Talk:Kjersti Flaa

I've added this section based on that coverage:

The New York Times mentioned that Flaa has produced content a number of times that aligned with crisis work that crisis management agent Melissa Nathan was engaged in. Nathan boasted to her clients that "You know we can bury anyone." Besides Flaa's negative postings on Blake Lively, the Times wrote that "it wasn’t the first time she had posted a video aligned with a client of Ms. Nathan." The newspaper noted that Flaa has also sent out supportive videos of Johnny Deep tagged #JusticeForJohnnyDepp while Deep was a client of Nathan.^[1]

--~~ Sametinkles (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Flaa rose to internet fame from a viral interview she posted of Blake Lively being rude to her during an interview causing her to want to quit her career, by her own admission. Because of Blake's recent movie "It Ends With Us" dealing which highlights family dysfunction particularly spousal and child abuse, the video went viral, exposing Blake Lively's emotionally abusive behavior, particularly bullying behavior, herself in real life. The video also was a catalyst of other reporters and interviews and collegues who were bullied by Blake Lively. At this same time Blake accused her directly and co-star Justin Baldoni of sexual abuse during the filming of "It Ends With Us" which was subsequently questioned when Baldoni exposed actual footage and recordings calling Blakes accusations into questions and using the Me Too movement to take over his film. Flaa has been an avid reporter of the ongoing PR battle precipiating the legal battle between Lively and Baldoni. Flaa's channel now covers a wide variety of celebrities and experiences and is very popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:867F:6C40:3D88:940C:FE92:8731 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

We all watched in real-time as Blake Lively walked the premiers promoting the movie as a rom com with phrases such as “ wear your florals bring your gf” and Justin Baldoni wasn’t being seen anywhere near Blake.So we started researching and we stumbled across Kjersti video( thousands of us followed her and watched the very rude way Blake Kively and Posey Parker behaved toward a genuinely lovely reporter.To the ex cia dude who’s doing this to Kjersti page,just stop! The horse is already bolted,Blake has now been seen by the whole world as a rude entitled woman who took over another man’s movie,and has an awful personality 58.7.138.59 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

This is so true!

I cannot believe that Blake’s team have gone to these lengths to try and sway public opinion when we all saw what happened .Its so similar to Amber Heards team of dirty tricks,in the end the truth came out and it will also come out here,that Kjersti wasn’t involved with ant PR smear! Larkbluebird 3 (talk) 02:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I have done my best to restore the postings on this page to the posts originally left by the OPs. Apologies to Sametinkles, 2601:643:867F:6C40:3D88:940C:FE92:8731, 58.7.138.59 & Larkbluebird 3 if I have made any mistakes.

Anybody is free to add a comment, or use the edit request wizard to request a change to the article, but editing the comments of other users is disruptive. Cabayi (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Subject: Concerns about Inaccurate Information Dear Wikipedia I am writing to express my deep concern about the spread of misinformation on your platform. Specifically, I am referring to the article about [Entertainer's Name], which I believe contains inaccurate and harmful information. As someone who relies on your platform for factual information on historical events, presidents, and celebrities, I am disappointed to discover that false information is being allowed to spread. The original article, written by OP was accurate and truthful, as confirmed by the entertainment interviewer. I understand that Wikipedia's open-editing model can sometimes lead to inaccuracies. However, I urge you to take immediate action to rectify this situation and ensure that the correct information is restored. I request that you investigate this matter further and take necessary steps to prevent the spread of misinformation. I hope that you will take my concerns seriously and take prompt action to address this issue. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jeanne K

oncise subject line 2601:681:617E:2960:7552:36F8:2E0B:EA37 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Jeanne, your opinion would carry more weight if it were written in your own words, not those of an AI tool. I think the AI intended you to replace [Entertainer's Name] with Flaa's name. Additionally, ZeroGPT scores your message as over 89% AI written.
  If you provide specific points of "misinformation" or make specific edit requests they can be responded to. Cabayi (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  [Entertainer's Name] made a youtube video about her wikipedia article, so that ai-generated letter was probs inspired by that 2A02:C7C:9454:BA00:F9F6:6EE:9666:F14C (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  The reason I asked AI to write it is because I have MS and my mind is very scrambled. But here it goes, but if one person makes fun of me I will be very upset. The inaccuracies in this "New version " of her page are wrong and can be proven her interview with Blake Lively and Parker Posey was the 2 of them being rude and defensive to Mrs. Flaa, the statement that she interviewed them for " it ends with us, supposedly in 2024. This never happened. Still her Wikipedia page continues to get vandalized with statements from trash articles from smear papers that seem to like to hurt people. Including to the person who for reasons unknown to Kjersti Flaa started the page in the first place, because I believe you are one of the best sources of information on the internet because it seemed to me, it is truth and accurate. I feel very passionately about not putting things on your platform that are wrong or someone is changing because they are mad at her. She is a very nice and honest person as far as I have seen. I have researched the claims on here and can find no evidence to back up their claims. I wouldn't want anyone to say mean things or false statements about you or me. You're information needs to be true and fair. I will keep checking to see if you can help get this wrong made right.

