Talk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

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

• Sydney Sweeney Parade 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Sexuality Studies 101

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2022 and 21 October 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Iliketolearn14 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Iliketolearn14 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The endorsements

The list of random endorsements, could they not be trimmed? XeCyranium (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Come to think of it I'lm going to delete, it all seems extremely trivial. XeCyranium (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Why delete? It’s interesting to see all the companies she has done work before. 2603:9004:700:19F0:D19:208C:8191:17F6 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Sweeney's Personal Life

There seems to be a lot of revisions about her romantic life, also about whether she's already being considered a modern sex symbol, so I'm opening this topic for editors being able to reach a consensus. Cahlin29 (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sydney as a Universal Studios tour guide

There is no evidence that Sydney ever worked at Universal Studios. Former and current guides don't remember her, park managers have no record of her employment, and the theme park does not list her among its famous alumni. Sydney has produced no proof of her time there, such as a nametag or a photo, and has refused to recite any of the tour on camera. 72.69.127.151 (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The ref states she started orientation and training, but left within weeks, because she got an acting job. Not clear, however, what the confirmation is for that information. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

As stated by New Yorks Brighton High school Alumni page, Sydney Sweeney graduated from there, her year is not stated and she is not credited as valedictorian . 2604:3D09:D7F:FA30:C896:44A6:ADC8:6205 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

voorts (talk/contributions) 05:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Sydneys boyfrend

gabe hasselburg is Sydney Sweeney boy friend after her breakup with zahcirific 75.103.223.30 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

There needs to be a reliable source for it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So... we're not gonna talk about the soap...?

https://nypost.com/2025/06/07/lifestyle/the-post-tests-sydney-sweeneys-soap-made-with-her-bathwater/ Electricmaster (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Better sources including The New York Times: https://thespectator.com/topic/sydney-sweeney-bathwater-soap/ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/30/style/sydney-sweeney-bathwater-soap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:E462:1200:706B:92F:E4A4:CC08 (talk) 05:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at the article too and was surprised to say the least that there was no mention of the soap. As someone who couldn't care less about celebrities even I heard about this. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 01:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: bad grammar

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  [[gene|genes]],was

  +

  [[gene]]s, was

• Why it should be changed: The construction needs a space after the comma.

~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done CoconutOctopus talk 16:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Time to update the profile image?

It's 5 years old now and it's a bit.... booby. Maybe we can find something more recent and more neutral? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with women having breasts? SlapperDapper (talk) 01:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

political party

She is a registered to the Republican party of Florida, can that be added? Armandlee (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC) — Armandlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fqjcvoo175hgf1.png

https://registration.elections.myflorida.com/en/CheckVoterStatus Armandlee (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the significance of her political party? As an actress in non-political media it is irrelevant as it is for other similar figures. Please explain why her political party is import ant enough to be featured. 23.93.172.237 (talk) 07:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

She's in The Handmaid's Tale, that is political media. Armandlee (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

All media is political media Efermax (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sydney-sweeney-voted-trump/
• https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/nov/08/viral-image/no-evidence-actor-sydney-sweeney-said-she-voted-fo/

Deepred6502 (talk) 06:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Political affiliation (when known) is always reported on Wikipedia for actors, usually in the Personal Life section. Why should it be different here? SuperSardus (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Those actors or actresses are involved with political activism. Sydney Sweeney has been publicly apolitical. It is not atypical for individuals to register with the dominant party in states in order to vote in party primaries.

Her last political comments were from 2020 and pro-legalized abortion, in favor of Planned Parenthood, pro-BLM, and pro-LGBT. We can speculate about the registration all we want (it is possible that her opinions have changed) but it is not warranted on a celebrity's Wikipedia page.

It should absolutely not be included. (Or pretty much any other celebrities voter registration information if they're generally apolitical.) SickNWristed (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

She has spoken out on politics. You have proven my point. Armandlee (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This should be included only if it's reported by a solid, reliable source (and preferably more than one). WP:NEWSWEEK and WP:TIMESOFINDIA are not very good sources. See WP:BLP Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. Tristario (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the other user that it’s not significant enough, at least for the info box. If you must include it, maybe a brief mention in the Personal life section, but until she gets more involved in politics beyond just registration and privately voting, leave it off the info box Ryanjackson10 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

She's a public figure. No one forced her to become an actress. Armandlee (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding a subject’s political affiliation in the context of a politically charged event is contentious and requires careful sourcing.

WP:BLP:

"Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

The guideline also states:

"The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material."

Its pretty straight forward. Source it. Otherwise it just appears as editorial bias. DocLG (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

How is a public figure's pollical party contentious? Armandlee (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend familiarizing yourself with the provided WP:BLP link. As of now, her political affiliation does not appear to be attached to reliable sourcing, and is instead relegated to unreliable culture warfare. Wikipedia does not and should not participate in the latter. I also left a message on your talk page regarding your attempts to force changes in this article despite there being an active conversation without consensus for your version. TNstingray (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you are forcing your own opinions on this article. The Florida voter registration is not enough? Armandlee (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this article. I came over here from PendingChanges, and I assessed what the status quo of this article was per WP policy, which currently supersedes your currently unreliably sourced opinion. And even if it was reliably sourced, this conversation is still active so it is still inappropriate to make the change. TNstingray (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You do have an option on this, clearly. You are trying to shut up others and have threatened me. You need to look at your own bias. Armandlee (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

How is the state of Florida's own website unreliable? Armandlee (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

It's a primary source, and we would be inappropriately performing original research (WP:OR) to interpret what that means, as well as violating WP:BLP as already cited in this discussion. The burden of proof is on you to explain how the inclusion of this detail is not in violation of WP policy. TNstingray (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, what you have showed is a bias. You have shut others up and threatened those have a different opinion if this article. Armandlee (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort. I have only interacted with you and you alone, and warning you when you are in violation of Wikipedia policy is not a threat. TNstingray (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You are withholding information on a public wiki and threating me by adding said information. Armandlee (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You are (understandably) frustrated that your edit doesn't have consensus. Believe me, I've been there. I encourage you to read up on Wikipedia's different policies that all users have agreed to follow when we come to edit this amazing project. TNstingray (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is there. You are have a clear bias that wants to withhold information on a public figure. You are being unbelievably snide about it. Armandlee (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Consensus has not been established in this discussion section. TNstingray (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to show consensus withdraw the threats you made earlier. Armandlee (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I have made no threats to withdraw. I informed you that you were in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I would rather you learn from your mistakes, and stay to be able to voice your opinion, rather than potentially face administrative action. TNstingray (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You did threaten me. Armandlee (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it probably shouldn't be included, at least not in the infobox. It could be included under the jeans ad controversy section, since it's been covered by multiple sources in relation to that, but it could be a case of too soon. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 17:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

So you opinion is it's ok with withhold information on public figures? Armandlee (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

