This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians 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 This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Low-importance). Internet culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention United States 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. YouTube High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics 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.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music 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.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What the title says, the fact that her misconduct was with minors is an important piece of information that should be included in the lead. Aardwolf68 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were only accusations on social media that were expressed in salacious terms, so they were picked up by the press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late reply I apologize, but the fact that they were against minors in particular is an important detail. Aardwolf68 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the detailed discussion about this on this Talk page's archived discussions. This was discussed in detail and at length. Ballinger has never even been accused of (let alone prosecuted for) any crime, and the accusations of mildly inappropriate conduct against her are amply covered in the article and appropriately mentioned in the Lead. Anything more would violate not only WP:BLP but also WP:GOSSIP, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:DUE and WP:RECENT. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move the "Accusations of inappropriate conduct" content to the semi-standardized "Controversies" heading, instead of burying under "Reception" 47.14.87.195 (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies should NOT be used as a standardized heading. See WP:CSECTION. The present heading is exactly accurate and was extensively discussed on the Talk page. See the Talk archive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we talk about why the allegations section is a subheading under "Reception?" This does not seem appropriate to me. The allegations are a real-world matter separate from the critical commentary about her creative work native to the "Reception" heading. It seems to me that the allegations should either be their own heading, or a subheading of "Personal Life" as it's sufficiently real-world to fit there. Rob T Firefly (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in the archives is the consensus that resulted in this, if I remember correctly. WP:CSECTION played a part of the discussion, but I don't have the energy to go back over it all again. It certainly shouldn't be under Personal life though: as this is how some of her material was received, 'Reception' deemed more suitable at the time, from what I remember. - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was, indeed, extensive discussion, and we did not want to violate WP:CSECTION. This was not about things in her personal life: it was about things she is accused of doing in her career and in the promotion of her career to fans. Over a 15-year comedy career, Ballinger had generally positive reception from fans and audiences; few negative fan interactions were reported until 2020, and the subsequent accusations by a few young fans, and their viral repetition on social media, caused Ballinger's general reception by fans and audiences to turn negative, so I think it belongs in "Reception". Note that there has never been any kind of criminal charge or civil lawsuit, or any kind of official investigation of these accusations, and as at least one source suggested, some of the accusers were social media influencers whose career benefitted from the accusations. It is not the place of Wikipedia to adjudicate whether, and which, accusations against a living person are true or significant, only to summarize the noteworthy aspects of what the press covered. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers

I've glanced at the extensive discussion at the time, as well as the WP:CSECTION you quote, to make sure I have all the facts; and I too believe you all were too strict in your decision not to separate the negative backlash. In the WP:Section you refer to, all the examples of "Reception" where negative and positive feedback are together in the same section are applied to inanimate books and works of art (Catcher in the Rye, In Search of Lost Time, the film 2001). On the contrary, when "Controversy" is applied to people, specific controversies are always separated in a new section (see the given examples: Michael Collins Piper, Mel Gibson, Kanye West)

With other articles supporting this view, there's no reason why the controversy should not be highlighted in a new section. I understand the reluctancy to separate it at the time so not to fall into Recentism, but enough time has passed to objectively state that there was a serious negative backlash after the accusations and her vid that has affected her public perception. Right now, this article is doing a disservice to the Neutral Point of View by obscuring the negative parts of her work/persona and highlighting only her best aspects. Treewizzard (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply untrue to say the article does not reflect a neutral POV. We cover the recent controversies in some depth. Regarding what other articles do: there is no need to ignore the MOS to lower standards on this article to reflect what other poorly constructed articles may do. - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat I would like to get into why I believe this article to be partial, but I would need more time and perhaps that's better left for a different discussion. I'll stick to the different section discussion here.

I'm not quoting to you random subpar articles, I'm quoting the examples given in WP:CSECTION as the ones to imitate. If you deem them unacceptable, I do not see how this is not half-following the guidelines of WP:CSECTION up to the point we feel it's appropriate.

