# Talk:Adam Levine

How is mentioning the possible affair a violation of BLP? Janers0217 (talk) 02:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

'Claimed affair' would seem to be a better description. Wikipedia is not a platform for the propagation of tabloid gossip. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t use a tabloid as a source and phrased it, “Less than two weeks later, Instagram model Sumner Stroh alleged via a video on TikTok that she and Levine engaged in an extramarital affair. In the evidence she presented, Levine suggested naming his third child after her if the child is a boy.” As you can see, it doesn’t treat it as fact, merely as a rumor. Janers0217 (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Why should Wikipedia repeat unverified rumours about peoples' personal lives? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Why should it not repeat one on this particular celebrity when there are unverified rumors on Wikipedia about the private lives of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake and were ones on Gavin Rossdale for years? Janers0217 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
If that is your only argument for including this tittle-tattle, you are unlikely to convince anyone. Go away, read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and then find something useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
It isn’t my only argument for it. I didn’t figure I’d persuade you with any argument though since you seem to prefer condescension to actually discussing this. Janers0217 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP policy (specifically the part where it says that it is "not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"), there really isn't anything to discuss. Not with the source presented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP policy (specifically where it talks about reliable sources) “all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed.” I used a source that I believed to meet the standards of reliability so as to not cause any problems. I used a source that would, on any other topic, be considered a reliable source. I could go with other outlets like Newsweek or news.co.au. Is it still considered “tittle-tattle” when sources that are otherwise respected are covering it? At what point does a story become sensational or titillating? And who decides this? Janers0217 (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Being 'reliably sourced' is necessary. It isn't however always sufficient. And if there are other sources, why not link them here? As for 'who decides?', ultimately it is the Wikipedia community - the same community that created the WP:BLP policy regarding 'titillating claims'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Because I was busy when I made the first edit and because I have a tendency to get overwhelmed by typing the references, especially when I’m on my phone. Had I typed them out, would this have been a WP:BLP or would it have met both the WP: BLP  WP:NOTSCANDAL criteria? With all due respect, the community isn’t who said this was a titillating claim, an individual is. And what is titillating to one individual may not be titillating to another. Janers0217 (talk) 06:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
No, not 'an individual'. See the article history. Four different experienced contributors (not including me) have reverted content referring to these allegations. The article has been partially protected. It is quite obvious that I'm not the only one thinking it inappropriate. We do of course have noticeboards, and dispute resolution methods for dealing with situations when people disagree, but frankly, I doubt you'll get anywhere unless you can come up with more sources. And better arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I hadn’t noticed those when I’d done my edit, and it was not partially protected until after mine. It still is a highly subjective standard and seems like it could potentially be misused. In general, how many sources would I need for this to get anywhere? What arguments would you recommend? Janers0217 (talk) 06:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
It isn't just a question of the number of sources. It depends on what they say. And I am not going to tell you how to argue in favour of including gossip in Wikipedia. If you think we should include it, you will have to convince people yourself. With your own arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Then why suggest that only using one source might have hampered it? Okay, if you won’t tell me how to argue in favor of including news about celebrities in Wikipedia, then can you at least tell me what was wrong with my argument in your view? I’m not trying to be difficult. When my edit was reverted, there was a note that that could be discussed here, so I thought any confusion might be eased, but you’ve left me more confused. Janers0217 (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
You have been directed to relevant policy. It has been made clear to you that multiple experienced contributors are of the same opinion regarding this issue. Nobody is required to go over the same ground endlessly. I'm done here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
And it has been made clear to you that I do not understand how this policy actually works and how I might more effectively use the website in the future. I’m not saying you personally have to explain it, but I would appreciate if an experienced contributor would, taking into account that I am disabled and might not be able to understand things that seem clear to others. Janers0217 (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
If immature (I’m trying to be nice here) people weren’t jumping over couches to run here at the opportunity to violate BLP, maybe we could’ve broached and approached this respectably. But no. That’s just not going to happen.