No, it's just not relevant to the career of this article's subject. It could be notable later down the road, but as it stands right now it's not as noteworthy compared to other information relating to her career. GrandDuchyConti 💜(talk) 17:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

No reliable sources provided for this claim. A primary source isn't unusable, but unless reliable secondary sources pick up on it and offer their own interpretation, it's a matter of WP:DUE and WP:OR to make unsupported statements on the matter. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/03/sydney-sweeney-jeans-ad-republican-voter-registration

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/sydney-sweeney-voter-registration-republican-b2801164.html

Are these not reliable? Armandlee (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

These are definitely better sources. Now, the question is whether the information is relevant, and where to include it... I could potentially see an argument for a brief mention alongside the American Eagle ad (I think someone above said as much), but I don't think it needs to be in the lede infobox, because that would be too much of a political assumption in Wikipedia's voice. Mentioning it in the infobox would only be appropriate if she was an outspoken advocate for Republican politics. Mere registration to vote is a far cry from that, but perhaps worth mentioning alongside her recent marketing controversies. TNstingray (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The mere fact it's being left out is political. The actor has explicitly engaged in queer and left leaning media. Viewers have a right to information of her politics. Armandlee (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You might want to give WP:AGF and WP:CIV a read before continuing. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The actor has been criticized for years about her politics. Here is a clip of Drew Afualo from August 2024. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C-vv46qy41X/?hl=en Armandlee (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Significantly better, given this is a BLP I'd see like to see more sources but I can definitely see us including the infobox political party parameter and maybe a short one or two sentence summary of the situation added to her personal life section. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Again the actor's politics have been discussed as far back as 2023. Armandlee (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool, where are the sources for that since you appear to be a subject matter expert on the political inclinations of Sydney Sweeney. And as regards the Instagram reel you shared above, that is decidedly NOT a reliable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Please take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Instead of ignoring the discussions on the talk page, using unreliable sourcing, and attempting multiple times revert your own additions to the article reverted by other editors, work with everyone to come to a consensus. Particularly on a BLP. This isn't a tabloid or news article. You appear to have a very personal attachment to this being added which raises concerns of WP:NPOV. Even if consensus is reached and the addition is made to the page, that does not excuse this type of conduct. DocLG (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing how this is controversial. Reporting on a public figure and the coverage she got. Armandlee (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I get the issue we were having when discussing this topic previously. Wikipedia is not meant to be for reporting, especially reporting on individuals. Take a second to look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the subsection WP:NOTNEWS. Also we have a productive discussion on this in the talk page topic below. It's not about the content being controversial. It's about ensuring that potentially contentious content is not added unless it can be reliably verified as fact and determined to be relevant for inclusion. DocLG (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Again how is it "potentially contentious"? Please state your reasons in this discussion why and how it applies to this public figure. Armandlee (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Because it is a political affiliation. In the US, political affiliation is inherently polarizing which can cause disputes, disagreements, conflict, etc. To make sure I’m clear, I’m not saying it shouldn’t be included because of that. It might help if you define it so we can see where we don’t agree. DocLG (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with anything. You are purposefully withholding information about a public figure. You are not answered the question, let me restate it. How is it "potentially contentious"? Please state your reasons in this discussion why and how it applies to this public figure Armandlee (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I broke down how it is potentially contentious in my response. But, there’s always going to be disagreement on what is or isn’t “contentious”. I would like to have a good faith discussion about this, but after your last response you seem to be intentionally ignoring my response to you for some reason. Leaving this here unless there’s new input. DocLG (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You did not explain yourself. I haven't said anything that would not be of good faith. You just don't want to explain yourself. Armandlee (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Unless a celebrity has made public statements regarding politics, the norm is to not include voter registration information. This applies even more so to countries like the United States. EX: Tucker Carlson was a registered Democratic Party member for many years in order to vote for the more right-leaning candidates in party-restricted primaries.

Wouldn't be too much of a shocker if it is the same thing here. Florida is a Republican-leaning state and this voting behavior isn't unusual there. SickNWristed (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/trump-praises-sydney-sweeney-amid-american-eagle-jeans/story?id=124347376 Armandlee (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a social media post by Trump. SickNWristed (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

That's been reported on by NBC, ABC and many reliable sources. Armandlee (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

She registered as a republican after the 2024 primaries and before the general, so it is definitely not the same here. D4R1U5 (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

A user reverted the reversion of their own addition of this topic and wrapped the content within a hidden comment. It was still being added to the article without explanation or proper sourcing—just hidden from the majority of casual readers. I’ve removed it and added a hidden comment in it's place pointing here, per WP:DONTHIDE, which states that a comment should be added directing users to the talk page given the ongoing dispute and the lack of consensus.

There's some discussion on this topic Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Hidden text/Archive 1#Inappropriate uses. It might be acceptable in non-BLP contexts. Would love to hear thoughts on this. DocLG (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The government is the ultimate publisher of repute. Her voter registration does not need secondary sourcing unless the material is too complex for the average reader to comprehend2601:46:C47F:5A0:1870:36F2:4BFE:BC33 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC).

It's common for residents to register with the state's dominant party to vote in elections. We have no idea why Sweeney registered as a Republican.

This (at least should) applies to every, mostly apolitical celebrity.

If she endorses Vance in 2028? Okay. SickNWristed (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You are editorializing. Just reporting her party is saying absolutely nothing just she's a member of the party. Armandlee (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Only 40.5 of registered voters of GOP. Armandlee (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

are GOP Armandlee (talk) 01:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think she's been politically active enough for her party registration to be on her biography, based on the sourcing I've seen. If there is an article about the AE jeans ad (sigh), it'd be appropriate to mention Trump's mention of it and other reporting. This is all based on current information and of course could change at any time. Skynxnex (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

What is your threshold for public figures involvement in parties? Anything that is more than nonzero is editorializing. Armandlee (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If we are not going to add it to infobox, I do not see why it is not worth mentioning in the personal life section at the least? That would be withholding information for no good reason. D4R1U5 (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No, because there are no solid sources backing the info up. There's also a reasonable argument to be made that it is undue. Red Fiona (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If she regularly donates to the Republican Party, attends their conventions, and/or publicly supports Republican candidates for political offices, etc. then I think mentioning her political party affiliation would be fine and WP:DUE. But without additional context, the addition would just be trivial and irrelevant. Some1 (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Withholding information about a public figure is editorializing. The reader should make that decision not wiki writers. Armandlee (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

No, withholding information about a public figure is not editorializing. Editors make decisions about whether to include or exclude content about a pubic figure based on multiple policies and guidelines. And the consensus so far, which is policy, is to exclude this information about her registration, and I support exclusion as it is not even remotely relevant to her biography. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

If the record is true, there's no reason why it can't be mentioned briefly, some non-politicians have added it, even if they're not actually actively involved in politics. Cbls1911 (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

