Talk:Chloe Melas

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Erasing of statement not supported by source
I erased this paragraph:

One woman in particular accused Freeman of "trying to lift up my skirt and asking if I was wearing underwear;" which she later retracted and said did not happen

Because it's not supported by the source provided. It does not appear anywhere in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs)

Neutrality and sourcing
I removed a claim that an investigation found her claims about Morgan Freeman to be false, as the cited source failed to verify that. This section is being discussed at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will be reinstating it per the sources I originally cited: Original Sourced Content. Next time, simply slow down and review all sources: The Today Show "Human Resources Department - investigated her claim and concluded that it was not supported by the facts". It was also in the original source; you simply needed to click the addition links found within the piece itself. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like it to be known that my original edits were 100% cited and any question to my intent toward improving the section toward a better NPOV can be seen here: Summary History: Revision as of 23:17, 13 February 2021. Any edits following this revision by any other editor is not my doing neither am I in agreement. The one and only dispute by above editor: "An investigation concluded that Melas's claims were not supported by the facts" has been provided with sources found within the original revision. The later changed edit: "false" was made by another editor and is not found within my provided sources. The unnecessary and hastily revised edits that are now taking place are not in keeping with my original revisions; and I will contest them once they have subsided. Nothing in my original revision was challenged except the one line that I have now shown was sourced and cited. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to raise issue. You changed this sentence: "Melas pointed out a comment Freeman made ("Boy, do I wish I was there.") in response to a story Caine was telling that was supposedly directed toward her." to this: "She said a comment by Freeman, "Boy, do I wish I was there", in response to a story Caine was telling was directed at her." Not only is this poor writing; it doesn't even make sense. Unless you have a very good WP policy reason for changing what was already there; I will be revising. Maineartists (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I left this at the BLP violation talk page, and will leave it here, as well:
 * Last. Just so we're crystal clear. The source I cited: ref name="THR" (The Hollywood Reporter) stated the following quote: "an independent third party, the Warner Bros. Human Resources Department, investigated her claim and concluded that it was not supported by the facts." It also went on to say: "The second person CNN identified, Tyra Martin, has gone on record twice since CNN published the article to state that CNN misrepresented what she said to CNN and that Mr. Freeman did not harass her." But I felt that was not relevant to the BLP and left it out. And the same source also states: "another independent party investigated the claim when CNN raised it, and found it to be meritless." Which I did not include. As well do these sources: NBC Lose Angeles, John Lynch, (who was also the source I cited) Entertainment Weekly, etc pick any you'd like. But reinstate it as originally quoted. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem of the people protecting Chloe Melas
Fences &amp;  Windows  started a rant against two users, one of them myself at [].

Like it was made clear there, the article on Chloe Melas on what is related to Morgan Freeman has been rigged and its against any NPOV policy, to protect Melas.

Fences write:

Someone who says they are Mexican-Japanese writer Tomoo Terada is editing as User:Tomoo Terada and they added the Spanish-language sources. Terada wrote an opinion piece in 2018 in which he argued the claims were false: the other Spanish-language sources seem to rely on his opinion. I think there is an inappropriate COI, as Terada appears to be continuing an off-wiki dispute against Melas by citing his own article, and these are unusable sources as we cannot use opinion pieces for statements of fact about living people, particularly controversial facts.

If you read it carefully Fences puts the stress more on the "opinion piece" issue than what he thinks it's an "inappropriate" COI (Conflict of Interest). Because what he wants to do it's to dismiss as an "opinion" what it was a journalistic investigation on the corruption by CNN and Chloe Melas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) 07:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In the most recent episode of The problem of the people protecting Chloe Melas we had user Nil Einne that erased ALL even if his own logic would say a different path to follow. Because if in his own words at editing history claimed there was an

"Inappropriate use of primary source on a BLP. We may be able to mention the El Mundo reporting of the primary source with the primary source as a supporting source, but we cannot cite any claims to the primary source itself"

, then El Mundo and La Opinión are valid sources, the problem is using a primary source, he says. Well, why not then erasing the primary source and keep the secondary ones? Or the real intention it was to absolutely disappear any mention of Melas being accused of committing a fraud? Tomoo Terada (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As you yourself said on BLPN, plenty of people involved do not understand Spanish and this includes me. I cannot hope to accurately report what a secondary source said when I cannot read it. Machine translations are simply not reliable enough, especially when it comes to BLPN. I cannot even assess if these two articles are reliable secondary sources, just that they're not so obviously unsuitable like the thing on the FNPI website. I cannot be sure from your edit which parts came from those sources and which parts involve information only on the FNPI website. I can't even be sure whether those two sources are simply reporting what the FNPI website said, or reporting themselves something as factual which originated on the FNPI website. These are two very different situations. Since you obviously understand Spanish, you could potentially help despite your COI by commenting here on what those sources actually say etc, although we'll probably need to get someone else to verify it before we add it to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Here it's time for rest. So, this is my last post for the day. Also, I have the "normal" duties of anyone, pandemics or not, so I could not answer back 24 /7.

