Talk:Danny Masterson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

He's a scientologist, throw that in there. -Carl M. Langdon

Could you go to the official website of Punk'd[1] to check if that's Danny Masterson was with Kelly Monaco on season 6 episode 3.

I watched the whole entire thing again that it wasn't Danny Masterson.

I don't know who put that his model girlfriend is a Scientologist, they should change that up, there is no bonafide proof of this, and they only recently started dating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.109.115 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion and relationship

Masterson makes no secret of being a Scientologist (specifically see this interview with Spin), and his membership of that religion has been widely reported.[2][3][4][5] Strange also that we don't mention his relationship with Bijou Phillips.[6][7][8][9]. Fences&Windows 01:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sister

His sister is Alanna Masterson who is currently playing Tara on The Walking Dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.229.29 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientology in Intro?

Is it really necessary to include it in the intro? It seems very inappropriate. The intro for people typically includes the other elements present, such as date of birth and most important works, but not religion (unless maybethey were a spokesperson or if it was why they were famous). Someone should remove it, or argue with me. If not, I will do it in about a week.Landfritter (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that he should be embarrassed about his chosen religion? Or perhaps you are suggesting that it detracts from him to be associated with a "cult"? Which is it, please? Jbottero (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Danny Masterson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

He's not in that porno movie !

Last edited at 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

BLPCRIME

Someone's anti-Scientology blog is not a reliable source. Before we can include any allegations — and note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well — we need something more reputable. WP:PRIMARY is also a factor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

With LAPD confirmation of the investigation, and coverage by ~50 additional news organizations (AOL, Rolling Stone, Variety, etc.), we seem to be approaching that threshold. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-dannymasterson-idUSKBN16A2LS
HuffPo; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-that-70s-show-star-danny-masterson-investigated-for-sexual-assault_us_58b9dae8e4b05cf0f4009d01
Washington Times; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/3/danny-masterson-70s-show-actor-accused-sexual-assa/
LAPD itself has confirmed the investigation; http://people.com/celebrity/danny-masterson-being-investigated-sexual-assault-claims/
So, we're comfortably in reputable-source zone now. TheValeyard (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Can this be edited into the article? I guess it must be a problem keeping negative information on famous scientologists pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.240.184 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I added a brief description using some of the sources noted above. Others may wish to expand it or break it out to its own section as the situation develops. TheValeyard (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
The blogs mentioned are NOT "someone's blog" but notable people who can be quoted. Ortega is an investigative reporter not just "someone". So let's have a little respect here. CNN is now reporting this, so this section can be expanded. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/entertainment/danny-masterson-rape-allegations/index.html, who is available to make these changes? I'm baking cookies.Sgerbic (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what there is to expand. All the pertinent facts there. We're not supposed to add salacious overdetail, but just the essential facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

POV edits

Just a head's-up that WP:SPA anon IP 161.97.196.81 has been adding uncited or poorly cited claims and trying to make WP:SYNTH arguments in favor of guilt. That's clearly against WP:NPOV.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Rape allegations

It is offensive to suggest rape allegations are part of someone's "personal life", please stop placing it under that section of the article. These rape allegations are well published and are no longer merely "speculation", especially when the sources include large publications like the NY Times. This is one of many similar cases (Weinstein effect), we have other examples on WP of how these types of allegations are handled. Why is this WP article being handled differently? Jooojay (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not. But you obviously have an axe to grind and appear to be on some mission to denounce people accused but never even charged with sex crimes. Read WP:BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
From what I have seen on similar pages there is usually a seperate section, sometimes titled Controversies or similar, where the person in question has been accused but not charged. I was thinking of Kevin Spacey and George Takei for example. I haven’t actually been through a list (if there even is one) but it seems Joojay has a point. It seems a bit odd to make this part of his personal life. Also regarding WP:BLPCRIME we have a citation to metalsucks.com and twitter, how are these WP:RS? Is there not a source for these? I have not been following whatever you imply by an ‘axe to grind’ so excuse me if it is relevant to the point made above. Mramoeba (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly sure what you mean by an "axe to grind" Tenebrae, I am not at all connected to Danny Masterson or any of these allegations - and by using the word "allegation" it clarifies this is not a charged crime. And an allegation of a crime is not part of someone's personal life. Jooojay (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, anyone can allege anything. That doesn't make it true, let alone what makes an already notable, established media figure notable.
There's professional life and personal life. Allegations of something done on personal time, unrelated to work, is personal. I'm asking sincerely: Please explain how something that happened between two people unrelated to work is not personal.
RE "axe to grind": One does not have to be connected to someone in order to want to shame them. Indeed, someone connected to him likely would not want to shame him. Either way, we don't shame people on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tenebrae, at the point in which it has made international mainstream news, it is no longer a personal matter solely between two people. We don't say murder allegations are personal events, so why is rape allegations treated any different? We do (historically) add crime allegations to WP bios in the case it makes reliable news sources (such as Danny Masterson has). I don't think anything that was written was accusatory, suggested shame or guilt. If you think there was, I am happy to discuss that further. NOTE: Section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures, and Danny Masterson is a public figure. Jooojay (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You are correct in that I belatedly realized I had meant to say WP:PUBLICFIGURE rather than WP:BLPCRIME. My error. That said, WP:PUBLICFIGURE states we include credible, WP:RS-cited allegations in an article, not in the lead, which it otherwise would have specified as proper, as guidelines/MOS do elsewhere. Placing allegations in the lead when that is not what an already notable subject is notable for is a blatant attempt to "shame" a subject. And shaming subjects is a BLP vio. Incidentally, your post above makes it sound as if suggested removing the allegations — and I unequivocally, absolutely suggested no such thing, and have even edited the allegations section, adding cites, etc.
Whether or not allegations — and again, there are not even criminal charges here, let alone a trial, but just unsubstantiated allegations — are "international mainstream news", they still have nothing to do with a subject's professional life unless one were trading sex for promises to cast someone in a movie role or some other professional quid pro quo. That's not the case with the Masterson allegations. They involve his personal life only. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about placing anything related in the lead Tenebrae, all of my edits you reversed were in the section called "rape allegations" (which have been demoted to the "personal life" section). The Danny Masterson rape allegations have had a noted/published delay in the police investigation, which have been removed from this article. Everything that was previously written fit within WP:PUBLICFIGURE, it was stated as an allegation only, with a multitude of reliable published sources. Rape is not part of someone's personal life or sex or part of a professional life - it's a crime allegation and it deserves it's own section. Jooojay (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we're talking around each other. I believe at one point in the zillion edits to the article this month, someone had put the rape allegations in the lead; I might be conflating this with another article, or I might even have been thinking of this. So I guess we're in agreement the allegations don't belong in the lead.
I'm not sure what you mean by "have had a noted/published delay in the police investigation." We say the 2000s allegations were made in March 2017 and that LAPD investigated.
"Rape allegations" is in its own section, under the larger "Personal life" section. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As this seems to be dragging on, I will summarise the placing of the allegations on other pages (which I believe is what Joojay is talking about, all other considerations aside) in the hope that it will draw some kind of agreement on where the section goes. I am using the 12 men mentioned in the lede of Weinstein effect for want of a better list:

So in summary it would appear common to have a separate section, or in some cases under work where its possible it is related to work (I haven't read all the pages). Mramoeba (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mramoeba, for putting it more eloquently and taking the time to do a more formal comparison. Jooojay (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Except other stuff exists, and if other articles are WP:UNDUE, then we fix the other articles rather than bring this one down to that level. Mramoeba, either inadvertently or not, neglects to include articles such as Jeffrey Tambor where the allegations are under "Personal life." Additionally, every case is different: Spacey, C.K. and Batali, for instance, have admitted wrongdoing; while I still would put this under "Personal life" in those articles, there is a clear distinction with Masterson, who has denied the allegations. Again I stress the word: allegations that were investigated by police, who found nothing with which to proceed. This attempt at shaming him by throwing a spotlight on unproven allegations that aren't being investigated is clearly WP:UNDUE and a equally clearly a POV attempt at calling him guilty.
Feel free to call for an RfC if you'd like, but I don't think attempting to suggest someone is guilty when these allegations aren't at the level of police investigations is going to go over well. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks like with the Jeffrey Tambor it had been a seperate section and someone edited it and changed that in November 2017. Allegations and news articles about allegations are not "suggesting someone is guilty", please stop conflating the issues Tenebrae. Jooojay (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe I am. Tell us: What is the point of elevating mere allegations into their own section if not to spotlight them? And why spotlight them, when simply stating the facts within the context of a larger life puts them in perspective? The only reason to spotlight them is to purposefully draw attention to them.
So if we're purposefully drawing attention to them, let's ask why. Why draw attention to unproven allegations the subject has denied and even the police don't believe are genuine enough to investigate for criminality? The only reason to do that is to shame the subject and deliberately try to suggest that he is guilty. Otherwise, I ask: Why spotlight these unproven allegations? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's a large news article from a reputable source about an allegation of a crime, it's already spotlighted. Nobody editing WP wrote those news articles, why are we pretending that they don't exist here? Jooojay (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, that is just dishonest: No one is "pretending they don't exist" — they're right in the article. The only issue is whether to shine a glaring spotlight on them rather than include them within larger context and perspective.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I have yet to read that the police found no evidence of criminality Tenebrae, can you please share your source(s)? Especially since new claims keep surfacing and it was published that there were known police delays, and as of December 2017 they were still conducting an investigation. "Pretending they don't exist" was in reference to the news sources and details that are removed from this article now, which includes removing the link to Weinstein effect. Jooojay (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
According to this HuffPo story, the most recent report had gone to the LA City Attorney's office as of mid-November, and the City Attorney has since done nothing publicly with it. I would also note that while the piece rather irresponsibly claims "overwhelming" evidence based on some shadowy, anonymous source, which is WP:GOSSIP we can't include, Masterson's attorney is on the record stating to Vanity Fair that previous LAPD investigations were closed with no finding of criminality, saying they

already investigated this matter twice. The first time in 2004 and then again earlier this year. Both investigations have been closed. No charges have been filed against our client. Any suggestion that there is ‘overwhelming’ evidence against Mr. Masterson flies in the face of reason. If there were overwhelming evidence of felony conduct against anyone, let alone a celebrity, law enforcement would arrest and charge that individual immediately.

Again I ask: Why are you so hellbent on throwing an WP:UNDUE spotlight on nothing more than unproven he said-she said claims? The allegations are in the article, properly in context. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
“either inadvertently or not” Please, I was quite clear stating which pages I was looking at. There is no need for that, I am trying to be fair to help settle a dispute. Mramoeba (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Your attitude on here is rude Tenebrae, I don't have time to literally go over and over the terminology for you - not everything is literal. This multiple person rape allegation is in reputable news, and the news is worthy of notation, it's not about anything more than that - if the outcome is as you say, then let's add that too. I am done with discussing this issue further with you, as obviously this is getting nowhere and I have more important concerns. Best of luck to you in this new year. If anyone else wants to chime-in, please do so. Jooojay (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe it's being rude to try to uphold neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE. The facts are all in the article, presented in context and perspective What is improper, I believe, is what seems a deliberate attempt at spotlighting these unproven and denied claims unduly in order to shame the subject and push a POV that he's guilty ... even though — as indicated above with a direct quote by an officer of the court, who speaks the truth about police investigations in the 2000s never resulting in charges — there are nothing more than unproven allegations. Anyone can allege anything against anyone for any reason. These made news, so they're in the article. Why then push to have unproven, denied allegations spotlighted in their very own section when they're already in their own subsection? It's an attempt to shame the subject, and that's wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The allegations are no more spotlighted in either configuration on the page. You are failing to see the points that either of us have mentioned and you have several times resorted to implying some kind of nefarious intent to Joojay and implied that I am somehow misrepresenting the information. I can quite see why Joojay is fed up and I have no idea why you continue to have a go at him/her. Despite the fact that you have years of valuable contributions to Wikipedia far in excess of others, you are blowing this out of proportion. No editor has tried to unduly accuse this actor of anything and the points are entirely minor. Also your comments about Tony Ortega earlier were entirely uncalled for. I concur, life is too short to waste any more time over this. Mramoeba (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


