up." You act like I will be heartbroken to see it confirmed that "Samantha" is her birth name. Do not ping me to this talk page again. It's clearly on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

There is consensus that reliable sources support the use of Samantha Giancola. ~~The argument against, while admirably cautious, seems at this point to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.~~ Hopefully this will simmer down; if there are genuine BLP concerns then feel free to escalate to the noticeboard at any time. TheDragonFire (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Is it reliable to assume that the subjects name is Samantha Giancola? Sources are an interview article where it says it is in its introduction, as well as the Twitter username of the person herself. I believe this is sufficient that the facts are not dubious. DA1 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The RFC is not to change the title, but merely to include her birth name to lead and infobox as is conventional on articles alongside one's professional or stage name. DA1 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - more sources, Newsweek, Vanity Fair, BW, Heavy, CNN, CBS News. Her official site in external links also states Samantha. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (invited by the bot) Overwhelmingly sources have her name as Sammi Giancola. However, I wish there were more clarity in the RFC on what the two sides of the dispute are. So that the results of the RFC don't get used in an un-discussed or unintended manner. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: The article title should retain commonname. The issue was only the article content. I wanted to add her birth name "Samantha" to the lead and infobox per WP:DOB, which is accepted convention on Wikipedia bios. DA1 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, there is no current dispute. Above, I went over what the disputes were. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) I read the above discussion, and am also struggling with what this RFC is deciding. It looks pretty obvious that she was born "Samantha Giancola", but the WP:COMMONNAME would definitely be "Sammi Giancola". Are we discussing her middle name? Something else? CThomas³ (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are a ton of sources, as shown in preceding comments. Flyer22 Reborn, I don't receive notifications when I'm reverted so you cannot assume every editor does receive them. But even if every editor was notified of reverts, conducting a discussion via edit summary is totally inappropriate. Please take discussions to the Talk page whether or not you feel like discussing the issue. Ca2james (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ca2james, the vast majority of editors have notifications turned on. ~~I spoke of nothing about a notification when reverting, however.~~ Above, I asked not to be pinged to this talk page because this article is on my watchlist. In other words, there is no reason at all to ping me to this talk page. It's not like it's so active that I would miss something. And as for carrying on conversations through edit summaries, I was not attempting to do that. Notes are different. The Purposes section of WP:Dummy edit states, "Sending messages regarding editing issues (however, dummy edits should not be used to hold extensive content discussions; that should be done through talk pages). Sending a message via the edit summary ('SMS') is one way of communicating with other editors where it appears there is no need to create a new talk page thread for the message. Such 'text messages' in a page's history may also be seen by users who otherwise would not be informed." No, I felt no need to create a talk page discussion to state "Not like it's needed anyway. That is what the infobox is for." No, I didn't feel the need to start a talk page section to state, "Extra comment: The source doesn't even state that her birth name is 'Samantha.' Source is likely assuming, just like editors have and people who think that someone named 'Bill' automatically has the birth name 'William.' Will probably need to take this to the WP:BLP noticeboard." I let the matter go. It is the creator of this needless RfC who did not let it go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you made the notification comment because I told the editor that "it was clearly solely to reply to [the editor] because I did not feel like taking the matter to the talk page, and editors get a notification when reverted." Yes, at that point, it would have been better to go to the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment after the close

TheDragonFire, regarding your close, I made no "truth" claims. I am well aware of how Wikipedia works and of the Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth essay (which is not a policy or guideline). See what I argued above. This all started because an editor was adding unsourced material and edit warring over it. The Twitter source and an interview source came after that. Although I questioned if "Samantha" is her birth name because the two sources the editor provided during the dispute do not state that "Samantha" is her birth name, and I wondered if the interview source was just assuming that her birth name is "Samantha," I did not state that any of the reliable sources are wrong. I think you should amend the statement in your close. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This Vanity Fair source provided by Isaidnoway above actually states that "Samantha" is her birth name. That, TheDragonFire, is what the WP:Verifiability policy is about. Not assumptions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, perhaps misinformed, was that you were arguing along the "source is likely assuming" line of thought, which would be an argument from truth rather than verifiability. Now that the material is sourced, and you seem to be okay with that (?) are we all good here? I've struck that section of my close. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TheDragonFire, this source, which is the interview source the editor I was in dispute with provided, does not state that "Samantha" is her birth name. So, yes, it's an assumption on the part of those reading that source that "Samantha" is her birth name. On Wikipedia, I'm not going to assume that something is a person's birth name and list that name as the person's birth name just because a source or editor makes the assumption. And it's common for people to assume that a girl or woman called "Sammi" has the birth name "Samantha." Sources aren't above doing that either, especially if they are not the most reliable source. The source needs to be clear, like the aforementioned Vanity Fair source is, that it's the birth name. There are so many famous people who have a famous legal name or stage name that is not their birth name. One such instance is this Anne Rice case, where an editor couldn't believe that "Howard Allen Frances O'Brien" is Anne Rice's birth name and likened the masculine name to Rice being transgender. I left a hidden note about it in the article, and informed the editor on their talk page that it's indeed her birth name. Thanks for striking through that sentence in your closing statement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Date

March 14, 1987 KimT1978 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]