Talk:Jason Maza

Noel Clarke Controversy
@Chichickov : Your edits are disruptive. According to the article here the sexual harassment investigation against Noel Clarke was dropped. The information in the article now currently accurately reflects the facts and avoids painting a negative picture of Jason Maza, since we need to comply with the policies of WP:NPOV and WP:DUE and stay neutral. A header such as "Controversy" makes this section look negative and should not be used. The sexual harassment issues had noting to do with Jason Maza, and by providing further details of it, makes it look negative for him. Please do not make further edits to the page, until we discuss here and explain how your edits comply with Wikipedia policy. Do you have a COI? If so, you need to disclose it. 68.1.199.238 (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Chichickov's edits are not disruptive.
 * According to the article you link, the police are not pursuing a criminal investigation, but that doesn't mean that nobody is pursuing a civil investigation. Most sexual harassment investigations don't involve the police.
 * We should not say that "the police investigated and found no evidence". That is not true, because (a) the cited source said they didn't open a formal investigation at all, and (b) sources have they said that the police didn't find "enough evidence", which is not exactly the same thing as finding "no evidence".
 * "The issues" did have something to do with Maza. Losing your job isn't "nothing".  Making a bunch of phone calls to accusers isn't "nothing".  Presumably what you mean to convey is something like "nobody accused Maza of sexual harassment".
 * Do you have a COI? If so, you need to disclose it.  I notice that your IP address geolocates to a city where many people are involved in the entertainment industry.
 * I'm not convinced that anything about criminal charges needs to be included in this article at all. With respect to Maza, I think it could be fairly summarized as:
 * "Filming of Sky One’s British police-drama Bulletproof, in which Maza was starring, was cancelled as a result of the misconduct allegations against his partner Noel Clarke. Maza and Clarke both left the production company Unstoppable Film and Television in August 2021."
 * with a handful of refs. I'm not even sure that we need to mention Maza's phone calls to the accusers.  That was probably significant to the individuals, and I'm sure that crisis PR professionals all over the world were shaking their heads when they read about this, but I'm not sure that anyone will care in a hundred years, or even in ten years (consider the Ten year test).  IMO all the stuff about what police did/didn't say about Clarke belong in the article about Clarke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing that is perfect. I went ahead and revised it already. No I do not have any COI. I am a purist and believe in having a truthful and neutral Wikipedia and the work that it is does, ultimately upholding truthful and fair content. I don't have an account but often make edits and will fight for what is right. 68.1.199.238 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @68.1.199.238 for the record, I do not have a COI, and if you are truly concerned about apparent COI and neutrality, you may wish to investigate the anonymous edit saying "there will be a number of legal cases involved moving forward, and do not what wikipedia, [sic] caught in the crossfire", or the one saying Wikipedia was being "opened [sic] to libel", or one of any number of anonymous edits which just removed the section entirely without any context. These together seem pretty suggestive of some sort of concerted effort by one or several people with a link to the subject, moreso than my upholding the previous verbatim quote from the Guardian article is suggestive of anything like the reverse.
 * @WhatamIdoing I appreciate your adjudication here and take the point that the specific mention of the phonecalls may not meet the 10-year rule. I have made a further (hopefully final) edit - as you put it on the COI page, the fact that he was suspended, not just left of his own accord, is "something" not "nothing". It also flows better in my view (given previous edits it read a bit abruptly - he 'was' starring? When?) Chichickov (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chichickov I do see the anonymous edits and they do look suspicious, but your own edits are also suspicious, because you appear to like to emphasize on the negatives and do not adhere to a neutral point of view. Please read WP:NPOV. The edits that you just made are emphasizing more negative verbiage and are not from a neutral point of view. Words like "suspended" and "sexual harassment", make the article more negative. The police did not find enough evidence to investigate it, so there is no reason to drag in an innocent party and spear his name too. The consensus here agreed by majority was how I made the last edit. I am going to restore it. Please do not change back again, until we discuss here first and that there is majority consensus on how it should read. 50.20.125.126 (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * He was suspended, personally, by his employer, in response to the accusations, which led to him leaving the company. This is a factual matter and important context - leaving this out and implying he left of his own accord is not neutral. For a topical comparison from the UK, see the article on Patrick Viera, the footballer/manager who until last week was manager of Crystal Palace. The article currently reads:
 * Vieira was sacked by the club on 17 March 2023, after a twelve-game run without a win, including a three-game span without a single shot on target, left the team three points above the relegation zone.
 * Would you assert that using the word "sacked" here or describing the club's performance makes the article too negative? Do you claim that it would be more neutral and informative for the reader to merely say "Vieira left the club on 17th March" and not give the surrounding context? This seems obviously false to me.
 * Finally, you are again overstating what happened with the police - from their statement, they did investigate it but "determined the information would not meet the threshold for a criminal investigation." The discussion on the COI page touches on this distinction, but this is obviously a high bar of evidence to meet, and not a bar that an employer has to meet in taking action, or one that Wikipedia has to meet in factually describing events as they were widely reported in the press. Chichickov (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @ChichickovThe majority here on talk page have agreed how the sentence should read. Please do not revert again without consensus and agreement of the majority of the editors here. I will be reporting you for violating Wikipedia policies of WP:EDITWAR. 24.234.239.100 (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm open to multiple approaches. One thing that I am concerned about is getting information into the correct article.  To the extent that "determined the information would not meet the threshold for a criminal investigation" means "the police determined that the information about someone else would not meet the threshold for a criminal investigation of someone else", then that information might belong in an article about someone else, and not in this article at all.
 * We have a concept called Coatrack articles that I found very confusing when I was a new editor, but eventually I figured out that it refers to having an article, or a part of an article, that's allegedly about one subject, but you just use that as a place to hang up the things you really want the world to know about. A simple example is an article about a charity that says very little about the charity and quite a lot about whatever cause they're passionate about.  This article is about Maza, and we shouldn't try to pile a bunch of stuff about anyone else in this article.
 * Imagine, e.g., if this were an article about a person who had the misfortune to be related to a criminal. It wouldn't be fair to the innocent person to cram a bunch of stuff about an unsavory relative into the article, right?  But it might be worth mentioning the effect it had on the subject.  We have to strike the right balance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess it again hinges on whether you think the subject's was involved in the case or was just affected by what happened to Clarke. I accept my initial drafting was maybe too strong on this point as it inferred a lot about his motives for making phonecalls, for example. But the fact that he was personally suspended by his employer alongside Clarke seems materially relevant to me? I just don't think saying 'he left the company' is correct if it ignores the fact that it wasn't his choice! Chichickov (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what "involved in the case" means, and it's possible that the precise meaning would be helpful.
 * For myself, I don't expect a corporate employer to care any more about fairness than they are legally required to, especially for visible scandals. I can imagine a scenario in which the employer finds out that Clarke's about to be publicly vilified for sexual harassment (and when the question is public relations, whether he's guilty of all, some, or none of what he's been accused of is irrelevant), and someone calls senior staff, including Maza, and says something like "Look, we need a plan.  If this goes public before the season ships, Clarke'll have to go, and the rest of the production will have to be cancelled.  We may be able to release whatever we've got done later, but there's no point in doing this while such a high-profile person is on the outs.  In the meantime, we need a lawyer, a committee to organize our response to this, and everyone should avoid any unnecessary expenses".  And I can imagine more than one person receiving such information, panicking, and making the kinds of choices that panicked people often make.
 * If we want to say something like "he left the company involuntarily", we should have strong sources that indicate "he was definitely fired for cause because of his own personal actions" and not "he was laid off when production stopped, along with every other innocent employee working on that production". NB that I don't really doubt that he was fired (if you have a business in the middle of a PR crisis over sexual harassment, then getting your name in the paper for annoying with the victims makes the PR crisis worse, and the job of Human resource management is to "manage risk", i.e., to protect the business, not to be fair and understanding towards the workers), but it would only be appropriate to say so, or even to imply it, if there are strong sources behind that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Maza and Clarke both left the production company" does not necessarily mean they left on their own. Anyone needing more detail can read the citations. We need to comply with WP:DUE and not give negative annotations to this story. In addition calling it "sexual misconduct allegations " vs just "misconduct allegations" is not needed, since it also gives it a negative annotation, which again does not comply with WP:DUE policies. IMO, if there were actual proven sexual misconduct by Mr. Clarke, you could argue to keep such verbiage would be warranted, but this case was dismissed and police has stated there was not enough evidence for the case to be investigated. As we all know many celebrities are often falsely accused by such things for financial gain, so let's not fuel this issue further.
 * I am just very curious as to why @Chichickov so adamant to include such negative verbiage, unless he/she has a COI.
 * (Sorry if I called you "she" before, but you are not. It is because your username has the word "chic," I am also guessing that you are probably one of the females that accused Clarke of misconduct.) 66.215.132.78 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you put such stock in the police investigation. Sexual harassment is not always, or even usually, a crime.  The police don't take you to jail for being a bully or making lewd remarks to co-workers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The company's statement on the suspension was “In light of the recent allegations, Noel Clarke and Jason Maza were suspended this morning (Friday) from Unstoppable Film and Television while we look into this matter.”
 * The following statement was ''“Noel Clarke has left Unstoppable Film and TV. Jason Maza has also left the company."
 * So the fact that he was personally suspended as a result of the allegations is taken from a direct quote from the company. And it's clear from the second that it's not the case that he was part of a mass lay-off - he was individually named alongside Clarke and no one else.
 * It doesn't say 'he was fired because of his misconduct' (presumably also a result of HR 'risk management' - why bother saying anything explicit when it's obvious from the context?), but nor does the proposed drafting, it just says he left. I don't even think it has to go as far as saying 'involuntarily', which I suppose might not be strictly true regardless - but it should reflect the fact that the company involved was clearly treating it as the same investigation which resulted in them, and only them, leaving. Chichickov (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chichickov your edits are very negative in nature and I wonder if you have an ulterior motive here. The article does not need to make it sound so negative when these charges were for one did not have anything to do with Maza (it had to do with Clarke) and second, the police did file any charges and dismissed the claims. Please stop editing it any further. At the moment the consensus here is to leave as is as the current verbiage was suggested by @WhatamIdoing. Your edits can now be considered vandalism and you could get banned. Please stop. 68.1.199.238 (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the point that he was suspended alongside Clarke. Read the statements above.
 * And as above, the police did not 'dismiss' anything, they said it did not meet the (high) legal bar for prosecution. All this article is now saying is that Maza was suspended alongide Clarke, because he was, and then later left the company as a result, which he did. These are matters of fact.
 * I have been engaging on good faith on this for a while, and have accepted that certain wording wasn't perfect, removed the standalone 'controversy' section etc. Howeer it's actively misleading to not give the context about why he left the company. Chichickov (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When the majority here have decided for it to read a certain way, then you cannot just change it to what you want. It needs to be discussed and agreed to by the majority. The way you are wording it does not comply with WP:NPOV policies. Verbiage has to be neutral. Heytherehello (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "the majority" have agreed to any such thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "the majority" have agreed to any such thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

A few questions:


 * 1) I notice that both use the same BBC and Variety sources, but different Deadline sources.  Is there a dispute about this?  Do either of you believe that the other editor's source is actively bad?  Is there any reason not to include all four sources?
 * 2) Are the April and August dates really important to anyone?
 * 3) Do we want the paragraph to proceed in chronological order (they were suspended first and Bulletproof was cancelled later) or in order of importance (the show was cancelled, which affects hundreds of people vs two people lost their jobs)?
 * 4) One has a link to Noel Clarke and the other doesn't.  Do we want this link?

It's okay to say that something isn't (or really is) important to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * In my view:
 * No issue with including all four, but the Deadline  one is important as the source of the quote given by the company that they were both suspended as part of the same investigation.
 * Don't think the months are particularly important, but the year probably is (again as context to the reader as to why the list of credits ends abruptly in 2021)?
 * I think chronological order is clearer - it centres the paragraph on the subject of the article. Maybe less important in a general sense but purely considering how it affected Maza, his being suspended from/having to leave a production company he founded after a controversy is more significant than the cancellation of a single show he was starring in.
 * I think so? Saying "as a result of the allegations" without saying what allegations explicitly feels like it's assuming background knowledge on behalf the reader. This is more of a readability point than one of principle.
 * Chichickov (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Heytherehello, do you want to answer my questions as well? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1- All the citations can be included, I have nothing against the citations. In fact, it is better to include them should someone want to read exactly what the allegations were and what happened.
 * 2- I think we should include both April and August dates as it is common practice on Wikipedia to include dates.
 * 3- Chronological order is fine
 * 4- I really have no issue with the citations. It is the verbiage that is important and must adhere to WP:NPOV. However, it is important to include the Deadline article "Noel Clarke: UK Police No Longer Investigating Sexual Harassment Claims. "
 * The way that @Chichickov insists on verbiage to read is very negative in nature and does not comply with WP:NPOV policies. There is no reason to emphasize the word "sexual misconduct, " because it indirectly implies that Maza was involved and that the reader may misinterpret as if he did the sexual misconduct. There is no reason to emphasis "suspension" as it also has negative annotations. Maza was only suspended because Clarke was suspended. He did nothing wrong. By included the word "suspension" it appears that somehow Maza was also at fault. Heytherehello (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Could one of you post (here on the talk page) a short timeline, in a simple bullet-list format for me?  That will make it easier to figure out what the correct chronological order is.  So far, I have:
 * April 2021: Both suspended
 * August 2021: Maza officially left Unstoppable
 * and I suspect that there could be more key dates (e.g., when Bulletproof was cancelled).
 * Also, @Heytherehello, could you add a link to Noel Clarke and put the fourth source back in the article? Those are simple changes that could be done as soon as convenient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Maza was only suspended because Clarke was suspended. He did nothing wrong." - do you have any evidence for either of these claims? He was mentioned personally by name in the statement announcing the suspension, and he was also named in the original Guardian article given he called the victims.
 * You quote WP:NPOV, which states "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes". There is a dispute of sorts here - his employer taking action against him personally as a result of his involvement. Whether you (or I) think he did anything wrong is beside the point (and as @WhatamIdoing has said previously we can't know his motivations) - but omitting this and suggesting he coincidentally left of his own accord is actively misleading. Chichickov (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On the dates, I'd add:
 * - April 2021: Misconduct allegations against Clarke surfaced
 * - May 2021: Bulletproof cancelled. The source states that Sky, the producers, stopped work on the show in April immediately after the original article to consider options, but I don't think this is important (other than to evidence the "as a result" bit). Chichickov (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So the timeline might look like:
 * April 2021: Misconduct allegations against Clarke surfaced, work on the show stopped, both suspended.
 * May 2021: Show officially cancelled.
 * August 2021: Maza officially left the production company.
 * I assume that Maza was only suspended because Clarke was suspended. He did nothing wrong was something of a misstatement or exaggeration, and really meant something like Maza was only suspended because he embarrassed the company by trying to get the victims to recant their allegations and stop the bad publicity against Clarke and therefore the show. He wasn't involved in the sexual harassment. Whether that's "something wrong" or "nothing wrong" might be a matter of personal opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry that have been away for a while. My main issue with this verbiage is that since Maza had nothing to do with any "sexual misconduct" using that verbiage makes the page appear negative and doe snot comply with WP:DUE policies. it would be better just to say "Misconduct" without including the word "Sexual." Heytherehello (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)