Attributing to Ortega

I can see @Tenebrae: doesn’t want a reference to Tony Ortega, but it’s a fair summary to attribute the allegations story to him as most most of the major sources are attributing it to him and reporting it, including ironically both the citations already here (31 and 32). Despite the edit summaries by the editor mentioned, no one added a citation by him or to his site at the Bunker, (whether the Bunker is RS really isn’t the issue here) the citation added was a secondary source, the New York Times who, whether we like it or not, credit Ortega with breaking the story. As do the two sources already in the section, Washington Post et al. So unless there is a valid objection, even if we dislike the journalist, Ortega’s name should go in for breaking the story, and readers can make up their own minds. Mramoeba (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That a blogger, any blogger, made a claim is not in and of itself notable. What's notable is a police investigation, and that's what the article uses. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
He didn’t make any claim. He was the journalist who broke the story of the police investigation. Of course he is notable here, reading the refs left in the article, (Personally I would have used New York Times as I used or Washington Post as WP:RS rather than HuffPo or People Celebrity which is what we have here) it is obvious why virtually every article is mentioning Ortega. The page as it stands is disingenuous. I don’t insist upon him being referenced though I believe it is appropriate. Mramoeba (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Mramoeba this page does stand as disingenuous, as it is right now. Jooojay (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Since this discussion among just three editors appears to be at loggerheads, the next step is to call an WP:RfC or ask for a mediator. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
It’s hardly worth it. As I said, I don’t insist upon it, the point is minor (unless of course the other editor feels strongly). I have considered all comments and can watch to see if other editors have strong argument. Mramoeba (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I strongly support crediting Ortega with breaking the story on Masterson. He was writing about it for months before it gained attention by the mainstream press. He is also the first (and only to my knowledge) to talk about Masterson being a Scientologist. Leah Remini did an episode on Masterson, talking to the women, and A&E did not air it because the police were still doing an investigation. To say that Ortega is just "a blogger" is ridiculous, he is a investigative journalist and a published author. He also has a Wikipedia page here. Of course his name should be mentioned.Sgerbic (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Bixler-Zavala

Speaking of rape allegations, can this be better explained? "Cedric Bixler-Zavala said in November 2017 that Masterson raped his wife" Whose wife? Masterson's wife? or Bixler-Zavala's wife?Sgerbic (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I see someone tried to add the name of the person who was reportable raped according to Bixler-Zavala. Tenebrae was correct that we should not name her. But Tenebrae should not call her a "victim" as that is assuming guilt and I after reading the whole argument above, thought Tenebrae was all about not claiming a crime had happened? So what I was asking for was if someone could clear up if it was Bixler-Zavala's wife or Masterson's wife that the claim is about. Just needs a little rewording, not naming anyone.Sgerbic (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sgerbic - one of the people alleging she was raped by Danny Masterson is Cedric Bixler-Zavala's wife and she was also formerly Masterson's girlfriend. The citations should support this.[10] Jooojay (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. That information is indeed in the article already, supported by three cites.
Sgerbic is absolutely correct in that I should have said either "alleged victim" or "Bixler-Zavala's wife" or some such term. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Jooojay the sentence as written currently does not make it clear if we are talking about Masterson's wife or Bixler-Zavala's wife, just says "his wife".Sgerbic (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Sgerbic, yes I agree with you it is unclear, please do go ahead and edit it. Jooojay (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind looks like Tenebrae already edited it. Jooojay (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Allegations of...?

I know Wikipedia has rules for BLP and such, and I appreciate them, but have we gone so far that we allow sentences like this:

In March 2017, four women made allegations against Masterson prompting a Los Angeles Police Department investigation.

Okay... allegations of what? That he eats puppies? The next sentence:

Masterson, through his agent, has denied the allegations....

Again, allegations of what? Murder? Arson? Embezzlement? Being an outer-space alien? Allegations that he wears a toupee? I think we should say what the allegations are, or we should not have them on here! I don't understand how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons can be so construed that we mention and cite ALLEGATIONS but then don't say what those ALLEGATIONS ARE. I get Wikipedia readers can click the citation links or google it, but the article reads weird. "Made allegations" just reads so silly. We don't have to get graphic with the descriptions, but we could say "allegations of sexual improprieties" or "allegations of rape" or "allegations of sexual crimes."

Or am I just dense? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Danny Masterson is a public figure, and per WP:BLP the term allegation can be used with a detail of what the allegation is (ie. the alleged crime). I agree it is not helpful to remove this detail. Jooojay (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I've requested page protection (possibly not for the first time) because IP editors persist in removing the nature of the allegations without explaining their actions. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doniago: appears it is happening again, bouncing IPs - removing only the allegation portion. Jooojay (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Request page protection? DonIago (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

He is a rapist 2607:FEA8:1DE0:1881:349C:552E:1823:F421 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

I believe I've adequately addressed:

Granted, he's currently on track to continue this lawsuit in November. Don't think there's anything left to include without veering into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. @Orangemike: I'm guessing you were referring that his case details needed to be updated. Thoughts on removing tag for now until November? I'm following the case and can make sure this section remains updated. But would prefer other editors to jump in for neutrality sake. -- Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: in which year (or in which approximate year) Masterson first began practicing Scientology. Or did he grow up the child of Scientologists? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure the exact timeline, but his mother and stepfather married in 1984 and were both Scientologists at the time, so while I can't swear that he was *born* into Scientology, he was raised in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.112.170 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

OR?

@Cambial Yellowing: Could you explain how I'm misinterpreting this text, "after jurors, who were leaning strongly toward acquitting him, [...] Two jurors voted for conviction on the first count, four voted for conviction on the second count and five voted to convict on the third count," in the AP News source? Because I was only stating a fact that jurors (at least the majority) did initially vote to acquit Masterson, but ended up deadlocked. Would you paraphrase it in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The text does not explicitly state what you added. The principle of jury secrecy / equity means we do not know how they structured their vote (ie if it was binary etc). No reliable source has said a majority voted to acquit, and that’s not what the statement you quote says. You need to strictly stick to what the source says ie two, five voted to convict etc. Don’t add original research about other votes, and don’t editorialise. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sentencing

Last line of criminal case states up to 30 years. This is inaccurate. It is 15 years to life for each count (30 years to life). Or, at LEAST 30 years. 2603:800C:2000:8C0:1DD4:A28A:EEA8:5C87 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

That was my bad, fixed it. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Under Sexual assaults and criminal trial, please add that he was taken into custody after the verdict was read. https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/danny-mastersons-second-rape-trial-1235616690/amp/ 2600:100C:A202:5967:432:4F4D:33CC:C303 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Grorp (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Year of birth?

Danny Masterson is in the 1974 births category but on his page it was 1976, anyone know what it really is and change it? just pointing it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.15.105 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

according to the booking info in la county jail its 3/13/1976 104.174.109.160 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Current location

According to the prisoner tracking website Vinelink.com, Daniel P. Masterson is being held in the Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles. There is no way to link directly to that info as far as a reference on WP. If anyone can find a reliable source for it, it can be included in the article. Other notable inmates have their location included in the article. But be careful, just saying that Vinelink says he is there would be an original research violation. Also, please note that there is another "Daniel Masterson" in custody in California at another facility. Be very careful if adding any info about which jail he is in. (Current info as of June 2, 2023) Juneau Mike (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Juneau Mike, I found a TMZ article which gives the jail, and the detail that he's being held in "administrative segregation" (protective custody) and added all that in this diff. Xan747 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sentencing

Danny Masterson was sentenced to life in prison with eligibility for parole after 30 years, NOT 30 years to life. Source: YouTube Growing Up in Scientology Aaron Smith-Levin 47.54.142.36 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. AP News writes his sentence is 30 years to life, with eligibility for parole after 25 and a half years. NPR says the same thing. (https://apnews.com/article/danny-masterson-sentencing-rape-trial-fd7a10eda44d0e3ddde582d4c7053eb6, https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1198160934/actor-danny-masterson-sentenced-to-30-years-to-life-in-prison-for-rape).Jaguarnik (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done. After this thread's OP comment was posted, I clarified it on the main page using a reference from the California Department of Corrections website.[1] AP News doesn't explain how they came up with 25.5 years and it doesn't make any sense. Anyway, at least I attempted to explain what "30 years to life" generally means. Maybe needs tweaking, but I would consider this thread (an edit request) resolved. Grorp (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Clarifying. I found a Deadline article which gives me a hint where AP News got the 25.5 years from. 85% of 30 years is 25.5. Deadline mentions: "eligibility for parole 85% of the way through his sentence". However, that might be true if the sentence was "30 years", but it isn't. It's life with possibility of parole at 30 years. Completely different. I think some of the news agencies got sloppy. Grorp (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Lifer Parole Process". California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Retrieved September 8, 2023.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

Danny Masterson is a convicted rapist 2001:569:F800:1A00:21D9:5ACD:7EB1:2E41 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an existing discussion #"Convicted rapist" in first sentence? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

The very first line. It’s time to add/change it to “American convicted felon and actor.” He’s been convicted. It’s official. No reason this change hasn’t been made already. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is already under discussion. Meters (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

First line rewrite suggestion Daniel Peter Masterson (born March 13, 1976)[2] is a convicted rapist and American former actor. 2600:6C4A:7A7F:F2C0:5130:50EC:DF5D:B1DE (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is already under discussion. Meters (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Actor and convicted rapist

I think the opposition to mention that he is a "convicted rapist" in the first sentence is absurd. The sources that describe him as an "actor" only are by and large dated before the conviction, so they are not really decisive on this question. As a matter of decency, the crime simply must be mentioned in the first sentence, and there is no lack of sources for the fact. (Whether he is described as an "actor" or a "former actor" is less important to me; on the balance, I'd go with "actor" till sufficient recent sources clearly and explicitly state that his career is over.) Nø (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an open RfC you may wish to add this comment. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Xan747; how do I do that? (I could edit the source for this entire talk page, but clearly, there should be an other way - I just don't see it.) Nø (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Nø, editing page source is one way. The other is to comment at the RfC as normal, then blank this section (with an edit summary explaining why). Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree, Ian Watkins also has his title listed as a convicted sex offender PontiacAurora (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

American former actor

Would it be appropriate to change to American former actor since he’s not acting anymore because he currently serving jail time for sex crimes? FireDragonValo (talk) 01:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about that. See § “Former Actor”. Grorp (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Stowing removed citations

Though these citations recently removed from the lead paragraph may have seemed excessive, I'm stowing them here just in case. I cut from this list the one which was actually used elsewhere in the article.[1][2][3][4][5] Grorp (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Winton, Richard (June 17, 2020). "Actor Danny Masterson charged in three rape cases". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 6, 2020. Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  2. ^ Von Quednow, Cindy; Montoya, Kacey (June 17, 2020). "'That '70s Show' actor Danny Masterson charged with forcibly raping 3 women at his Hollywood Hills home". KTLA. Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved June 17, 2020.
  3. ^ Levenson, Michael (December 1, 2022). "Judge Declares Mistrial in Danny Masterson Rape Case". The New York Times. Archived from the original on June 8, 2023. Retrieved June 10, 2023.
  4. ^ "Danny Masterson found guilty of two counts of rape in Los Angeles retrial". ABC7 Los Angeles. May 31, 2023. Archived from the original on June 1, 2023. Retrieved 2023-05-31.
  5. ^ "What led to Danny Masterson's rape retrial and what happens next". The Associated Press. May 31, 2023. Archived from the original on June 5, 2023. Retrieved June 14, 2023.

Scientology involvement in editing.

I wonder how many editors on here who oppose listing him as a convicted felon are scientologists? It's obvious that you are all are trying to cover for him. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and strike your comment. DonIago (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Those guidelines all either use the term "routinely" or require the target be a specific individual. The guidelines also are for articles, I'm unaware of them applying to discourse on a Talk page.
I'm not sure I agree with their implication regarding Scientologists conspiring to perhaps obfuscate a bit, but it's also true that many of articles on convicts, whether former celebrities or not, refer to them as such. It is also not unreasonable to wonder, editor-to-editor, whether an organization known to use coordinated action in meat space might do likewise in a public forum such as Wikipedia.
At the end of the day though there's not much point, since all the editing in the world can't really downplay his crimes and conviction. I don't think there need be concern of coordinated editing of his article simply because it will have no upside and plenty of risk of exposure. Plus, one thing Scientology doesn't appear to do is act hastily or foolishly; Wikipedia has logs and any coordinated action would serve to help draw a clear line in the upcoming civil suits. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course our guidelines on how editors should treat each other apply to talk pages. That's actually where most of them come up most often. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

“Former Actor”

Hello. I added “former actor” earlier to the first sentence, but it got reverted by User:Doniago because he hasn’t formally announced a retirement from acting. I don’t find that necessary. He’s going to be imprisoned for a long time (if not the rest of his life), so how is he going to have another acting role realistically? Isn’t this WP:COMMONSENSE that he will never have a role and that his career is effectively over? That makes him by default a former actor and it’s no longer in his control at this point. This is not OR, it’s common sense given his sentencing. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As it's been indicated that Masterson's lawyers intend to appeal the case, at this time there's no proof that he will be imprisoned for long enough that he couldn't return to acting in the future. We can always add "former" if/when there are no longer any questions surrounding how long he will be in prison. DonIago (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I've changed my mind on this issue. Masterson lost his last known role on The Ranch in 2018 because of the allegations, was subsequently dropped from his talent agency, and hasn't acted in anything since. That's 5 years ago. At this stage, maybe his career is over. Even if a petition to appeal was decided in his favor, it would take years for an appeal to take place. Grorp (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited to clarify 'what' would take years.) Grorp (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
WP:NODEADLINE and WP:RECENTISM would seem applicable here; there's no reason why we have to rush to declare him a "former" actor. Robert Downey Jr. was imprisoned on more than one occasion, but I think we could all agree that his career ultimately recovered. Yes, very different circumstances here, but my point is just that I don't think we should rush to declare Masterson's career over before he's even had one appeal and AFAIK no sources have declared his career over. DonIago (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Difference is Downey Jr. wasn't doing life in prison for rape. This is completely different. Plus any appeal of his is likely to be denied. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, this feels like it in actuality is “former” and the burden of proof lies on proving that his career isn’t over after all. Due to the 5 years since his last role and the subsequent lengthy prison sentence, it feels right now like it’s “former” until proven otherwise, which would be by a successful appeal, followed by finding Hollywood representation that would take him in, and finally landing a role. Its former unless all those conditions are somehow met, which as it currently stands is doubtful. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
A plumber in prison is still a plumber - an imprisoned politician is still a politician - and an actor or musician who hasn't worked for 5 years or more years is often still described as an actor/musician. Being described by your profession (and main claim to notability), doesn't always mean you have made money from it recently. When most sources are using 'former' will be soon enough for us to do so IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Pincrete.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
While he is in all likelihood a “former actor”, I definitely agree with Pincrete that under typical WP style, we usually don’t add the word former to the lede. The career is more listed as a “claim to fame” then a descriptor of current activities. Cpotisch (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Our sources aren't calling him a "former actor", so that's really the end of it. We can stop right there. I found a small number of news articles that call him that, out of many thousands that have been published. None of them were top-tier sources. The rest call him an actor. a I even found a source from June (Yahoo News republishing Huffpost), after his conviction, that calls Masterson's wife a former actor, but calls Masterson an actor (not former). All of this is us wanting to classify him based on our knowledge and opinions, and that's fine, but it's not how this is supposed to work. He's established as an actor, so he's an actor. That will change when our sources change what they call him, or else it never will. Vadder (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with others, it is too soon to say former actor, we follow the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. He's notable for his profession as an actor. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide what to call him. Meters (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree, too soon, and RSes aren't using the word "former". The wiki guidelines in play are mentioned in my earlier edit on the RfC (other topic; same reasoning). Grorp (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Acting usually does not come with a clear end date. Senorangel (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
It does when you're in prison for 30 years. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
It says his lawyer plans to appeal. Senorangel (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
There are theater programs in prisons. This is just one of many articles readily a available online: The Power of a Theater Performance in Prison. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Too early to say "former". He could be a actor from jail. TarnishedPathtalk 12:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Convicted rapist" in first sentence?

For any celebrity convicted of a crime, Wikipedia is always quick to be edited so this is the first sentence in the person's bio. Seems kind of vindictive and against overall neutrality, no? The crime is also usually not the reason the person is famous, so I've always found it amateur for an encyclopedia to draw attention to this in the fist sentence. 216.205.235.186 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See the page for R. Kelly page for example. It should absolutely be mentioned. conman33 (. . .talk) 23:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, that page just got updated to remove that mention from the lead sentence. I have doubts that it's due weight to mention it in the first sentence as well, though I have no issues with it being brought up in the lead. DonIago (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
That was me. Xan747 (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
User:Conman33, there is a large difference between mentioning something, and presenting it as defining characteristic of someone. No-one is suggesting that the rape conviction not be mentioned. The issue is whether it should be brought up in the first line. Masterson was notable enough for an article many years before the rape issue was raised. I agree that it is not appropriate to mention in the first sentence. The conviction is prominently discussed in the article, and in user:Xan747's version of the lead, so we're not hiding it or downplaying it. Meters (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know the clean way to link a diff, but I did some cleanup on the lead section, and moved the felony conviction details to the final sentence of the first paragraph. Let's see how long the revert takes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Masterson&diff=prev&oldid=1157953715 Xan747 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Xan747: The easiest way is to put square brackets around the diff's URL, like this [http://website.com/something.html] and it will translate into a citation-like number, like this: [1] . Grorp (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thx Xan747 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
If R. Kelly's page can mention it then so can Danny's. Otherwise it sounds like a racist double standard to me.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
What matters is the consensus on this page, not what has been done on one particular other page. Meters (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I think @Jaydoggmarco has a point here but I agree with @Meters: the place to argue for changing the R. Kelly article is on the R. Kelly talk page. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Harvey Weinstein's page says "convicted sex offender." Weinstein was convicted of rape. Can we agree on using that phrase? Aresef (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No. There is a large difference between Harvey Weinstein and this bio. Weinstein is very much noted because of the allegations and his conviction. That contributed significantly to the MeToo movement and we even have the Weinstein effect. Masterson not so much. Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This same discussion has been going on over at Roman Polanski, with the examples of Weinstein and Epstein given in argument for including "convicted rapist" in the lede sentence. I agree that Masterson's case certainly doesn't rise to the level of those latter two. Polanski is arguably more notorious for his crime than Masterson, but IMO still not enough to warrant lede sentence labeling as a convicted sex offender. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Defending the title of a convicted rapist. What a strange hill to want to die on. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The defense is of Wikipedia standards. Grorp (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

