body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Alleged victims and accusations[edit]

The list of alleged victims and accompanying details was previously removed on BLP grounds[1][2][3]. Please discuss and obtain consensus before reshaping the paragraph into another detailed laundry list given WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NPOV, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations[edit]

@Morbidthoughts: I have no idea why you have removed the content citing WP:BLPRESTORE, which says that If [this content] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Significant change was made: the introduction of sources that met the criteria you referenced, WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

You are now taking issue with RS that quotes the DB, but there is no reason to do so. Our RSP entry is a "no consensus" entry that shows a number of discussions in which participants say more discussion is needed, that the entry was previously classified as "generally reliable", that allege a 2020s (i.e. post-2017) decline in reporting standards and that establish possible political provenances of the work, but not issues with statements of fact like this. "No consensus" does not mean "less than generally reliable" or "not usable" or "not as good as other sources"—it means "no consensus"; or, "each article from the publication needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis". In this particular case, you have seen The Independent, The Guardian, MSNBC, Slate, The Daily Dot, HuffPost and New York citing this particular collection of articles in The Daily Beast, which is overwhelming indication that they are reliable for these particular facts.

Your issue with Mic is similar unclear—who has "disputed" its usage where? — Bilorv (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read Mic (media company): "Writing for Forbes in 2014, Abe Brown described PolicyMic's style as hyperbolic, with a mix of serious analysis of issues and attention-seeking listicles. Brown grouped the site with Upworthy, Buzzfeed, and BusinessInsider as opposed to more conventional news media such as The New York Times and The Washington Post" plus [4]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen your comment above. I have no idea what removal of the same information without sufficient secondary sources has to do with the removal of the information with the new sourcing provided. You say in an edit summary that we should avoid naming some victims—okay, that's what I did initially, and then you began to add names, so I followed suit. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is inapplicable here because this article is about Deen, who is not a person noteworthy only for one or two events (he's one of the most notable people in the porn industry), nor someone whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions (the alleged victims here are either independently notable for other events or not notable). I'm also not aware of what part of WP:NPOV calls for censorship of information covered in around a dozen sources because that information is negative. — Bilorv (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I let Amber Rayne through is because she is a separately notable figure and WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply to her because she's dead. Every other person that you inserted falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. If you remove their identity, the individual accusations become so indiscriminate that they are covered by the very first sentence of the paragraph that states that several people accused him of sexual abuse or misconduct. Most of the details you want to include were originally reported by the Daily Beast, which is disputed at WP:RSP. Just because reliable sources report on and attribute that coverage to the Daily Beast does not make it more WP:DUE for wikipedia. I looked at several of the citations you added, and the additional citations do not directly verify the detail you put in when multiple are required under WP:PUBLICFIGURE, especially when it came to specific accusations. If you want to add any individual items that have been previously removed due to BLP objections, you must obtain consensus for that item. This has been the standard since the controversy first erupted in 2015. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing to me that you, another editor who has been around longer than WP:RSP, is failing to understand its purpose and limitations. I have explained what "no consensus" does not mean and specifically analysed the discussions listed at RSP for The Daily Beast. It is also confusing to me that you think The Guardian, The Independent et al. citing a source does not make it more reliable. That is in fact one of the most major factors in how and why we attribute sources as generally reliable or sometimes reliable at RSP. Such citations are the most powerful demonstration possible that this specific The Daily Beast article is reliable.
I looked at several of the citations you added, and the additional citations do not directly verify the detail you put in – Can you give me an example? I'm confused as to how they do not do this. For instance, I double-checked that each source referring to Peters used the quoted word "honored", attributed to her agent. Of course I make mistakes when making edits handling a dozen sources, but not on purpose.
How would you prefer for me to solicit further input from other editors? — Bilorv (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a RS just repeats what is published in the DB or another source, that is not independent nor direct verification. In the Kora Peters example, that is what happened with Salon while the MSNBC citation you threw in doesn't even talk about the agent. Mic, which is not a reliable source in itself, repeats what was written on Porn Valley Media (PVM) which had reported what she wrote on her blog. Mic erroneously wrote that she wrote a blog for PVM. This all feels like a gossip loop and if you spend time on WP:BLPN (See the recent Katie Price example), you'll realise that the consensus is that biographies are meant to be written conservatively and what matters in a DUE analysis is enduring coverage. Yes, Deen is known for these allegations of abuse which is how RS today continue to present him. But they don't recite the laundry list. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a RS just repeats what is published in the DB or another source, that is not independent nor direct verification. – "Verification" is irrelevant to the point here. The point is that the article is reliable in and of itself, and the evidence is precisely that the RSes repeat what the article says without independent verification (and therefore so should we).
The MSNBC source was one of four for Peters, leaving three, when you requested a minimum of two. Your arguments on Mic are about reliability, not that it doesn't mention the information it was cited for. In any case, how are these "several of the citations"?
You keep using the insulting phrase "laundry list" (and now also "gossip loop") to belittle the hard work I put into my edits, without regard for the fact that my additions were extremely selective and included only a small proportion of the information and allegations I read on this topic. My edits do not mention the majority of Deen accusers, and stick to the facts repeated in multiple reliable sources. I would like you to stop using that phrase.
It's also insulting to tell me what I would think "if [I spent] time on WP:BLPN", which I have spent many hours reading and a couple writing at (obviously, I've been around for 7 years). — Bilorv (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of further comments by Morbidthoughts, or any input from the WikiProjects I solicited responses from, I've started an RfC. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: sexual misconduct allegations[edit]