It is definitely encyclopedic content that warrants a mention of some capacity in the article, even if not in the infobox. D4R1U5 (talk) 05:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Party registration does not mean endorsement in the United States. Tucker Carlson, for instance, registered as a Democratic Party member in order to vote in their primaries. SickNWristed (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Others will disagree with you yet the no's get there way? Armandlee (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

their Armandlee (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a basis to add it to the infobox, but it seems warranted to reference it in the section relating to Personal Life or the section relating to the jeans advertisement. It is clear from the source and from companion reporting from other sources (e.g., the BBC at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3v3w62ekq2o) that the endorsement by President Trump was also done in conjunction with him learning that she is a registered Republican. Without the additional information in that section at least, the article is incomplete.Homagetocatalonia (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from the BLP/N thread. I'm a little bit concerned, from a BLP perspective, with making wiki-voice statements regarding a BLP based on a primary source. If mention of her Republican membership is made I would prefer that to be an attributed statement citing the secondary source that reported on it. A party membership not expressed by the BLP is of very low relevance and I'd honestly weakly support excluding the information altogether until such time as she says it's something that actually matters to her. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's plausible that Sydney Sweeney registered as a Republican to vote in the state's primaries. We have no clue. Her only stated political opinions were three brief mentions in 2020 of politicies opposite that of most Republicans. II similarly don't think we should include that. She's mostly apolitical so this is a WP: BLP violation. SickNWristed (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  My concern is entirely a sourcing one. Simonm223 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not a violation.... it's a documented fact that serves to more fully inform the public's perception of the character of an individual. The fact that she is registered as a member of a party is important and relevant, regardless of lack of public, political statements, endorsements. It became a headline story when Trump praised her only after learning that she is a registered Republican. Taquim (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  No, her political party registration is not important and relevant, as evidenced by the sources not providing any context to explain to the reader why it is important or relevant. And the fact that Trump praised her is insignificant when he posts to Truth Social 17 times a day, and in the same post he praised Sweeney, he also slammed Taylor Swift as a woke loser, and you certainly won't find editors clamoring on her talk page to include his insignificant ramblings. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and this is one of them, because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is a tool for celebrities to be glazed, obvs. Armandlee (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  SickNWristed: Your efforts to sanitize Sweeney's page seem to indicate that you are either a huge fan willing to bend/hide facts to preserve her pristine image, or you are her paid publicist. Either way, more respect for objectivity would serve this page well. Taquim (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  I'm neither a fan or her publicist.

  I arrived here from the BLP/lock request pages. The simple truth of the matter is that the supposed controversy is widely overhyped (just one who mentions it) by right-wing commentators as part of a culture war narrative.

  What part of the article is non-objective? Half of the U.S. is Republican. However, even if Sydney Sweeney was a member of the Democratic Party, it shouldn't be mentioned, as she has never commented on politics.

  As I've told you before, we have no idea why she registered as a Republican, and it's very much possible that Sydney did so to vote in closed primaries. This is remarkably common in the United States. SickNWristed (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Oh boy this is some talk page, sorry for editing without consensus but the present age is really not a reliable or high-quality source. Look up Sydney Sweeney and all you'll see are articles about this. It's is definitely relevant to her person. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6].

  It goes on but you get the point. As for the unknown reason behind her party affiliation, it doesn't matter because she is in the Republican Party whether ideologically she agrees with Trump or the MAGA movement isn't relevant. We are not labelling her a conservative. JetLowly (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  Other sources also describe the controversy as overstated.

  I struggle to think of any mainstream Democratic politician or commentator who is upset about the American Eagle campaign. I do see a lot of Republicans talking about it, though, as already noted. The controversy is already mentioned in due proportion into the article: "The advertisements drew the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators, who alleged that there was a "woke" backlash against her, a claim that was described as "exaggerated" by news agencies."

  Sydney Sweeney has made absolutely no comments about politics (outside of three, brief, apparently ghostwritten tweets in 2020) in her life. It is absolutely undue and a concerning WP: BLPN violation to imply to readers that she holds X or Y political position. To be blunt: She's better known for her bosom than her politics. It is absolutely undue to have half of the article to be about Trump's daily social media diarrhea. I and others doubt that any of this is going to be anything warranting more than a brief mention in 2035. SickNWristed (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  None of the other 3 sources given for that sentence mention it being overstated, only the present age does. I have personally seen this discussion going on on tiktok, where all culture wars happen. No, mainstream Democratic politicians and commentators aren't commenting on it as it's largely by average civilians on the internet. I don't want to add this because of Trump talking about it but it's part of it. She is already known for politics in another controversy about her family having MAGA hats as another writer mentioned.

  At this point, she is associated by many people politically, not by her bosom which would be almost entirely by men. Whether or not her party affiliation is to be included in the infobox or not will be up to consensus but SickNWristed's part should be kept as I believe it sums the situation up better than the current version does, of course that'll be up to consensus as well. JetLowly (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

  The fact you are saying women are only tits and ass is highly offence and you need to apologize. Armandlee (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly Armandlee (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  If she were a democrat I would still argue it needs to be there. Armandlee (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. Armandlee (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  She registered per the articles mentioned after the primary. Armandlee (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

BLPN

I've posted a link to this discussion from WP:BLPN, hopefully someone with additional familiarity with how BLP would affect whether or and how we report this can weigh in with some insight to existing consensus on how this has been handled in the past. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You are editorializing. Armandlee (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You might need to take a break from this topic. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:44, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

You are free to edit another topic. Armandlee (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, nobody can say between your talk page messages and here that we haven't tried. Shame. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation

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.

---

Should Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation be mentioned in the article? If so, where (in the infobox, body of the article, or both)? 23:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• Not Yet I am concerned about using a non-WP:ABOUTSELF source for party affiliation of a BLP. Should Sweeney say something about her politics that would change my perspective on this. Simonm223 (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Not yet as she hasn't directly addressed the matter herself, and as noted in the prior discussion, there are reasons one might register for one party even if they ultimately vote a different way. WP:DUE is a concern as well given the coverage so far. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose due to the reasons mentioned by Simonm223 & Locke Cole. Although, after I read through the *Discussion* section, I'd have to say my opinion is that Sweeney's party registration is a little more than gossip at this point. Hammelsmith (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