At least 3 women have come forward, including his former yoga teacher who claims her boyfriend physically assaulted her after seeing his texts asking her to “get naked.” The second woman after Stroh deleted her videos and is threatening anyone who reposts them. It’s getting ugly. Trillfendi (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I would suggest that a very high standard of verifiability and coverage is required.  Presently it is little but allegations and gossip.  I also don't believe there is anything verifiable that specifies when the alleged messages occurred, or the naming of which child was discussed.  It is also important that balance is maintained, which is difficult if Levine has not publicly responded. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 09:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Many reliable sources have now covered it and Levine has even publicly denied it. I believe it is worthy of inclusion now 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 16:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Still seems to me to be a nothing-substantiated she-said he-said story. What specific content were you proposing? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe a sentence like "On September 19, 2022, a model on social media claimed that Levine had an affair with her, although not specifying when. Levine responded, saying "I did not have an affair, nevertheless, I crossed the line during a regrettable period of my life ... In certain instances it became inappropriate" ". It seems like Levine is apologizing for something, but still denying the affair. I don't really see why this shouldn't be added 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 17:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Right now it's simply one person made an accusation and another denied it; how is that significant or encyclopedic? Schazjmd (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Because it's relevant to Adam Levine's personal life and it's been covered by reliable sources. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
There are lots of things that are relevant to peoples personal lives. That doesn't necessarily make them relevant to a Wikipedia article. Which should be based around matters of long-term significance, rather than whatever gossip is going the rounds of the media. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Although i do get your point, I'd say dismissing it as gossip is disputable, mainly because Levine has actually publicly responded to the accusation 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 18:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Jumping in to say I think at this point it's gone beyond tabloid gossip and absolutely warrants inclusion. It's been widely reported by a variety of outlets, at this point three other women have come forward, Levine has publicly responded, as I understand it's been confirmed via screencaps of Levine's DMs being released and widely circulated (so it's not just he-said-she-said anymore), and I'd say it's a pretty significant and noteworthy development in his personal life. So long as it's presented in a factual and non-sensational manner, I see no reason it shouldn't be added to the article (and I'd be willing to do so if no one has any objections). There are major Wikipedia articles that have included less consequential scandals.Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this has been reported by many major reliable sources now and warrants inclusion. I don't want Wikipedia to turn into a gossip rag either but this is high profile news, it's consistent with the "Personal Life" sections of many public figures and is definitely notable. DallasFletcher (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm thinking maybe a subheading under Personal Life called "Cheating allegations", a paragraph or two describing the basic facts of what's been alleged, what everyone involved has said/done etc., and if there's enough notable coverage maybe a mention of his DMs becoming a meme on social media. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that a subheading is necessary, per WP:WEIGHT. Before we go any further though, I suggest someone makes a specific proposal regarding text to be added, along with full details of the necessary WP:RS sources to be cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
That's fair, I was thinking of a subheading more for clarity and breaking up text but it's probably not strictly necessary (although given how big a story it's become you could probably argue for it).
As far as specific text, like I said before, I think just a straightforward summary of what's transpired - the allegations, who made them, how and when they were made, how Levine has responded, maybe a brief bit about the social media response since that seems to be getting some coverage. In terms of sources, given that everyone from Rolling Stone to Entertainment Weekly to NBC News to Esquire has covered it, I'd say there's plenty of WP:RS coverage to utilize without having to rely on tabloids or gossip sites (if that's the concern).  Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing may be a concern. So, however, are things like weight, balance, and appropriateness in a Wikipedia biography which is supposed to be about more than the latest media hubbub. Which is why I suggested someone provide a specific proposal we can discuss. A proposal needs the actual wording to be provided, not merely described. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Literally all of those concerns have been addressed multiple times now - it's a widely reported news story, covered by multiple established non-tabloid news sources over the course of a week, several of which have been linked here, it's significant to the subject's public life, and is no less notable or appropriate than similar scandals that have been included in countless other Wikipedia articles (Arnold Schwarzenegger comes to mind, and Winona Ryder's article has a three-paragraph subheading on a shoplifting arrest). I also do not understand how "summarize the reported events in a neutral encyclopedic tone" is so vague as to need elaboration (do you just want me to write the whole section out for you?) nor why you would need proof that experienced Wikipedia editors (I've been here since 2010) are capable of writing about a topic in an encyclopedia-appropriate tone. I don't want to assume bad faith but it feels like you're being excessively unreasonable on this. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 06:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