This discussion has stagnated with last comment been over 20 days ago and the discussion is unusually stable IMO, which means this warrants a closure under WP:WHENCLOSE. Additionally, no discussion took place at all over at the BLP notice board (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#James Deen RfC)

This discussion has only obtained one complete objector of this content inclusion, with 7 supporters of inclusion on some level. Because of that strong tally, I conclude that editors have built a strong consensus for inclusion of this content. However, there is also a consensus to not include specific names of alleged victims because of various concerns raised by numerous editors. Various revisions were brought up through the course of this RfC, and I can find no solid consensus on what the specific text should say. However, when articulating the inclusion of this information, I do believe there is a general consensus here to not use information from certain sources deemed as unreliable in WP:RSP. Also that is practically Wikipedia standard, especially for contentious claims as this.

If applicable I believe the best course of action following this RfC closure is to add this sentence: In total, nine women came forward with allegations of abuse and unnecessarily rough sex during scenes. The allegations included claims that Deen foribly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene, that he physically restrained and hit several women, and forced one woman's face into his crotch to "sniff his testicles. Amber Rayne said that during a shoot, Deen punched her in the face and caused her anus to bleed with violent anal sex. (of course cited with WP:RS). This sentence is the last one proposed and is very similar to the sentence supported directly by a bulk of editors.

As I said before there is no consensus on the exact text, so any further dispute should go through the normal WP:BRD cycle. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 the following sexual misconduct allegations be described in the article, whether with the below wording or some other wording? — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One performer said she was told by her agent that she should feel "honored" after, in a non-anal scene, Deen repeatedly attempted to penetrate her anus and she resisted, so he choked her and forced it in.[1][2][3][4] Another woman described an incident of being physically restrained and then repeatedly hit by Deen on set.[5][6][7] A separate pornogrpahic actor said that she had "almost been raped" by Deen.[6][7][8][9]

Several other similar rape and misconduct allegations are uncontroversially included in the article, as are the consequences for Deen—his production companies, advice column and role as Adult Performer Advocacy Committee chairperson were all dropped. Deen's response to the above allegations is already given in the article, Deen later gave an interview to The Daily Beast where he claimed to be "baffled" by the accusations and denied or offered counter-explanations for them. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Removed performer names in the example text, and clarified the RfC focus slightly. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Snow, Aurora (June 26, 2017). "Two More James Deen Accusers Tell All: 'There Was So Much Blood'". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 16, 2021.
  2. ^ Cauteruccia, Christina (December 2, 2015). "James Deen's Alleged Assaults Were Ignored, Laughed Off by Casts and Crews". Slate. Retrieved October 17, 2021.
  3. ^ Howard, Adam (December 8, 2015). "Porn star James Deen 'baffled' by sexual assault allegations". MSNBC. Retrieved October 18, 2021.
  4. ^ Thomas, Sophie Saint (February 12, 2015). "Two More Women Have Come Forward to Accuse James Deen of Sexual Assault". Mic.com. Retrieved October 18, 2021.
  5. ^ Lux, Tori (April 13, 2017). "Tori Lux: James Deen Assaulted Me, Too". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 28, 2021.
  6. ^ a b "8 women have now accused James Deen of sexual assault". The Daily Dot. May 27, 2021. Retrieved October 18, 2021.
  7. ^ a b Ronan, Alex (November 30, 2015). "More Women Have Accused James Deen of Assault". New York. Retrieved December 3, 2015.
  8. ^ Stefania D'Alessandro (November 30, 2015). "Two More Adult Actresses Accuse James Deen Of Sexual Assault". HuffPost. Retrieved December 3, 2015.
  9. ^ Sharman, Jon (November 1, 2017). "Accuser of porn actor James Deen calls for more scrutiny of abuse claims amid Weinstein accusations". The Independent. Retrieved October 18, 2021.

