Talk:Allison Mack/Archives/2019

Marriage
There have been repeated removals of information about Mack's marriage to Clyne in the past few days, with a series of revolving explanations, none of which seem to be supported by policy (especially not the most recent removal, with an attempt to add a note excluding any mention of it). These removals also seem to fly in the face of the fact that the material is appropriately sourced and, as it's the spouse of the article subject, entirely relevant. The nature of the marriage, which is tied directly to its discovery, therefore also becomes relevant. Grandpallama (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The "marriage" (it was a sham marriage) is listed in the legal issues section. Therefore, listing it twice in both the legal issues section as well as the personal life section constitutes a duplication.
 * Additionally, since it was a sham marriage, it should not really be listed in the personal life section, since the personal life section is for actual, real relationships of the biography's subject. Banana Republic (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First, don't revert to your preferred version while something is under discussion. The consensus has been that this material is relevant, so you need to gain support for its removal.


 * The material is listed in the legal issues section because prosecutors have alleged that the marriage is a sham. The marriage took place with a fellow member of the NXIVM group, and was uncovered as part of the investigation, so its relevance to the legal issues section is clear.


 * However, there has been no verdict that the marriage is a sham, and we shouldn't be making that determination as factual in Wikipedia's voice. Mack is married, and that marriage should therefore also be listed in the section about her personal life. Please point to a policy that states the personal life section is for actual, real relationships of the biography's subject and that WP editors should be making determinations about which marriages are "real" and which are not. Grandpallama (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Frank Parlato
As the Mack/NXIVM story has gained traction and attention, there have been a multitude of RS reporting on it. I'd suggest that it's time to scrub the Frank Parlato sourcing from the article, since it's clear that Parlato's anti-NXIVM site is far from neutral and isn't subject to any sort of editorial oversight. Wikipedia would be better served by sticking to more reputable sources. I'm providing alternate sourcing now for the one fact that is solely sourced to Parlato. If there are any objections to this, feel free to raise them here. Grandpallama (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not mentioning child sex trafficking again
It is very signifigant and it has been on the news / public interest (see previous talk section) but it was removed? again... Feels like someone is helping her, the fact that there are charges should be mentioned, again because of the signifigance and public interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.172.64 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * If it's been on the news, can you link to reliable sources that have covered that aspect of the charges? I've looked through Google, and only one source, Art Voice, uses the word "child". If she was charged with that, why do none of the other, more prominent news sources mention it? In fact, you can read the indictment right here, and it specifies the three charges:


 * COUNT ONE: (Sex Trafficking - Jane Does 1 and 2)
 * COUNT TWO: (Sex Trafficking Conspiracy)
 * COUNT THREE: (Conspiracy to Commit Forced Labor-Jane Doe 1)


 * No mention of "child". Nightscream (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There are no 'reliable news sources', first of all. They are conjecture. The charges as counted by a Justice and the State vs are the only legal sources. All else is moot. EyesoftheOperation (talk) 08:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even remotely true. Grandpallama (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Add "Child Prostitution" Category?
Hi and all Wikipedia enthusiasts. Thanks for all your contributions :) According to the United States Department of Justice's indictment unsealed at:
 * https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/founder-nxivm-purported-self-help-organization-and-actor-indicted-sex-trafficking-and
 * https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1046381/download
 * https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/press-release/file/1055196/download

The criminal charges above includes, but are not limited to, “18 U.S.C § 1591”. Translated to English this criminal charge means "sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion". Source at https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-prostitution-children

In 1591 context above, the term "child" means "If the victim was under the age of 14 or if force, fraud, or coercion were used, the penalty is not less than 15 years in prison up to life. If the victim was aged 14-17, the penalty shall not be less than 10 years in prison up to life. Anyone who obstructs or attempts to obstruct the enforcement of this statute faces as many as 20 years imprisonment. Defendants who are convicted under this statute are also required to pay restitution to their victims for any losses they caused." Sources:
 * https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-prostitution-children
 * https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591

Still according to the source above, if convicted of all charges, both Mack and Raniere each face a minimum of 15 years and up to life in prison

Related news & information
 * http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43846243
 * http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/24/smallville-actress-allison-macks-bail-set-at-5-million-nxivm-case.html
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/allison-mack-smallville-arrested-nxivm-sex-cult-keith-raniere/
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5649485/Nxivm-founder-Keith-Raniere-accused-sleeping-girls-15-12-Allison-Mack-wants-plea-deal.html
 * http://people.com/crime/allison-mack-arrested-sex-trafficking-cult-nxivm/
 * https://artvoice.com/2018/04/25/allison-mack-and-sex-slaver-raniere-may-have-trafficked-teen-girls-from-chihuahua-mexico/
 * https://artvoice.com/2018/04/20/allison-mack-indicted-sex-trafficking/
 * https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/26/smallville-allison-mack-nxivm-sex-cult

The reported information above is significant. I suggest to add the "Child Prostitution" Category to the Wikipedia article.



Francewhoa (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Doesn't there have to be a conviction before that category can be added? If I accused you of bank robbery and put it in a public forum like Wikipedia, then later there is no proof you did so, could you not sue me for calumny? USN1977 (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Right—wait until there's a conviction. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Under the same rubric, it would seem appropriate to remove the categories "Prostitution" and "Sex trafficking." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggested draft about sex trafficking of children
Hi again and all Wikipedia enthusiasts. Thanks for all your contributions :) About the United States Department of Justice's indictment unsealed and their criminal charge of sex trafficking of children above. I suggest to add the following draft sentences to the article, under "2018 arrests and indictments" section. With sources.



Francewhoa (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Which means 'Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion'." Is not a sentence. It's also inappropriate to include that, since you don't put arguments into articles. You make them here. You found the appropriate sources, for which I commend you. But all you needed to do was add them to the passage, and add the charge as well. I did that, and removed the detour into argumentation. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's really hard to trust anything US police say, given their blatantly POV standpoint on anything BDSM related. Well, it's really hard to trust anything US police say given that they're US police, to be honest. Actually no, let's extend that to all police. Xmoogle (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general venting. Nothing in this section mentions -- much less discusses -- anything sourced to "the police". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)