Talk:Blake Lively

Undue weight in "Pubic image" section

I'm concerned the current "Public image" section gives undue weight to controversies. (The section takes up a substantial portion of the article and overemphasizes negative info in a way that may conflict with UNDUE and the balance/neutrality expected by NPOV.)

I think the section also has COATRACK issues, as several largely "unrelated" incidents are grouped together to create a narrative of controversy. Also, NOTNEWS says not to include temporary media cycles and social media discourse that may not have enduring or encyclopedic significance. Also, BLP calls for "particular care" and "restraint" when presenting negative info about living persons. Finally, much of the info regarding It Ends with Us is already covered in a dedicated article, and CONTENTFORK and SUMMARY principles say to avoid duplicative, play-by-play info across multiple pages.

Therefore, I added a tag to the section and am planning to rework it until it better follows BLP guidelines. (I also noticed the same issue on Baldoni’s page, so I will try to get to that one next.) OOP4K (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

As the person who created the Public Image section on Lively's page I'm confused why you've deemed the information "unnecessary" and have removed it. Lively would not the only person with a Public Image section. Many of her peers have a Public Image section on their pages. Not to mention, Lively filed a lawsuit specifically due to the impact to her public image. That alone merits a separate section.

I plan to revert the page as it as previously, after your last edit. Stella8358 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. To clarify, my concern is not that Blake Lively has a "Public image" section, nor that the It Ends With Us dispute is mentioned. The issue is the amount of weight being given to a particular controversy across multiple articles and the manner in which it is presented.

Looking at Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni, Bryan Freedman, and Megan Twohey collectively, there appears to be a pattern where the same dispute is covered at substantial length, often with extensive/excessive details (from filings, allegations, public-relations claims, media reactions, litigation developments, etc.) to the point that this info occupies a significant portion of the article relative to the subject's broader career and bio.

My concerns are primarily WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:COATRACK, and WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia should summarize the dispute in proportion to its long-term encyclopedic significance, rather than reproducing a detailed chronology of allegations, media narratives, and court filings.

On Lively's article specifically, the "Public image" section currently combines relatively minor incidents (e.g., social-media controversies, promotional criticism, fashion-related commentary, etc.) with the It Ends With Us litigation. Grouping these largely unrelated events risks creating a narrative that emphasizes controversy rather than providing a balanced overview of how the subject is covered in reliable sources. That is the type of concern for WP:COATRACK.

Also, there is already a dedicated article covering the It Ends With Us controversy. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:CONTENTFORK, the biographical articles should generally provide concise summaries and direct readers to the main article, rather than duplicating extensive dispute-related info across multiple pages.

These concerns also apply to related articles. For example, the coverage on Freedman's and Twohey's pages is disproportionate to their overall bios, while the coverage of the dispute on Baldoni's and Lively's articles does not appear balanced in terms of which details are included, emphasized, or omitted. I think the solution is not removal of the topic, but a substantial reduction and neutral summarization across all affected pages.

For these reasons, I believe the neutrality tag remains appropriate while editors work toward a version that better reflects NPOV, UNDUE, and BLP principles. OOP4K (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Made a few edits here, details in the edit summaries. If the section reads neutral now, the POV tag could probably come off. Kqol • talk 22:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)