Again, I believe the separation of the controversy is a discussion that should be reopened. WP:CSECTION does not explicitly prohibit Controversy sections: on the contrary, they can exist when they cover a specific event, "For a specific controversy regarding the topic, when such topic takes a prominent place in the reliable sources on the topic" (although the term "Controversy" must be categorically avoided). The example given is a separate Controversy section in an article: Rick_Ross_(consultant). Again, I'm quoting the same WP:CSECTION that you use to argue against this practice, so I'm not sure how these supporting arguments do not factor in in any way. Treewizzard (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat I completely with @Treewizzard that it would make a lot more sense for the part of this article covering the allegations against her to be moved to a different section. There are options other than an outright "controversy" section, if that's mainly what is being opposed here. It could be moved to the end of the career section, as the allegations and subsequent coverage did have a pretty major effect on that. There's other articles with "Public image" or "In the media" sections (like Hugh Grant). Perhaps this is just me, but I would very much expect "Reception" to contain to critical reaction (whether by media or audience) to an artist's work, not a timeline of allegations about their personal conduct. I just do not think sticking this information in at the end of "Reception" is terribly intuitive for the casual reader, and almost gives the impression of it being hidden away... which I imagine is probably what Treewizzard was referring to with the POV comment. Not that I think the overall tone of this article has a POV problem; after all, the section about said allegations is a very small percentage of the overall article and is even careful to include opposing viewpoints. But considering how much of the post-2023 conversation surrounding Ballinger has been dominated by discussion of the allegations and (regardless of their truth or falsity) their enormous impact on her life and career (the Vanity Fair article being a perfect example), it does seem a bit weird for that to not be slightly more central. Just my two cents, and sorry for the long-windedness, but I think it is perhaps worth re-examining. Gravelove (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think not, but let's see what any others have to say. - SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the others above. The misconduct accusations have nothing to do with the reception section, and putting them there is an obvious misinterpretation of WP:CSECTION and of Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism. --Cavarrone 08:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a better idea about where to put it, then please make a proposal and we'll see if there is a WP:CONSENSUS for any particular place in the article. I still think that the best place for it is under Reception, as the content is noteworthy only because of the way the press and social media received it. The accusations themselves are not noteworthy, as Ballinger was never accused (let alone convicted) of any crime, but rather of poor judgment in interactions with fans. Certainly it does not belong in the "personal life" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you that it does not belong under "personal life", I think it's a bit odd to say that allegations made against a media/social media personality/entertainer are only noteworthy because of the way the media covered those allegations. Considering the situation recieved coverage from mainstream outlets including Time, the BBC, and the Guardian, among others, along with the fact that her ukulele apology video, which is still on her YT channel, has over 20 million views, making it far and away her most viewed video, I'm not really sure what you mean. And while, yes, the seriousness of the allegations against her certainly exist on a spectrum, I don't think it's fully accurate to say that none of them could be considered criminal. She was accused of allegedly sending pornography to minors, which definitely would be illegal, regardless of whether charges were pressed. I would argue that downplaying the more serious among the allegations levied against her as simply "poor judgement" is pretty overtly a form of WP:PUSH. Your opinion concerning the voracity or lack thereof of any particular allegation should not play a role in deciding how prominently that information features in the article. Additionally "Reception" implies that this scandal had anything to do with critical reviews of her artistic work and comedy, rather than complaints about her personal behavior. If there is some formal way to make a proposal that can be voted on, I don't know how to do that. But I would reiterate that I think the section in question should either be moved to a new "public image" section, or moved into the "career" section. Gravelove (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that typically the 'personal life' section is used for similar cases on other articles. For example, allegations of misconduct associated with Phillip Schofield are included under the personal life section despite the reception being more noteworthy than the allegations themselves. This is also true of allegations made against Brian Jordan Alvarez, Aziz Ansari and Thomas Middleditch (to cite a few examples). So I am unsure as to why the 'personal life' section is an unsuitable place for this information. Certainly I disagree that the accusations are not noteworthy simply because there was no conviction; Schofield also famously said his actions were in poor judgement rather than criminal, but this has no bearing on where the information is located in the article. For the purposes of rhetoric, none of the above have been formally accused of a crime, gone to trial or been convicted. Becsh (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly add - I see from the archives that Ssilvers floated moving this content to Personal Life:

Once we know what we are going to say, I have no objection to moving it all to the Personal life section, unless people prefer to leave it all in the Reception section or another idea is agreed on. -- User:Ssilvers 03:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is an opportunity to discuss further and to try reaching consensus with hindsight. Personally I'm all for moving it to Personal Life under a subheading, which seems to be typical, as Reception seems fairly unusual for the reasons laid out above. Becsh (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that moving is the right step. Just because some other articles have it in one place doesn't mean all articles have to take a backwards step to lower their standards accordingly. This is particularly true given the material in several of the articles cited were about activities in their personal lives rather than their professional ones, as is the case here. Unless the facts change I suggest leaving it here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, should it not be moved under 'Career'? The section doesn't really relate to reception, but focuses on choices she made as a part of her professional life. Becsh (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested "Public image", which is the same as "Reception", a word that is typically used in FA bio articles. The reason that Reception is the right place for this is because this is all about the reception by the press and commentators to the allegations -- not about events in her career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest "Public image", Gravelove did. Regardless, I do not find "Reception" the intuitive place for this section for the reasons expressed here and many times in the archive. "Career" or "Personal life" would make more sense because the section is not actually about press reception, but the allegations and Ballinger's response to them. Perhaps the reason you think the section is related to press reception is because the cited sources are instances of press reception, but surely this is true of every noteworthy event worthy of inclusion on a Wikipedia article? Becsh (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Reception is about opinion and analysis -- what did writers think or feel about Ballinger's performances, and, in this subsection, the allegations. Career is about reporting of what happened, factually -- the events in the career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the subsection isn't about what writers think and feel about the allegations. It is a factual recording of the events surrounding the allegations with only one reference to an opinion piece. I do not find it appropriate to call this an instance of "Reception" given that we are not concerned with what McIntyre and Dahl think and believe happened, but what they actually said about Ballinger. The fact of the matter is that they made allegations and Ballinger responded. That isn't what reception means. Becsh (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally in complete agreement with @Becsh. While some of the cited reporting in the Allegations section does contain editorializing along side factual reporting of events, there are also plenty of news articles cited in this section that are in no way opinion based whatsoever, such as those from NBC - and either way, the section as written only makes mention of a specific media outlet or writer's subjective thoughts on the situation once (near the end when quoting the Vanity Fair article). The rest is a pretty straightforward timeline of events. This is very much in contrast to the first part of the Reception section, which is entirely focused on detailing what specific publications/writers personally think and have said about her work. So whether it should more correctly be categorized as a fan-interaction-based (and therefore career-related) situation, or a personal relationship (and therefore personal life related) situation is potentially still up for debate. But if the standard for inclusion in the Reception section is simply that something was reported on by the media, then by that logic the entire rest of the article belongs there too. Additionally, while I'll grant you that the creation of a "public image" section may not be appropriate here, I'm not sure it has been explained how simply moving this section to another heading inherently lowers the overall quality of the article or is in some way a step backwards? Gravelove (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Gravelove - you put it better than I could have! Becsh (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - it isn’t about reception, but a part of her career which one of the main things she is know for now. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 03:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree with this. also would like to note User:Ssilvers has been patrolling this article as (what seems to me) a fan, which could indicate a possible WP:COI. Over 2 years ago, this user was heavily defending Colleen Ballinger with no regards to what was reported by various reliable sources. Despressso (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move the section into 'Career' in the next few days, as it seems we've reached a consensus. Do let me know if there are any further thoughts and thanks for your replies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becsh (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a little much for a You Tube star? Based on length of the article alone, I would think this woman is one of the most important women in history ever. I realize that most of the article was probably written by her PR people, but should there be limits on length based on something? I don't have an easy answer, this just feels excessive to me. Scopius (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scopius According to the stats 63% of the article was written by @Ssilvers: and 27% was written by @Brojam:. If there is too much detail or too many references, they are very likely responsible. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been updating this article since Ballinger first gained wide notice in 2009. It is true that this is a pretty thoroughly developed article, and I have cited the most important sources about Ballinger (regarding whom I have absolutely NO conflict of interest). Other articles that have not received sufficient attention may be underdeveloped. See WP:DEV. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from Vanity Fair seems essential, as it explains that all of the coverage of the criticism simply repeated the allegations without any independent investigation, and that even if substantially true, they do not rise to the level of what "grooming" means. The text also makes it clear that this last part of the quote is the writer's own opinion. Jack1956 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would agree with this. I seem to remember it being there before with a consensus from one of the long threads when the matter first came up, but it's always possible my memory is playing me false. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this explanation is actually a better way of characterising the overall argument of the piece and that the splicing of quotes potentially misrepresents the its weight. I think rephrasing the quote to words to the effect of the above would avoid this, but this is mostly because the current wording is necessarily awkward to highlight that it is an opinion. Becsh (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has further changes that would use the VF source in the most concise, clear and helpful way, would you all please suggest them here? Also, I think the part of the VF article that Besch added (critiquing the frequency with which "justifiable outrage turns to silly memes and headlines and videos") is a vague comment about media in general, whereas the part that they deleted, that Ballinger's ("described behavior [by the accusers] does not approach the sexual exploitation or abuse that ... 'grooming' indicates") is clear and specific about this particular case (and so, as Jack said, "essential"). Unless Besch has a strong objection, I think we should delete "critiquing the frequency with which 'justifiable outrage turns to silly memes and headlines and videos'" to make the VF quote more concise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]