I did not say that "plenty of people involved do not understand Spanish". What I did was to ask Zaereth: why do you not ask for support from Spanish Wikipedia?

Whoa, you have doubts "if these two articles are reliable secondary sources"? Do you understand what you are saying? The reliable sources are El Mundo and La Opinión, both having entries at English Wikipedia. Otherwise, you're putting in doubt, from the beginning and as a policy, the reliability of both sources.

It could have been, suppose that, the New York Times itself "simply reporting what the FNPI website said" or "reporting themselves something as factual which originated on the FNPI website." Are you going to "review" each article published by the Times to fact check if it´s "reliable" or not? Are El Mundo and La Opinión not reliable secundary sources for being in Spanish, or for questioning Melas who has been blatantly protected here at English Wikpedia? But you are not arbiters of the truth you said? Tomoo Terada (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I really need to rest but for the record, Nil Einne have threatened me 2 times already to block me, writing to my Talk page "private" warnings, instead of arguing at []. So, for those reading Wikipedia talk pages if I suddenly stop posting it's because of Nil Einne being a bad player, that don't want to lose with anybody.

Because I'm provoking a lot of trouble showing how rigged has been the Chloe Melas entry against Morgan Freeman.The more recent excuse by Nil Einne to erase the material related to the fraud by Melas is that:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Melas&oldid=1015214075 Although I don't understand Spanish so have to rely on a machine translation, this seems to be WP:UNDUE weight since all the article really seems to say is that this was reported in some wanted blog. They don't seem to clear accept the claims as true. Will you stop edit warring and instead propose your changes in the article?]

1 Although I don't understand Spanish so have to rely on a machine translation, this SEEMS to be WP:UNDUE weight since

So the guy don´t understand Spanish but decides based on what it SEEMS

2 all the article really seems to say is that this was reported in some wanted blog.

''It seems bad faith keeps mischaracterizing facts. It´s the blog of a Foundation created by Gabriel García Márquez, not the personal blog of Nil Einne.''

3 They don't seem to clear accept the claims as true.

In fact, they did, and then CNN reacted pressing and threat for the erasing of this viral tweet that it says: "A journalist from CNN fabricated evidence to accuse Morgan Freeman of sexual harassment. Now it has been known the actor is innocent, however, its image will be damaged forever."



4 Will you stop edit warring and instead propose your changes in the article?

So no real objections, but sourcing its negotiable and the responsibility of edit warring it's not put on the one censoring the material that could damage Chloe Melas? Tomoo Terada (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I already explained, I don't understand Spanish. I've never said I did. However when I edited the only person who had reviewed the source who did understand Spanish was someone with a COI, who refuses to actually discuss what they wanted to change before changing it i.e. you. You continued to edit inappropriately by making changes with poor sourcing. I therefore did not, and cannot trust your change was accurately reporting what the source said. I'm not sure WTF a tweet has to do with anything. Tweets even from newspapers are almost definitely not reliable sources. What matters is what the actual article says, not what any tweets, Facebook posts, or even the headline of the actual article says. And one more time, I never threatened to block you. It's impossible for me to block you as I've told you two times already. I have said you're likely going to be blocked if you keep at it, as I have told many editors before you a number who were indeed blocked but never by me. And yes, the responsibility of anyone trying to add something to our articles is to ensure that the content they are adding is properly supported by reliable sources. See WP:BURDEN. This is something you've repeatedly failed to do. This applies even in cases were no living persons are involved, but it especially applies in cases where they are. Finally a foundation's blog is very unlikely suitable to make allegations against a living person. Even the blog of something like the UN or CNN needs to be used with great care if at all. BTW, yes when it comes to the New York Times, it also makes a big difference whether they're reporting something as factual in their own voice or simply reporting what some other source said. While we can often use reliable secondary source reporting of what some other source, it does depend on the specifics and we need to take a lot more care than when the source itself is making the claim. We can and do reject content even if it's in the New York Times. Nil Einne (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, after publicly point out the foul play by Nil Einne I'm still in the game. I was exhausted, but after some hours of sleep can write an answer to Nil many deliberate lies and fallacies.