  Thanks Jeanne Kelsey 2601:681:617E:2960:71F2:536E:C236:F6D8 (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  Your initial letter made no mention of what the inaccurate information was, only that the original article should be restored. "The statement that she interviewed [Lively and Posey] for It Ends with Us [...] never happened" would have summed up your concern better than the vague word soup generated by an ai tool. If you're going to use such tools it's best to proof-read and adjust the prompt you give it until you feel it communicate what you want to say clearly. 2A02:C7C:9454:BA00:3C5D:6156:9B36:5326 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Guys, I'm new to editing so I apologise if I've annoyed some of you editors. However I've been following the Lively Baldoni drama, as well as watching Kjerstis videos. Kjersti never interviewed Blake for It Ends With Us, and she never interviewed Jenny Slate for the movie either. It's innacurate and false to say so. Could someone who knows how this editing thing works please delete the following sentence: "She recently received public reception after her interview with Blake Lively and Jenny Slate for the film adaptation of It Ends with Us was uploaded online, leading to a peak of the ongoing controversy between the main casts."

Although this sentence has citations, none of them support this statement. 2403:4800:3216:1401:2540:B68B:93EB:CCE2 (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm the user who added the data containing the resurfaced interview found on the introductory paragraph (Jenny Slate) but my edit did NOT contain any malicious words such as condescending other than the fact that the footage resurfaced online and garnered popularity to masses. This also serves as a reminder to whoever edits the page: do not use any terminologies that may imply bias (negative or positive) to the main topic, since they are a living person. (READ: Wikipedia:Libel, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) NC. (talk) 03:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

In case Kjersti Flaa or someone who knows her sees this, please consider providing an image per WP:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Freezelight9 Hello. If you are in contact with the copyright holder, you can point them to Wikipedia:A picture of you or Commons:Email templates/Consent. WP takes copyright seriously and these things need to be done right. If it matters, the photographer's name will not be mentioned in the caption on the WP-article, but on the filepage like at . Uploading a photo as "own work" means "I'm the copyright holder", and if that's not you, you shouldn't state that. Hope this helps! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

While I do understand that we have our personal lives outside Wikipedia I'd also like to point out that whatever you're deciding to edit on the WP page of a person may AFFECT THEIR FUTURE WORK PROSPECTS and REPUTATION. Should you add or provide new information related to Kjerstis' Wikipedia page, please cite and DO NOT DEFAME our topic/subject (Wikipedia:Libel) NC. (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

See also WP:CRYBLP. The fact that the video reupload coincided with the controversy surrounding It Ends With Us, as well as the fact that Lively behaved hostilely towards Flaa is supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia does not exist to provide PR services or serve as someone's curriculum vitae, it exists to accurately document what reliable sources say about them. Nothing in this article is defamatory. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to citing any references (WP:RS) since most of the information about Kjersti can be located via the internet and some questionable, please take the considerable time to check the weight (WP:NOT) and verifiability (WP:V) of your source. Another helpful tip for references taken from internet: please use Internet Archive to either capture a screenshot of the page and include them with the date on the citation box.

Thank you! NC. (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What are you actually disputing here? Reliable sources are suggesting that the video reupload was connected to the controversy surrounding It Ends With Us. Nowhere in the article is it suggested that Baldoni was responsible for Flaa re-releasing the video if that's what your upset about, and the article makes no implication that this is the case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to clarify that this talk page won't be directed to you given the fact that you are using Wikipedia properly and follow its guidelines properly. In fact, much appreciation to you and I wish you the best on your Wikipedia copyrighting journey! Please have a look through WP:CS and WP:404 since some references on the internet (the URL) can sometimes change or the content removed due to how the internet works.