  It's been sourced by multiple well known newspapers. How is that gossip? Armandlee (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC) — Armandlee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No, or at least not yet. If she openly supports/endorses the Republican Party, then I would be fine with including that information in the body of the article (but not in the infobox, because her party affiliation is irrelevant to her career and notability as an actress; notice how Beyonce, who has openly endorsed Kamala Harris, does not have the "party =" parameter in her infobox). For now, this party registration stuff seems like WP:UNDUE, trivial WP:BLPGOSSIP. Also see WP:VNOT, which says that just because the information is verifiable and sourced does not mean it should automatically be included. Some1 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Not yet. Party affiliation should be considered if it’s an established part of the subject’s public life, not merely tied to a single event which has not been verified as intentionally political to begin with. DocLG (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No per Locke Cole's given reasons above (and my own). SickNWristed (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No per Simonm223 and Locke Cole's reasoning. Right now, this is trivial information, and we're not so quick to just attribute everyone to their registered political party just because we could. Contrast this with, say, Jon Voight or Sean Penn, who have been overt with their party affiliates and has been widely commented on beyond a simple aside as a side issue for a single event. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No given poor citations (I would say poor for any article never mind a BLP) and undue weight (logic similar to Some1's. Red Fiona (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Confirmed information, if it don't mention even a single word , that would be an ulterior motive. Cbls1911 (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• Not yet, per previous users. Until she makes a public statement about that, it's just WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP (not the mention the fact that "leaking" this information is probably an attempt to intensify the current pseudo-controversy, for whatever purpose that may serve). At best, this should be mentioned in the section about the Jeans ad and not in the infobox. Psychloppos (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No. WP:BLPGOSSIP says to avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject (emphasis added). Her alleged political affiliation really doesn't seem relevant considering that she is not a politically charged/active celebrity. This info would tiptoe into WP:NOTNEWS/WP:TABLOID, WP:TRIVIA, and probably also WP:RECENTISM. We all know this is only being brought up because of one dumb commercial, which will likely be forgotten within a year and become nothing more than a footnote in Sweeney's career. pillowcrow 17:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No per UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. Just because content can be sourced, doesn't mean it is automatically suitable for inclusion, and there is no indication this information is relevant or significant enough to include. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No Unless she gets into activism (and 3 tweets are not activism), this is an irrelevant piece of data. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No per Some1. Irrelevant gossip does not belong in WP articles, and we should resist the American trend of politicizing more or less everything. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No. She is an actress. I can see relevance in cases like Clint Eastwood, but this isn't the case here. An encyclopedia is supposed to weigh on the facts given in an article: we show facts relevant and enduring/ lasting to a lemma together with reliable sources. By "enduring/ lasting" I mean that relevant content would be found in several reliable sources - not just one due to some recent event, see also WP:RECENTISM. AnnaS. (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
• No. My reasoning in the discussion above has not changed per BLP, as well as the plethora of links provided by the other users here. Consensus seems clear, so I'm merely commenting because I was invloved in the earlier conversation. TNstingray (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
• No, I agree with the comments above saying no. It isn't necessary for her bio to have her affiliation. If she is actively involved in politics in the future it would make sense. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 19:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No per above. Ortizesp (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

I think it makes sense to have a section of the article dedicated to the AE controversy and for her party registration to be mentioned there, especially since the president has now commented on it—if that doesn't make it relevant then I don't know what would. It probably could be left out of the infobox, although I am unsure what the convention is for party registration in infoboxes. Damiens the Regicide (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should be making decisions on what information we include about a BLP on the basis of Trump's random utterances. I'll be honest: I'm not very interested in speculation on the politics of an actor derived from an unfortunate line read. I've read past articles interviewing Sweeney discussing how being an early-career actor, even a successful one, means taking the work you can get. Sweeney has not spoken about her politics nor, to my knowledge, has she made any explicit statements regarding the American or world political climate. As such, who she registered with seems like deeply irrelevant trivia. While she is a public person, even public people deserve the level of care WP:BLP requires and her party registration is currently TMZ level gossip. I do think the controversial advert is due mention along with the context of what made it controversial but I don't think we should be interpreting primary sources to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

An actor who's days away from kicking off her Oscar campaign. I can't help but think some users are here to make sure some publicly available information is squashed. Armandlee (talk) 01:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Please don't personalize content disputes. I don't think Wikipedia should speculate about living people even if they perform in morally repugnant advertisements. This is because I think Wikipedia's BLP policy is more important than using an encyclopedia to right great wrongs. I'm not trying to "squash" anything. I just don't think the existence of a voter registration card in her name is encyclopedically relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not. Many people may use wikipedia as their only source for a person's biography and if there are making an economic decision like buying a ticket to one of her upcoming movies there are people in her orbit that would like to retain their job and would see editing her wiki for economic reasons. It is relevant to an encyclopedia. Editing information out makes the intention of a website for all to use to gain insight null and void. Armandlee (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:VNOT says While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. (emphasis mine) Some1 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

It's very funny how this inclusion of one word is only controversial right before an actor is kicking off their Oscar campaign. Funny timing on that. Armandlee (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Very funny indeed, and considering your contribution history consists entirely of edits to Sydney Sweeney and the associated talk page, focusing solely on her party registration, I suggest you take Locke Cole's advice above[7] and the advice given on your talk page from a different editor: User talk:Armandlee#Welcome to Wikipedia! (some_advice). Some1 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I am interested in this topic because I'm seeing wikiusers getting twisted in knots over one word. Clearly Locke Cole and your self are getting personal and not me. May I suggest you focus on another topic? Armandlee (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if no one noticed actually actively intervening in this article is the other one non-Extended Confirmed Protection user. Cbls1911 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Admins are coping so hard finding out she's a Republican from Piperium (chit-chat, i did that) at 05:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Balancing WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with WP:BLPSTYLE can be precarious. Although WP:BLP rules do evolve, the rules have to be strict, especially "Summarize how actions are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language & let facts alone do the talking." Sweeney's choice of political party may be more noteworthy than mere gossip, yet WP:BLPPRIVACY is still all-important: "The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified." Hammelsmith (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Nobody forced her to register to become a republican nor did anyone force her into public life. Those were the actions of a person with agency. It is not contentious, loaded nor imprecise. Armandlee (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why Wikipedia selectively require fake discussions to protect certain individuals' edits in recent years, given their needs, the discussion process has different benchmarks, and in fact only care about their own arbitrary judgment. Take this entry, someone want to hide this message and insisting on removing it completely from the tentative version, perhaps it was some Democrats who liked her, or perhaps some Republicans who weren't particularly happy about it. Regardless, I'm sure this decision is unusual, and I wonder how long this arbitrary approach will last. Cbls1911 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Believe it or not many Wikipedia editors are not Democrats, Republicans or even Americans at all. Nor do all editors who concern themselves with BLP matters care much about the living people they are discussing. For instance: I was entirely unaware that Sweneey was in any movies that would have been Oscar eligible, contrary to certain assertions above, because, honestly, I don't give two shits about the Oscars. I'm a Cannes sort of guy who really enjoys the styling of directors like Coralie Fargeat and David Cronenberg. It's best not to speculate about the underlying motives of editors, per WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I respect your attempt to pretend that there's nothing wrong with current editing trends, but looking at the editorial tendencies of other modern figures...it seems hard to pretend that there isn't a problem.Cbls1911 (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear problem with the moderators being biased against the right. They are making up rules for this page that doesn’t exist on any other page. If you look at Adam Sandler’s wikipedia page it saids he is reportedly a registered Republican even though he has never publicly talked about politics. The moderators need to get over themselves and include her political registration as a Republican on her page. If she came out as a registered Democrat we wouldn’t be having this conversation we are having now and it would already be on her page. LoonLaker10 (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, you could assume that’s true, or you could read what people actually said and respond to that, instead.