When you seek to add labels such as "actor" or "rapist", wiki guidelines suggest you use words which describe what the person is known for. Masterson has been known as an "actor" for decades, yet only recently by certain celeb-watchers and scientology-watchers as a "rapist". Call him "actor", but using "rapist" doesn't fit with Wikipedia guidelines. See also WP:UNDUE. The lead paragraph is half about the rape conviction anyway, so using the word "rapist" is unnecessary and too POV-pushing. Grorp (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What "POV" is the word "rapist" pushing? glman (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
"Rapist" doesn't mean "serial rapist". And if we're talking that the first line should mention what he's known for, well, lately he's known for being charged and now convicted for rape.Gonzalo84 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Glman: Excuse me for not also linking to WP:POVPUSH for your edification. I fixed it for future readers. Grorp (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, again though, I fail to see the connection. What POV is the inclusion of "rapist" or "sex offender" pushing? glman (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That entire thought process essentially prevents how people change over time.
Id easily argue it’s much more prominent that he’s a convicted fellon than an actor now. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that it seems likely his case will be appealed, why the rush? There is WP:NODEADLINE; we can always update the text if/when further appeals are less likely. DonIago (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentencing for this mans crimes have made international news, he is NOW known for the crimes he's committed, I don't see why his bio should be treated any differently than other celebrities guilty of similar crimes. We can't have one rule for some and another rule for others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timaisey (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The efforts to minimize and downplay his crimes on here disgusts me. It makes me wonder if there are editors on here who are $cientologists or are afraid of Scientology. He deserves to be listed on here as an convicted rapist and former actor. The lack of respect for women and victims of violent sexual crimes is appalling and makes me ashamed to be on this site. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
There's no attempt to "minimize and downplay his crimes". They are prominently featured in the article, and in the lead. No-one is suggesting that they should be removed. We are simply trying to reach a consensus as to whether he should be described as a "rapist" in the first sentence of the lead. You know this because you have commented in the RFC. Meters (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Genuinely curious. Is English your first language? The way you write really seems to suggest it isn’t. You seem to be completely unaware of civility and manners in just about every comment you write. It would also explain why you seem to have a hard time understanding that Danny Masterson is known as rapist above all else, especially this past year. He’s been in the media headlines for almost a full year now due to his actions. Trying to prevent it from the first line is absurd.
While we’re at it, we should be changing it to “former actor.” Because he definitely isn’t getting any gigs in prison. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Implying that someone lacks civility or manners because English may not be their native tongue is the very definition of incivility. You should strike that comment and apologize. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hard agree. This has gotten a lot of publicity and in a matter of weeks he will be more famous for the rapes than acting. At the very least we should change "actor" to "former actor". Gay.cat.dad (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is worse: rape or not talking about rape? To downplay his status as a convicted rapist, in light of the fact that he will never be out of jail to act on tv again, would be to deny reality. He was an actor. He is not a professional actor anymore because he will be in jail for the next 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:A48F:300:114:B93F:52AE:C40F (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence should say he’s a convicted rapist. Otherwise, delete this website if you can’t do it right 2601:5CC:C580:28E0:6DCA:13EB:76D1:2259 (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes Gay.cat.dad (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is there exists years-long precedent on dozensof several Wikipedia articles mentioning something as significant as conviction for sexual offense or rape in the lead sentence. Whether it's Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jace Alexander, Austin Jones, Chris Ortloff, Patrick Naughton, Chris Denning, S. Curtis Johnson, Sterling Van Wagenen, Roy Estrada, South Park Mexican, Aaron von Ehlinger, Kellen Winslow II, Mel Hall, Chad Curtis, Milton Orkopoulos, Scott Freeman, Cameron Thor, Brian Phelps, Byrd Dickens, Robert Krampf, Gene Gregorits, Stan Romanek, Felipe Vázquez, Jan Joosten, Jerry Harris, John Zeretzke, Jon Herb, Peter Wilby, Gabriele Paolini, Dana Stubblefield, Tripp Eisen, André Boisclair, Patrick Rock, Benjamin Levin, Mike Folmer, Karl Sabbagh, Imran Ahmad Khan, James Wallace, Jean Bégin, Stephen Bear, Harry Cook, C. T. R. Hayward, Rick Crawford, Harold LeBel, Charlie Elphicke, Graham James, Norman Freeman, Alex Hepburn, Nazir Ahmed, Dewan Chand, Aaron Summers, and George Nader.

This is why Meters' arguments in opposition of mentioning Masterson's conviction for rape in the lead sentence fall apart. In one instance, Meters argues that "Masterson was notable enough for an article many years before the rape issue was raised." However, Harvey Weinstein was even more notable, as he led a decorated career in film production. Bill Cosby was commonly called "America's Dad". And there are dozens of other people who aren't nearly as famous as Weinstein yet still have articles that literally start with the fact they were convicted for sex offenses or rape. So, mere notability shouldn't deter editors from mentioning a conviction in something as awful as rape.