Let me clarify that I'm in no way disputing any references, just MERELY STATING THAT THIS PERSON IS ALIVE WP:BLP and making DEFAMATORY INSINUATIONS WITHOUT any PROPER and VERIFIABLE REFERENCE WP:LBL from the INTERNET or IN PHYSICAL FORM is not allowed. NC. (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I'd also like to flag you for editing the page EIGHT times in a row and calling me out for my English, apologies since English is used differently around the globe and English is NOT my first language.

It would be appreciated if you specified and improved my wording but erasing the paragraph with the references and archived links providing a valid context to the matter is very disrespectful not only to myself -a fellow wikipedian who is working hard to add references to the subject matter who is Kjersti. Please note that you can't simply copy-and-paste tabloid posts from the web (which in turn cites KJERSTI's VIDEO) and then use it as your REPUTABLE SOURCE only because ONE source said so.

You will need MULTIPLE, VALID and CREDIBLE references connecting the information together to create validity to your point. Also, what is your issue with the phrase '....where Lively showed hostility towards Flaa'? Please, don't take sides and even if your source says its correct it doesn't mean it should be added here. RE: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not PLEASE READ VERY CAREFULLY NC. (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The body says that Lively was rude to Flaa, which you don't seem to oppose. Most sources suggeest that Lively's hostility/rudeness to Flaa was unprovoked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

That isn't the point. My point is you qualify for disruptive editing (WP:DE) as you have disrupted my sincere efforts on building a neutral point of view to the subject and I will not reconsider flagging this behavior in the future. While the point is valid, you must not use Wikipedia to insinuate any point of view (WP:NPOV WP:NOT). This is where tabloids and other internet mediums come in hand.

I'm not invalidating your point but I believe your point is unnecessary since the page is about Kjersti Flaa and not what Kjersti is feeling after the incident and definitely not about the It Ends with Us controversy. The references and phrases that I've added further provides nothing but background and it does **not put any direct links to Kjersti since she is simply the person in the middle of this entire situation. NC. (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's okay to say "showed hostility" in this specific case, because that is the reason why the interview was so widely watched. Not as many people would have watched it if it was a regular interview and Kjersti wouldn't be as well known. It's also the general consensus that Blake was rude and hostile.

It's good to be impartial in general, but Blake's behaviour was key in the popularity and virality of this video. 2403:4800:3216:1401:89E8:D586:B4E4:2E (talk) 05:48, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your point in this matter, I'm concerned about any points of view that the paragraph itself may insinuate since this page is about Kjersti Flaa, the multimedia journalist from Norway and not the It Ends With Us controversy alone. Let's keep the controversy between Blake and Justin and the controversy surrounding Blake's attitude as its own. NC. (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

They are intertwined. The popularity that Kjersti has gained and Blake's attitude in the interview.

Also it's not just random people commenting on Blake's attitude, it is also the media so if a citation is necessary to keep the phrase in, one can be found.

I see where you're coming from, in regards to insinuations. This page is about facts though, and the fact is that the majority have found that Blake was rude, which was what made a difference in the view count for that video. 2403:4800:3216:1401:7D8C:D392:3578:BB22 (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

"Rude" is inherently a point-of-view term, and should be kept from Wikipedia's voice. I have removed it at the moment both as a POV term and as one not found in the source... and the source being used is Us Weekly, which per WP:USWEEKLY is a source of questioned reliability. BLP policy here applies not just to statements about the article subject, but also to those about Blake Lively. (The situation might be different if she were Blake Deadly, of course.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

One thing I would add while it's fine to add Flaa's denial of any connection between the reupload and controversy there seems to be no reasonable question that the controversy is a significant reason why this interview and the reupload has gained a lot of attention. So these are going to be intertwined in the article, no matter the reasons for Flaa's reupload etc. Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The article seems to be reasonably clear on that connection atm. I don't like the "mired in controversy" wording, but atm I can't think of a better. On citing correctly, |date= is missing from several refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This would be a good idea due to constant inaccuracies. Its going to keep going back and forth. Truly it would be a lot less stress for everyone but the people who seem to be upset. I check this article everyday, sometimes 2 or 3 times a day and its like a school yard fight. 2601:681:617E:2960:3081:8D76:9F4B:CA0D (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion of potentially deleting this article going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kjersti Flaa which you are welcome to join in on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be like that, especially when a subject is currently in the news, and/or passionately discussed on social media/reddit/etc. See for example the talkpages for Donald Trump or Gaza War. Journalists have sometimes remarked that compared to other online forums, Wikipedia talkpages are often surprisingly civil. This too shall pass. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I tried to go to their deletion discussion page and it sent me all over the place. I can get a couple thousand signatures to permanently delete if need be. We would much rather have it deleted than havinhg her misrepresented and slandered. In fact i am pretty sure by looking at her YouTube page i can get 100 thousand people over here to vote for it to be removed. Just let me know. 2601:681:617E:2960:3081:8D76:9F4B:CA0D (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Who are "we"? And no, masses of signatures will not be helpful, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions for details. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I mentioned it at AfD, but the subject has requested that her >250k subscribers ensure the article adheres to a particular narrative via her YouTube channel. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Yup. Something for The Signpost, perhaps. But it's not clear that's the "we" 2601 was referring to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

And according to YT, it's less than 250k subscribers. Still a large number, though.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I don't Watchlist this page so replies will be slow. You're right—just under 230k (1/5 of this article's views in last 30 days). People often don't consider the downsides of having an article on themselves. If it survives AfD, I think it will require strong protection (or a steward). Regarding the "we", it sounds like Stan culture stuff to me. (Regrettably, I once used Twitter.) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

A March 5 posts on the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard has sent several experienced editors here, including myself and GGS. I know I've got this on my watchlist. I think there will be more good eyes on this for times to come. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You can always subscribe threads that interest you. The pageviews for the last 30 days are about 60k, there was a recent spike. But 230k is not 1/5 of 60k. Judging by the afd, both Flaa-fans and Lively-fans are looking. Atm there are 35 watchers, and since the article is pretty new many of those are probably active editors. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You're right; my maths is a bit off. 60,000 [this article's views] out of 230,000 [her subscriber number] (60,000 / 230,000) is 26%, which is slightly over 1 in 4.— ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You said "under 230k (1/5 of this article's views in last 30 days)." That means article's views in last 30 days = 230k x 5. That's more than a bit of.

under 230k (5 times this article's views in last 30 days). would have been reasonably close. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Brilliant to hear NatGertler. Gives me some peace of mind. If you were interested, I will provide some feedback, especially about the Lively section. It feels important to get right given how many views it has. It's been improved significantly by you both so far.

• There's a post about the NYT piece at the top of this page that hasn't been included. It's quite important. The NYT insinuates that the re-upload was connected to the smear campaign. If that's false, it would be defamation/libel (not sure). In the current article, it skips it (which is odd, see next bullet): Following allegations that the film's director Justin Baldoni was involved in a smear campaign against Lively, Flaa denied any contact with Baldoni or his team.
• The NYT accusation was the primary subject of a Hollywood Reporter article, an 'Independent' article, a 'Variety' article, and more.
• Flaa called the NYT and they published a short statement from her stating she had no involvement. They didn't issue a correction and in a statement said their reporting was based on evidence.
• I think it should paraphrase Flaa's response to the New York Times allegations instead of providing two very long, clunky quotes (connected with "and").
• Bad refbomb at the end of the Lively paragraph. The NYT piece is either a terrible scandal or a defamation lawyer's dream and we should make sure claims are attributable to the source.

I'll check in now and then. Thank you — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The Times story doesn't make the allegation. The Variety story specifies that the Times story did not make the allegation. The Hollywood Reporter claims the times "suggested it might have been" which is two major steps away from saying that it was. The Independent story does not say the Times made the allegation, just quoted “impossible to know how much of the negative publicity was seeded”, a line not directly attached to any mention of Flaa. If there's a somethingburger there, it's not a muchburger. At most, I think a reword to something like "In the wake of New York Times coverage of the contretemps which included both allegations of a possible smear campaign from the Baldoni camp and mention of the Flaa video, Flaa issued a statement stating she had not had contact with Baldoni or his team." As they appear not to have said that she was involved in the campaign, it's not clear what correction the NYT would've had to make. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not understanding. Here's a statement from Flaa:

• "Considering that Lively's lawyers had access to thousands of pages of text messages and emails, it is hard to believe they were unaware that I had no involvement in the alleged smear campaign. This makes it all the more troubling that The New York Times chose to insinuate my involvement based solely on a hashtag from a Johnny Depp video on my YouTube channel from 2022." (USA Today).

— ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

You're claiming that the Times story made an "accusation", and yet the sources you give specifically tell a different story. I'm not sure what's unclear about that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi again, Nat. I am not claiming that the NYT insinuated it—the subject is—and it prompted the coverage (that she responded to). It is an important part of the procession of events. Your analysis is helpful in breaking that down and providing more information (e.g., "Variety concurred that the NYT did not make any explicit allegation regarding Flaa"). Other outlets state whether the NYT made an allegation is because she was contesting it. A timeline:

• The NYT raised her name in connection with the campaign: Flaa’s name is mentioned in the New York Times story in reference to online backlash about Lively. (Hollywood Reporter)
• Flaa characterised this as an "insinuation" and said she had not been contacted by the paper: I was shocked that the New York Times insinuated that I had been working for Baldoni’s team. It made me sick to my stomach to read that,” Flaa told Variety. “I contacted the New York Times and asked them how they could print such a wild conspiracy theory, and they did add an update to the story yesterday. I still believe that it was terrible that the journalists never contacted me to confirm or deny such serious claims. (Variety)
• The NYT defended their reporting and did not publish a retraction, but added a statement from Flaa: When Flaa called the paper after the article went online, the Times did not issue a correction but added her statement that she posted the Blake Lively video of her own accord. “It was neither coordinated nor influenced by anyone associated with the alleged [smear] campaign,” she wrote. (This and the NYT statement defending their reporting is in the Hollywood Reporter piece.)
• Flaa indicated a consideration of legal action against the NYT: Flaa says she has not yet decided if she will pursue legal action of her own against the Times (Hollywood Reporter) and stated that the contested insinuation was based on her 2022 use of a hashtag related to Johnny Depp: The New York Times chose to insinuate my involvement based solely on a hashtag from a Johnny Depp video on my YouTube channel from 2022. (USA Today).

As-is, the current section fails to explain why she was linked to the controversy (and ignores the coverage above that tells us it was the NYT piece). Other outlets call out whether the claim was explicit or implicit because it was an important part of the timeline. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 12:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

" I am not claiming that the NYT insinuated it" -- actually, you have not only claimed that the NYT insinuates it ("The NYT insinuates that the re-upload was connected to the smear campaign"), you have directly said that they went further and accused it ("The NYT accusation was the primary subject".) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Nat, I'm a sensitive sort who feels your messages are a bit hostile so I'm going to bow out after this message. My position changed—as explained in my previous comment—based on your analysis (that I praised); I was wrong before.

To any WMF folks watching: I believe an important section on this article doesn't accurately summarise the reporting of the controversy responsible for the article's popularity. Here are my current positions:

1. No claims made by the article's final paragraph of the Lively section are traceable to their origins. (Update: This failure of Verifiability on a controversial BLP should be a red flag to participants, but no one has responded to this.)
2. The section provides large quotes from Flaa but fails to describe why she defended herself: the NYT mentioned her in their reporting on the alleged Baldoni smear campaign. (Update: Nat's responses above and below do not address this.)
3. Subsequent articles from this concerning Flaa's connection consistently mention the NYT's reporting as the root of this speculation. (Update: Nat's responses above and below do not address this).
4. Multiple outlets reported that Flaa contested the NYT's "insinuation" (Nat rejects that there was an insinuation. Because it precipitated the reporting and Flaa responded to it directly multiple times, I disagree.)
5. The NYT defended their reporting—declining to they did not issue a retraction when Flaa called them—and published a statement from Flaa denying any involvement. (Consider: If the NYT didn't make the insinuation, why did Flaa contact them? Why would they defend their reporting? Why would they publish her statement? Why would she threaten does the paper ask her if she will consider legal action? And why would we leave these out?) (Update: Nat's response below solely quibbles with the wording of "defended" on this point. The response doesn't respond to my questions. The response did highlight an inaccuracy; I changed it to an almost direct quote from the source ["When Flaa called the paper after the article went online, the Times did not issue a correction"]. The response does not address why she called the paper.)

• Update 2 (following these replies by NG):

• NG's responses repeatedly stated that I was the source of the NYT insinuation. Following my updates here, he must have found it: it has appeared in his redraft of my proposal. His response does not acknowledge the change in position or that he was wrong—as I have done with my mistakes twice. Instead, I am subtly disparaged by the suggestion that my modification was not highly telegraphed.
• The response by NG (linked at Update 2) states that I "[continue] to reference some retraction issue, which I can find no discussion of in the sources". By my count, I have linked-and-quoted it 4 times: When Flaa called the paper after the article went online, the Times did not issue a correction but added her statement that she posted the Blake Lively video of her own accord.
• Why would the Hollywood Reporter state no retraction was published if none was requested? Why would the Hollywood Reporter connect the NYT's failure to retract to Flaa's phone call? Still no engagement with these basic questions (again, they have been asked already—no responses).
• Third-party sources provide detailed and useful explanation on Flaa's relation to the controversy, but these aren't used... Instead, we devote 82/147 of the paragraph's words to quote the subject and observe that her re-upload as of late 2024 had more than five million views. Is this more important to include for readers than a [USA Today article stating that Flaa [...] became ensnared in that narrative when the story pointed out that she had also posted snippets from interviews with Johnny Depp during his trial, under the hashtag #JusticeForJohnnyDepp. Melissa Nathan, the PR expert and alleged architect of the purported Lively smear campaign, was also hired by Depp's team. Can we include this information from USA Today? The section has so many citations but very little content from them are used in prose (again, it is REFBOMB'd).