It would be a more productive use of your time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

As stated in the survey I would oppose including this in the infobox for now but perhaps it would be fair to mention it in the paragraph about the Jeans ad controversy. This "leak" has been widely reported and is one of the many ridiculous aspects of said controversy (maybe the most ridiculous, IMH0). Psychloppos (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

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.

Brother

Info on his brother for later addition. He's in the Air Force and commented on the jean controversy.

• https://www.newsweek.com/sydney-sweeney-brother-trent-american-eagle-jeans-ad-2110647
• https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/sydney-sweeneys-brother-makes-cheeky-good-jeans-joke-following-his-air-force-promotion

MisawaSakura (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Does this even quality as a comment ? As far as I can tell it's just a light-hearted joke. Psychloppos (talk) 07:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 August 2025

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.

---

Adding an additional New York Times source that describes the sentiment of the Sydney Sweeney ad campaign more clearly, and states that outrage largely came from right-wing accounts. Removing slightly promotional wording about the stock price jump which seems undue for a biography about Sweeney.

Proposal to change the current paragraph to the following:

In July 2025, Sweeney was featured in an American Eagle ad campaign called "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." The campaign, which makes a pun on the homophones of jeans and genes, was compared by some to Brooke Shields' 1980s commercials with Calvin Klein. The advertisements drew the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators, who alleged that there was a "woke" backlash against her, a claim that was described as "exaggerated" by news agencies. A New York Times investigation found the majority of reactions to the campaign were positive and apolitical, and only a small minority was critical. It described criticism of the campaign as coming "almost entirely from a smattering of accounts with relatively few followers", and that the majority of outrage was manufactured by conservative politicians and right-wing media to stoke anger against progressives and Democrats. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. Per the comment I just made in the section above, this source mentions one TikTok video critical of the ad that was seen by 3 million people, and does not mention any reactions from conservatives, which apparently came a few days later when they realized the opportunity they had.

So while I do believe that right-wingers took advantage of this to stoke anger against the left, and while I do find it ridiculous, the left-wing "outrage" did have a little life of its own before conservatives made it more important than it was (and should have been).

We should start by mentioning first that the campaign did receive some backlash from some (minor) left-wing commentators and then that it attracted attention by the Trump administration and associated right-wingers. Psychloppos (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Psychloppos. The allegations of "eugenics messaging" came first, and the conservative backlash followed. The paragraph should reflect that order. Assambrew (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this, for that reason I don't support the proposed paragraph. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It might have 3 million views now, but how many did it have before right-wingers told everybody to be mad about it?

And those aren't left-wing commentators. They aren't commentators at all. They're just some random people nobody has ever heard of. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@MilesVorkosigan: are we sure that it did garner 3 million views because of conversatives' reactions ? The Hill's article was published on July 28: it describes the left-wing backlash as if it were a real thing and makes no mention of any conservative "counter-backlash" (I agree that this article was very unfortunate).

We should look at the chronology and check if there was any conservative reaction before this so-called backlash was mentioned in the media. I may be wrong, but the chronology seems to be: 1) misguided leftists react negatively to the campaign (I agree that this came from minor figures. As noted above, though, Sayantani DasGupta does have her own Wikipedia page: if you think that's not warranted, you may of course nominate her page for deletion, I won't oppose it) 2) some media mention that "backlash", making it appear more important than it was 3) conservatives inflate the "controversy" further, seizing the opportunity to make the left look ridiculous.

@Assambrew: please note the changes I just made to the latest edits on the American Eagle Outfitters page. Psychloppos (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say that it only has three million views because of conservatives, because I have no idea whether that's true. I asked whether you knew for sure that those three million were really evidence of a significant backlash *before* people like the president started talking about it. You did not answer the question.

I didn't say anything about that person's WP page because that has nothing to do with the point I made, that these are not 'commentators'. You didn't address that either.

Please don't assume I mean things that I don't say. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything and I didn't realize you were waiting for an answer, sorry. The Hill's article mentioning the backlash and the video's 3 million views was published on July 28, the White House reacted to the controversy on July 30 and Trump himself commented on Sweeney on August 4.

Please take note that I still regard this controversy as one of the most asinine ever.Psychloppos (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

We may also use as a source this equally unfortunate article which shows that the controversy, while ridiculous, was not entirely limited to anonymous social media users. If actual academics really did indulge in such comments, it means that conservatives - while they undoubtedly took advantage of the situation - did not create the problem out of thin air. Psychloppos (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Annecdotal, I know, but how I learned about this whole thing was because of people making fun of some conservative media personality pretending to drink Sweeney's bathwater as a reaction to the "controversy". We must, of course, follow reliable sources rather than my annecdotal experience but it is not an incredible position to say most of the "controversy" was manufactured by the Conservative outrage machine. Online leftists have made mention of the commercial being in bad taste but I saw nothing before Conservative media started being weird about it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO, I think we should keep the paragraph in this BLP short and simple as to not "coatrack" from American Eagle Outfitters#Sydney Sweeney ad campaign. Perhaps:

In July 2025, Sweeney was featured in an American Eagle Outfitters ad campaign called "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." The campaign, which makes a pun on the homophones of jeans and genes, was a success for American Eagle, with the advertisement being compared to Brooke Shields' 1980s commercials with Calvin Klein. The advertisements drew criticism from some left-wing social media users, commentators and academics who accused the company of using rhetoric that has been associated with eugenics and white supremacy, and the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators who criticized the "woke backlash" against her as a meltdown and cancel culture; the reactions from both sides to the ad campaign were described as being exaggerated and a distraction from political events.

Some1 (talk) 23:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

With a few references, that looks like a reasonable paragraph to me. Assambrew (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Done; I've added in the citations from American_Eagle_Outfitters#Sydney_Sweeney_ad_campaign. Some1 (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Some1 and Assambrew: that's a good start, though I think we should make it a tad longer by adding the motives for the so-called backlash (eugenics, glorification of whiteness, whatever) and the counter-arguments of the opposing side (wokeness, cancel culture and so on). Otherwise, it will just be confusing to casual readers who have not heard of the controversy (I sincerely hope that there are such people) and will wonder why an ad for jeans would be controversial at all. Psychloppos (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Psychloppos and Some1: I somewhat agree with that as well (adding the motives), almost said so but got lazy :) Assambrew (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Done; I've added (see underlined parts above) some of the reasons that made the ad controversial and the reactions to the backlash, copied a bit from American_Eagle_Outfitters#Sydney_Sweeney_ad_campaign. Some1 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks ! Seems fine. Psychloppos (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to me. Assambrew (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

No, 'commentators' snuck back in there when the only people identified in the sources were those three academics nobody has heard of.

And the NYT article from yesterday with their analysis of the social media traffic makes it clear how obscure the whole thing was before big right-wing accounts began boosting it. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

A "commentator" is not a regulated profession but literally someone who comments, generally on something he is supposedly qualified about. So yes, the people who are mentioned by The Hill and The Guardian are commentators, which does not necessarily make them interesting or relevant. Two of them happen to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles (including Sophie Gilbert who is not an academic but a relatively notable journalist/author: I guess she definitely qualifies as a "commentator") so, while minor figures, they are not totally random nobodies.

From the chronology of events, it appears that the whole affair was not that obscure before it was boosted by conservatives. It did start with random nobodies on social media (and it appears that the New York Times is indeed correct about that) but then that largely fake outrage was relayed and boosted by some minor commentators (either for the sake of controversy or just to generate clickbait) and then conservatives jumped on the bandwagon and boosted it further. Conservatives seem to have won so far, because they had a golden opportunity to make the left look stupid and because the "controversy" was ridiculously easy to deflate. But even though they manipulated the controversy, it did not originate with them: the media reported about this silliness several days before Vance, Trump et. al started commenting on it. Psychloppos (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia has always been fond of using commentators to create their own courts, if it suits someone's needs. Cbls1911 (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I would be fine, too, with replacing that last sentence of the paragraph with a generic The advertisement also attracted controversy, and the reactions to the ad campaign were described as being exaggerated and a distraction from political events. If readers want to learn more about the controvery, they can always click on that blue link which takes them to American Eagle Outfitters#Sydney Sweeney ad campaign. Some1 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, though I'm afraid this whole campaign has now become much too notable for such a short description to satisfy the casual reader. :( Psychloppos (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's too early to tell per WP:RECENTISM; readers who want to learn more about the controversy can always click on the blue link which will take them to American Eagle Outfitters#Sydney Sweeney ad campaign (also note that the article about the ad campaign itself did not survive AfD and was instead redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Sweeney Has Great (American Eagle) Jeans). WP:BLP says that Wikipedia is not a tabloid and biographies must be written conservatively. Some1 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

In absolute I would agree but in the present case I didn't know if it could work out, unfortunately. (As a sidenote I just rewatched the ads and I just can't believe that there is any sort of controversy about this, even among nobodies on social media. That's depressing.)Psychloppos (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Assambrew: what do you think of the latest proposal ? Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm really OK with it with or without the motives for the backlash. But if the latter, both ends of it should be there in the right order: left wing reaction, conservative response. Assambrew (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's just leave it alone. It's clear this is way too hot to even bring this up in the first place. The New York Times source is quite specific that the backlash occurred after the right boosted it, and that the accounts that initially posted it were small with no reach. We shouldn't use original research to argue otherwise. Let's just leave it. This is so dumb. BootsED (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The best lifeline that it cannot be proven that it was initiated by the left and then equate it with a conspiracy by the right.Cbls1911 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@BootsED: Leave what alone? The "short and simple" paragraph being proposed by @Some1: above, or the article as it stands? I think leaving the article as it stands is not viable, since it is inaccurate in stating that "The advertisements drew the attention of the Trump administration" and conservatives, etc. The ad first drew the attention of left-wing commentators who objected to it. It was that commentary which drew the attention of Trump and the conservatives, not the advertisements themselves. Assambrew (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

We should leave the article as it is alone right now. This is a page about Sydney Sweeney, not the jeans controversy. We don't need a massive paragraph about it on her biography page. BootsED (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I guess the question is whether any sources said anything about any left-wing reaction beyond some snide Bluesky comments? Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Well there's already a paragraph about the jeans controversy. Can't really lose it at this point, it's become her main claim to fame. It just needs a little tinkering to be accurate. Assambrew (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The current paragraph in the article right now says:

In July 2025, Sweeney was featured in an American Eagle ad campaign called "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." The campaign, which makes a pun on the homophones of jeans and genes, was successful; American Eagle's stock price (NYSE: AEO) rose 24%, its biggest gain since 2000, after announcing the campaign, with the advertisement being compared to Brooke Shields' 1980s commercials with Calvin Klein. The advertisements drew the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators, who alleged that there was a "woke" backlash against her, a claim that was described as "exaggerated" by news agencies.

That seems fine to me? "Exaggerated" does not mean "non-existent". Some1 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As @Psychloppos: and I have been saying, it's not accurate to say that Trump and conservatives reacted to the ad. They reacted to the left-wing commentary. But OK, leave it alone... I'm tired of the discussion. Assambrew (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

We could add the underlined part to the last sentence to say: The left-wing commentary to the advertisements drew the attention of the Trump administration and some conservative commentators, who alleged that there was a "woke" backlash against her, a claim that was described as "exaggerated" by news agencies. Some1 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think comments from random users on TikTok and the internet qualify as "left-wing commentators". I'm going to formally withdraw my edit request as it's clear no consensus is going to be formed here. BootsED (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Academics, authors and brand analysts do qualify as commentators.

I kind of agree with Some1's suggestion though we should also mention that the media reported on the left-wing commentary, making it look more important than it was and attracting some very ill-advised comments from academics. Psychloppos (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

References

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.

Sydney Sweeney campaign content on the American Eagle Outfitters page

The "controversies" section of that page is serving as a "main article" for the issues surrounding the Sydney Sweeney campaign, to prevent this page from being cluttered. There has been some disagreement here because a user opposes the mention of the campaign's treatment by the media and how it gave visibility to an "outrage" that would have been otherwise limited to some social media accounts.

This is also related to what I just wrote on this talk page about the hidden comment's accuracy, or lack thereof.