do you just want me to write the whole section out for you? Well, yes. If content on the matter is going to be included, someone has to write it. Presumably someone who thinks the content is merited. So if you don't, someone else will have to. Either here, where we can discuss the concerns raised, or since the article is no longer edit-protected, directly in the article. Given the issues involved, discussing it here first would probably be best though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The "issues involved" have been addressed (unless there's any you haven't mentioned yet), and I think you can look through any of the articles that have been linked and get a sense for what it would look like. If you're that insistent, it would probably be something like:
"On September 19, 2022, model Summer Stroh alleged in a now-deleted TikTok video that she had had a year-long affair with "a man who’s married to a Victoria’s Secret model", presenting screenshots of flirtatious Instagram messages allegedly sent by Levine and saying she had been "young [and] naïve" and felt "exploited".[1][2] In one of the alleged exchanges, Levine asked Stroh if he could name his unborn child after her and implied that his marriage to Prinsloo was over.[3][4] Levine released a statement the following day, admitting he had "crossed the line during a regrettable period in my life" by sending flirtatious messages but denying Stroh's claims of a physical affair; Stroh responded on Instagram with "Someone get this man a dictionary" and made a second video apologizing to Prinsloo for the affair.[5][6] Subsequently, three more women - model Alyson Rosef, comedian Maryka, and Levine's former yoga instructor Alanna Zabel - also alleged that Levine had sent them sexual Instagram messages while in relationships, with Zabel claiming she had been assaulted by a "jealous ex" over messages Levine had sent her while dating previous girlfriend Becky Ginos, and that Levine had subsequently cut off contact and fired her from his tour.[7][8]  As a result of the media attention, the alleged screenshots of Levine's messages quickly became a widespread Internet meme, to the point of being used in social media marketing by brands including Velveeta, KFC, and Denny's.[9][10][11]"
Is this satisfactory? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Way, way too detailed. The entire 'personal life' section of the article as it currently stands is 330 words, per LibreOffice. Your new section is 236 words. Cut it down to a single sentence, and we'll have something to discuss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hence why I suggested making a subheading for it, to break things up visually so it's not just a wall of text and reads better. And I'm sorry but that is an absurd request: A single sentence is not remotely enough space to summarize all the relevant notable details of this story in a way that accurately conveys what happened, is encyclopedic in tone, gives due weight to all parties involved, and most importantly for Wikipedia, is communicates both the scale of media coverage and public discourse and the significance to the subject's personal life (y'know, the name of the section?). I'm already leaving out a couple relevant details and there's one or two I'd be willing to trim, but a single sentence is not a reasonable or good faith demand, it is not due weight for the amount of media coverage this story has gotten, and I'm not doing it. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Suit yourself. If you add that ridiculous wall of text to the article, or anything resembling it, with or without a subheading, I will remove it again, as grossly undue and a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no desire to start an edit war with you, but let's stop pretending this is about dispassionate adherence to guidelines. Absolutely nothing here violates WP:BLP in general and WP:BLPGOSSIP in specific: It has been repeatedly established in this conversation that there are multiple WP:RS sources; that the material as I presented it above is verifiably true; and that any reasonable person observing this situation would regard it as notable and relevant to the subject's personal life. To WP:WEIGHT and specifically WP:PROPORTION, you'd be hard pressed to argue this as a "minor aspect" of the subject when every single major news outlet has been covering it for a week straight and even the social media response to it is getting mainstream news coverage. You may personally find it trivial, but by every Wikipedia guideline I'm aware of, it warrants extended mention. I can't stop you deleting anything, but far as I can see you don't have a single policy leg to stand on. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to ask for a third opinion at WP:BLPN. Meanwhile, I'll stick to my interpretation of policy, which precludes almost doubling coverage of Levine's personal life by going into exhaustive detail over something that everyone will have stopped talking about in a week or so at the outside. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
1) A single five-sentence paragraph is not "exhaustive detail", 2) You have no way of knowing if people will still be talking about it in a week (which isn't criteria for notability or inclusion anyway), and 3) There is a mountain of precedent of high-rated BLP articles with much longer Personal Life sections that included much more trivial detail about much more dated topics. If we can have entire separate articles dedicated to the personal lives of Lindsay Lohan and Clint Eastwood and Frank Sinatra, I maintain we can spare one paragraph about a widely reported story involving Adam Levine whether or not it becomes a historically important event.
I have no problem consulting BLPN. While we're at it I'd also like to consult some of the other editors in this thread: @Spiderwinebottle @Escape Orbit What do you guys think about the newer information and the addition I suggested? Invisiboy42293 (talk) 04:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
If you have 'no problem consulting BLPN' then do so. EDIT - I see you have. [12] AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
There are definitely a few details that could be left out/removed (see ref), but otherwise i think the paragraph is mostly fine. I suggest also adding this source as a reference to the yoga teacher sentence 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 14:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Completely fair, this was a first draft and I have no problem making most of those changes. (I also wouldn't mind omitting the part about the yoga teacher's abusive ex since, even though it's been included in a lot of coverage, it could be seen as seen as sensational and doesn't really have to do with Levine directly.) I would argue for the "dictionary" part, if only because it's her responding to/disputing Levine's claim that there was no affair and thus could be necessary for balance. Otherwise, I'm completely okay with this. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
wth is going on? I cant find Adam Levine's affair mentioned even once in the article, all it would require is 1-2 sentences under the personal life section, idk why this is such a big deal and why people are trying so desperately hard to remove any trace of the cheating scandal Kala7992 (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There's a discussion going on at the BLP noticeboard. A lot of people there don't think it is notable enough 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 17:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I would actually agree with you and think the rationale for not including it is very silly, but enough editors in that BLP discussion very much felt differently and I just don't have the energy to make it an edit war (edits constantly being made and reverted). Sadly that's just how it is with Wikipedia sometimes. I wouldn't discourage you from adding something, but be aware that it might get undone by someone else. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
This feels incredibly suspiscious, normally a cheating scandal would be documented. Either this @AndyTheGrumpAndyTheGrump dude is either a fanboy of Adam Levine or someone hired by Levine's PR team bc I cannot comprehend why 2 brief sentences is too much for a scandal covered by every single news organization and the hot topic of discussion for weeks, one which undoubtedly damages Adam Levine's public image Kala7992 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Its only 2 editors who are desperately trying to protect Adam Levine's public image, one of them being @AndyTheGrump. If I had more time or shits to give, Id start and edit war because Wikipedia is there to report the objective truth that affair was reported and stated by many sources, even if it makes the subject's public image look bad. Kala7992 (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
No, I am not a fan of Adam Levine, and nor am I hired by him. I am however a fan of following Wikipedia policies on not turning the project into a vacuous gossip-sheet controlled by juvenile time-wasters who create new accounts just to complain that they can't read the same fatuous drivel here that they've already read fifteen times already on whatever sad little websites they frequent. Go away and get a life... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I have to say that it is frustrating you keep dismissing the controversy as simply gossip when it has been covered by (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13) reliable sources, and possibly more. As Kala mentions, this has had an obvious effect on Levine's public image. As i mentioned on the BLP noticeboard, the page views for Levines page increased by 640K during the week the controversy hit the news (the week before it was around 25K), and the average daily views so far are still more than double the amount before the controversy. 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 17:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Already responded to adequately both here and at WP:BLPN, where the consensus was clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The fact that you agreed with the consensus there does not make that response "adequate". I and Spiderwinebottle provided countless reliable sources, detailed explanations of notability and relevance, demonstration of public interest citing Wikipedia policy and precedent, explaining why WP:10YEARTEST is neither binding nor relevant in this case. Your argument and the argument of every editor in that discussion? "Yeah but celebrity news is gross and icky and low-class, it'll probably be forgotten in a month which we're basing on nothing!"
I have no idea what you're deal is but it sure isn't making Wikipedia a better and more relevant source of information. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
See WP:SATISFY. I'm under no obligation whatsoever to carry on this discussion indefinitely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not asking to be satisfied. But I am going to call you a disgrace to Wikipedia editors and mute this conversation so I don't have to deal with your nonsense anymore. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Also I've been editing Wikipedia since 2009, and it's been shown dozens of times now that this has been reported in thousands of non-tabloid source that Wikipedia recognizes as RS! It is abundantly clear that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia standards and everything to do with you being a petty self-important snob. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Violation of Wikipedia policies duly noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no violation of WP:BLN as this @AndyTheGrump keeps claiming. @Spiderwinebottle has not only edited Wikipedia for years, but he has also provided countless verifiable sources about Adam Levine's affairs to prove that this isnt just "tabloid gossip" or hearsay. The article will not state that the affairs DID happen, but that they were alleged. We have no choice but to ban @AndyTheGrump for his attempts at censorship, the majority always wins. Kala7992 (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Personal attacks, repeated violation of WP:BLP policy, calling on others to edit-war (above, now deleted) have all been reported at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd advise everyone to take a moment to reflect on their conduct, as thing are getting heated here.  Regardless of who you believe is right or wrong, personal insults, accusations of bad faith editing, and encouraging disruptive editing in order to prompt admin action will almost certainly turn out badly for those concerned.  It would be wise to retract comments on those lines.  --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Ive deleted the profane comments that violated policy, as far as im concerned im no longer involved in this discussion Kala7992 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a pity, because you may have a point.  You just need to put it without getting into a personal argument.  A compromise that everyone can live with, and more importantly is in line with BLP policy, could be reached. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a deadlink that is meant to lead to Adam Levine's Jewish Chronicle interview, which should be replaced with this archive.org link: https://web.archive.org/web/20160227130014/http://www.thejc.com/arts/music/45058/interview-adam-levine . Jeffgr9 (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Mention his infidelity scandal in personal life or a controversy section 2620:0:2820:2001:2D43:D749:A50F:B7DD (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source with that claim? Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
An edit request needs an explicit proposal with sources. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Read the long section above this one at the top of the page. There are sources and proposed content suggestion. There was an entire Saturday Night Live skit about it tonight. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)