Talk:Allison Mack

Archives (Index)

2015 2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Lede

Since the Mack prosecution began, consensus has been loosely established (via a stable lede) that the second paragraph of the lede was the place to put Mack's criminal history. Should the first sentence of the lede be updated to include that she is an "American actor and convicted felon" or some form of that? In a two-paragraph, six-sentence lede, three sentences devoted to her prosecution and conviction seems due to me and to flow better, and makes first sentence mention overkill. Thoughts? Grandpallama (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Second paragraph. The words "convicted felon" should never appear in the first sentence of a biographical article. It adds little or nothing for the reader's understanding to know that a court has entered a judgement of conviction against her without explaining why. (Were you looking up her article to see if you're allowed to sell her a firearm?) A biographical subject's criminal activities should certainly be covered in the lede. In the case of someone known entirely for crime, the criminal activities should be in the second sentence. E.g., for a teacher who sleeps with a student something like "Jane Smith is an American teacher. In 2005 she was convicted of statutory rape of one of her students." For someone like Mack who came to notability before her crime, it belongs in the second paragraph. (1st para: "Allison Mack is an American actress. ..." 2nd para: "Mack was a member of NXIVM ... In 2018 she was arrested ... On September 15, 2021 Mack reported to prison...")

Also, to the editor who is asserting in edit summaries that putting "convicted felon" in the first sentence is standard practice ... it's mostly a standard practice only in articles about subjects that Wikipedia editors look down upon. You won't find "and convicted felon" in the first sentence of whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner. You don't even find it in the first sentence of notorious gangsters like Al Capone or John Gotti. It's just for people we don't like, which is another reason we shouldn't use it. Vadder (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Chris Brown, Jeffrey Jones, Wesley Snipes, John McTiernan, and so on. When I did a cursory check based on those edit summary claims, I actually had trouble finding other celebrities where this was a first sentence mention (or, in some cases, even a first paragraph mention). Grandpallama (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

R Kelly’s page says it in the very first line. 173.2.210.244 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the fact you're replying to a post over two years old might have something to do with that...Grandpallama (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Says who? there are many, many biographical entries, often involving former politicians and businesspeople in which the first graph in bio says “former congressman and convicted felon. The reality is that Mack’s acting career is minor compared to her notoriety as a felon and associate of Raniere.

Coastda1952 (talk) 05:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Even by your theory, Mack's current notoriety isn't her status as a felon. It's her being an actress who was involved with NXIVM, followed by a conviction and prison time. Her career is notable enough to belong in the first sentence. Her NXIVM activity and crimes are notable enough to perhaps somehow mention in the first sentence. If consensus develops to put them there, I will not oppose, but I imagine there will be difficulties with how to succinctly word it. The status of being a convicted criminal or felon by itself (separate and apart from the crimes) is not all that notable or why a person is notable, and should generally not be a first-sentence thing. Vadder (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Removing context from lede.

In July, the lede was changed to read as follows:

"She portrayed Chloe Sullivan on the WB / CW superhero series Smallville (2001–2011), where she appeared in all 10 seasons. Mack was also featured in a recurring role on the FX comedy series Wilfred (2012; 2014)."

In late September, however, key context was cut from from the lede:

"She played Chloe Sullivan in the superhero television series Smallville and appeared in a recurring role on the comedy series Wilfred."

The arguments for removing this context are that it's "unnecessary detail" and this information is already mentioned in the article's body. To the latter argument, all information in a lede is supposed to be found in the body. We're not removing the whole lede simply because the information is mentioned again. The lede, of course, is a summary. And that's what the older version is; it's only two sentences and 37 words.

To the former argument, I recognize that citing other articles using this information in their ledes is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but the reason why articles include it is because it's necessary context. The years these shows ran identity to readers when her acting career took place. The networks demonstrate the notability of these shows. And the fact that she appeared in every season of 10-season series is a notable accomplishment, especially when she was the only cast member other than Tom Welling to be in every season. It wouldn't be so notable if Smallville was only one or two seasons, but this was a long-running show and the fact that she was a significant part of it is notable. Saying she simply "played Chloe Sullivan in the superhero television series Smallville" doesn't convey the significance of career.