Should you have any opinions about this particular matter, please have your say on the American Eagle Outfitters talk page. thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit request: remove category

The article is still in Category:Florida Republicans, despite the RfC above. The topic isn't mentioned otherwise at the moment, so the category should be removed for consistency. Mackensen (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done (but aren't you an admin? Couldn't you have done this yourself?) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I'd opined on topic-banning someone from this page, and wanted a second opinion before editing through protection. Many thanks. Mackensen (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Foot traffic

The article seems to credit Sweeny for a stock price jump as an indication of her clothing brand advertisement being successful. I inserted a contrary indicator showing that foot traffic at the stores was down after the introduction of the ad campaign, but that was reverted as "unnecessary and potentially irrelevant information". I don't think it's irrelevant. The purpose of advertisements is to increase sales, and a sharp decrease in store traffic is not a good sign for a retailer (and American Eagle fared worse than other retailers by this measure, according to the Fortune article). I don't think it's irrelevant, and obviously Fortune didn't think so either or they wouldn't have written an article about it. The stock price increase might also be a coincidence, of course, but I don't see the reason to report one indicator and not the other. I think the foot traffic report should be included. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

After no reply for several days, I restored the removed sentence. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: Hadn't seen your message. Personally, I think this and the stock price should go on the American Eagle Outfitters page, where they are already mentioned. We whould limit ourselves here to the basic aspects of the campaign and the controversy surrounding it (and it is already difficult to reach consensus about this) Psychloppos (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Article is misleading stating “alleged” backlash. Very one sided

See above 69.36.62.71 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Use your words, what is one-sided? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposed new version for the American Eagle campaign paragraph

I made the mistake of opening an RFC because I thought that was the proper procedure in that context, while my goal had been to try and reach consensus on a version. So I have closed the RFC in order to restart a more informal discussion.

The current paragraph is largely inaccurate as it gives the impression that the Trump administration started the whole controversy. I propose that we replace it with a more complete and balanced version. Here is my current proposal, which I will amend with your suggestions if we can reach consensus.

In July 2025, Sweeney was featured in a an American Eagle ad campaign called "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." The ads generated backlash from some left-wing social media users who claimed the campaign used rhetoric associated with eugenics and white supremacy, due to a pun on the homophones of jeans and genes; The controversy was widely reported by the media. Conservative commentators and the Trump administration said that there was a widespread "woke" backlash against the brand and against Sweeney herself.

For now, I have kept out the part about "several media outlets" disputing that there was a backlash against the brand, as it's a bit confusing now: whereas the backlash may have been limited at the beginning, it was definitely amplified so now it arguably exists. We may convey that idea in another form, though. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to have to oppose this. This new version mentions white supremacy and eugenics which has already been decided against mentioning. It also simply says that conservatives said there was a "widespread woke backlash" against her without any context that such an assertion is false and was largely the creation of right-wing media. Going into more specifics is too much for a biography, so I'd simply keep the page as is for the time being. BootsED (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, who decided against mentioning it ? Was this ever consensual ? I'm honestly wondering because it ends up being detrimental to the article. If you could point at the discussion about this issue, that would be helpful.

Keep in mind that this is not an accusation about Sweeney herself, it is just necessary to explain why this campaign was controversial in the first place. More important than the foot traffic matter IMHO.

The current text has to be changed because it implies that this whole mess was started by the Trump administration, which is simply false on its face. As for the fact that the controversy was largely the creation of right-wing media, that is also false: per The New York Times, what right-wing commentators did was amplify the controversy at the very beginning, when left-wing "outrage" had been pretty weak. But afterwards, there were actual reactions by left-wing users who were probably unaware that they were playing the conservatives' game. As for the media, it widely reported on the controversy without calling it a creation of the right-wing ecosystem.

At the very least we should mention the jeans/genes pun because this was the start - or at least the pretext - of this preposterous affair. The controversy may have been ridiculous but the media reported quite a lot on this before the Trump administration figured out this was a political opportunity. We just have to mention that. Psychloppos (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Another possible version is this, though I find it weaker. We might also leave out mentions of stock price and foot traffic.

In July 2025, Sweeney was featured in a an American Eagle ad campaign called "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." The ads generated backlash from some left-wing social media users due a pun on the homophones of jeans and genes. In turn, conservative commentators and the Trump administration said that there was a widespread "woke" backlash against the brand and against Sweeney herself. The controversy was widely reported by the media, Psychloppos (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)}} Psychloppos (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, the hidden comment was added without prior discussion. There does not seem to have been a legitimate debate about this, much less a "decision". And I maintain that it is largely inaccurate. We cannot go on pretending that the controversy was entirely manufactured by the right-wing media while no reputable source is seriously claiming it. I suggest we don't bother ourselves with this comment and remove it altogether (though anyone is welcome to write a more accurate comment about BLP articles). I also propose that we use the latest version I wrote (which may or may not include mentions of the eugenics nonsense). Psychloppos (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe that's a fairly accurate description. There was no mass "outrage" by "Democrats" or "left wing" people in general, just a few critical comments by some people on tiktok and a few academics. Right wing media love to amplify irrelevant cultural war talking points. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, apparently it was amplified at some point. Per the New York Times that's how it started. But the NY Times also says that genuine left-leaning social media criticism markedly increased after that: at no point does the article say that it did not exist. We also have to keep in mind that it happened in a matter of days, and that afterwards genuine left-wing commentators and media unwisely jumped on the bandwagon. Psychloppos (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

So why are you removing mention that news sources described the claim by Vance and conservatives of a "widespread woke backlash" as exaggerated? There are several sources that describe the controversy as largely created by right-wing media. I know you have repeatedly stated elsewhere that you personally believe the left bears more responsibility than the right for this controversy, but there is no source that says that.

The New York Times source you keep citing explicitly says the right boosted and largely created the widespread reaction. Your edit instead conflates the controversy that arose after the right manufactured it by suggesting that there was a widespread "woke" outrage first when there wasn't. Sources explicitly state this. The New York Times explicitly states this. See this source and this one as well for further description of the outrage as largely created by the right. BootsED (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I "keep" citing The New York Times not because it is one of the few reputable sources that has been used to support the idea that the right manufactured the outrage. Reading the source helped me see that what the NYT says is that right-wing commentators helped it become significant. But it also says that there was a genuine left-wing outrage that emerged afterwards, whereas the current version seems to allege that it never existed. And a glance at The Guardian, CNN, and so on (not the mention things like Buzzfeed) allows one to see that the left-wing media bears a significant responsibility in amplifying it.

By the way, since we are using American Eagle Outfitters de facto as the "main article" for the controversy about this campaign, the details about how it started should be there (and it is indeed adressed in that page), not here. Allow me to point out, anyway, that mentioning the role of right-wing social media users in starting that mess while refusing to mention the "eugenics and white supremacy" issue does not make much sense.

On the other hand, I am ok with putting back the last comment about the backlash being exaggerated. However, now we have an article by Fortune saying that the controversy has hurt American Eagle commercially (though the stock price may compensate that) so we may have to rethink this in the long term. Psychloppos (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is yet another version. It you want to amend it, please let me know.

In July 2025, Sweeney was featured in a an American Eagle ad campaign called "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." Due to a pun on the homophones of jeans and genes, the ads generated backlash from some left-wing social media users who compared it to rhetoric associated with eugenics and white supremacy. In turn, conservative commentators and the Trump administration said that there was a widespread "woke" backlash against the brand and against Sweeney herself. The controversy was widely reported by the media. with several outlets describing it as exaggerated and unsubstantiated. Psychloppos (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Because some suspicious users' actions have successfully concealed all the facts that need to be known. Cbls1911 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Now your edit says the controversy was unsubstantiated, not that JD Vance and conservative comments about a widespread woke backlash were unsubstantiated. Again, sources explicitly say this.

