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 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 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 Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
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 articles
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 is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business 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 BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hillbillyholiday, although the sex tape content you removed had some poor sources and arguably needed trimming, some mention of the sex tape matter should be in this article. It brought Abraham notoriety and she has commented on it. So mentioning it in this article with WP:Reliable sources supporting it is not a WP:BLP violation.
Here you removed In Touch Weekly, and here you removed Us Weekly; you also removed a Fox News source about her cheerleading days. These are okay sources for this article. What type of sources are you expecting for this subject? Academic ones? These two sources are in the same vein as People magazine, which I remind you once again was deemed to be generally fine for WP:BLPs. As I noted back then, that People RfC should not have focused solely on People since the disagreement was about People magazine and sources like it. But I wouldn't mind starting an RfC on these other sources if you are going to keep removing them because don't deem them appropriate enough. Furthermore, when a celebrity gives an exclusive interview to one of these sources, it is even more doubtful to just chuck the source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Here we go again. In Touch Weekly, "the celebrity gossip magazine geared towards a younger readership, billing itself as 'fast and fun'." That's a good source for claims of child abuse made against living people is it? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, here we go again. After the People magazine matter, do you not understand that there is a difference between tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism? Do you not understand what a WP:Reliable source is? Must you always go by your own definition of what a WP:Reliable source is instead of following what Wikipedia says it is? If you have a problem with Abraham's claims, you should take that up with Abraham. Otherwise, we follow the sources when they pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
People is commonly considered a gossip magazine as well; that doesn't make it any less reliable for celebrity information. Perhaps if you point out how In Touch Weekly and Us Weekly have been as bad as the Daily Mail, I would see your point. Instead, celebrities continue to trust these magazines by lending their voices to them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Oh enough already. If my edit is so bad revert it. Or improve the article with some good sources. When you're done you should ask at the BLP/N whether we should use In Touch Weekly when taking of child abuse. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
"Oh enough already" is exactly what I and a number of others have been stating when it comes to your reckless, frustrating edits and edit warring. Reverting you only leads to more reverting. In this case, I wouldn't want to revert all of what you removed. Only the important content you should not have removed. And given your ideas about sourcing, it might be a waste of time to add different sources as well. As for BLP, the People magazine case that I keep bringing up more than shows that I know what is and is not a BLP violation and when an editor is interpreting WP:BLP-compliant sources in an overzealous manner. I watch enough policy pages and noticeboards to know what I am taking about. And if need be, I will start an RfC on sources like In Touch Weekly and Us Weekly. Then we will see how many editors agree with your thoughts on such sources. I highly doubt, for example, that many will agree that giving an exclusive interview to one of these magazines about a personal matter does not count as a reliable source for a claim made by the subject. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
um, in the first half of a sentence the page says Farrah's parents are separated. In the second the article says she gained a new step-father [sic] through her mother's remarriage in 2017. Methinks there ought to be some mention of her parents *divorcing* in there. Hannah955 (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Hannah955Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It looks like someone did a bit too much pruning of a previous version. There's currently a section that starts with "With her previous allegations of rape placing a strain on her partnership with Vivid Entertainment". Except that part, which clearly references something that should have been previously mentioned in the article, is the first mention of any rape allegation or of her partnership with Vivid Entertainment, being the only mention at all of the rape allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.233.165 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Done 晚安 (トークページ) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)