We're putting more detail into her arrest and conviction that her acting career in the lede. The lede should have a proportionate amount of detail about both aspects of her life to avoid WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and the key context accomplishes this. Bluerules (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with one thing you've said and disagree with the rest.

You're probably right about changing "best known for" to something else. I'm good with that.

"has appeared" does not imply that she's still appearing on the show. That's just wrong. I object to that change.

The lead does not need to offer full context. It's not even necessarily a full summary of the article. It's an introduction to the subject for readers who are not fully aware of what the subject is about. It's not necessary to provide detail about the television shows. The shows are linked. Readers can either click into the show, or read down the page and get context and detail from the body of this article.

I'm trying to keep the lead brief in part to limit the damage that can be done by those with an agenda against Allison Mack. There are some editors who want to make the lead all about her crimes, starting with the first sentence (the infamous "...and convicted felon" that several of us are trying to keep out). The lead shouldn't be all about her crimes. She came to prominence as a TV actor. The lead should start there.

But you're also wanting the career paragraph and crime paragraph of the lead to be of equal weight. The problem is they can't be. It is clear that at this point in Allison Mack's life and career, she is better known for her association with crime than her acting. As viewed on my screen, the current career paragraph is about 1.5 lines long and the crime paragraph is about 2.5 lines. That's about right for someone who has an entertainment resume that only makes a huge splash on one or two shows, followed by making national news about her association with what our sources are calling sex trafficking. Like it or not, our sources take the view that being involved in an organization like NXIVM is far more significant and notable than an acting career such as Allison Mack's.

I understand you wanting to balance the lead, but the goal should not be to balance the paragraphs against each other. It should be to balance the paragraphs against our sources and against a decent view of the subject of this article, Allison Mack. Right now her life and her coverage in our sources is far more about the crimes than it is her acting career. As long as we keep the lead simple and direct, covering her career in simple terms that nobody can argue with, then her crimes in simple terms that nobody can argue with, there's a chance of keeping the lead fair and neutral, while working against the edits that want to make every paragraph about how bad she supposedly is. Vadder (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"has appeared" does imply she's still appearing on the show because "has" is present tense. When this is about removing "unnecessary detail from the lead", why expanding wording that can be condensed? "had a recurring role" says the same thing as "has appeared in a recurring role" in less words and no tense changes.

The lede does need to offer full context. You are not properly introducing the subject by refusing to identify when her acting career took place / when she appeared on these shows. Readers should not be forced to click on other articles or scroll down to learn basic information about a subject. It is necessary to provide detail about the television shows because again, it gives readers a timeline about her. Notice how we provide detail about when she was arrested and charged, yet we're not saying when she was on television?

The context that needs to be added is not about her legal troubles. It is about her career as a TV actor, again informing readers of how long she was doing it for and the significance of these parts.

To say I want "the career paragraph and crime paragraph of the lead to be of equal weight" is a complete strawman. I said "the lede should have a proportionate amount of detail about both aspects of her life". That is not saying her career and legal troubles should be of equal weight, but both should be proportionally represented in the lede. That's not the case with the former. It's been shrunk down to a mere sentence - no mention of the fact that she acted on a show for 11 years and 10 seasons. That's a significant commitment. You say she's made "a huge splash on one or two shows", but you're not identifying that she made any splash.

In my revision, the second paragraph about her legal troubles was still longer. The key context isn't being added to "balance the lead", but to provide an actual "decent view of the subject of this article". Again, that is not being provided by cutting out the timeline of her acting career. Saying when she appeared on Smallville is still simple and direct. No one can argue with the fact that she was on Smallville from 2001 to 2011 and appeared in every season. But because we don't say when she appeared on Smallville, the lede could mislead readers into believing she was arrested before her acting career. Maybe not in 2021, but we're not always going to be in 2021. Bluerules (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I thoroughly concur with everything Vadder has said, although I'd also argue that it's appropriate to keep "best known for" in this case. Mack was constantly referred to in sources (including those in this article) as "Smallville actress Mack" and "Mack, known for her role on Smallville" until the NXIVM case gained enough notoriety on its own that it was no longer necessary to provide contextual information for her. Usually, the problem with "best known for" lines is that they are subjective and there can be competing claims for their most prominent roles; I don't think that's the case with Mack.

