Talk:Allison Mack/Archives/2018

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2018
Allison Mack was recently arrested for running a sex trafficking cult. She had slaves branded with Clare Bronfman, an heir to the Seagram’s liquor fortune, according to authorities. She can do 15 years to life. Cgrayton (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Information re: NXIVM and her involvement already listed at Allison_Mack. If you want to change it, please re-open the edit request detailing the changes in the form of "change X to Y". Thanks, Nici  Vampire  Heart  06:24, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Marriage
Per WP:BLP, I have removed information alleging that Mack is married to Nicki Clyne from both women's pages. This extraordinary claim can be traced to a single anonymous source cited in an Artvoice article. The Toronto Sun has also picked up the story, but the article still relies upon the anonymous source in the Artvoice article. Until there is better sourcing for this claim, I think it should be removed. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

FOX News has picked it up: 63.231.135.154 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Someone is defending her, biased shit article.
It says "on charges of sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy and forced labor conspiracy" Actually it was charges of CHILD sex trafficing.

Someone fix this? I bet her lawyer is editing her wikipedia page lmao. pathethic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.172.64 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The citations don't say child. If you can find a trustworthy source that more specifically says that you can add it yourself.ShadessKB (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking to merged content?
A simple question for the more experienced editors among us: I see that there's no WP link for "Keith Raniere." I then checked out  and read at the Talk page that there was previously a WP page for Raniere, but content was merged into NXIVM per  several weeks ago.

Put another way, when I first visited the Allison Mack page, I had expected to find an individual article for Raniere. I understand the purpose of merging content. (and I'm not arguing that it be unmerged) I'm just not familiar with Wikipedia conventions about overlinking.

My question is whether it's appropriate for the first mention of Raniere (within the Allison Mack page) to link to the NXIVM page. Cheers, Gprobins (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox/alleged Clyne marriage
I don’t think it can be in the article at all; it’s poorly-sourced, contentious material, the immediate removal of which is mandated by WP:BLPRS. And to the extent WP:WELLKNOWN applies, it goes further: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” Furthermore, even setting sourcing aside, WP:BLPNAME says that “names of … family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP ’’may’’ be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.” I doubt that that bar is passed.

But assume for sake of argument that it’s uncontentious, adequately-sourced, and it merits inclusion in the ‘’article’’: Even then, it still doesn’t belong in the infobox, because WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is explicitly exclusionist: “The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance … [therefore] exclude any unnecessary content.” And whatever else they are, the allegations connecting Mack to Clyne are not key facts about Mack. I'm willing to leave the allegations in the article if they're properly-contextualized and have a better sources tag, but it doesn't belong in the infobox. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The page had no note on it, so I added two citations that seem reliable and relegated the two existing sources to secondary ones. Then, I saw the notes on the Nicki Clyne page because her page is protected (with no edit page option at all). And, now, I see today's date on above note. Sorry to step in it. Is there a template that says 'read Talk' before editing? (I feel sure that I've encountered a heads-up on that before.) AHampton (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't embrace either of those as a reliable source—not in a BLP context. "IntoMore" seems to be some kind of aggregator startup with an incomprehensible "about" page that gives neither details nor confidence: . (It does, however, screenshot the transcript, demonstrating a fundamental problem with the whole echo-chamber, the unquestioned jump from the "Nicole Klein" named there to Nicki Clyne.) And the Post is, if not quite WP:DAILYMAIL, certainly WP:QS, and undoubtedly not the a "high-quality source[]" as WP:BLP requires. Maybe it could be used in other articles, but not a BLP. Again, as a compromise, I can accept putting a contextualized statement in the body of the article using these sources (if properly-tagged), but a contentious, poorly-sourced claim that's incidental to the subject of the article (but feels like at least WP:UNDUE if not WP:COATRACK for something else) doesn't belong in the lede or infobox. I feel like I'm already compromising a lot by not removing it immediately, which is what policy requires if we want to be stringent about it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think her marriage is indeed a key fact, in part because of the greater attention brought to it as part of the scandal surrounding her arrest, and that the New York Post is perfectly reliable for that fact. Nightscream (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the sourcing question for a moment, I don't see any way in which it's a key fact. Even if I agreed that it brought greater attention to the scandal surrounding the arrest, which I seriously doubt, that doesn't make it a key fact. Not on the evidence available today. That may change, because that whole house of cards is coming down, and I accept that it's entirely possible that we'll learn more that will make the relationship (if not the marriage) loom larger. But for now, it seems like trivia, unless I'm missing something. Which maybe I am: You said "in part" it's because of something that I don't think counts for anything. What's the other part? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NXIVM
I know there's a bunch of online references saying that Allison Mack (and also Kristin Kreuk) are involved with NXIVM. However, I believe a statement of this sort is likely to be seen as potentially contentious, and (per WP:BLP) such material can't remain in a biography of a living person for any length of time without a reliable source being cited. I'm going to comment it out of the article; please don't reinstate it without adding a reliable source. Remember, too, that blogs and fan sites are not generally considered "reliable" sources for Wikipedia. Richwales (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

-Her own bio mentions the founder of NXIVM as "mentoring" her http://www.allisonmack.com/biography/ 74.104.160.57 (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added to lede as "alleged involvement". Several major news sources are now reporting as charges have been brought. The number of sources involving these charges and allegations that have been used for innocuous information are significant. Finally, she is arguably far more famous for her NXIVM involvement than for her work as an actress. - Seazzy (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead section (NXIVM)
It makes no sense to mention NXIVM before her acting career in the lead section; it makes it seem like Allison is a cult member who casually took up acting as a side job. She is primarily known as an actress – that's her main claim to fame. She started acting in 1989, while her alleged connection to NXIVM was not made public until 2010. insists on mentioning NXIVM first, yet the user has provided no plausible reasons for his edits.  snap snap  (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, she WAS primarily known as an actress. Since this story broke, people who never heard of her before now know that she's charged with some truly heinous crimes, ostensibly committed at the command of a cut-rate L. Ron Hubbard wannabe.  Most of the people looking up this article from now on are going to be here because of those charges.  Her criminal nut-cult affiliation is now the greatest component of her notoriety. 73.231.167.121 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Most people looking up this article are probably only doing so because they already knew of her from her Smallville work. People who never heard of her, like my parents, aren't going to look it up at all, and probably haven't even heard of her arrest. I read the Net and watch TV constantly, and haven't seen a lot of coverage on the latter. If there was any, non-comics nerds and people who didn't watch that show wouldn't give any coverage on her a second glance. She remains primarily known as an actress. Nightscream (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * O. J. Simpson might be make for a good template here. Even though "he is most well known today for his trial," the source of his celebrity is mentioned first. Calbaer (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * OJ Simpson seems like a good point of reference, but I would argue that she is far better known for her cult involvement. For example, when you google "Allison Mack" the three videos posted are all in relation to her "sex cult" involvement. I only looked her up today as a cult member who has been brought up on serious charges. Her acting seems like a strange footnote. -Seazzy (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * For openers, the organization is allegedly a "sex cult". That Mack was or is allegedly a "leader" of the multi-level marketing organization is a separate matter.


 * Your Google test is very heavily weighted toward recent events. A similar test seems to indicate that Barack Obama is "best know" for campaigning for Democratic candidates in the November 2018 elections, rather than being President of the U.S. for eight years. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Jness
The "legal issues..." section mentions a "Jness" but doesn't explain what that is. And the sentence seems to be worded poorly. I've looked back and can't see where this was added and my time available to look into it is gone. Could someone pick up this baton and run with it? What is Jness? † dismas †|(talk) 18:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had meant to come up with a couple of paragraphs explaining that for the Nxivm article but never circled back to it. I'll try this weekend if someone else doesn't before then. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is a branch of NXIVM and a female sorority whose actual purpose was to recruit slaves for Keith Raniere.--Maese Juan 25 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I came here to ask the same question. Can someone fix this? I don't feel comfortable adding anything when all I know of "Jness" is the unsourced explanation I've read above. 2602:304:AF09:6FE9:F9E0:49F3:148E:DF53 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)