Meters also argues that "Weinstein is very much noted because of the allegations and his conviction. That contributed significantly to the MeToo movement and we even have the Weinstein effect. Masterson not so much." Yet, Masterson was one of the first figures to be prosecuted because of this effect. He was fired from Netflix after the accusations. And he is part of the Church of Scientology, infamous for claims of sexual and psychological abuse.

Meters even opposes mentioning anything about something as important as convictions in sexual crimes in the lead paragraph. To defend this, Meters claims the following:

"We have lengthy articles about other celebrities' legal issues without listing the legal issues as defining characteristics of the individuals, even in cases where the celebs are now probably better known for their legal issues than for anything else. Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, Bill Cosby sexual assault cases and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case are three examples."

However, this is inaccurate on multiple levels. First, Meters attempts to distinguish between the celebrities' articles and articles about their legal cases. However, taking a look at Bill Cosby's article, one can see that the lead sentence ends with that he's a vacated rapist. Roman Polanski's article mentions in the second paragraph that he plead guilty for "unlawful sex with a minor". And for O.J. Simpson's article, the third paragraph mentions his murder trial, despite a lack of criminal conviction.

Elsewhere, Meters writes: "just say that he was convicted and avoid the labels". This is a slippery slope. Why do we have to omit what the celebrity was convicted for? If this is the standard we're setting for Wikipedia, then we should only mention Martha Stewarts was convicted without saying she was convicted for insider trading. Let's leave the bribery explanation out of why Ehud Olmert was convicted in 2014. This isn't right, is it?

I propose getting rid of all mentions of convictions from the introduction. The experience of which celebrity's article needs to have these convictions mentioned is so subjective, that I see it difficult if not impossible to reach a consensus on a set of qualifying criteria. Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, yet he remains a popular figure, he's denied the accusations vigorously, and the rape trial occupies an insignificant portion of his Wikipedia article.

tl;dr I oppose mention of all convictions from the intro, and I support retroactive deletions of such convictions from the other 50 articles that do mention it in the lead line, since there's little agreement on why we should do it for some but not others. FlantasyFlan (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Regardless of how one feels about this case, Masterson's attorneys have stated that they are appealing his conviction. I'm firmly of the belief that nobody's lead should mention their criminal status until they have exhausted any and all avenues for legal redress. Furthermore, I think there's a strong argument to be made that nobody's lead should mention their criminal status unless they came to prominence for criminal activity. There's no reason for a lead to mention, say, Harvey Weinstein's criminal history while omitting Tim Allen's or Snoop Dogg's. If you want to argue that only individuals who are currently incarcerated should have their criminal histories listed, then fine. But if that's the case, then Masterson's lead shouldn't mention his criminal history until his sentence actually begins. TheClubSilencio (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think both arguments you make are somewhat absurd. For one, legal appeals can last years, the conviction will stand until it doesn't, predicating the status of the article on what might happen in the future is the sort of soothsaying that's discouraged here. As for the second point, this person clearly did come to prominence for criminal activity, they weren't exactly in the spotlight the last few years for anything else. XeCyranium (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Omission of mention of the parties in the trial being Scientologists at the time of the crime

The article omits one of the key issues brought up during the criminal trial which was that Danny Masterson and his victims were (at the time of each crime) both members of the Church of Scientology which—as a high control group more interested in its own public PR—ensured through pressure and punishment that each woman didn't report the crime to the police. It was a key aspect of the case: Why did each victim take so long to come forward? Why is Scientology involved in a civil suit? Why would Scientology harass the victims?

Those who followed the case already know these points, but after the most recent removal and edit summary "remove reference to rape victims' former religion, because it's weird to present it in the lede at all, let alone without any preceding reference to Masterson's religion" I looked back through the article and it does not include this important aspect in the article. Just search for the character string "scientol" and you'll see.

The defense's surprise framing of 'the delay in reporting to law enforcement' as 'evidence of invention by the victims', was one of the reasons the first trial ended in a hung jury, and so became a central part of the prosecution's case in the second trial and the bringing in of an expert witness to explain Scientology policy and procedures in such cases. This is well covered in RSes. Maybe we should include some of this aspect in this article. Grorp (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware of the surprise framing as evidence of invention. It absolutely warrants coverage in the article; possibly with a brief reference in lead when it eventually gets expanded. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The phrasing of the lede doesn't even make clear when the women left Scientology - 20 years ago? Yesterday? - in relation to when they were victimized. I don't want to assume bad faith by this article's editors, but there are living rape victims involved here, kindly remember that. Townlake (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and those individuals raised in two separate trials how the Scientology organisation directly helped to facilitate their abuse and tried to prevent the rapist Danny Masterson from facing justice. Do well to remember that. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I made some changes [11] to try to clarify and expand on the Scientology role in the civil and criminal cases (without going too deep into the morass). I'm sure there could be improvements, and likely I've left some stuff out, but at least I clarified the part about membership in the Church of Scientology (accusers and accused), and when they were members in the chronology of events. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Why identify the rape victims by their religion in the lede?

From the lede:

"Masterson was convicted of raping two women, both former members of the Church of Scientology."

Can someone explain to me why the bolded bit is relevant enough to be in the lede? Isn't identifying the victims as women and rape victims sufficient to get the point across? Let's not give undue weight to their former membership in a club that they've apparently disavowed. They're women, not Scientologists. I tried to remove this a couple weeks ago and was reverted because "it's an important detail." Is it? (Disclaimer, I have no affiliation with Scientology.) Townlake (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it’s an important detail that was a key aspect of the trial, and the subject of a closely related trial involving the same women. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I removed it from the lede. [12] I clarified the scientology membership issue in the body, and re-reading the lede again... yeah it is confusing to mention it there. If someone feels it highly important to mention Scientology in the lede, perhaps figure a different way of introducing it. But the whole "former member" sort of language is just too vague to make sense. A few weeks ago I also thought it should be in the lede, but perhaps that's because it wasn't really explained in the body (then). ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 10:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed that its relevance in the case should be better explained. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Fully half the lede is now about Scientology, not the subject of this article. Townlake (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the latest new content in the lede is over-the-top, and doesn't need to be in the lede. The issue of Scientology was important to the trial, but it wasn't necessarily the most important tidbit about Masterson the man. I don't think this is a key issue that needs to be included in the lede. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 03:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The lead is to reflect the body. The coverage is not about Scientology generally, as you imply, but about its role in facilitating the rapist that is the subject of the article and his avoidance of justice for several years. Description of the rape case and the associated civil trial takes up considerably more than half the article body, and Scientology evidently played a significant role in both. Given that fact, if anything the lead discussing the rapes and the Scientology organisation’s facilitating role for only half of its content underplays that material in the article. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
The reversion and edit summary to which you refer was by @Jaydoggmarco: who may want to comment on that earlier restoration of appropriate lead coverage. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I made an edit which hopefully is closer to summarizing the article content and less objectionable about "whose religion is what" as it places it in context... but succinctly. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Great, your summary is much better than mine. Cambial — foliar❧ 06:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead: Scientology and delay

