Talk:James Veitch (comedian)

This article is written like a review
No objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.67.17 (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But most importantly, no free toaster! 2A00:1028:8380:7D82:79DF:C98F:D234:BB7C (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It almost sounds like a commercial and I think somethink must be done about it.--Martilito (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Things we need to know
Synapse001 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What did James study in University?
 * 2) Did he complete his degree?
 * 3) How to add a link to his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeVBDgameAI0Qhf7leaPhYw ?
 * 4) Mention of the ducks is missing in the main article

Funny?
yes

Unsourced Birth date
So I nerd sniped myself here as i thought he looked younger than 1980 and I saw the birth date was unsourced so I went looking. The first unsourced birth date added was 1989 here This was then “corrected” here again with no apparent sourcing. I have googled around and can find no source for this guy’s age except this website which I’m not sure counts as a reliable source? Anyway I think the birth date should be remove the birth date for now until a good source can be found. --JackSlash (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Bluffable is down
I wandered down here and clicked the link to Bluffable and the domain is parked, I remember there was some specific syntax to mark outdated links? --Michcioperz (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Allegations
The current page states "was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault" which is different to "a dozen women" coming "forward." For not all the women allege assault or rape.

Moreover, removing "a decade older than his alleged victims." Indeed that whole sentence is opinion and conjecture. Tompg (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What did the women allege if not assault or rape? The Independent says More than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch. I can see a slight ambiguity in The Hollywood Reporter in that it describes at least one incident of sexual misconduct (the Urinetown story) that does not involve Veitch making physical contact, but it is not clear that this is counted among the (more-than-)dozen. The Independent's word helps us address this ambiguity, because of their reliable editorial fact-checking policies. Either the incidents discounted still amount to more than 12, or THR was only counting assault/rape.
 * Please read WP:BRD for an explanation as to why your repeated reverts are uncivil and unhelpful. It would be productive if you were to suggest alternate wording which accurately summarises the allegations, rather than repeatedly removing all such description. I can see that "a decade older than his alleged victims" is in need of improvement. However, it is not "opinion and conjecture" to accurately summarise the Hollywood Reporter article. Some summary needs to be made of the incidents which the article discusses, so I ask what one-sentence description you feel is most accurate. Certainly the THR article makes it clear that alcohol, and power dynamic between a grad and undergrads are common threads, so we would need to mention these. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I can't see the power dynamic being a common thread or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. The Independent article is a re-write of the THR article. The "incidents" did not amount to more than 12. It's clear from the article that the number of people who reached out about the incident is ~12. The article alleges three rapes with three women. The people who contacted the THR about those rapes are among the dozen women. To say that "more than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch," insinuates that there are more than a dozen separate incidents," yet this is clearly not the case. Let us focus on the facts. I am sorry for reverting the article instead of talking. But it does seem to be mostly opinion and biased; particularly so since one of the article's editors was one of the women who made an accusation. (Tompg (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).
 * or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. Which source says this? The Independent directly contradicts this interpretation. Your claims of bias are inappropriate as The Independent is a high-quality reliable source with strong editorial policies, as determined by consensus amongst the Wikipedia community (see WP:RSP). THR too. It seems clear to me that THR did not publish all of the details of all of the conversations they had, just a select few to fit within a normal article length.
 * Rather than being "sorry for reverting", it would be an act of good faith if you could revert your most recent edit as a demonstration of good faith. Thank you for the reply. — Bilorv ( talk ) 16:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "sorry for reverting." I mean sorry for not following protocol; I believe the reversions remain fair. The Independent's story was based off of THR's story with no further investigation or fact checking done on their end; they were reporting on the story. The 'bias' I'm claiming is because one of the editors of this wikipedia page is one of the accusers. With regard to what THR didn't publish I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on this. The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusations. Not a dozen separate accusations. The wiki needs to make this clear. (Tompg (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).
 * You say I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on this but also The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusations and The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checking. Which is it? Both of your claims are speculation, unless you have a source of information which I have yet to see.
 * As for the accuser editing this page, could you tell me the name of this editor and how you know that they are an accuser? I've not looked in detail but I couldn't see this at a glance.
 * I notice that your account is over three years old and in this time you have just made a handful of edits relating to Veitch. There could be many valid reasons for this but I would like to know which it is. Are you Veitch or a friend of his? If so, this is allowed, but there are some basic measures which you might need to take to comply with Wikipedia policy (such as creating a user page with a line reading "I have a conflict of interest with topics relating to the comedian James Veitch"). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No, not at all. Just a fan. The accuser is and who goes by  on twitter and, it appears, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompg (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite. You're claiming "bias" in a page because a person with what we could classify as an undisclosed conflict of interest made two edits, the first reverted in full by me and the second of which added two facts—the first that HBO Max dropped Straight to VHS because of the allegations; and the second a quote from a HBO Max spokesperson—neither of which you have contested in any form during any of your edits, instead focusing on two paragraphs which the user did not touch?
 * In the meantime, you have now three times refused to follow polite protocol, which would see you reverting your edits until we can come to a consensus, and so my assumption of good faith is now beginning to wane. I would now like to see you provide evidence that in this particular case, The Independent did not follow the strong editorial fact-checking procedures that the Wikipedia community have established that, in general, it does. Otherwise your comments are best suited to The Independent's complaints procedure, as the newspaper actively issues corrections.
 * I would also ask why you removed the topic of sexual allegations from the lead—other than the obvious reason that you are a fan of Veitch—when WP:LEAD requires that we summarise all aspects of the body of the article with appropriate weight. I count five reliable secondary sources now in the article about the sexual assault allegations and their consequences, out of—generously—eight reliable secondary sources in the article which are substantially about Veitch. We can also look at the pageview count to see if the allegations might be something he is well-known for: . The evidence is overwhelming. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's come to my attention that you gave the accuser's full name, which is not publicly available from their Twitter profile. This is doxxing and has been redacted by an oversighter. I understand that I asked you for evidence (a mistake on my part not to clarify our outing policies) but do not post this information again (including the Twitter handle). — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry which evidence? (Tompg (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC))
 * Evidence that The Independent did not follow the strong editorial fact-checking procedures that it is known for in this particular case. Otherwise your claim The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checking is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Asking purely out of curiosity but does direct contact with James Veitch count as a reliable source to control the contents of this article? Because while he hasn't made a public statement, he's very open to discussing his side of the story in private with people who backed his Kickstarter project, Lock-Down: The Game. The narrative he tells presents a version of the story that, while subjective, does actually fill in a lot of mystery surrounding the allegations. Specifically an admission to inappropriate behavior (but denial of rape/assault) that gave him a reputation.