Also, what sources? I never said that right-wing users said Sydney Sweeney promoted eugenics. I never said that the controversy didn't hurt AE financially. I never said that no left-wing "outrage" existed after the right had promoted it. You cannot engage in original research by stating that "left-wing sources", which you have not provided, show that "the left bears a significant responsibility in amplifying it". This is original research.

I did add in specifics of this controversy which you just suggested that I do on the main American Eagle page. Except, you have recently deleted and removed most of them because you have repeatedly said you disagree with it and want to trim the page, which apparently means my edits and not yours get removed. BootsED (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Just let me know how you would write this. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm currently on my phone right now so I'll write something once I get back to my computer. I won't be there until tonight, though, so we'll pick this up in the morning most likely. BootsED (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Starting tomorrow I'll be on vacation for a few days. We could start over this discussion when I'm back, or you could propose changes - should you want to make any - while I'm away. Or I might as well put now the latest version into the article and let you and other users make further changes if necessary. Psychloppos (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I would not recommend making any changes without input as they will likely be immediately reverted by an admin due to the protected nature of this page. BootsED (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why an admin would specifically support the current version, but I'm ok with making further changes. Psychloppos (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

BootsED's proposed text

After doing some more thinking, it's abundantly clear that there is much too much irrelevant, extraneous and undue information about the jeans controversy on this page. Per policy on summary style and biographies of living people, the article should only document the controversy as it directly relates to Sweeney. Information about the stock price or foot traffic of American Eagle stores; and details about the criticisms of random social media users, columnists, and politicians all bloat the page. With this in mind, I would like to propose a drastically shortened version that only discusses the controversy as it directly relates to Sweeney.

Version 1:

In July 2025, Sweeney appeared in a controversial advertising campaign for American Eagle Outfitters that described her as having "great genes" as part of a pun on the word "jeans". The Hollywood Reporter was unsure whether the controversy negatively impacted the low box office returns of Sweeney's film Americana, with Deadline reporting media declaring it a box office bomb but arguing it was profitable in terms of an indie film.

Version 2:

If more information is required, this is the largest it should go.

In July 2025, Sweeney appeared in a controversial advertising campaign for American Eagle Outfitters that described her as having "great genes" as part of a pun on the word "jeans". Some social media users criticized the ad campaign for its sexualized "blonde bombshell" theming, and argued the campaign's use of a "white, thin, blonde woman with blue eyes" described as having "great genes" bordered on eugenic thinking and promoted traditional white beauty standards. The extent of the criticism was amplified and exaggerated by conservative media which in turn caused more controversy. The Hollywood Reporter was unsure whether the controversy negatively impacted the low box office returns of Sweeney's film Americana, with Deadline reporting media declaring it a box office bomb but arguing it was profitable in terms of an indie film.

I'm partial for Version 1, and Version 2 breaks the hidden note that states that "Do not include eugenics, white supremacy, or mentions to far-right ideologies such as neo-fascism or neo-Nazism per WP: BLP. The alleged controversy has been widely described by news agencies, commentators, and journalists as wildly exaggerated." I'm not sure we can even mention eugenics per WP:BLP as the majority came from a small number of unimportant accounts. BootsED (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Version 1 seems good to me. Some1 (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll leave this up for a few more days for comment, otherwise I'll go ahead and add Version 1 to the page. BootsED (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Version 1 is inadequate as it is way too short. Version 2 is much better IMHO: so even though I don't find it 100% satisfactory we could use that one, provided we make a few modifications.

If anything, we should specify that "The extent of the criticism was amplified and exaggerated by conservative media which in turn caused more controversy in the media and from left-wing commentators". We can't mention the fact that the right amplified the controversy without mentioning that the left was stupid enough to engage in it and that it was further amplified by the media. We should also mention "white supremacy" because that concept was consistently coupled with the "eugenics" accusation (which I agree was nonsense, of course). Both the eugenics and white supremacy accusations were widely reported by the media (which does not make them any less unsubstantiated, but that's not the point) so unfortunately we cannot avoid mentioning them. We may remove the part about the "sexualized "blonde bombshell" theming" because most of the controversy was not about that: that part of the campaign was pretty commonplace.

We should also mention the slogan " "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans" because it was so prominent and because the now-infamous pun was included in it.

As for that hidden note, it should be not only disregarded but removed altogether. Edit: I have modified the hidden comment so it will be just protective of Sweeney and will not forbid anyone to mention other topics. Psychloppos (talk) 11:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Here is an amended version. I'd be ok with this one. Also, it's barely longer than the original version 2. We may, however, shorten the quotes from the sources a little bit as they make for an awful lot of text:

In July 2025, Sweeney appeared in a controversial advertising campaign for American Eagle Outfitters called "Sydney Sweeney has great jeans". Some social media users claimed that the pun on "jeans" and "genes", associated with an attractive white woman, bordered on eugenic thinking and promoted white supremacy. The extent of the criticism was amplified and exaggerated by conservative media and commentators. Even the Trump administration eventually commented on it. This, in turn, caused more controversy in the media and from left-wing commentators. The Hollywood Reporter was unsure whether the controversy negatively impacted the low box office returns of Sweeney's film Americana, with Deadline reporting media declaring it a box office bomb but arguing it was profitable in terms of an indie film. Psychloppos (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

As there were no reactions after three days (which I guess is a good sign - the dust has probably settled about this ludicrous affair and everyone has better things to do now) I decided to be bold and add this version to the article. I rephrased parts of the text afterwards. I sincerely hope this won't be controversial. I may trim it down the text a little bit later. Cheers. Psychloppos (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

As an afterthought, I think that such a synthesis of the controversy fits perfectly with Sweeney's comment about "this weird relationship that people have with me that I have no control over" which is quoted in the previous paragraph. Psychloppos (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC) EDIT: I decided to get ahead and did some light trimming.

It wasn't solved, just some subtle user used every possible means to achieve the castration version. Cbls1911 (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Information about her homes

Someone asked in a hidden comment under personal life if information about her homes should be included, I responded that as long as an address isn't made public it should be fine. Can anyone confirm. Blake_of_the_East 135 Agent (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Shouldn't the page be restricted to autoconfirmed users again ? It has recently been subject to vandalism by IPs. Thanks. Psychloppos (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Psychloppos, I think so. An IP recently added the ADHD category to this BLP, but the body of the article doesn't mention her being diagnosed with ADHD; I can't seem to find RS about it either. Do you want to request it at WP:RfPP? Some1 (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Some1: yes, I guess that would be useful. Psychloppos (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As for the ADHD, multiple sources refer to it as "hyperactivity". It is not vandalism.

185.134.193.194 (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you list these reliable sources please? Thank you. Some1 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)