To avoid any doubt, my proposed text would read:

• The New York Times mentioned Flaa in their reporting on the alleged Baldoni smear campaign. (Hollywood Reporter, Jan 2025). Flaa contacted the NYT, contesting what she described as the "insinuation" of her involvement. (Variety, Dec 2024). The New York Times declined to did not issue a retraction and defended their reporting in a statement to the Hollywood Reporter. Flaa stated she had not decided whether to initiate was contemplating a legal challenge against the New York Times.(Hollywood Reporter, Jan 2025)

Thanks and so long — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no source for the claim that the Times declined to issue a retraction of statements about Flaa, or even that they were asked for a retraction. And someone saying that they had not ruled out suing may be worth saying in a news item of the moment, but it's not even a statement of intent, and months later, there has not been any suit to the best of my knowledge. (And in fact the Reporter source does not even say she's contemplating a suit; it says she has not decided yet. I've not yet decided what I'll have for dinner tonight, but I'm not contemplating it either. Oh, okay, now that I've written that, it's in my mind, dadgummit!) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

And in the wake of this response, IT reworked their proposal above... and continues to reference some retraction issue, which I find no discussion of in the sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible text:

The New York Times mentioned Flaa in their reporting on the alleged Baldoni smear campaign. (Hollywood Reporter, Jan 2025). Flaa responded to the Times, contesting what she described as the "insinuation" of her involvement. (Variety, Dec 2024). The Times then expanded the online version of their article, adding a statement from Flaa that the reupload "was neither coordinated nor influenced by anyone associated with the alleged campaign”. (NYT 2024).

-- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Forgive the odd formatting; another editor here is choosing not to follow discussion standards and is inserting things in previous posts to talk about later responses rather than addressing them directly. Addressing the statements made in the "Update 2" edit:

• Flaa is not a reliable source on the nature of the NYT article. Her accusations about it should not be taken as fact. Reliable sources were pointing out the she had called it an insinuation, not putting that claim in their own voice. IT was putting it in their own voice and seemingly seeking to put it in Wikipedia voice in the post of 2:27. 12 March, where they also claimed that NYT had made an accusation.
• IT discusses support for a "retraction", but cites a reference to them not making a "correction", and in journalistic parlance, those are different. A correction is when you said Bob worked for Del Taco, when he worked for Delta Co. A retraction is when you build three paragraphs around Bob fighting the US Army, when he fought for the US Army. (The difference is not quite as severe as it is in academic publishing, where "retraction" means that you should consider the whole article gone.) Having said that, it's utterly unclear to me what NYT would have had to even correct; none of their actual statements about Flaa seem to have been in error. The very nature of "insinuation" is it's claiming something not directly said.
• "Why would the Hollywood Reporter state no retraction was published if none was requested?" Even if that was what they had stated, it's still not for me to guess why. A retraction being published does not inherently mean one was requested; a paper can discover or be told they made an error and make a retraction or correction without that specifically being requested.

I face some comments that come across as a complaint about me not responding to certain things in a given response (i.e. (Update: Nat's responses above and below do not address this.)). I am an unpaid volunteer at this knowledge project. It is not something that should take all my time, and I am at my freedom to respond to whichever parts I chose to in whatever slices of time I have available. I need not jump through every hoop that someone chooses to erect for me, and even those things I chose to do, I am not beholden to do all of them at once. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In case anyone saw the AfD for this article briefly listed as closed, and wonder why it is not still listed that way: Someone had created a new account impersonating an admin's account (claiming to be their secondary account; it was not) and was inappropriately closing AfDs. Those have been undone. Just part of the fun of Wikipedia, I guess... -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The AfD has now gone through a second false closure, but is now page protected, so hopefully that will stop. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

ANI thread on it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Various_anon_IPs_closing_AfDs_in_breach_of_WP:NACIP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Anyone who is competent at it want to change that to the more common IPA like at at Erna Solberg? If it helps, she's discussing pronunciation with Jennifer Aniston at 8:07 in this video. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)