The first paragraph now states in a way that makes it seem definitive that members (leaders?) in Scientology caused a 20 year delay before Danny's victims came forward. However the articles cited don't say this aspect was proven during the court cases, they mention allegations from some of the victims who also were members of Scientology. In the same article the Church of Scientology representatives dispute this.

It seems like this should at least have its wording changed to 'allegedly', and I'm starting to wonder if it should be in a section below instead of the lede. From what I saw most news articles focused on Danny's notoriety, and then later there was a lot of coverage of the backlash to Mila Kunis & other celebrities sending in their support to Danny during sentencing (e.g. in this article). cc @Grorp ScottDNelson (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

The word "allegedly" is not used in the sources, so inventing its use would be original research, which we don't do on this website. The manual of style indicates such phrasing should be avoided anyway, except in such instances of people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial, which is obviously not the case here.
Numerous reliable sources report on the judge's ruling on a point of fact in the case that the Scientology organisation has an explicit policy that "not only discourages, but prohibits" those stupid enough to get involved with the scam from reporting on, for example, other Scientologists raping them. So the narrative you suggest of it merely being an "alleged" aspect to the case is a fictional one.Cambial — foliar❧ 22:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@ScottDNelson: I have been following the coverage of this case since the first trial last year. I will change the word "caused" to "resulted in", and add one more citation [13] which covers the causation in more depth, including such coverage as "the policy explained why several of the women did not report Masterson’s alleged crimes to the police for more than a decade, the judge found," and "the activities of Scientology have been so much a part of the evidence that’s being put forth as to why these women were not immediately going to law enforcement," and "knowing that contacting law enforcement can lead to excommunication and being cut off from family and friends who remain in the church, members often remain silent". As to CoS disputing, Scientology has a long history of denying all allegations. Per WP:MANDY we don't put such denials in Wikipedia, even though the media typically tries to cover both sides of a story. As to your suggestion about putting it in the body not the lede, that lede final sentence was my attempt at summarizing the body per talk discussion above.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing thanks for linking the "Expressions of doubt" section, just read through it. Don't agree the word 'allegedly' on its own counts as 'original research' - just because a specific word doesn't occur in a source doesn't make it research. In the source I was discussing, the person literally _alleges_ scientology pressured her not to speak up.
However I think the La Times source @Grorp just added is much better for this case, makes it more explicit that the judge "Olmedo concluded" based on evidence, that scientology '“not only discourages, but prohibits” its members from reporting one another to law enforcement"'. That to me is a very clear, solid source for the claim - along with the rest of the article including what Gorp summarized above.
One thing I just noticed in the lede: "resulted in a 20-year delay" i couldn't find the specific term '20 years' in the sources cited - can you explain how you made that calculation? It's clear from the articles the judge concludes it delayed things (seems like years), but can't find where it's stated that it was 20. ScottDNelson (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@ScottDNelson: 2023 minus 2003 equals 20. See WP:CALC.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I see, makes sense to me then. ScottDNelson (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@ScottDNelson: Per your latest edit... making a separate paragraph has an unexpected result on mobile devices: the first paragraph is shown, then the infobox, then the second paragraph and any subsequent ones. By separating the conviction from the explanatory sentence, you separate the two related concepts by so much 'other content' that the final lede sentence is nonsequitur. When a lede is relatively short, I prefer putting it all into one paragraph for the benefit of mobile readers. Try it out.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm I had seen it in desktop and looked fine, let me see about mobile (testing with an iphone 10) ScottDNelson (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok i see what you mean. Yeah the article format as it is right now, with a graf break after "In May 2023", looks the best ScottDNelson (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
There is already a much longer discussion on where mention of the rapes and the conviction should appear. There is a evidently a consensus it ought to appear in the first paragraph of the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Prison location

It's getting old that people keep adding content about some old dude (64yo) in another prison (since 1992) with the same name (Daniel Masterson). I just checked, again, and this Masterson is still listed in Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles.

This is the link to check for inmates at Men's Central: https://app5.lasd.org/iic

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Stone reported this week that Masterson "is serving his sentence at a state prison in Chino, California." That would almost certainly be the Reception Center at the California Institution for Men. Could the LA County jail site be wrong? MiamiManny (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
@MiamiManny: No. Like I said in my edit summary when I reverted an edit, here, there is another Daniel Masterson in the California prison system, but that one is 64 years old, was admitted in 1992, and is serving "life without parole". That is not THIS Danny M. That prison is in Chino. Not surprised that Rolling Stone has gotten sloppy and fallen for that one, too. I would trust the LA County jail website before I'd trust Rolling Stone, especially when you can see the information yourself; here is the inmate locator link.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Confirmed. Danny Masterson has been relocated to North Kern State Prison. Release shown from LA County. Admission to North Kern shown on state website. Press release from Tony Ortega with photo (mugshot) and a little more information. TMZ article.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The new entry I just checked on inmate locator shows he has been moved to Corcoran. https://apps.cdcr.ca.gov/ciris/details?cdcrNumber=BW7253
Can someone with privledges confirm and update? JP Hogan (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jphogannet: Looks like someone did it a few hours ago. I double-checked it and it looks legit.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I also looked into this and I concur; it appears he has been moved to Corcoran. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danny_Masterson/Archive_1&oldid=1221708950"