Furthermore, information about a separate confirmed rapist on the same campus, a completely unrelated ban of Veitch from campus (theft), and an unwillingness to speak out against the victims because the length of time between when these allegations were made, are all very important things to consider. This is particularly important when there's an association between a separate rapist on campus, his admittedly creepy persona, and the time between the allegations and when they were brought forward.

In other words, the pliability of vague memories, especially ones of this severity, are so easily manipulated that even good faith actors can unintentionally make a person truly believe, without a shred of doubt in their mind, that their recollection of the event is true and accurate, regardless of whether or not it really is.

The claims presented by James Veitch both explains his reason for not wanting to speak publicly out of a justified fear of exacerbating the situation, but also his ownership of inappropriate behavior (which is not equivocal to rape or assault) in college specifically, could be misinterpreted as confirmation or evidence of said allegations as seen by the response one of the women had for coming forward.

We're facing a very real situation where allegations can and have irreversibly destroyed the careers of those accused for no reason other than having their name share a sentence with the alleged crime. As such, I do firmly believe that good faith efforts should be made to mitigate the severity of this damage until an investigation confirms or denies the claims presented. Especially in a situation where such an investigation hasn't been started as of the time the edits to the article were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4402:9440:9866:3EB5:6E7E:77A6 (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. See WP:V. Wikipedia only considers published reliable sources. I've removed your Dropbox links without opening them because there's no way that what you posted is BLP-compliant and not a copyright violation. James Veitch's claims on Kickstarter or a game are not a reliable source and have no place in Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

BPL Attack
hI, Bilorv. This page's content clearly looks like a BPL attack on the artist. First of all, according to the US laws (and Wikipedia is subject to the US laws), Veitch is not a public person, therefore he has the rights for privacy. Second, all allegations are just newspapers scoops and look more like witch-hunt for artists's money, so popular nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, there are no legal cases in the courts, so these allegations do not have any place on this page. I believe that if this content is not removed, this might bring to litigation against Wikimedia Foundation and I think this needs urgent attention of other editors and OTRS. It is better to remove all of it or most of it. Undue weight too. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NLT. Wikipedia takes legal claims very seriously. Volunteer editors such as myself are not the right people to report such issues to. Please log in if you have an account. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:BPL. I suggest to leave the tag until the content is removed; otherwise we might have an issue here. It is for other editors to get involved and save the litigation or other claims. I don't have to register an account to edit and talk and you can't request it from me legally. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

P/S: No legal threats were made - I did a comment that hypothetically the content might bring to the issues in the future and put the tag on the page to prevent these issues. I'm not an attorney or an interested party in litigation, just another editor who is concerned and wants to help. Do not bring any WP:NLT to me as they are not relevant. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean WP:BLP. Please explain what you mean by "undue weight", given that five of the eight reliable secondary sources currently in the article are about these sexual assault allegations. Recall that Wikipedia's aim is to report what is discussed in reliable secondary sources. It is not a courtroom and nor do legal outcomes make content more/less likely to be covered, only the amount of coverage in reliable sources.
 * You are of course welcome to edit without an account, but I asked because the majority of people familiar with the terms "BLP", "undue weight" and "OTRS" and who engage in a talk page discussion have an account. Logging out in order to avoid scrutiny is not allowed, so I wanted to ensure that this is not what you are doing, but of course long-term unregistered editing is completely allowed. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv The meaning of undue weight is that the page pays too much attention to controversial topics of the allegations of people who did not even filed a lawsuit (either civil or criminal) against the person. Also, by removing the tag, it looks like you are not ready to have a civilized dispute and pretend to own this page. The tag is for all the editors to take a look and have a second opinion on this page. I will put it back. Please, do not remove it until this dispute is not resolved. I also consider to go the Administration Board and OTRS regarding this weird behavior of removing tags without correcting the issues first. Wikipedia has the tags for a reason - to help improve page. And I suggest you to read more on undue weight tags. I do not have any registered account, so there is no logging out here. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) To have sources on something which is not confirmed (allegations) does not mean that you can violate BPL policy here. Wikipedia is clear on privacy and decency regarding all non-public persons. Allegations are virtually nothing as there no legal cases. Also, there is no information on denying the allegations which makes it "undue weight" content automatically. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To anyone reading this back, please note that this IP address has been checkuser blocked. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, I have to say that I'm disturbed by the way these allegations have been reported and I'd be even more concerned if there's evidence that someone who is actually involved in the case has been editing the article. Accordingly I've put some protection on the article so that new and unregistered users can't edit for the next few weeks. Deb (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC) I have made some modifications based on a BLP review prompted by a BLPN post. It does not matter if the complainer was a blocked sock. Please do not restore without obtaining consensus in addressing the issue of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2021

Request to edit my page

 * Hey everyone, since my page looks incomplete and unbalanced, I’d like to ask for additional editing.

“In 2009, Veitch adapted John Keats’ letters and poetry for theatrical performance produced by Pale Fire Productions at Keats House museum. In 2015, Veitch authored Dot Con: The Art of Scamming a Scammer. (First published by by Quadrille), a book depicting his experience in dealing with email scammers. The second edition of the book published by Hachette came to light in 2020. Sources:
 * Request 1: - Add following information to the “Career” Section:  -  Add following information to the “Career” Section:
 * https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/things-to-do/love-affair-with-fanny-brawne-to-be-played-out-at-3410736
 * https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/jul/17/art-beat-poetic-john-keats
 * https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/aug/02/fight-email-scammers-james-veitch-book
 * https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/james-veitch/dot-con/
 * https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/comedian-james-veitch-lands-splashy-190047004.html


 * Request 2:

Add “author" and "playwright" to the occupation in the Info box panel and to the first sentence in the Summary (Lead section)

Add more info from the Hollywood Reporter after this sentence: "Veitch declined to comment on the allegations when contacted by Hollywood Reporter, "but a source close to him says he denies all allegations." As The Hollywood Reporter notes: …"none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct and Sarah Lawrence College says they did not receive any complaints of sexual assault or harassment..."
 * Request 3:
 * Note: this is literally what Hollywood Reporter wrote and I believe it makes the statement more balanced.

"In September 2020, Veitch was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault."
 * Request 4: Removal of the sentence from the Lead (Summary) section.
 * Note: The allegations never escalated to any lawsuits or litigation since the article. The other articles were based on the Hollywood Reporter article and contained no further information, allegations or investigative reporting. The information is based on social media scoops cherrypicked by the media sources to make a story out of it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterjamesveitch (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not too keen on the HamHigh or Yahoo sources, but I've incorporated some material based on The Guardian and Kirkus articles. I won't go through the play-by-play of "second edition publishing date is usually too much detail for a biography article" unless you want more detail on a decision. On the second request, I don't think the one Keats source is enough for "playwright" to be a defining feature of the topic, and though it's more borderline I'm not a fan of "author" either (as the book is a comedy book, so "comedian" is still relevant). As for the third and fourth requests, I strongly oppose both of them. For reference, The Hollywood Reporter is considered highly reliable by the Wikipedia community, and I believe the article already leans too far into whitewashing the subject with a lack of description of what the allegations were. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilorv.
 * Thanks for your reply.
 * I recognise that replying as me on a page about me probably isn’t standard procedure but I wanted to say that I deny these allegations as strenuously as one can deny allegations. I
 * Anyway, I’m aware Wikipedia works on sources and I wish there was one I could point to where a different account is put forward but I can’t. I’ve not had the opportunity to present evidence and defend myself because no reports were ever made to the college or the police at the time, or in the 6-ish years since the first tweet was made.  It doesn’t feel right that three years later with no criminal investigation, trial, jury or defence, the content of this page continues to affect every aspect of my life.
 * I'm not very good at this and it's hard to remain in any way neutral so I’ll stop. My friend Charlotte has offered to formalise some of the things I want to say and write them here. I expect she’ll be better than me at understanding protocol and she also has the added benefit of being, well, not me. Hopefully she’ll come on and comment below in due course.
 * Thank you for reading this.
 * James (Veitch) Misterjamesveitch (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just letting you know, if you are indeed the James Veitch, Have a look at WP:COISELF and send an Email to the VRT with your details. Apologies for the less than welcoming entry to Wikipedia. - MountainKemono (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for this. Misterjamesveitch (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * anytime, that's what the welcoming commitee is for after all. - MountainKemono (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to review page in light of BLP Policy
I want to start off by acknowledging the fact that I have a real-life connection to the individual this page is written about. This is why I am stating my concerns here rather than editing the page directly. My relationship to the subject does not invalidate my interpretation of the issues I see within this page. I would like to get a consensus view here on some of the page edits that I believe violate Wikipedia rules and have a negative impact on the subject of this page.

There are a number of concerns about the contents of this page and its compliance with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Biographies of living persons policy In particular, there is a concern about the harm being caused to the subject’s life and whether the content of the biography is fair. The following is a quote from the BLP policy (emphasis added):


 * "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. […] Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”

At present, both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of the biography contain serious allegations about the subject’s private life. Reference to these allegations was added to the subject’s biography on 5 September 2020. The subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court and there is no suggestion that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities. Indeed, no legal proceedings have ever been initiated in respect of any of these allegations. At present therefore, the allegations are untested and have never been subject to any sort of scrutiny. They are strenuously denied by the subject.

The nature of the allegations is such that they are highly damaging to the reputation of the subject. As you will no doubt be aware, the BLP Policy, states as follows (emphasis added):


 * “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”. The policy goes on to explain that: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by §Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle which should be afforded to all individuals, including the subject of this page.

Whilst allegations have been made to the Hollywood Reporter – they remain just that; untested, unsubstantiated and hugely damaging allegations. The harm caused to the subject’s life by these allegations has been significant – both in terms of the psychological impact and the impact upon his career. Three years have now passed since the publication of the allegations, but there has still been no action taken by any authorities or individuals involved, nor is there any suggestion that there will be. Indeed, the article confirms that “none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct.” The only reports made appear to have been to the media. Repeating such allegations is therefore arguably assisting in trial by media.

In the circumstances therefore, I am respectfully requesting that page contributors review the content of the subject’s biography with reference to the BLP Policy. I consider that the biography as presently drafted infringes the BLP Policy and should therefore be amended, so that reference to untested or untried allegations is removed. Char296 (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The content is supported with sources that are reliable, including for contentious statements about living people, particularly The Hollywood Reporter. Also included is The Independent, NME and British Comedy Guide. The article would be incomplete without mention of the allegations, which explain significant professional events in his career: dropped by his agent; dropped from a Quibi show; removal of old work from HBO and BBC. Without this, we would either have to give the impression, "For 2020, for no explicable reason, all of these negative events simultaneously occurred", or we would have to further censor the article to exclude major projects of Veitch. You say that "The harm caused to the subject’s life by these allegations has been significant". But implied in this is agreement that the allegations are significant to Veitch's status as a public figure.The following paragraph is a general description of Wikipedia's principles, not a comparison between Veitch and any individual or crime:Wikipedia does not affiliate itself with any particular government, so the British legal system is not the standard of a global neutral point of view. As an example, in many countries rape is legal (such as marital rape); if a public figure in such a country was reported to have committed rape then it would violate neutrality to argue "it's not illegal so it must not be mentioned in Wikipedia". Despite the general principle that we should carefully consider BLP-sensitive content and content related to criminal allegations, the fact that we host articles such as Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations and Chris Pincher scandal shows that it is sometimes necessary to report allegations that have never been "tested" in any legal system. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an aggregate of mass media sources and not a court reporter service.If Veitch's position is that the allegations made against him are false then solving the issue at its root would be pursuing legal cases against The Hollywood Reporter et al. When those newspapers post public corrections then the article can be updated with "X, Y and Z falsely reported allegations that were later retracted". — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilorv,
 * Thank you for your reply. Having read through the extensive discussions which have already taken place on this page, it's clear that we won't be able to reach agreement, so I will now raise this on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.
 * I'm not clear why the British legal system is being referenced - the presumption of innocence is widely recognised around the world as a basic human right. Presumption of innocence.
 * In relation to Donald Trump - yes, his page does reference allegations of sexual misconduct. It also states: "The accusations have resulted in multiple instances of litigation" and "On May 9, 2023, a New York jury in civil case found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll, but found him not liable for rape. They awarded Carroll $5 million in damages." The fundamental difference between Trump and the subject of this page is that the subject has never faced any litigation and the allegations are, and have always been, completely untested.
 * Similar points can be made in relation to your example of Chris Pincher - there was a Parliamentary inquiry into the allegations which resulted in him being suspended. He appealed that decision, but lost the appeal in September 2023.
 * With the greatest of respect therefore, those examples don't appear to address the serious concern which I have raised. Char296 (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Bilorv - I was re-directed to the BLP noticeboard, so I have posted there instead. Char296 (talk) 08:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Archived BLPN discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC - referring to untested allegations of sexual offences
Should the article on James Veitch mention allegations of sexual misconduct? — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Should this page refer to historic allegations of sexual offences being committed, when those allegations have never been investigated by law enforcement agencies, nor have the allegations ever been the subject of any criminal or civil litigation in the 14 years since the alleged offences? I consider that this content contravenes the biographies of living persons policy (because of the potential harm and unfairness caused to the subject) and I would be grateful to receive input from experienced editors in relation to this question. Char296 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed the RfC tag because a request for comment should be neutral and brief. I also believe that an RfC is inappropriate because "RfCs are time consuming, and editor time is valuable". Four editors have been brought to look at this article through BLPN, including those who made edits to the article following the post. There continues to be not a single experienced volunteer that has said that this content should be removed. Experienced volunteers disagree on how much coverage there should be, and what stands is the least amount of coverage that has been suggested. I continue to believe that the article should have additional detail describing several of the allegations.
 * At a certain point single-purpose activity from somebody with a self-disclosed conflict of interest takes up experienced volunteers' time without contributing to the encyclopedia. You keep posting similar walls of text when your point of view has already been made clear. If you engage in further forum shopping then I will raise your conduct at a board such as ANI and uninvolved volunteers can decide whether action is needed to stop disruption of the dispute processes. — Bilorv ( talk ) 15:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve re-instated the RfC tag and have removed some detail from my post. However, I’m not certain why you felt this necessary; the RfC guidance says as follows: “If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.” (Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests for comment) This is what I did.
 * I was attempting to save any other readers from needing to read through the entire talk page, but in order to appease you, I have removed the detail and just left my question.
 * I’m afraid I don’t agree with your description of me “forum shopping.” There are multiple stages to dispute resolution. The Wikipedia dispute resolution process requires me to first raise the issue on the talk page, which I did. The process then requires me (as I understand it) to post on a Noticeboard, before making a request for comment. I did this too.
 * I will pursue my complaint to the arbitration committee if need be but, as you will no doubt be aware, before I can reach arbitration, I have to have “taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute.” ( [Dispute Resolution]). This includes making a RfC.
 * You can see that I’m new here, so I do apologise if I slip-up with any of the formalities. I am doing my best to read and apply all of the many policies and follow the dispute resolution process appropriately.
 * The problem I continue to have with our interactions is that rather than engage with the substance of my concerns, you simply question my motives as a “single-purpose” account and threaten to report me for disruption.
 * Although I’ve never posted on Wikipedia before, my concerns are still valid and I would like comment from a wider pool of experienced editors on this important issue, which is the very purpose of the RfC process. Char296 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the RfC introduction was still not neutral because most of it was a statement of your opinion ("I consider that..."). You should make a separate bullet-pointed opinion comment (you combined comments under the same signature). I have rephrased the RfC and collapsed your non-neutral framing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from re-phrasing my question. I have removed the "I consider that" which you object to, but the rest of the question is factual. I really don't appreciate my question being turned into an editing war. If there is a problem with the way my question is phrased, I'm sure the neutral parties here will politely tell me, but it can't be right that the other person involved in the dispute is permitted to unilaterally edit my own question. Char296 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I followed the instructions to the letter: If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the rfc tag). I did those two things in order. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , your question was indeed not exactly neutrally worded, hence I have reverted your edit. Let's keep the intro short, so editors can draw their own conclusions. You can explain your views elsewhere in this section. Also please don't delete important stuff like the rfcid. Gawaon (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks and apologies. I'm new here and it's inevitable I will make some mistakes. I appreciate your pointers.
 * The problem with the amended question, is that it's now asking a different question. The original question was whether the page should refer to alleged sexual offences, said to have happened 14 years ago, when that conduct has never been investigated by law enforcement / considered by a court. I appreciate you've commented on that point below, but others may miss the purpose of the question with the amended wording. Char296 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the RfC introduction was still not neutral because most of it was a statement of your opinion ("I consider that..."). You should make a separate bullet-pointed opinion comment (you combined comments under the same signature). I have rephrased the RfC and collapsed your non-neutral framing. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from re-phrasing my question. I have removed the "I consider that" which you object to, but the rest of the question is factual. I really don't appreciate my question being turned into an editing war. If there is a problem with the way my question is phrased, I'm sure the neutral parties here will politely tell me, but it can't be right that the other person involved in the dispute is permitted to unilaterally edit my own question. Char296 (talk) 11:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I followed the instructions to the letter: If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the rfc tag). I did those two things in order. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , your question was indeed not exactly neutrally worded, hence I have reverted your edit. Let's keep the intro short, so editors can draw their own conclusions. You can explain your views elsewhere in this section. Also please don't delete important stuff like the rfcid. Gawaon (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks and apologies. I'm new here and it's inevitable I will make some mistakes. I appreciate your pointers.
 * The problem with the amended question, is that it's now asking a different question. The original question was whether the page should refer to alleged sexual offences, said to have happened 14 years ago, when that conduct has never been investigated by law enforcement / considered by a court. I appreciate you've commented on that point below, but others may miss the purpose of the question with the amended wording. Char296 (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Realistically if there are enough reliable sources to indicate notability of the allegations, then it can be added. Zippybonzo &#124; talk  &#124;  contribs  (he&#124;she&#124;they) 08:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but probably not in lead. The paragraph covering these allegations in the "Career" section is well-sources and I see no problems with it. However, the lead currently only has 2.5 sentences, one of which is completely dedicated to these allegations. Considering that they were never confirmed by a court of law, that may give them UNDUE weight. I would therefore suggest removing that sentence from the lead, unless the rest of the lead is considerably expanded (say to ten sentences or more). Gawaon (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, including in the lead, and the content should be expanded: I continue to favour a version something like Special:Permalink/989778218, which describes the allegations: A common thread in several of these stories is Veitch—a decade older than his alleged victims—pressuring underage women to drink and then assaulting them while incapacitated. (Note that this isn't synthesis because the source says it's a common thread.) The allegations are well-sourced and necessary to understanding the subject's career. A plurality of the sources about Veitch are about the allegations. Further reasoning above. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging, and , whose attention was brought to this by the multiple BLPN threads on this, which the conflict of interest editor has subsequently ignored to forum shop. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While avoiding harm is to be considered, per Avoiding harm it is explicitly rejected as the overriding principle of the Biographies of living persons policy. In other words, harm is not sufficient to remove significant views that have been published by reliable sources, even if such views are negative, or relate to an event that the subject of an article would prefer be hidden. This policy cannot be superseded by other policies, or editor consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand that I should have placed my arguments here, not in the question. Apologies. Here they are:


 * At present, both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of the biography contain serious allegations about the subject’s private life. This is giving undue weight to the allegations, in what is already a short biography.
 * The alleged offences are said to have taken place 14 years ago. In the intervening 14 years, the subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court. There is no suggestion online that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities, or that they will be. On the contrary in fact, the article cited confirms that “none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct.” The only reports of alleged wrongdoing appear to have been to the media. Repeating such allegations is therefore arguably assisting in trial by media.
 * I consider that referring to the allegations on this page violates the BLP policy, which states as follows:
 * “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment”
 * “Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”
 * “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”.
 * The nature of the allegations is such that there is clearly a risk of significant harm being caused to the subject and his reputation. However, it is not purely about harm – it is also a matter of fairness. Given that the subject has not had an opportunity to answer the allegations in a court, it could be said that inclusion of criminal allegations dating back 14 years is not fair to the subject. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right which should be afforded to all individuals, including the subject of this page.


 * Given that three years have now passed since these historic allegations were added to the page and there has still been no action taken by any authorities or individuals involved, I would suggest that the allegations should now be removed from the page. Char296 (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Include in general. Just looking at the sources included in the article at present, never mind any more which may exist, I'd say this more than qualifies for WP:DUE. Putting aside the weight of sources, there's just no way to accurately describe the man's recent career accurately without reference to these allegations.  The balance of the current wording feels largely appropriate to me.  With respect to the BLP concerns, I think the tone is neutral and well-attributed, and in any event is not even very long on the details of the accusations. That's probably reasonable given the current weight of the sources: the secondary and primary sources can be followed up on by readers interested in the specifics.  But there's nothing in BLP that requires us to sanitize biographies of any reference to improprieties when they are broadly reported and contribute necessarily to the understanding a notable person's career as an encyclopedic topic. A mention in the lead is probably due as well, but should be kept exceedingly brief and neutral. SnowRise let's rap 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No - I'm generally uncomfortable with this type of reporting when it originates from a single source; especially when there is no other sustained coverage, no follow-up reporting, no updates about the allegations, no criminal investigation opened, no charges filed, no civil cases filed, nothing but a spat of articles all dated around the same time period repeating The Hollywood Reporter story, per WP:RECENTISM. The article states there was 'more than a dozen women' (which is a substantial amount), so then I would expect to see a deep dive into Veitch from multiple media outlets, resulting in significant coverage from a multitude of reliable sources, attempting to investigate and verify these allegations through corroboration with "on-campus security", which was implied in THR article was "aware of Veitch’s reputation", and there was also an inference that "Veitch’s reputation was widely known" on campus. If he had a reputation at this school as a sexual predator (which is the implication here), I would expect to see exceptional sourcing to verify that claim. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * NO (Brought here from WP:RFC/A) I have to double down on this logic. I agree with everything said here. With WP:REDFLAG stating: "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing."
 * MaximusEditor (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sadly, acts of sexual assault are far from exceptional, but all too common... Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost no instances of rape result in a conviction in the UK (a fraction of a fraction of 2%). — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems off-topic. What does that have to do with anything? Dronebogus (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Allegations of rape are a serious criminal offense with serious consequences. Danny Masterson just got 30 years to life for his rape convictions. Exceptional claims of a serious allegation like this require exceptional sourcing.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 17:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * “Allegations of rape” are not a criminal offense (unless deemed to be slander or defamation). Rape is a criminal offense. Nobody is asking to add “this man is a rapist”, they’re asking whether to include notable allegations of sexual misconduct. Dronebogus (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * When someone makes an allegation of rape, they are alleging that a crime was committed, because rape is defined as a criminal offense. That's why we have WP:BLPCRIME. And it's hard to argue he is WP:WELLKNOWN, when even The Hollywood Reporter article admits he is not a household name, and this is certainly backed up by the amount of unreliable/questionable/promotional sources used in the article - refs number 1 (IMDb), 2 (IMDb), 4, 5 (no mention of his name), 6 (BW), 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21 (IMDb), 22, and good ole number 9, pretending to be The Scotsman, when the URL provided is actually - wow247.co.uk/blog. And 3, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 23 give no WP:SIGCOV about Veitch, just a mention and/or a review of a show performance. And WP:RSP says THR is generally reliable for entertainment-related topics (articles/reviews on film, TV and music, and box office figures). Allegations being made of a serious criminal offense are not entertainment-related topics.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 07:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Veitch is not a low-profile individual due to seeking media attention (chat show appearances, TED talk etc.), among other reasons. The topic here is entertainment-related as it's a story about the comedy industry. If you don't think he's notable then the right route to take is AFD and if you think the article is crap-quality (it is, like most Wikipedia articles) then fix it. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are gobs of BLP subjects who are comedians, actors, musicians, singers, academics, lawyers, scientists, etc. etc. etc. who muster enough sources to qualify for a WP article, but they are not well known public figures, James Veitch is one of those people, he is not a well known public figure. And the specific topic under discussion in this RfC is crime-related. And no, I will not be "fixing" it, because my fix would be to reduce it to a stub, without these criminal allegations, and we can't have that, when the preference is for a crap-quality article (like most Wikipedia articles). Like most editors, I can live with the consensus outcome.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:black"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#FF5F1F">(talk)</b> 🍁 01:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include as-is normally I’d agree with Isaidnoway on this— most of these allegations go nowhere and should be dropped after a few years (if that). But Veitch isn’t a very notable figure so I’m not surprised this isn’t the next Weinstein or R. Kelly. If there were dozens of allegations and serious repercussions (being dropped from numerous platforms) then I’d say it remains notable. Dronebogus (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you mean "Yes, they should be mentioned" or "Yes, they should be removed"? From the wording of the RFC it's the first, but some of your content reads like you would be arguing for the second. Gawaon (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The former. Edited for clarity. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes - Satisfies WP:PUBLICFIGURE with multiple sources about the allegations and their impact on his career. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include but would benefit from a few tweaks. AFAI can see THR is the only source to investigate this (as opposed to sources simply repeating the fact of the accusations having been made), therefore the text should be phrased in terms of THR having reported these claims, rather than what the women claimed (ie more clearly attributed - at present there is only a brief post-claim mention of THR, which does not make it explicit that this was a THR 'story'). I also am not happy with the (ambiguous) phrase that these women "came forward". It's ambiguous because it implies that they voluntarily made these accusations publicly. The phrase is used twice in the source, once to indicate that (according to an ex-student who knew Veitch only by reputation) women initially 'came forward' in her Facebook group, and - if I understand the THR article properly - these women were subsequently interviewed by THR, and presumably made their identities and 'stories' known to THR - ie "came forward" to THR. A few of them are identified by THR, but most are not, thus we rely on THR to have done basic verification of many of the claims made. We have a duty to not amplify these accusations by even the smallest degree, but it isn't our purpose or duty to 'excise' them from the record. The person opening the RfC is effectively asking us to adjudicate on the fairness or unfairness of the accusations themselves, rather than simply neutrally report what they were. For good or ill, that isn't what we do.Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But just to clarify, the purpose of the RfC wasn't to adjudicate on the fairness of the accusations themselves, but whether it is fair (per the BLP policy) to refer to allegations of serious alleged criminality, when those allegations have never been tested. As others have pointed out, the allegations originate from a single source, 3 years ago, with no follow-up reporting, no updates about the allegations, no criminal investigation opened, no charges filed, no civil cases filed. In order for the biography to be fair to the subject, claims of serious criminality should require exceptional sourcing, particularly given the potential impact on the subject's life and reputation, see: Biographies of living persons.
 * Furrhermore, the BLP policy states as follows:
 * A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
 * The subject is not a a notable individual. As others have noted, there are not a multitude of reliable published sources about him. He is certainly not a household name. I would argue therefore that there should be no reference to the allegations at all, to ensure compliance with the BLP policy.
 * That was the crux of the RfC, not whether the allegations themselves are fair. Char296 (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is a notable individual, otherwise he wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Gawaon (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to NPF
 * "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above). Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care" (emphasis added) 213.165.177.86 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Char296
 * Char296, You missed the key word 'effectively' The person opening the RfC is effectively asking us to adjudicate on the fairness or unfairness of the accusations. Were we to decide that these have never been tested or followed up and therefore should be 'put aside', we would effectively be making a judgement about the claims. At the very least we are documenting the existence of a 'glitch' in his career, we have a duty to record it neutrally, but not to 'gloss over it'. If Veitch wants to contest the claims, he should take action against THR if he considers the accusations to be unfair or inaccurate. Exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, clearly this material is relevant to his notability and has adversely affected his career which is what we document. Pincrete (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've immediately removed the phrase "came forward with allegations" (now "made allegations") as I don't think it's neutral wording. In addition to your objection I'd add that it's got emotional connotations (e.g. it is brave to "come forwards"; you can only "come forwards" with information, which implies the allegations are true). — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree with your comments about connotations and implications. I've also slightly modified the wording such that it is clearer that THR is the source for this. IMO it would be even clearer if the whole topic were framed in terms of THR reporting the accusations - but that's up to you/others. Pincrete (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not noteable or covered reliably enough to warrant inclusion, and even if consensus decides otherwise not in the lede.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, include. Veitch is almost surely a limited public figure with respect to his comedy career, and there was a professional impact of the allegations (that is, he lost his HBO special).  We should concisely report on the professional impact, which is absolutely related to his notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes' The reporting is substantial enough to warrant inclusion at the least in the body, and possibly the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No No actions have been taken against him so far. Three years have passed. —  Sadko  (words are wind)  13:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)