(Before to continue and for the record. I´m critical of Wikipedia and the clique that rules it. But I will not overgeneralize that all the people at Wikipedia, the Wikimedia guys and the volunteers are all corrupt. I set the record straight with Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales himself, who is really a crook, on that.

And if I have an account here it was only to have a better chance to defend myself in situations like the current one. I don't feel myself part of the community after being kick out of Wikimania15, for my "horrible" intention of interviewing Wales on the then recent Sarah Stierch paid editing scandal, and other ugly issues.

So, please, external people, don´t think all here are like Wales...or Nil Einne)

What Nil writes it's so confusing and manipulative that I will be dividing it in parts to analyze and answer.

ONE "As I already explained, I don't understand Spanish. I've never said I did. However when I edited the only person who had reviewed the source who did understand Spanish was someone with a COI, who refuses to actually discuss what they wanted to change before changing it i.e. you. You continued to edit inappropriately by making changes with poor sourcing. I therefore did not, and cannot trust your change was accurately reporting what the source said."

As anyone can look for it at the [] I proposed this "arbiters of the truth" also members of the "English Wikipedia Chloe Melas fan club" to ask for support from people of Spanish Wikipedia.

To Zaereth.

"But, first of all, do you understand Spanish, comprende? Why are you not asking for the support by members of Spanish Wikipedia so you have any real idea what is all this about? Get it? It´s not me being snarky but your people like Masem being arbiters of the truth without any real idea. This is not about me needing to please you to "get a better response" if this is, seriously, something that claims to be an Encyclopaedia (sort of)."

So, if Nil don´t trust in me (it´s mutual) why the guy still don´t call people that knows Spanish and are also members of Wikipedia? I think because of the fact, specially if they are coming from the Spain Chapter would have issues with English Wikipedia considering El Mundo an unreliable or "inferior" ("poor sourcing") source for being in Spanish.

And the COI excuse is pure bs, but about that later.

TWO "I'm not sure WTF a tweet has to do with anything. Tweets even from newspapers are almost definitely not reliable sources. What matters is what the actual article says, not what any tweets, Facebook posts, or even the headline of the actual article says."

WTF, now I'm sure Nils guy it's absolutely corrupt and only tries to gaslight me and, worst, anyone that reads this also. He also condones censorship, not only at Wikipedia but outside too.

Wikipedia is full of tweets used as quotes.

He can play the fool and play games but think about it, people.

The erased tweet promoted the reading of the note in the sense of claiming the innocence of Morgan Freeman and the corruption of CNN and Chloe Melas. Was it wrong? This was not "what the actual article says?" In fact, the censorship proved the point.

Well, why fucking CNN cared so much for what a newspaper of Spain published in Spanish? And if they think it was defamatory why didn't ask for a retraction, debunk it as pure nonsense or send a legal threat to the one saying it, Tomoo Terada, instead of pressing the newspaper?

Because the erasing of it was done without any explanation. It was not a "we are sorry, and apologize to CNN for giving a platform to not verified claims" situation that lead to the erasing of the tweet. If you want to understand what CNN was trying to avoid read on Streisand Effect.

Also, as I told to Fences  at [] CNN took too much trouble for just an "opinion piece" in two continents:

"Just one question, smart guy Fences, why CNN had to, first, ask to another outlet to publish an anonymous attack ("From CNN they qualify as false the affirmations of the columnist Tomoo Terada, assuring that there is no evidence.") to attack something that is just an opinion piece? Well, because it´s not what you say. And later, when it was discovered that behind the anonymous quotes was hiding CNN spokeswoman for LATAM, Mariana Pinango, the attack was erased."

THREE "I never threatened to block you. It's impossible for me to block you as I've told you two times already. I have said you're likely going to be blocked if you keep at it, as I have told many editors before you a number who were indeed blocked but never by me." Read his messages to me at my user talk page and judge by yourself. And I don't know if guy it´s an VIP here at wikibarrio, but if a "Master editor" and English Wikipedia administrator like Fences asks for his opinion about what to do with me then guy have some influence here.

FOUR "And yes, the responsibility of anyone trying to add something to our articles is to ensure that the content they are adding is properly supported by reliable sources. See WP:BURDEN. This is something you've repeatedly failed to do."

Do you see how guy claims property about "our articles"? That's strange if you think it's The free encyclopedia that "anyone can edit." Some Wp policy of those that guy likes to quote states that. That's the "little dirty secret" of Wikipedia. There’s a wikimafia in the dark having control and pushing and imposing their preferred narratives. Like the honesty of Chloe Melas. I don't have any doubt Wales and others, sooner or later would be called to Congress audiences like Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Pichai, for the manipulation.

The "reliable sources" bs has been answered. It´s guy Nil Einne the one who has not made his case on why El Mundo and La Opinión are not "reliable sources" so need to recur to threats. And enough bs and manipulative nonsense for today. Those things really hurt the brain. Also, this answer has become too long already. Tomoo Terada (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

BLP issues
A couple of sentences sourced to the opinion of a journalist were removed for BLP reasons, but that journalist has edit-warred to try to keep the content - which I have warned him about. There is a previous discussion above and also at the BLP noticeboard that I opened: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive326. The previous consensus/compromise was to include the cut-down version of the content sourced to two Spanish-language newspapers; now a new consensus needs to be reached, with reference to the earlier discussions, as the content is again being challenged on BLP grounds. I am not acting in an admin capacity here, because I was involved in editing the article earlier this year to reduce and make neutral the wording about the Freeman controversy. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for opening this discussion. The content in question is "On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman. Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation." The first source, El Mundo, says "En un artículo publicado por el portal Red Etica de la Fundación de Gabriel García Márquez para el Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano, se describe cómo una periodista de entretenimiento de la cadena CNN, Chloe Melas, fabricó evidencias para acusar a Freeman. 'Todo fue un fraude de una reportera racista de CNN', asevera Tomoo Terada, escritor y autor del artículo.'" All this establishes is that Terada accused Melas of racism and fabrication ("It was all fraud by a racist CNN reporter"). The second source, La Opinion, links back to the El Mundo source. So, a writer named Tomoo Terada accused Melas of being a racist liar. His accusation was mentioned briefly in two news stories. For this type of exceptional claim, it's incredibly undue to include this opinion. What makes Tomoo Terada's opinion particularly noteworthy here? It didn't get much traction in mainstream media. It's an exceptional claim. And it certainly isn't appropriate for Tomoo Terada himself to keep trying to insert this content into the article. Marquardtika (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I had not read your statements Fences  so maybe I´ll have to change part of my opinion about you again. In fact, you were the one who raised a consensus/compromise as you wrote to me at my talk page "We might compromise to include El Mundo and La Opinión: they're in there now." Then I´m going to put at the previous discussion those words because I accepted those words by you in good faith as a compromise even if you did not put at the noticeboard.


 * That´s important because this guy Marquardtika did not say a thing at the time about the editing done by you. So, he implicitly accepted it, but now suddenly, months later, he erased it with an erasure entitled "yikes, this is a major WP:BLP issue with dubious sourcing." So, it´s not true "the content is again being challenged on BLP grounds" as it´s exactly the same content you edited and he didn´t show any disagreement then. This absolutly disingenuous, and the bad faith is overwhelming


 * Now it´s clear, from the beginning, the idea it was to pretend to get a"consensus" months ago to now quietly erasing it. In fact, I don´t check Chloe Melas entry, but for a coincidence I saw that erasing. But no surprises, at all. In now more than three years since I published my piece, I have experienced how many people Chloe Melas have in her pocket.


 * What I challenge is your misrepresentation that you do now, that it was already clarified in the previous discussion, that this is a matter of opinion. That´s a lie. And if you have any doubt, please read the previous discussion and if have any doubt about it, then ask me.


 * And other journalists and writers would not clearly refer to the fabrication done by Chloe Melas as a fraud, montage, accusations that lacked evidence, etcetera, after reading my piece if I was not convincing on that. https://web.archive.org/web/20210812045258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard


 * LOL. Guy claims to be "a former journalist from Houston, Texas." Poor thing, if that´s true then must be hard to swallow to see how the one that he is attacking it had the repercussion he clearly never had. I was mentioned in media of 10 Ibero-american countries (search for it), including the main newspapers of Spain, no matter the undue pressures of CNN, that never dared to refute me, in three languages. So I´m gonna call main newspaper of Houston The Houston Chronicle, asking if that´s "didn't get much traction in mainstream media." LOL. How I can answer to blatant lies that continue with the gaslight against me? Tomoo Terada (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada


 * I received a warning by M asem for supposed "personal attack" against Marquardtika because I pointed out he was lying when claimed without any objective base that the investigation on the fraud by Chloe Melas against Morgan Freeman "didn't get much traction in mainstream media." He does not elaborate or provide evidence of that.

So it seems Masem wants to start a polemics that I will be answering. Of course,this is blatant one-sided biased editing through threats (and recently even there was the attemp of the erasing of a CNN reference), but if they want to be so obvious, what can I do? So I will answer Masem. https://web.archive.org/web/20210812175342/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Masem Tomoo Terada (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada