Talk:Keith Raniere

Oppose removal of image
File:ForbesMagazine October2003 FrontCover KeithRaniere.png has been removed by a single user saying: "simple 'mentions' do not come close to meeting NFCC#8 requirements".

A close reading of the article should demonstrate the presence of an entire section dedicated to the 2003 publication of this cover image and its accompanying text. The inclusion of this cover image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It should be restored. Feoffer (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll have to work hard to get that done, but you have a point.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And indeed, deleted per . Feoffer (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Including deceased pics
Request guidance:  would the article benefit from the inclusion of images of the deceased? i.e. gina and kristin Feoffer (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Material worthy of inclusion?
Some parts of this article seem to me to contain material that is inadequately sourced and/or is not relevant or noteworthy enough for inclusion. The following two paragraphs, I believe, are the two that are least worthy of inclusion. I deleted them, but they were restored by Feoffer, who disagrees with me on this point.


 * From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, Raniere attended a Waldorf school, before leaving for a public junior high school. One classmate recalled an incident in which she had unwittingly shared "compromising" information about one of her sisters in front of a 9- or 10-year-old Raniere. According to her recollection, Raniere had told her: "You know, it’s like I have this little bottle of poison I can hold over your head ... I just don’t think your parents or your sister would be very happy if I told them." She claims Raniere "would call me sometimes and say, 'Little bottles, little bottles'". On another occasion, a third-grade Raniere told a special needs classmate "You’re one of the stupidest people I’ve ever met. You’re so stupid nobody wants to be your friend".

Is the Epoch Times a reliable source? Wikipedia says it's dubious; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Also, the material seems a bit trivial.


 * Eight years later, it would be revealed Sara Bronfman had a 2009 sexual relationship with Lama Tenzin Dhonden, the Dalai Lama's gatekeeper who arranged the appearance. Amid accusations of corruption, Dhonden was replaced.

Unless there is something showing that Raniere ordered or encouraged Bronfman to get involved with Dhonden to help curry favor with the Dalai Lama, I don't see what these two sentences have to do with Raniere.

Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Lama Dhonden's dismissal for corruption following the violation of the celibacy vow is clearly relevant to the Dalai Lama's collaboration with the now-convicted head of a sex trafficking and extortion racket.  Similarly, the childhood extortion claim would seem to be relevant.  But you make a good point on that calling a peer "stupid" does seem trivial; its been removed.    Feoffer (talk)

This article cites Frank Parlato (https://frankreport.com/) as a source on a number of points. This site also posts QAnon theories (https://frankreport.com/2019/08/22/more-than-just-pedophilia-insights-into-epsteins-island-temple-and-its-purported-use-for-satanic-worship/) Should this source be trusted?

Edit to the end of Early Life section
In the Early Life section, Gina's death is worded as "died by suicide in 2002", shouldn't it be, "she committed suicide in 2002"? This grammar/terminology sounds weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.84.19 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

✅ That was awkward, thank you for pointing it out. Feoffer (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Question about leading the article with the phrase "American Felon" or "convicted felon."
This is a stylistic question I wanted to ask about. I want to see where folks who know about Wikipedia and are good at editing are at. I agree that it is absolutely factual that he has been convicted of felonies. At the same time, I don't know that this is meaningful. I want to be unbiased and I think there is a bit of bias in starting the article that way. I know that this is a sensitive subject and it is also in the news. People feel strongly about it too. However, I think that leading with felon isn't particularly meaningful. It's more meaningful to discuss his work with NXIUM and the way that it broke the law. Being a felon tells us that a court agreed, but it doesn't change the fact about what the consensus is about what he has done. Perhaps he is pedantic. But Keith Raniere is notable because first of all his abuse and second of all through NXIUM. Not all cult leaders are felons because of it. This might be pedantic if so no worries. I apologize. Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird self loathing?
This guy is a holocaust denier, and yet his mother was Jewish, and almost all the girls he groomed are Jewish. I don't know if this is pertinent to understanding this psycho, but it's definitely relevant and of note. As an ethnic and religious Jewish student I find this to be the most notable thing about him, preying on our women amidst his self loathing. Might be mummy issues. But it's definitely worth including in his early life to help fulfil a fuller picture. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What are your sources where any of this can be verified? These are a lot of unsupported claims right now. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "rape"
Another IP editor (24.250.190.130) has been repeatedly inserting the words "rape" and "sexual assault" into the passage about Raniere's alleged sexual relationship with an underage girl. That is not supported by the cited source, which says that there was an alleged sexual relationship, not that there was alleged rape. Although it is possible that Raniere would have been found guilty of statutory rape in that situation if he were accused, the fact is that he wasn't accused, and even if he were, rape and statutory rape are not the same thing. We should be careful with the language we use. It's not our job as editors to express our disapproval of Raniere's actions or to alter the information in the cited sources. If the source article doesn't say "rape," then we shouldn't say "rape."

Moreover, the editor's position is self-contradictory: The editor claims that sex and rape are equivalent when one person is underage, yet the editor insists that the word "rape" must be used instead of "sex" in that context. If the two words are equivalent in that context, why not use the latter, which is noncontroversial and better matches the language in the source material? 23.242.198.189 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

agreed that non-US readers may find the term a bit 'strong' for what may have been consensual, but it is the normal legal term for the offence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#New_York

duncanrmi (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not the normal term. You're confusing rape with "statutory rape." Not the same thing. In fact, in some jurisdictions, if two underage teenagers have sex they can both be charged with statutory rape--that doesn't mean they are rapists (see the wiki article on statutory rape). If the source article doesn't say "rape," then it's not appropriate to say it in this article. You shouldn't have such a problem being faithful to the source material. In this case, saying they had sex and that she was 15 gives the reader all the information they need. Moreover, it's not our job as wiki editors to make a legal judgment about an offense the person was never convicted of or even charged with. 23.242.195.76 (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Title
Why the hell does he have a "title" when it's most certainly selfmade? Makes it seem like this wikipedia page is made by fanboys of this disgusting being 80.220.67.219 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The indictment against him lists him as "Keith Raniere, also known as 'The Vanguard'." The prosecutors who got him put away for life were not, last I checked, in his fanclub. Evackost (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Disregard. Evackost (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop removing necessary citations and necessary phrasing
I don't want to continue this longer than it has to, but across several NXIVM-related pages Rootone has reverted edits that were made in good faith and were properly cited. The crux of Rootone's argument is that it is somehow necessary to call NXIVM, and my edits to keep to neutral POV --specifically going into why NXIVM might be called a cult, or going into the actual criminal offenses Raniere took part in-- is being attacked in a bad faith manner.

This is totally against multiple policies (WP:NPOV, WP:ASSERT, and WP:CITE), but more importantly it's disrespectful of the audience.

Visit any number of pages devoted to groups commonly called cults (Branch Davidians, Landmark Forum, Scientology, etc.), and this approach didn't fly there, and it shouldn't fly here either. Evackost (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Disregard. Evackost (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't want to continue this longer than it has to either and I don't wish to edit warring with you. All my edit are all in good faith too. I just don't agree with you edits. My arguments still stands. NXIVM is a cult, this is a actual fact, reported by all media outlets. To say otherwise is just outright wrong and dishonest. Rootone (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem is not whether NXIVM fits one definition of a cult or another. It is that "cult" (as such) has no objective definition at all –ask an evangelical whether Mormons are a cult, for example, and you're going down a very ugly path.


 * So the only way it can be reported is as a particularly widespread opinion (where the holder of the opinion is probably more important than the opinion itself). Even then it's ancillary to the objective facts that a) it was a business, b) by its own definition, it was involved in multi-level marketing (which has its own issues) and c) it operated as a racketeering enterprise. Evackost (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Disregard. Evackost (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing concerns about Evackost's recent contributions
I've reverted some of Evackost's bold changes. They've asked for a detailed rationale, so I'll provide one here. Feoffer (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Monogram" is not standard language in this case, RSes refer it to a brand of his initials.
 * "given inconsistent explanations" about the meaning of the brand is not found in RSes who report that the "four elements" explanation was a lie.
 * Pacer and Raniere's filings are not reliable secondary source. Per NOTNEWS, we don't need to alert readers to every picayune dispute between Raniere and Bureau of Prison.
 * Assassination claims are utterly unacceptable BLP vio, one that could cause Raniere's death I might add. DO NOT reintroduce.


 * Thank you for actually articulating WTF you are engaging in edit war behavior, because I can easily tell you that you are wrong.
 * Keith Raniere literally calls it "monogram" in the text you have repeatedly reverted, and strangely enough it remains there.
 * Please RTFA in this case, the New York Times article that is cited in the text you have repeatedly reverted:
 * The scene in Salzman’s home was intense but mostly cheery. Yet last October, The New York Times published an article reporting alarming practices by Nxivm. The article explained that some female members of the group, who called themselves “masters,” had initiated other women, calling themselves “slaves,” into a ritual of sisterhood at homes in and around Clifton Park, near Albany. First, they stripped naked. One by one, they lay on a massage table while a female osteopath, also a Nxivm member, used a cauterizing pen to brand the flesh near their pelvic bone. She carved a symbol that some women thought represented the four elements or the seven chakras or a horizontal bar with the Greek letters “alpha” and “mu,” but if you squinted and looked again, contained within them a different talisman: a K and an R — Raniere’s initials. Not all the women were told that these initials were present in the symbol.
 * Pacer and Raniere's filings are not reliable secondary source *on their own*, which is why I cited multiple news articles, which you reverted without any explanation or attempt to correct.
 * You provoked an edit war for very stupid reasons and I am now being libelled as though I'm a member of MS-13. [redacted] Evackost (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because he is possibly being enlisted as a sockpuppet, I am tagging User:Shibbolethink because every issue re: the DOS Branding segment that keeps getting reverted is answered here.
 * I am going to replace this section because there is zero problem with it and it clarifies the bad grammar.
 * I will then go back and re-add the section on the lawsuit separately, incorporating User:Shibbolethink's demand to get rid of a citation of the New York Post, even if there is no acutal problem raised. Evackost (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

just nevermind, why bother with this anymore --Evackost (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, "enlisted as a sockpuppet?" I saw this thread at WP:ANI and wanted to investigate. Imagine my surprise when I saw you had already restored your own preferred version when you did not have consensus to do so. I looked at the edits, and I believe they are not an improvement. They add a great deal of WP:UNDUE content that is, essentially, making Wikipedia a mouthpiece of Raniere. e.g. Within weeks of the dismissal, Raniere filed another suit against the Bureau of Prisons that is active . Raniere has used the lawsuit to file an affidavit making far-ranging claims about his imprisonment, including a claim that he is in danger of a death in custody akin to those of Whitey Bulger and Jeffrey Epstein should he be transferred to a Communications Management Unit within the federal prison system. He also says "a billionaire media mogul from Mexico" is seeking to hurt him.
 * Stop editing against consensus. Read WP:1AM.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not editing, period. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Evackost (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Some of the information added to the branding section is not entirely accurate and little misleading. The information highlighted by Evackost comes from an NYT article that was published in May 2018, before Raniere's trial and before inner circle members cooperated with the prosecutors and court testimony. The trial revealed a lot more information and details that were previously unknown. What we do know, established by both prosecutors and confirmed by multiple DOS slaves is that some of them were told the brand represents the elements and not his initials. Also, saying that women were branded with Raniere's initials is a true statement. Something that was stated by virtually everyone including the prosecutors, journalists, the media and DOS members. Rootone (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)