Comments[edit]

A line item dissection of why I have a problem with the multiple citations that have been thrown about that do not directly verify the listed sentence and are very concerning from a BLP perspective. WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple reliable sources supporting the specific allegation.
  • First sentence 1. WP:DAILYBEAST is not a reliable source (Its own editor in chief describes it as a "high end tabloid"[5]), and Aurora Snow is not a professional journalist. She writes a regular column on the industry and what she chooses to write about and who she chooses to interview should not be considered in a WP:DUE evaluation. The evaluation should be based on how independent RS covers this. 2. The Slate article is a commentary article that falls under WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:RSOPINION and cannot be used to assert facts. 3. Mic (media company) is not a reliable source. 4. MSNBC is a reliable news article but does not directly support the detail presented in the first sentence.
  • Second sentence. 5. Again Daily Beast. Second it is written by one of the alleged victims, Tory Lux. 6. The Daily Dot is considered reliable for Internet culture topics per WP:RSP. I am not sure if this article qualifies as "Internet culture" but there is a caveat at RSP about assigning weight to content from the DD. 7. The Cut (New York) is a reliable source.
  • Third sentence - Non descriptive inflammatory coatrack quote. What is almost rape? Instead use the actual description of what was actually reported as happened in the Independent, Huffington Post, and The Cut (New York).
Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an edit conflict with your question while I was giving a line item discussion of Bilorv's sources. The number of women that alleged abuse has been inconsistently reported depending on the source. It had varied from 8 to 11. As long as all the details in your summary can be supported by at least 2 of the 4 RS I saw listed, MSNBC, The Cut (New York), Independent, and Huffington Post, then I do not have a problem with that. Those details that cannot meet that minimum should be left out per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In total, nine women came forward with allegations of abuse and unnecessarily rough sex during scenes.[1][2][3][4] The allegations included claims that Deen foribly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene,[5][1][4] that he physically restrained and hit several women, and forced one woman's face into his crotch to "sniff his testicles."[6][1][4] Amber Rayne said that during a shoot, Deen punched her in the face and caused her anus to bleed with violent anal sex.[5][1][4]
That is over-cited, but that way we can trim to just the best refs that everyone approves of. As far as the total number of women, I checked the sources and it seems to agree on nine, including Stoya. The one ref that mentioned 11 included Farrah Abraham and T.K., who I saw in other sources was the same person. It also included an accusation that was not abuse, rather just making them feel uncomfortable. Because of that I think we're good going with 9 total with some number of those cites. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


[5] [6] [1] [2] [3] [4]

Throw out the Buzzfeed and Slate citations. Another MSNBC article reported the forced anal allegation.[7] while the Washington Post reported on the punch and anal tear.[8] All the sources seem to credit the DB so we must attribute the allegations to the Daily Beast in-text. Rephrase to "attacked and forced one woman's face into his crotch after she refused to "sniff his testicles" to avoid synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ a b c d e "What To Know About The Sexual Assault Allegations Against James Deen". HuffPost. 4 December 2015. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  2. ^ a b "Porn star James Deen 'baffled' by sexual assault allegations". MSNBC.com.
  3. ^ a b "How Stoya took on James Deen and broke the porn industry's silence". the Guardian. 4 December 2015. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  4. ^ a b c d e "Here Are The Women Who Have Accused James Deen Of Sexual Abuse And Assault". BuzzFeed News. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  5. ^ a b c Cauterucci, Christina (2 December 2015). "James Deen's Alleged Assaults Were Ignored, Laughed Off by Casts and Crews". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  6. ^ a b Ronan, Alex. "More Women Have Accused James Deen of Assault". The Cut. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  7. ^ "Three more women accuse porn star James Deen of sexual abuse". MSNBC.com. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
  8. ^ "Amber Rayne, porn star who accused James Deen of sexual assault, found dead". Washington Post. Retrieved 5 November 2021.
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.

In Media v Career or other[edit]

In Media does not seem correct place for:

Deen co-starred with Lindsay Lohan in Paul Schrader's 2013 film The Canyons, written by Bret Easton Ellis.

Any thoughts?

94.126.214.13 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories