Edit warring

LRP19PT, you are currently edit warring over something as trivial as an infobox image, and you have just made the third revert to this page involving the same material within the past 24 hours. I invite you to read WP:EW thoroughly before you carry on with your tendentious editing. I should also point out that the burden is on your initiative to carry out your proposed edit, which is to crop an image from Wiki Common, you do not make demands of other editors to edit things your way. Haleth (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth Ok but please can you just do a "cropped" to the photo, by just showing her face! We don't need to get a vision on her breasts and thong, because it as to be a portrait, and it's a infobox photo, so just the face is ok! LRP19PT (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat what I told you in one of my edit summaries. Wikipedia is not censored. That is a non-negotiable site policy. As for your proposal to modify the image to make it seemingly more "modest", do it yourself, or stop being disruptive and move on. Haleth (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article photo

Considering recent events, and her stating that she's "free" and "I don't have to wear cleavage anymore, I can wear clothes" now that she isn't being controlled by her husband, an effort should be made to find a more modest picture for the article (while still being generally representative and suitable for the article, of course). I'm really not sure how photo licensing works, but if someone can advise or suggest a photo, I think it would be good to do. WPscatter t/c 05:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wpscatter Just cropping the image would be the simplest method in my opinion. Roostery123 (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of 28/12/2022 she's still... how can I say it modestly.. 'out and proud' on fansly, so pearl clutching over modesty isn't one of HER concerns 🙄. (source: https://fansly.com/Amouranth/posts ...) 87.114.14.227 (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's totally fair. Strangely it seems like she went back to the softcore porn content a little while after the whole debacle. I retract the above, though I wouldn't object to changing or cropping the image either. WPscatter t/c 23:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" husband

It doesn't seem like much of an "allegation", but they are married: [1] --causa sui (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed her husband's name because WP:BLPNAME requires stronger sources than heavy.com. Further her allegations trigger WP:NPF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-over boxing

Amouranth is scheduled to compete in cross-over boxing on July 1.


Details here: https://bloodyelbow.com/2023/05/31/amouranth-fight-la-velada-del-ano-3/ Timob85 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic Actress

Recently, Amouranth has begun creating pornographic content on jerkmate.com. This is in addition to other deals to create "softcore" porn content. I believe that characterizing her as such is not inappropriate. A quick Google search will reveal this. Must we add a source for such widely disseminated information? 174.70.32.232 (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any edit war over whether she is an unlinked "adult content creator" vs wikilinked pornographic film actress. A pornography film actor is anybody that performs sex acts in a pornography video. This includes streaming video like webcamming. She acknowledges working in the adult film industry.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this change. Amouranth has referred to herself as a pornographic actress before, and the partnership with Jerkmate really makes that line less blurry.. GarlicBreadBen (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

kiCk

Is somehow moving the activity to less restrictive streaming platform kiCk.com 88.80.224.229 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got a reliable source? –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can write here link to her kiCk profile. 88.80.224.229 (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

On what grounds are we applying WP:BLPPRIVACY in this specific case? The hidden note doesn't give a rationale. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should ask Sangdeboeuf[3]. However, the birth date should be widely published by RSes. I don't believe this is met by just a citation to a National World clickbait article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. That's the answer I was after. I'll be more aware of it in future cases of semi-notable personalities. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was essentially my reason for adding the note. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Morbidthoughts, regarding the subject's date of birth (BLP violation removed), surely the following reference is suitable for a valid verification?: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/19915696/who-amouranth-net-worth-husband/ Diademchild (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same.WP:THESUN Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about the following article? https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/701744-who-is-amouranth-bio HotNewHipHop is known for covering the careers of multiple artists, and has been nominated multiple times for the BET Hip Hop Awards. Diademchild (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another tabloid clickbait type source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what kind of source are you really looking for? Because at this rate, you might end up classifying every relevant source as "clickbait", when even she herself has confirmed that she's born on (BLP violation removed)?. At least, I've been able to finally get everyone to accept that her middle name is Michelle lol. Diademchild (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Find something green from WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair enough, though could prove difficult or take time to find. But I have readily available sources from her own verified Twitter and Twitch pages of her celebrating her birthday on 2 December. She’s definitely not born in 1994, and she confirmed last month that she was already aged 31 on a popular online podcast, which I can provide a sourced link to if you want? Afterall, I would assume that even you would surely consider any verifiable written source, as a subservient source to hearing the information directly from the horse’s mouth? Diademchild (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morbidthoughts, how about the following reference: https://www.dataconomy.com/2024/01/10/amouranth-ai-companion-onlyfans/ ?
For over a decade, Dataconomy has been dedicated to making sense of our rapidly changing world—sharing clear, compelling journalism at the intersection of data, technology, finance, and business. So that's by no means a tabloid clickbait type source. Diademchild (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See what I wrote below: Combining one source for the subject's birthday with another source for the year of birth to arrive at the exact birth date is original research. This is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia.
The Dataconomy article is somewhere between churnalism and content mill and reads as though it was written by ChatGPT. Instead of looking for any random website that contains the date you are trying to include, I suggest following Morbidthoughts' advice and starting with the highest quality sources that cover the subject in depth. See also WP:BESTSOURCES. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya @Morbidthoughts, I'm a bit confused about the revert you made concerning the Youtube link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jof413ixXCk&t=753s which clearly has her stating her birthdate. On any normal Wikipedia BLP's article, that would have been accepted. Are we not allowed to provide an interviewed link to a subject stating their birthdate at all? It's baffling, as to why we're reverting edits for no mature reason. And can you also do your best to supply reference for an accurate birthdate, otherwise at this rate it'd take for the subject (herself) to physically die, before we can have her full birthdate stated/verified, according to you. Diademchild (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:RSPYT about videos uploaded by non-RS channels (an AI artist?!!!). WP:ABOUTSELF only applies for videos that she publishes. Concentrate on something else besides Amouranth for now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that clip was initially gotten from this live stream here: https://rumble.com/v6ppbe3-amouranth-interview.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp (from minute 16:22, she confirmed her birthdate). WP:RSP, doesn't address sources extracted from Rumble, which is apparently a proponent to free speech. Honestly, I'm not even a fan of the subject (and couldn't even care less about her); as a WikiGnome and pedantic individual, I just personally detest seeing inaccurate information on Wikipedia, that I know has already been addressed by the subject on multiple occassions, directly. If the subject wasn't popular, I guarantee you that her accurate birthdate would have been fixed a long time ago by another editor, even before I discovered the subject. @Novem Linguae, since I respect you as an admin, what do you think about the validity of the subject announcing her birthdate on a livestream on Rumble, since WP:RSP doesn't address sources extracted from Rumble? Diademchild (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy. Thanks for the question. The spirit of WP:BLPDATE is that we should not blast a living person's birthdate through a megaphone unless they also blast it through a megaphone, for privacy reasons. A YouTube video containing a twitch clip is probably an accurate birthdate, but in my opinion does not rise to a level of intentionality that would cancel out their privacy. If Amouranth had said this in an interview to people magazine, for example, that would be different. Sounds like this was just a casual mention on stream. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I trust you're fine. Thanks for your smart response. What you said appears understandable. She actually announced her birthdate on one of the most popular online podcasts (Fresh and Fit Podcast), which is verified on YouTube and Rumble, and has also interviewed some of the most famous or controversial personalities in the world. But as things stand, I think it's unlikely that a good or reliable source as per WP:RSP, interviews her one-on-one or lets slip her birthdate; I think they'll always likely let slip her age though. I even joked earlier, that unless she dies, there may be no stated proof of birth (even though she's mentioned or alluded to it many times on her social media pages), because then at that point, all reliable sources would be forced to willingly state her birthdate, since she's famous. But yeah, I'd appreciate if we can address and state her birthdate on here (like every other social media personality has their's), before such sad news though. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Wikipedia says about every other social media personality is irrelevant (WP:OTHERCONTENT). Whether the podcast is popular or not is irrelevant. Self-published media such as podcasts should never be used for claims about living people unless published by the subject themselves (WP:BLPSPS). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, if you believe the subject was born in 1993, then saying they were born in 1993 or 1994 as the article currently does is not inaccurate, just vague. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would think saying or stating that she's born in 1993 or December 1993 only, was vague. But leaving an option for people to suspect that she could be born in 1994, potentially a year younger than she actually claims, would surely seem inaccurate to an unbiased person. And surely that inaccurate ambiguity, gets fixed soon. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being born in a different calendar year does not make a person a whole year younger. Especially for people born near the end of the year. We are not saying she was definitely born in 1994, so there is no inaccuracy. And WP:BLP concerns outweigh accuracy in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that being born in a different calendar year does not make a person a whole year younger, that's why I said it could be interpreted as them being "potentially" a year younger. Either way, I'm sure people who really care about her age, can currently find out that exact information by other current valid means like on Google, her social media pages, other apparently "tabloid" websites, online interviews, and even on her other Wikipedia articles written in different other languages, of which all appear consistent with the same birthdate she claims. But yeah, I guess for now I (and everyone else) has to stick with the BLP rules on here, which can appear frustrating at times for editors. But yeah, we'll see. Diademchild (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those sources are not valid, except for the subject's own social media pages (WP:ABOUTSELF). But people also lie about their own ages all the time. In any case, if there is a social media page published by the subject themselves that contains her full birth date, feel free to present it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the chances of her lying about her age or birthdate, when every potential valid and/or invalid source granted or interview she gives, has the same consistent age/birthdate stated? I think anyone would say it's pretty slim, if not 0%. Moreover if you look at the following link: https://www.businessinsider.com/amouranth-kaitlyn-siragusa-twitch-streamer-gas-stations-hot-tub-asmr-2022-12, which we both know is a valid source (Business Insider) it claims she was aged 29 as early as January 2023 (meaning she's aged 31 as early as January 2025); and would seem to nullify any chances of her being aged 30 currently (as it does now saying she's aged 30–31) and since January 2025. That reference would also appear to be far much more closer to her accurate birthdate, than the current reference of her birthdate (being aged 28 as at August 2022), especially since we know that she's born in December. The subject is considered a public figure, so I don’t think privacy necessarily follows her. Besides the following links from her verified social media pages, confirm that she's born on 2 December as well: https://www.x.com/Amouranth/status/1069272688777154561, and here: https://x.com/Amouranth/status/804576451693518848 she clearly alludes to turning aged 23 on December 2, 2016. So granted, if it’s a matter of was she born on 2 December 1993 or 1994, without using (much) critical thinking skills, I’m sure we all know (or at least can deduce) the answer to/from that wisely, based on current Business Insider references. — Diademchild (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's contents are based on published, reliable sources, not amateur detective work by random Wikipedia users. Once again, this is all original research absent a reliable source explicitly stating the date of birth. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wikipedia BLP articles don't rely on published, reliable sources explicitly stating their date of birth. And that's what I've tried to say previously on here, and in my opinion it just happens to be that there are strict editors perhaps unnecessarily policing this subject's article page, for reliable sources that are specifically hard to find. For a Wikipedia BLP article to rely on published, reliable sources explicitly stating their date of birth, would likely be if the subject at hand has passed away, as part of their obituary information, particularly if the subject is/was a public figure. Plus unless asked, a public figure is unlikely to just randomly state their date of birth, as they are more likely to state their age and/or birthday, separately. Amouranth was asked about her birthdate, which was why she stated it in this interview: https://rumble.com/v6ppbe3-amouranth-interview.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp. It wasn't just a casual mention on stream, and in that interview she even agreed that she was a Sagittarius (born between November 22 and December 21). So if you're waiting for a reliable source explicitly stating her date of birth, then unless unfortunately she passes away, you could be waiting for a long time. — Diademchild (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my problem. And WP:OTHERCONTENT is not relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. So are you happy for her birthdate to remain (inaccurately) ambiguous on her page? If so that's fine and is your prerogative, although I'm sure many who would stumble across the subject's article page, might/would argue her birthdate section doesn't appear professional; especially if/since there are external websites or platforms with less credibility than Wikipedia, that are able to boldly and rightly state it with pure accuracy. And as I said previously, people (especially fans of the subject) if they do care enough, are likely smart enough to find out her true verified birthday if they wanted to, outside of Wikipedia, and that isn't hard to find. So, either way there isn't really a no-win situation. The subject is a public figure, and her personal details of note, are out there on the internet already. — Diademchild (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has higher standards of verifiability than the rest of the internet, especially for information about living people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with this totally, and long may it continue. I didn't doubt that. However the platform isn't perfect, and to aid in its imperfections, I think it would be advisable to grant "a benefit of doubt" to all available sources when it comes to full-names and birthdates only of BLPs, especially when the subject has also confirmed it, pending a link to a verified source eventually. For example, with Amouranth, only one birthdate has been attributed to her (being the one she claimed in the interview), and there haven't been any conflicting birthdates from her (so clearly she isn't/wasn't lying in that aforementioned interview), on any web-paged source, or on any of her social media pages. If that was the case, then I would fully grant logic to the fact of us only needing to state her birth year as a birthdate (e.g. born 1993–1994). But since her one and only consistent birthday and birth-year, has been long published online, by herself and by other sources, to me it would make sense to grant "a benefit of doubt" to avoid (inaccurate) ambiguity for her birthdate, which I see happening across Wikipedia on a "good faith" basis. But yeah, that's just my take. — Diademchild (talk) 11:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We sure are typing a lot of words about this birthdate. Perhaps our encyclopedic energies can be spent better elsewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY

Hiya, everyone. The subject of this article is/was born on (BLP violation removed). I don't know why anyone could be assuming she could be born in 1994, when that is clearly not the case. Google and her social media pages confirm her birthdate as (BLP violation removed) too, and she herself confirmed on a popular podcast this month that she was aged 31 as at February 2025, when her birthday is in December. The subject clearly didn't make her age private online, so there's no valid justification as to why we cannot confirm it on here. Likewise her middle name is Michelle as per her Internet Movie Database page. I'm very pedantic and I hate seeing inaccurate information on Wikipedia. So can we all respectfully, please leave her infobox's birth date as rightly (BLP violation removed). Many thanks. Diademchild (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Diademchild. 1) Please self-revert your controversial edits until you have an affirmative consensus on this talk page for the disputed edits. The page needs to return to the status quo ante. Your edits have been objected to by myself and another editor. 2) Please drop some links to pages displaying her birthdate and middle name so we can evaluate the quality of the sources. In general, we want to include information on Wikipedia, but the idea behind WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIVACY is that sometimes it is unethical to include certain personal information about living persons, even if the information is true. In this case, because it would facilitate identity theft and violate the subject's privacy. I may change my mind if the sources you link show her not caring about hiding her birthdate and middle name, but you need to link to some sources. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment.
1.) So I see you're making the mistake of assuming that Sangdeboeuf outrightly objected to my initial edit. But it's clear that the editor only had an objection to the only provided citation of Amouranth's biological age, and not to the fact that she is/was indeed born in (BLP violation removed). So it's apparent that it's only you who has an objection to it for no reason. However, since Sangdeboeuf's initial comment, I have provided further references that substantiate that Amouranth was indeed born in (BLP violation removed), and only an ignorant editor would have to dispute the evidence provided.
2.) I have already provided some links to pages displaying her birthdate and birthday, directly from the subject's verfied twitter page herself. So I do not need to do this any further, though if you want I can tell you the podcast she confirmed her real age on. However, regarding the subject's middle name, there is a link to a page from Business Insider, that I can provide that clearly states that her full name is indeed "Kaitlyn Michelle Siragusa". And we all know that Business Insider is a reputable source in America, so then there's no argument that supporting information on Business Insider cannot be on Wikipedia. The other option would be deprecating all uses of such sources as tabloid or fake news, which is unthinkable. Regards. Diademchild (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IMDB is not a reliable source. Combining one source for the subject's birthday with another source for the year of birth to arrive at the exact birth date is original research. This is not permitted anywhere on Wikipedia, especially biographies of living persons, where reliable sourcing is a must. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya everyone, so as you can see/read here in the following two/three referenced links, indeed her middle name is Michelle. Do we all feel safe to include it, in her article page introduction as well?

Diademchild (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider story looks OK, but the YouTube interview is evidently self-published and not usable. (Even if it were a generally reliable source, an interviewer addressing a subject as XYZ is not enough to verify that their name is XYZ.) EssentiallySports looks like garden-variety clickbait, also not usable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So in that list, only the Business Insider article, supports her middle name being Michelle? But would verifiable social media pages of hers, also support that case? Diademchild (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For basic claims such as a middle games, a source like an interview is fine, especially of backed up by another source. Cortador (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was what I initially suspected/thought as well. Afterall, the middle name (Michelle) specified in that referenced interview, confirms what a reputable source like the Business Insider stated about/for her, as well. Diademchild (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AAmouranth
No tags for this post.