That said, though, I fully agree with Vadder's read of the appropriate weight in the lede being tilted toward Mack's criminal history, as well as pointing out that details about networks are not only more suited to the body of an article, but more suited to the body of the Smallville article.

I'd also point out that the history here (i.e., "In July, the lede was changed to read as follows") is a little more complicated. The lede was rewritten, I reverted, and it was basically edit warred right back in; the lede evolved over time, as they do, with editor consensus pretty clearly moving toward trimming back those details and some of the wording. Reverting back now to a three-month-old version that you wrote, despite knowing editors objected to it, isn't great, nor is it great that this discussion only started after edit warring again (as in July) when that rewrite was reverted. Grandpallama (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's what actually happened. You removed the timeline of her career based on unrelated issues - the mention of her being German-born, incorrectly saying she was arrested for involvement in the cult, and the contradiction of saying she stepped back from her acting career after Smallville (which I didn't add). I addressed these issues while restoring the context about her career without objection or edit warring from you or other editors. This version was mostly unchanged for over two months - even you were helping maintain this context up until it was changed. Then Vadder removed the context on the grounds that it was "unnecessary detail" without discussion or consensus. Misrepresenting this history isn't great, nor is is great that you're now claiming to object to a version you previously had no objections to and even restored.

Like I said above, this isn't about weight being tilted towards towards her legal troubles, but her acting career having virtually no weight in the current lede. Objecting to the inclusion of the networks is one thing, but there has not been a single argument made against including the years of these shows and her being a longtime cast member. Interesting how the featured Michelle Williams and Jennifer Lawrence articles didn't deem the years of their television and film projects to be "unnecessary detail" in their ledes. I know - OTHERSTUFF - but aren't we also supposed to follow the example of featured articles?

As far as including "best known", it's still a subjective statement. Her appearing on all 10 seasons, which helped her become subjectively "best known" for Smallville, however, is a fact. Bluerules (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"has appeared" is the present perfect tense. It means that from the perspective of the present, the action (appearing, in this case) is complete. I hate to criticize someone's English, but you are just wrong about this.

Michelle Williams and Jennifer Lawrence are actors whose careers progressed steadily from supporting roles on TV to A-list superstardom in movies. Their leads should cover that career progression. Allison Mack is an actor who moved away from a stable career of supporting roles on TV to become a member of a multi-level marketing association that was secretly a sex cult. Their lives are not all that similar and the leads should reflect that. In the unlikely event that either Williams or Lawrence turn out to have been recently involved in an ongoing and notorious criminal enterprise that captures the public imagination, I will support a radical shortening of the career sections of their leads so that we can get to the crime part sooner.

I've seen so many other articles where editors find an article lead where a person's career and life progression change from politics to crime, or from entertainment to crime, but the leads start off with lots of prose about their pre-crime career. The crime doesn't show up until a good way down the lead. The career part should come first because it came first in their lives, came first in the progression of what made them notable, and came first in our sources. But when Wikipedia editors see too much before the crime, they see a cover-up by people who are fans of the article subject. They get outraged. The article is trying to hide the crime, they say. They then start in editing the first paragraph so that it covers their crime before even getting to the career part. That's wrong. I don't want that here (or anywhere, except for people who are basically only notable for crime). I don't think you want that here. This structure of short career paragraph, slightly longer crime paragraph is an attempt to prevent that.

If you want to restore the years in parentheses, I drop my objection to that. "where she appeared in all 10 seasons" is still not necessary and sounds promotional. Vadder (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"has appeared" does not indicate the individual is done "appearing" because of the present tense. To demonstrate this, Jason Momoa's article says he "has portrayed" Aquaman in the DCEU. He's done portraying the character in three completed films, but he's not finished altogether, and the article says "has portrayed" instead of simply "portrayed" to demonstrate the role is ongoing. If Mack's Wilfred was still ongoing, we could say "Since 2012, she has appeared in a recurring role on Wilfred". We could not say "Since 2012, she had a recurring role on Wilfred" because that's not grammatically correct. "had" outright establishes past tense and does so in less words ("had a recurring role on" vs. "has appeared in a recurring role on"). Yes, "has appeared" can still be used to represent past tense, but when we're already using a past tense verb in the same sentence ("portrayed"), it's better to keep the tenses consistent to avoid confusion. I personally believe her Wilfred role in a separate sentence from her Smallville role, but that's a separate issue.

Michelle Williams and Jennifer Lawrence were brought up simply because they have featured articles that mention the years of their television/film projects in the ledes. It's not about how their lives compare to Mack's, it's about a basic rule of thumb about identifying when these individuals did certain things, whether it be when an athlete played professionally, when a politician held office or when an actor appeared on screen. Leads should have a clear chronology of events.

Keep in mind that the Williams and Lawrence articles have significantly larger bodies, which allows for larger ledes. As a result, these ledes are not chronological - they begin with the most important information (e.g. "Lawrence was the world's highest-paid actress in 2015 and 2016, with her films grossing over $6 billion worldwide to date. She appeared in Time's 100 most influential people in the world list in 2013 and in the Forbes Celebrity 100 list from 2013 to 2016."). If they got into serious legal trouble, that information would likely go to the top of the lede without needing to trim important information about their careers. If Mack's article had a larger body, we could also have a general overview in the first paragraph that makes mention of her legal trouble. The article's body, of course, isn't large enough for a lede expansion, and that's why this lede chronologically progresses from her career to legal troubles. But just because we're taking a strictly chronological approach with Mack's lede doesn't mean we need to get to her legal troubles quicker. We're supposed to trim information about her career because some individuals think we're covering up her arrest and sentencing? That's not how Wikipedia works.

If others are assuming bad faith editing, a violation of Wikipedia policy, that's a problem of their own doing. We should not be trying to appease individuals who assume there's a "cover-up", especially when it's unfounded. Her legal trouble is still mentioned in its own paragraph in the lede and the longest section of this article is dedicated to her crimes. Frankly, it's absurd for others to believe the context in the first paragraph is trying to cover up her crimes. If they're objecting to three short sentences before the article gets into her arrest and sentencing, they're not going to be satisfied until her legal trouble is mentioned in the first sentence and I think we're all opposed to that.

"where she appeared in all 10 seasons" is necessary because it demonstrates the notability of her role. It's not promotional, it's a fact that identifies how much of her acting career was dedicated to being on Smallville. IMO, it's more important than the reference to her Wilfred role, where she wasn't even a series regular. I would support removing the Wilbur reference from the lede to replace it with her Smallville tenure because of her commitment to the show and her other roles not being as prominent. Bluerules (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this talk page section has gotten so complicated I didn't notice this response until today. I've somewhat lost track of the original point was with regard to the grammar of "has" and "had". While I still don't agree with your explanation of the problem, I'm OK with the status quo on "had". Am I right or wrong that you wanted "had"?

My concern over editors wanting to come in and make the lead of this article into a BLP problem is less than it was. I now see that at this article, the three most active editors of recent weeks (Bluerules, Grandpallama, and Vadder i.e. me) have substantial disagreements, but no disagreement about maintaining a lead that covers the good and bad of Mack without becoming either a hagiography or a hit piece. So, thanks everybody for that. Per your arguments, I am open to the idea of an expansion of the lead, but mostly for more material about Mack, not more information about Smallville or Wilfred.

Would you accept something like "She played Chloe Sullivan for the entire run of the superhero series..." I remain concerned that the 10 season statement sounds promotional, but am open to some other way to demonstrate significance. Vadder (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this before, but yes, I am open to a statement that acknowledges Mack played Chloe for the "entirety" of Smallville or a similar sentence. Bluerules (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting editors over the past few months who have attempted to list "convicted criminal" or some variation in the opening sentence =/= supporting/maintaining a version of the text. Despite the claim that I addressed these issues while restoring the context about her career without objection or edit warring from you or other editors, the fact is that initial revert restored other problematic text that we had to clean up[1][2], and it's pedantic to claim one didn't add the erroneous text about "stepping away from her career" when they certainly did add the lede text about joining NXIVM "after the conclusion of Smallville". Beyond that, as I said, the lede has evolved over time due to multiple editors tweaking it, so reverting back to a preferred July version that one primarily wrote themselves remains problematic.

Regardless, I'm with Vadder in that the reinstatement of the years seems acceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not changing a version of the text for over three months = supporting/maintaining that version. If you were truly opposed to this text, you would have changed it, but you did not until other editors supported removing it. You would have cut out this context alongside references to her criminal history in the first paragraph, but you did not. The fact is that you objected to issues not related to the contextual information and there was no further objection from you when addressed those issues until now. Contrary to your assertion of this being a "claim", it is a fact that I removed the three issues you objected to and you voiced no further objections until now. It's pedantic to complain about my edits not being flawless because the point of Wikipedia is to collaborate on improving articles, not trash an entire revision because a word is misspelled. It's also pedantic to complain about a side comment that was setting the record straight on your misrepresentation of this situation. I'm trying to fix the hard shift between the first and second paragraphs with a more natural transition that also makes the sentence look less like a fragment. I'm not committing to inaccurate information, which is why I changed the text to "Outside of her acting career". You let that stand for over a month until it was removed by another editor without explanation.

The lede did not "evolve", it was noticeably changed by one editor a few weeks ago, and you've supported the change without providing any arguments for why the previous version was so bad. For context, the lede before my edits was poorly-written. There was no transition between her acting career and legal troubles, short sentences that could have been combined, and awkward usage of full dates. I made improvements, which made the lede easier to read. This misrepresentation of what's taken place and failure to provide actual problems with the July version remains problematic. Bluerules (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

If you were truly opposed to this text, you would have changed it, but you did not until other editors supported removing it I'm pretty sure you don't know my mind, but suffice it to say that choosing not to engage with someone =/= support of that person's ideas or suggestions. Whatever you misbelieve the case to have been in July, it should now be clear to you that three editors (myself, Vadder, and Rootone) have opposed this rewrite in general. Grandpallama (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't need to know someone's mind to know when they remove content, they are opposed to that content. Claiming you were choosing not to engage with someone doesn't hold up when you demonstrated back then you were willing to engage and you're clearly engaging now. Again, you restored edits that you're now purporting to be vehemently opposed to. Restoring content = supporting that content. However you misrepresent what happened in July, the facts remain that you didn't touch this version for almost three months and even restored it, have failed to provide any actual arguments against its inclusion, and gave an incorrect account of what previously took place. Vadder has been providing actual arguments for his trimming, but you simply fall in line with what other editors write. Bluerules (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the one who removed "Outside of her acting career" from the second paragraph, but if I had seen it, I would have opposed it, and if not against consensus, removed it. That transition is unnecessarily wordy and probably doesn't belong in any BLP lead on Wikipedia. It would be a fine way to introduce a paragraph about hobbies and interests in a biography written by the subject's publicist. It's not necessary in a Wikipedia article. You don't have to go far into the first sentence of the second paragraph to realize that we're not talking about her acting career anymore. We don't need a transition between the paragraphs. Vadder (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware that Rootone removed the transition without comment. That transition is necessary for the readability of Wikipedia articles. We shift awkwardly and abruptly into a shortened sentence. Adding only five words to a sentence isn't unnecessarily wordy, it's adding content to a sentence that feels like it's missing material. The following sentence works because of a transition ("In 2018"), but this sentence could be expanded or removed. I would support removing the second paragraph's opening sentence and rewriting the second paragraph accordingly (e.g. "In 2018, Mack was arrested on charges of sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and forced labor conspiracy in relation to NXIVM, a sex cult posing as a multilevel marketing company"). Bluerules (talk) 06:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Bluerules' proposed change to the second paragraph has merit. I don't oppose transitions between paragraphs when they add context. A temporal transition ("In 2018") does so and would help the reader follow the flow from career to criminal allegations and their outcome. I could support that change. What do other editors think? Vadder (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

From a readability perspective, I actually find it more jarring to suddenly have the second paragraph open with a description of Mack's arrest before explaining membership in NXIVM. It is always advisable to set context before relating a development like that. Similarly, I'm not sure an expansion of the lede is particularly necessary. Mack's acting career is mainly summarized with her Smallville and Wilfred connections, and the NXIVM paragraph nicely sums up her membership, arrest, and conviction. Expansion for the sake of expansion strikes me as creating unnecessary bloat. Grandpallama (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's jarring to have the second paragraph open with Mack being a member of NXIVM without immediately identifying relevance. The context of why her involvement became newsworthy is missing - Kristin Kreuk was also a member, but it's not highlighted because she had little involvement with them. If this change is implemented, it's a straightforward explanation of Mack being arrested and why she was arrested. And this is not an expansion, this is a trim. It combines two sentences into one. The current revision has 37 words, the change I proposed has 30 words. I think it's a reasonable compromise and I won't push my other proposed changes once we've reached a consensus. Bluerules (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To summarize what I understand of the Bluerules position:

The current text reads:

Mack was a member of NXIVM, a sex cult posing as a multilevel marketing company. In 2018, she was arrested on charges of sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and forced labor conspiracy in relation to NXIVM activities. She pleaded guilty to racketeering charges and was sentenced to three years in prison in 2021.

...and Bluerules proposes to change the text to:

In 2018, Mack was arrested on charges of sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and forced labor conspiracy in relation to NXIVM, a sex cult posing as a multilevel marketing company. She pleaded guilty to racketeering charges and was sentenced to three years in prison in 2021.

(Please Bluerules make any changes needed to the second blockquote above if I have made a mistake.)

I note that before we all took some time away from this discussion, Grandpallama was still opposed to this change. Bluerules supports the change as proposer and I am willing to accept it. This is not yet what I would call a strong consensus. Any other opinions? Vadder (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We have "Leads" not "Ledes" on Wikipedia. Please see MOS:LEAD. 208.103.240.156 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Seeming contradiction in NXIVM section

The last paragraph of the NXIVM section begins by saying that she faced a minimum of 15 years, but then goes on to say she got 3 years. There should be an explanation for the discrepancy, or else the "minimum" part should be rephrased. 76.174.37.123 (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The explanation is that she faced a 15-year minimum based on the initial charges. Given her cooperation with the prosecution and the plea agreement she made, those initial charges changed. I think this can be inferred, but you are correct that the discrepancy isn't explicitly explained. We could probably pull some text from the NXIVM article to fill in the gap. Grandpallama (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

"Cult" without context isn't neutral POV

I don't want to trigger an edit war, but across NXIVM-related pages I keep seeing the organization matter-of-factly referred to as "an American cult" without establishing how it was a cult. It's my opinion that this is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

To see what I mean, canvass pages for any number of groups described as "cults" (e.g., Unification Church, Heaven's Gate, Branch Davidians, Landmark Worldwide). They take pains to objectively describe the group (as a new religious movement, self-help group, etc.) and that they are commonly described as cults (or similar text) with references. The point is to help guide readers investigating the topic, without clubbing them over the head with opinions (even where they are commonly held ones).

None of this is about defending NXIVM, but keeping Wikipedia as a place where the facts are important. Evackost (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Disregard, pardon. Evackost (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

edit request

In the section titled Cooperation and guilty plea, please wikilink the phrase proffer sessions to Proffer letter 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done. DanCherek (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

edit request

Minor suggestion: in the last sentence in the lead, change "...and was sentenced to three years in prison in 2021." to "...and in 2021 was sentenced to three years in prison." 76.14.122.5 (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 11:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you --76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Allison Mack a "former" actress?

The lede states that Allison Mack is "an American former actress." Did she officially retire? Unless she publicly retires, how can she be said to be a "former" actress? One of the reasons Mack joined NXIVM in the first place was to become a better actress, so presumably she still had aspirations of future employment. Given the nature of show business, actors can go for years without being involved in a production seen by the public; simply being unemployed does not connote retirement status. Likewise, being incarcerated does not remove her aspirational vocation. Currently, it would seem, she's an unemployed, incarcerated actress, but not yet a "former" actress. Petzl (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to call her a "former actress" until reliable sources start reporting that. The word former should be removed. Vadder (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

In what world is it accurate to describe someone who plead guilty to racketeering a "convicted sex offender?"

The lede describes Allison Mack as a "convicted sex offender" -- she may have been charged with a sex crime, but she was not convicted of that crime. Can someone explain why this is what was settled on when it is factually untrue?? 174.141.207.66 (talk) 06:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't settled on, it was added without discussion a few hours ago. I've removed it. Squeakachu (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

updates to convicted felin

I'ts a fact she was convicted for three years with charges of racketeering, thus i added "convixted felon" rightfully. 181.209.144.147 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

There's a discussion at the top of this page. Please join it and discuss this. Your edit was premature, as we haven't reached a conclusion. It was definitely out of order for you to remove the note about the discussion. Vadder (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)