Talk:Matt Lauer/Archive 1

Category "American Jews"?
What is the rationale for the inclusion of this category? See WP:BLP and WP:BLP. I don't see how the source cited indicates that Matt Lauer has identified himself publicly with the "belief" of Judaism and that it is "relevant" to his "notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources"; perhaps it is, but the source cited in the notes (I added the quotation) does not appear to be a basis for the inclusion of the category. Others may want to re-consider it. See American Jews for more information. The use of such categories is sometimes controversial in editing articles in Wikipedia. (See, e.g., Talk:Lewis Libby for links to the related arbitration case pertaining to that article which lasted a few months.) --NYScholar 04:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly does not self-identify. I removed the category based on the source, and adjusted the statement in the article to say that his father is Jewish. I have serious doubts that his father's religion has any relevance to this article, and that should probably be removed as well, but I'm leaving it for more consensus to develop. - Crockspot 04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We were editing at the same time, and I ran into an "editing conflict"; I added the quotations pertaining to relevance (in Lauer's own words) to his ideas about "spirituality" etc.; note the q. in which he points out that he was married the second time in a church by a minister. I think that it is proper to remove the category in this article, as already done (see above).  It does not appear that Lauer identifies himself publicly with the "belief" of Judaism; it is not clear what, if any, religious "belief" he may identify himself publicly with; it is not clear (as of the comments in 2000) that he himself knows.  That may have changed in the past 7 years.  --NYScholar 05:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your revision of the content looks good. - Crockspot 12:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Matt Lauer ever an MTV News Reporter / Anchor?
Seem to remember Matt doing a number of MTV news broadcasts in the early days. If memory serves, he was standing in for Kurt Loder. Just wondering if I have the wrong person in mind or if Matt's biography could use some more information.
 * He's sure brainless enough for it. Man, what an idiot.  This guy can suck the intelligence out of any story. -Anderson Cooper

He was not. PM Magazine and HBO. HBO actually really bailed him out between Channel 9 and Channel 4.141.202.248.52 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A Current Affair
Wasn't Matt on a Current Affair with Maury Povich all those years ago? Junerugg (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of speculation about future Today Show host
Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I have removed the following:
 * Lester Holt or David Gregory will likely replace Lauer as Today show co-host when Lauer leaves.

--rogerd 20:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Further, its not even likely he will leave when his contract expires. He is more likely to seek a larger contract since NBC will be desperate to prevent their two popular hosts from leaving within such a short time of each other. Rangeley 20:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, speculation has come back in. Per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and a lack of sources, I have removed the following:  "Lauer will most likely step down as co-host of Today at the end of 2007 when his contract with NBC News expires and also when he turns 50. Lauer said that instead of seeking an evening news position he plans on working part-time once he leaves the Today show." DiegoTehMexican 16:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That two-row, three-colum box at the end of this page is very confusing and needs to be simplified.

Global Warming
Matt seems to be one of the most vocal of the news anchors regarding global warming. Regardless of where we all come down on the issue, it seems, as much as Matt advocates for real responsibility, his carbon footprint is probably one hundred times that of an average, SUV-driving middle-class commuter who owns a 2500 square foot house in the suburbs.

It would be interesting to hear him justify his use of private planes and five-mile-per-gallon limmos in the context of the global warming debate.

While describing how he pulls off his "Where in the World is Matt Lauer" exploit Matt says: "Do you have any idea how hard it is to make this trip? Here's one travel tip I'll share free of charge: private plane."

Hypocrisy? You decide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.222.33.146 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).


 * He's not a hypocrite just because he doesn't deny that the problem exists. You don't have to deny that fat is bad for you in order to eat a cheeseburger. He's not going around telling people they're evil for living the way that they do, he simply acknowledges the need for action with regards to global warming.


 * Despite what the paranoid conspiracy theorists say, global warming proponents are not in fact using climate science as an excuse to satisfy a sadistic urge to take away your freedom. Lauer understands that switching to a hybrid and flying coach are not going to solve the problem, even if every single person in the world did it. Only extensive international agreements--or some miracle technology--will actually prevent warming of over 2 C.
 * Dawei20 (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation?
With regard to this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Lauer&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=738415783&oldid=738415219 this is not a copyright violation, and not even close or questionable.

If you want to see a model of accepted paraphrase, read the cited articles. You will see that they all quote each other, much as I quoted them, and they all repeat certain phrases, which I also repeated. You can't describe media reaction without quoting media reaction.

If you think you can do a better job of conveying the same ideas without supposed "copyright violations," try it and post it here first. But I don't think it's possible.

This edit reduces Lauer's greatest embarassment to a vague snippit. It even deleted the multiple WP:RS, so that readers couldn't even look it up themselves. --Nbauman (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Journalist and/or entertainer
Is there really a dispute (even among our contributors) whether Matt Lauer is a journalist? If so, is it only because he dared to give some air time to a candidate that many liberals intensely hate? (And does interviewing a hated candidate make a journalist suddenly become a non-journalist?)

I've been away from Wikipedia for nearly ten years - except for a few, sporadic edits here and there - so I don't know what the new rules, procedures and customs are. Please fill me in, if I've made a mistake of any kind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Bias
I think the section on his present career is obviously bias. Statements such as "[Lauer] rushed through audience-led topics such as domestic terror attacks and veterans’ affairs, implying that there was not enough time to cover these in detail." and "Lauer failed to challenge Trump on alleged inaccuracies, such as his statement that he was "totally against the war in Iraq," which other sources called "lies."" have no place in Wikipedia, which is dedicated to fact, not opinion. I didn't correct the section as I am not an expert on his current career but I did add a bias tag. Degrelecence (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No doubt you are correct. The "progressive"/left-wing/Clinton bias is glaring obvious in the use of the word "repeated" in the sentence: "Lauer devoted a third of the Clinton interview to repeated questions about her mail server". The Lauer questions were fair and reasonable (and not "repetitive") by any objective journalistic standard. The fact that the paragraph author goes on to include a complaint that Lauer did not bring up a flip off-the-cuff remark in a Howard Stern Show (!) interview years ago, further confirms the "progressive"/left-wing/Clinton bias. A real progressive would have no problem with the Lauer questions. 108.29.35.7 (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Other Work
I created an "other work" section because it seemed like there was so much information about cameo appearances and roles in films scattered throughout the article. --Coingeek (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I also split up the career section to 1998-2011 and 2012-today.--Coingeek (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual misconduct
we need a new subtitled section for matt... Let us eat lettuce (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Fired from NBC
https://twitter.com/jimrutenberg/status/935838857903427584

NYT’s story coming. Article will need a lot of updates soon.Casprings (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

NBC memo: https://twitter.com/jimrutenberg/status/935839349853294592 looks like sexual behavior of some sort.Casprings (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * More like assault

Last I heard on air it went so far as actual physical assault, a step beyond "behavior"; sure to be more available in due time. 72.211.215.4 (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Add current information as to Matt Lauer's release from NBC due to sexual harassment allegations. Gilliam Regal (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Change to reflect Matt Lauer fired from today show after allegations of misconduct 76.27.45.18 (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. This information is thoroughly discussed in the article's second paragraph and the last paragraph of the 2012–2017 section.  City O f  Silver  16:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017
Matthew Todd Lauer was an American television Journalist. 103.46.201.138 (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ per MOSTV. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest   17:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete reference to Sochi Olympics
I believe we should delete that info (as to when it allegedly occurred) until it is confirmed by major media sources. I had deleted it already, and another User added it back.

Mercury News, Page Six and TMZ are not strong, credible sources. I cannot find one major news agency that refers to the Sochi Olympics specifically. NBC News, Reuters, etc. says the incidents leading to the complaint occurred throughout 2014. That is the content that the lead should include. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Mercury News is a reputable newspaper. JTRH (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Mercury News claim is from the gossip page, Page Six.

The report that NBC bosses received this week, and which apparently led to Lauer’s firing, is that he sexually assaulted a female staffer while covering the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, Page Six said. http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/11/29/matt-lauer-long-rumored-to-be-a-womanizer-who-denied-affair-with-natalie-morales/

Is Page Six a valid source?

Page Six[edit] "Page Six" redirects here. The best-known gossip section is "Page Six". It was created by James Brady[77] and currently edited by Emily Smith (although it no longer actually appears on page six of the tabloid). February 2006 saw the debut of Page Six Magazine, distributed free inside the paper. In September 2007, it started to be distributed weekly in the Sunday edition of the paper. In January 2009, publication of Page Six Magazine was cut to four times a year. Daily web content is published at www.pagesix.com. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: The Mercury News article cites a Page Six article. This one. https://pagesix.com/2017/11/29/matt-lauer-allegedly-sexually-assaulted-female-staffer-during-olympics/ And that article does not say anything about the Sochi Olympics. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * MSNBC just reported it independently. I added the cited source. JTRH (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The only source that talks about an incident at the Olympics is the New York Post, according to TMZ. 5:55 AM PT -- The New York Post is reporting the incident that triggered the firing occurred at the Sochi Winter Olympics, when Lauer allegedly assaulted a female NBC staffer. And the Post is not a highly rated source either. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The MSNBC article also says that the New York Post is the source of the Sochi rumor. http://deadline.com/2017/11/matt-lauer-fired-nbc-news-sexual-misconduct-andy-lack-1202216342/ (Does Wikipedia accept the New York Post as a valid source??)

The announcement got NBC News out in front of several reports about Lauer that had been in the works at print news outlets, an informed source tells Deadline. New York Post reported Wednesday morning Lauer had allegedly sexually assaulted a female NBC staffer during the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014; she reported it to NBC HR on Monday. NBC News signed Lauer to a new $20 million a year-ish contract in 2016. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * When multiple reputable sources report that the allegation has been made, it is appropriate and credible to report that the allegation has been made. That is not a judgment of the credibility of the allegation. JTRH (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

FINALLY, a major newspaper gets involved. I think they are also quoting the New York Post but at least we have the Washington Post to cite, not the NY Post. (Actually, it's an AP article published by the WP. But that's fine too. They are also a highly respected media outlet. https://www.apnews.com/6eaf2bf0027d4470ae49bcbfc6b07569 )

According to the Washington Post, some sources have said that the allegations related to conduct which began at the 2014 Sochi Olympics and continued afterwards. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nbc-news-fires-matt-lauer-over-inappropriate-sexual-behavior/2017/11/29/07a8d41a-d502-11e7-9ad9-ca0619edfa05_story.html?utm_term=.bd0b2241caa3 Peter K Burian (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The AP is now reporting unconditionally that the Sochi Olympics were where the objectionable behavior originated. JTRH (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as I said above re: Washington Post and AP. But your edit had said that he was fired because of an incident at the Olympics. The fact is, that he was fired because of a series of incidents alleged by the complainant; that series seems to have started at Sochi. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My edit stated that it was reported that one of the incidents was at Sochi. JTRH (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

According to the history, your edit said: Other sources have reported allegations specifically related to conduct at the 2014 Sochi Olympics

But that is not correct. The allegations report a series of incidents and only one of them relates to Sochi (where they apparently started). Peter K Burian (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about whether the incident(s) occurred at, or began at, some point in 2014 which could not be determined, or whether it could more precisely be determined that a specific incident occurred at Sochi. The latter was my contention. That does not mean or imply that Sochi was the only one, but as I posted above, AP is now reporting that Sochi is the specific incident for which he was fired. JTRH (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are we trying to protect this article?
Granted, we have had one disagreement (see Talk page re: Sochi Olympics) but I don't see any need for protection at this time. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That wasn't even an edit war. It was a polite discussion about the reliability of a source. JTRH (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't why the article was protected. There was a string of edits from about 12:00 - 12:30 UTC (now rev-deleted) from a wide variety of IP addresses that were obvious vandalism/BLP attacks that needed to be stopped at the time.  Given the rapidness and distributed nature of the attacks, semi-protection was necessary to stop it.  The protection had nothing to do with any particular dispute.  -- Jayron 32 17:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And I agree with JTRH; it was a polite discussion that went on for quite a while ... about whether a source was reliable, and whether the sentence was actually accurate. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks for the explanation. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Bias tag
I tried to clean up the section on his interviews with Trump/Clinton to make them more unbiased. I think the tag can be removed but I won't make that decision alone. --Coingeek (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I neutralized that a bit more by attributing opinions to critics; seems well-referenced and pretty neutral now. I'm removing the tag, but if anyone has any concerns feel free to voice them here or re-add. -- Beland (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed; the article is fine now, Neutral POV and fully cited. It's great when Wikipedia works as it should! Peter K Burian (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017
Change "Years active" from "1979-present" to "1979-2017" in sidebar. Michaelawells (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌- because of no sources. HINDWIKI •  CHAT  01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Misconduct and Harassment Description
My decision to add the word “harassment” to the title of the section is not arbitrary or against good will. The reality is that the three items cited for “The inquiries revealed that Lauer had engaged in additional ongoing incidents of sexual harassment against multiple women.” all clearly state harassment:


 * “Matt Lauer's ouster creates problems for NBC leadership, and future of 'Today' show” (USA Today dated November 29th, 2017) uses the word 4 times.
 * “Matt Lauer Accused of Sexual Harassment by Multiple Women (EXCLUSIVE)” (Variety dated November 29th, 2017) uses the word 6 times and the word “harassed” once.
 * “Two More Complaints Against Matt Lauer Filed Wednesday: Report” (Deadline Hollywood dated November 29th, 2017) uses the word as an article tag.

So that’s my case! --SpyMagician (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think "misconduct" is an all-encompassing term which includes harassment. JTRH (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I see “misconduct” as something lighter than an abuse of power. To me, “harassment” implies power and is used in other articles about similar situations. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine. As I said, I wasn't disagreeing. JTRH (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead gives too much emphasis to termination
Yes, Lauer is currently in the news for a scandal. However, the events of November 29 and onward should not take up the majority of the introduction, nor should they be covered in excruciating detail: this is pure WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and breaking stories should not dominate a biography in an encyclopedia, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE. I don't believe any more than a couple sentences in the lead should be devoted to his firing, and the most salacious details should be relegated to the body of text. Similarly, his firing should not take up a disproportionately large section if the article, and intricate details unlikely to be relevant in 2 years should be omitted. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * His firing currently is about 18 lines of text in an article which has about 122 lines of text, that seems in proportion. I agree that the lead does not accurately summarize the body, but that can be fixed by adding text to the lead.  We don't need to cut anything, which is pretty concise right now as it is.  If WP:DUE is an issue with the lead, add some more text to it.  It certainly isn't a problem in the body; we've condensed the content of a half dozen or so different 200+ line source articles down to about 18 lines.  That's not bad.  -- Jayron 32 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing what you said, I have gone through and moved any details in the lead to the body which were not already covered there, and removed any extraneous detail, such as specific acts and numbers of women (which is unclear anyways given the disparate reports in different sources), which were already covered later. I think we've got the lead into a better balance, without losing detail from the article. I hope this helps some.  -- Jayron 32 20:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the first paragraph, so that his non-firing related biography is no longer dwarfed by the events of recent days. I feel there is till too much detail though: I don't think it is necessary to mention Andrew Lack in Lauer's intro paragraph, nor name drop any publications, and there shouldn't be a profusion of footnotes (or any, per MOS:LEAD). Note comparative emphases given to his termination in sources like Biography.com and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Per WP:TERTIARY, tertiary sources like encyclopedias can be useful for evaluating due weight. WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION apply to the lead as well. A succinct yet accurate and proportionately balanced summary might read: Lauer was terminated from NBC on November 29, 2017, following allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior towards a colleague. Shortly after, media outlets reported additional women coming forward with complaints of ongoing sexual harassment. Lauer admitted that some of the allegations were true, and apologized to those he had hurt. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the proposed text. It summarizes the body and removes detail that isn't necessary in the lead. Any unique sources in the lead can be moved to the body if needed. Ca2james (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD notice
There is an AfD in process at Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations Atsme 📞📧 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of merge per AfD
I merged the information that was included in Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations with the section "Sexual misconduct and harassment allegations" per the AfD. I have requested that an admin check to make sure I got everything merged (edit history, TP info) that needed to be merged. Atsme 📞📧 14:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging does not usually mean replacing the existing text with text from the source; it's usually meant to be selective. The current section, copied from the standalone article, is way overblown and undue and needs to be trimmed.
 * Can the merge be reverted so we can discuss which details, if any, from the standalone article are included in this article? Ca2james (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Who said selective? The result was merge per the close: Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations. My suggestion is not to revert because if you do, it will be a violation of consensus. Atsme 📞📧 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it obviously won't be a violation of consensus. Merge doesn't automatically mean full content merge, it can also (and usually means IMHO) mean a selective merge. No one in the AfD said all the content should be merged; those who expressed opinions on the merge said it should be selective. The text before was more tailored to fit in this article IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those participating in the AfD did not vote to delete it - they voted to merge it. I merged it with what was there already. It was not a "merge discussion" - it was an AfD that resulted in merging because they chose to NOT delete. Atsme 📞📧 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See Merging. Atsme 📞📧 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about the people voting delete. Quite a few people said it should be condensed; no one said the entirety should be merged in. Not voting to delete does not mean all the material is worth keeping or that the existing material should be replaced. Anyhow, I'll take a look over what you've added and what was there before and try to create the best version. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Ca2james (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You have misunderstood the process and conflating a regular "merge" with an AfD decision to merge and not delete. Merging is a compromise. See Delete_or_merge. What you're wanting to do is a redirect, and that is noncompliant with consensus and compromise. Consensus said MERGE, and now you are trying to delete content that consensus said to merge. At the very least, you should wait the required time frame after an AfD closes and then discuss any proposed changes. Atsme 📞📧 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that, per WP:MERGETEXT, there's no enshrined necessity to merge all content, automatically; so in a case like this, although an administrator defined the consensus as to merge, they deliberately do not define how much to merge. It can be as little as one sentence or as much as all of it. But it is a common misunderstanding that everyhting should be kept in a merger. In fact, that would rarely be the case: the only result in which an AfD allows for intrinsically keeping all the material is, unsurprisingly, 'keep.' Incidentally, I make this comment as an uninvolved editor who took no part in the aforementioned discussion; consider it, perhaps, more in the nature of a point of order.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. It's now just a regular content discussion; considering people were mostly of the opinion that it should be trimmed only little should be added. I'm too sleepy right now though to execute a better merge, however anyone can BOLDLY do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't make-up policy as we go along. Again, I strongly suggest that you review Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations and the arguments presented for merging and the ones presented for keeping - there were no delete arguments - the consensus was unambiguously to merge. What you are arguing on this TP now is opposite what the policy supplement describes as procedure, and it is noncompliant with the consensus result of the AfD. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument to delete the contents of the article that was merged. I followed consensus using WP:Merging, the prevalent reasons given for merging during the AfD was that the article (the one proposed for deletion) wasn't long enough to demand being a spin-off, not that the information should be excluded. The combination of keep arguments and merge arguments were unambiguously clear about keeping the contents of that article and merging it with Matt Lauer. Atsme 📞📧 17:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Step number 2 of the WP:Merging says to Cut/paste the non-redundant content from the source page into the destination page. You didn't do that: you replaced the existing text with text from your article. Your version does not have consensus here, and I ask that you revert your addition so a better merge can be executed. I would be happy to BOLDly do all that myself but given our past history it would be better if someone else did it. Ca2james (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

My argument has always been merge and consolidate. Write concisely, not expansively. There is no overwhelming reason to cover the issue in excruciating detail, certainly not much more than had existed in this article before AFD. It would be stupid to cover Lauer's Olympics coverage or any other event in such detail. We don't need separate headers for each sub-element, nor a day-by-day breakdown of events. Does this mean some facts get omitted? Yes, as per the nature of an enclycopedia (gleaning the essentials from a myriad of sources). Responses from so and so are largely unnecessary: he was fired, apologized,we don't need everyone's 2 cents. And block quotes are not needed anywhere in this article. User:Atsme, try to look beyond WP:RECENTISM, and let's frame this event proportionally and historically with an eye towards what will be still be significant in a year or two, like what would be found in any publication with a professional editor. (can you imagine how cluttered and banal this article would be if every stage of his life was covered in equal weight?) And again, we need not add information simply because they are in the news. Most news articles by their nature are inherently myopic, giving only the news of the day. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC) Matt Lauer's firing will be remembered for a very long time along as will all the others. Getting fired from a multimillion dollar contract in disgrace is not something that will be forgotten anytime soon. Consensus determined the biographical material in this article wasn't long enough to warrant a spin-off/content fork. I worked up a summary of reasons stated to Merge (no mention of deleting the material) per the AfD iVotes: Including the 6 KEEP iVotes, 18 out of 25 iVotes essentially supported merging with no mention of deleting any material which left 7 iVotes (6 + 1 redirect) that mentioned trim/condense.
 * 1) That article isn't so long to demand a subsidiary article.
 * 2) Agreed with #1.
 * 3) This is not an incident but a culmination of actions through out his career and should be in context.
 * 4) ...we don't need a new article for every new set of allegations because we aren't the news.
 * 5) Significant issue but merge with Matt Lauer.
 * 6) No cause for a content/POV fork;
 * 7) An scandal that brought down one of the most bankable names at NBC News is worthy of an individual article.
 * 8) There is absolutely no reason that this material cannot be covered in the article on Lauer.
 * 9) Merge to Matt Lauer per WP:TOOSOON as the contents of this article fit comfortably into the Lauer article.
 * 10) Merge at least for now. There’s room in the main article.
 * 11) Merge all of the "(whatever celebrity/politician) sexual misconduct allegations" articles to the main article on each person.
 * 12) Merge
 * 1) Trim and merge
 * 2) contents can be summarized and merged to his main article.
 * 3) keep a lid on excessive detail, bloated prose, and/or laundry lists of reactions that violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION.
 * 4) this material can be quite easily condensed
 * 5) Redirect
 * 6) any additional information as needed
 * 7) so it shouldn't be that hard to merge the most notable bits

Lauer was fired from a multimillion dollar job because of his sexual misconduct - his alleged behavior toward women is now included in the section the same way it is for all the other cases - it's called consistency and if inclusion of public victim names and their allegations passes NPOV and notability in the other BLP articles, it passes here as well. WP doesn't whitewash and censor what the sources say. The information that was merged is supported by RS with inline citations, and where necessary, in-text attribution for any material that might be challenged. Wikilawyering will not change consensus. There was already one attempt to redirect that was reverted by the closing admin who stated in the edit summary: "(Undid revision 814530850 by WWGB (talk) An actual merge does not appear to have occurred)" I had the copy/paste worked up by paragraphs, but there were interim edits that created an edit conflict (which I noted in my edit summary), so I couldn't do it paragraph by paragraph as originally intended. I did it the way I did to avoid further edit conflicts and to preserve the original material and citations. Atsme 📞📧 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Wikilawyering will not change consensus"; yes but completely transferring the material from an article that the community determined shouldn't exist as a standalone is Wikilawyering around the outcome. Merging has never meant "copy-and-paste". All this has created is WP:UNDUE weight for one recent event, making it appear as if Lauer is most notable for these allegations. This should be condensed into three paragraphs -- tops -- and I am not sure if the article creator of the allegations page should take part in the trimming if they think the current mess in the article is appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What happened in the AfD is past history and not relevant to this discussion. You didn't properly merge the source text but instead overwrote the existing text. It's been shown above that you do not have consensus to perform the merge in that way.
 * From the above, I'm guessing that you're not going to undo your changes yourself. Therefore, I'm going to undo the changes you made - restore the status quo ante, as it were - so we can start the merge process from scratch and figure out how to best incorporate your text into this article. You had some good wording in your text and some good references but there's too much detail in many places. Ca2james (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Status quo ante restored. Ca2james (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI I'm working up a comparison of the two versions. Ca2james (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of current and standalone article text
I've taken the basic structure of the standalone article and put together tables for each section in that article (renaming one or two and splitting another one) so that we can compare similar text side by side. Some of the text in the current article is duplicated in the table. Ithink I got all of the text from the current article but I'm tired and might have missed some - if so, I apologize. I hope this is somewhat useful. If not... Hat it and we'll try another approach. Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ca2james (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems useful. The lauer response stands out as being too much in the stand alone. The first paragraph of the lede of the stand alone seems better. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Reactions" section can be completely ruled out as clutter, in my opinion. As for the announcement, it can be written in one sentence: "Lauer's colleagues, Savannah Guthrie and Hoda Kotb, reported his firing on NBC's Today show on November 29, 2017". Descriptions about his colleagues "fighting tears" or other difficulties and opinions are useless to an encyclopedia; it reads more like a poorly-written news article. Those are just some of my early thoughts but so much more can, and should, be made more precise.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah say Megyn Kelly's reaction is hardly important.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Another edit conflict

 * Ca2james, your disruption has not been helpful in getting this merge done properly. I am weary of the accusations, your overreacting, and the reverts. As you will see below highlighted in yellow is the information that was already in the article before the merge. The highlight in pink was also in the article and the merge simply reordered and reworded some of it, but it's there. The text that is not highlighted is what was merged, some of which ended-up being duplicates I never had a chance to correct because you and Galobtter reverted the merge against consensus, and before I had a chance to thoroughly go over it for accuracy. It would have been far more helpful if you had simply fixed the duplicates and followed consensus. Atsme 📞📧 06:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The merge did not simply [reorder] and [reword] some of it; it replaced the text completely, pasting in the majority of the standalone article and rewording everything that was there before. While some of the current text needs work, most of the wording is fine as-is and changing it was unnecessary. It would have been better if you'd done the merge much more selectively or perhaps left it for someone else who was not quite so vested in the standalone article.
 * Regarding the below table, I don't understand why text is struck out. I also don't understand the "doesn't make sense" note; what doesn't make sense? Could you please clarify those points? I'll take a look at the actual text and make some proposals later, if no one beats me to it.
 * Finally, please stop accusing me of doing things I'm not doing, like being disruptive or overreacting. Ca2james (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and your consistent show of ill-will toward me. As I explained, our edit interaction analyzer supports what I'm saying and other editors have acknowledged it. You have not relented. I am trying to get this issue resolved via discussion but you are making it very difficult by badgering me. You are misinterpreting WP:PAGs - you have misinterpreted the merge even after I showed in yellow highlight that I merged information to what was already in the article. The highlights match the existing text - the merge added material per CONSENSUS. If you still cannot understand why your revert was disruptive, then I have nothing more to say to you. You violated consensus to merge and now you're trying to justify why you violated it for all the wrong reasons. Please stop. If you don't understand why I struck text when the information is written in super text at the beginning of the strike, then perhaps you should read WP:CIR. Atsme 📞📧 14:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, the super text applies to the struck text; I didn't see that, before. Ca2james (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments
As I mentioned already, the article will do without the undue description of the Today announcement: only a sentence is necessary to identify the "who" and "when" without the inessential scope on things like facial expressions. The reactions section, at least as it appeared in the former sexual allegations page, should be avoided completely. We can steer clear of more tedious text if we remove the Today segments "where Lauer engaged in questionable behavior towards women". Because I'll ask: how does this benefit the reader? Instead of a section that is supposedly focused on the sexual allegations, there is a whole paragraph of every obscure instance of Lauer acting rudely on TV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My advice is to call an RfC or challenge the close because I believe it does belong and consensus to merge confirms it. I'm also going to get clarification regarding the DS on BLPs that require consensus before restoring material that was challenged. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 14:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Three editors here have told you consensus does not mean replacing the text with your overly-detailed former standalone article. Merging has never meant that. If that were not enough, an admin with over 500,000 edits-worth of experience has described to you "oftentimes" articles are not merged verbatim. Challenging the close will get you absolutely nowhere but NorthAmerica did recommend alerting editors from the AFD, neutrally.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article until a merge has taken place per AfD Merge, so if you're not familiar with that policy, I recommend that you become familiar. I'm in no hurry. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What a clever and subtle disparaging on my intelligence; thank you for giving me more time to reaffirm what I already know about merging. I'll ping those editors for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there was no intentional disparaging. If anything, it was to get you to do the pinging because I'm working on other things right now. I find it curious when editors who choose anonymity get their feathers ruffled because another editor doesn't know who they are, what they know, why they would have either exceptional or passing knowledge about WP PAGs, and so on. Based on the comments here, it certainly hasn't been presumed that I know anything about PAGs based on the way I've been disparaged and how a merge consensus has been treated, and there is no anonymity where I'm concerned. Ha! Oh, well. Sometimes collaboration feels more like herding cats and other times it flows so perfectly and reflects productivity at its finest. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * participants of the recent AFD, please help us decide what should be merged into this article. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule, of course, is NOTNEWS. It applies to what's in an article as much as it does to whether we should have a separate article. For material that will be of possible interest this week, but not a few years from now, the proper places for that is the newspapers. (I almost said WikiNews, but they do not yet have an article). There are some WPedians, who would have said "permanent interest," but I interpret that phrase to mean that anything people might reasonably still want to look up a year in the future is likely enough to be important indefinitely.  The   miscellaneous   incident do not qualify. The long quote from him about the event isn't even of temporary interest. The reactions from the various entertainment personalities is somewhere in the middle. It is impossible to have perspective on what really needs to be covered in Dec 2017.  DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's important to keep WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE in perspective in the determination of what should ultimately be merged. North America1000 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the current, six-paragraph version (here) is more than sufficient. I do not think there is much encyclopedic value in a bloated 13-15 paragraph version. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It belongs in the section. There should not be any stark contrasts and/or inconsistencies in how our BLPs are presented to our readers. We should not treat living persons differently because of their political persuasion, skin color, gender, nationality, religion, popularity or wealth - no whitewashing, no BLP coatracking. If we're going to cite NPOV/BLP policy to remove criticism and in-text attribution from one BLP then we need to be consistent across the board and apply those same policies to all BLPs. We are not supposed to censor, advocate, soapbox, take sides or play politics. We write what the RS say, and use in-text attribution if there's a chance the statement will be challenged. It's not UNDUE when it's factual information about a high profile individual that was fired because the evidence presented was convincing enough to warrant it. We should not censor information from our readers, especially that which reveals the ugly side of workplace violence/abuse, and in this case, sexual abuse against women. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the miscellaneous "behavior" as a reflection of the general consensus made here thus far. Fortunately, I was not influenced by "political persuasion, skin color, gender, nationality, religion, popularity or wealth". That was most likely the biggest issue in the current text but more can be condensed with continued deliberation here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Neutrality's version noted above is sufficiently detailed without getting repetitive or trivial. It covers enough and is well-cited.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When you're done trimming this BLP, please work on the other BLPs that have "sexual misconduct allegations" in the title so we can at least have BLP consistency across the board. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 12:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * *Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations, Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations, Al_Franken, Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations, James_Levine, and when those are done, there are more. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 12:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish to start individual discussions on any of those articles, no one here will stop you. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok - your views are understood. All I'm asking for here is consistency across the board in the way we treat BLPs but without collaboration, the spin-off articles will remain and the sections that don't spin-off will continue to be BLP coatracks, depending on who the BLP is, of course, because there is no consistency. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 13:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A foolish consistency is a bad idea. We should treat each article as that article needs to be treated.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting perspective, but how is treating like articles differently not a form of editorializing or possibly even tendentious editing? WP:OM applies to all articles, including our favorite BLPs. Omitting victim descriptions that are cited to RS using in-text attribution is omission that would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. To remove those descriptions is whitewashing and noncompliant with NPOV. I’m not convinced that it’s ok to omit victim descriptions from one BLP while including them in others as per WP:CENSOR which is policy. Regarding foolish consistency, is that what led to our IAR policy? I would welcome the opportunity to write mini-novels with total freedom of expression but I’m having a bit of trouble accepting that doing so isn’t WP:OR. Unfortunately, encyclopedic content requires a neutral, dispassionate tone - and I’m not saying that it can’t be engaging prose - but adherence to MOS and various other PAGs is required. On the other hand, if all of our BLPs are given the same consideration across the board regarding PAGs, you’ll get no opposition from me. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 19:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read 's !vote at the AfD: "Moore and Weinstein are special cases. Moore because of the political significance, Weinstein because of the importance as the exemplar." The fact that you created an under-4,000-byte Matt Lauer spin-off article less than 24 hours after he was fired, after endlessly railing against the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article, seems to indicate some sort of either WP:POINTy-ness or retaliation. If your sole argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS, and you still don't understand why it exists, you are free to AfD those articles. Continuing to argue to keep an article which was AfD-closed nearly unanimously as "Merge", and arguing to preserve all of your text in the merge, equates to tendentiousness and disruptive editing at this point. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did read it, SL - and it troubled me for the reasons I've already stated. The only disruption I see at this point are your accusations that I'm being disruptive. You are the one continuing to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete. If nothing is merged, then we are not adhering to consensus. I consider the discussion here to be informal, so if something formal is required, please follow procedures and take the necessary steps to either dispute consensus, or file a new AfD. Don't think what is happening here is going to override the AfD consensus - it will either require a new AfD, or an RfC at Village Pump to get a more widespread, uninvolved consensus. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please indicate, with WP:DIFFs, where I have "continu[ed] to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete". Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See my explanation below your support for the 6-paragraph version. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, please indicate, with WP:DIFFs, where I have "continu[ed] to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete" and where I have caused "disruption". Neutrality's suggestion is the current consensus, and it is you who are arguing against the current consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Neutrality's suggestion of this six-paragraph version: . -- Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record - your support for the 6-paragraph version indicates support for the status quo prior to the AfD which resulted in MERGE, and that means you are refusing to adhere to CONSENSUS. WP has different procedures in place for those who oppose CONSENSUS, and this is not one of them. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 23:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the WP:CONSENSUS at present, it is you who are arguing against the current consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should refresh your memory about WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't happen just because a few involved editors say it should - that isn't how it works, thank goodness. There are formalities that have to be followed the same way they were followed at the AfD. Please, let's work on getting the article right instead of trying to create disruption when there shouldn't be any. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please see WP:CONSENSUS, and while you are at it, WP:INVOLVED; and also re-read the entirety of this talk page from "AfD notice" down. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I've read it. I still stand by what I've said - what we're seeing here is not a formal consensus - it is barely even local. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Neutrality's suggestion - it's enough and this sorta seems like an attempt to stall turning the other article into a redirect, per AfD outcome.  Volunteer Marek   00:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Although I also support Neutrality's version, I thought it might be good to look at doing an actual merge. To that end, worked up a merge of the two below. I've pulled in wording from the standalone article for a couple of sentences, moved things around a bit, did some copy-editing, and removed That statement left open the possibility that previous management might have been aware of complaints against Lauer. The complainant wished to remain anonymous, and the press honored its long-standing policy of not identifying the victims of sexual harassment. The New York Times had met with the victim and her attorney, Ari Wilkenfeld, the same day she filed the complaint against Lauer[52] but "she said she was not ready to come forward and tell her story publicly."[3] as I'm not sure these sentences were needed.

I have omitted a lot from the standalone article because there's too much detail there: the specific accusations are borderline BLP violations in this article and UNDUE; Lauer's full statement is UNDUE, and there's a lot of quoted material that is better paraphrased. Omitting details of the allegations isn't whitewashing, which is a specific thing that interprets history from the white person's perspective and ignores the history experienced by non-white people. That's not happening here, and neither is Lauer being let off easy or his behaviours being minimized in any way.

All that said, this is my proposal:

"On November 29, 2017, NBC News announced that Lauer's employment had been terminated after an unidentified female NBC employee alleged that Lauer had sexually harassed her during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and that the harassment continued after they returned to New York. Andrew Lack, chairman of NBC News, sent a memorandum to his staff that said, in part, 'On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. ... While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident.' A network executive said Lauer would not receive any form of monetary settlement because he was fired “for cause”. His now terminated $25-million-a-year contract was supposed to run through the end of 2018.

The New York Times and Variety had been conducting independent investigatons of Lauer's behavior before he was fired. Both organizations said that NBC News management had been aware of their ongoing investigations. NBC said that current management had been unaware of previous allegations against Lauer.

Variety published a more detailed account of Lauer's alleged workplace behavior on the same day he was fired. The specifics reported by Variety's two-month investigation included information from at least ten of Lauer's current and former colleagues. The accusations in the article included alleged incidents where Lauer made lewd or sexually suggestive comments, initiated 'inappropriate contact' while alone with women in a locked office, showed his penis to a co-worker, and presented an unwanted sex toy to another NBC employee. Sources told Variety that Lauer particularly preyed on female interns, pages, production assistants and booking agents for NBC programs.

Additional accusations were made public in the ensuing days. On November 29, two individuals filed complaints against Lauer. Stephanie Gosk appeared on the November 30 edition of Megyn Kelly Today and claimed that as many as eight accusers had come forward, including some women who had complained about Lauer to executives, who ignored the complaints. NBC News management denied those allegations.

Lauer issued a statement in which he apologized for his actions and promised to repair the damage he had caused: 'Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed.'"

Ca2james (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on merge proposal
Pinging, , , , , and , who commented on Neutrality's version. What do you think? As I said above, I'm happy to go with Neutrality's version. Ca2james (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I'd be fine with this as well. Neutralitytalk 02:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What was merged? I'm not seeing anything. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentences unidentified female NBC employee alleged that Lauer had sexually harassed her during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and that the harassment continued after they returned to New York. and A network executive said Lauer would not receive any form of monetary settlement because he was fired “for cause”. His now terminated $25-million-a-year contract was supposed to run through the end of 2018. and associated references came from the standalone article. I thought the wording was better than what was in this article. Ca2james (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a good summary which reveals the truth (including the worst of it) while avoiding the blow-by-blow news reporting as it happened, and also avoids BLP violations and speculations. There's not really any need to list every single trial-by-media report and commentary that news outlets posted, and in fact that sort of stuff makes it too wordy and also makes the readers' eyes glaze over, creates UNDUE, and unbalances the wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Glad to see the newsy reactions section and the paragraph I removed are omitted from this version. Sure, a few things can be whittled down but this offers a solid foundation without jeopardizing the remainder of the article with WP:UNDUE step-by-step reports.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * NOTE - WP:CONSENSUS - Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay. These comments are local and do not involve the broader community; therefore, they cannot override community consensus of the AfD. I've already explained this, so please, if the plan is to override MERGE, then follow proper procedures to do so. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging involves comparing the two articles and evaluating the information in the source but not the target article. In this case, there was a lot of duplication (as you noted above) and so I evaluated the rest of the source text. My analysis and reasoning is above. If you have another merge proposal, please make it. Ca2james (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge states: You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add new material. If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary. That is not what is happening here - you are censoring new material and keeping what was already in the section. That is not a merge - you have deleted everything at the merged article which goes against consensus. See my Note about local consensus not overriding community consensus. Please follow procedures. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The content of any article, including what to retain or exclude in a merge and how to word it, is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. That is why we are seeking consensus for this version of text for the section in question. If you have another version of text you would like to use for the section of this wiki article, open a new thread called "Merge proposal 2", so that people can !vote and comment on that. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary. This is exactly what is happening here. Editors have evaluated the source text and determined that there is no information to be added to this page. This is part of the merge process. Again, if you have a merge proposal to make, please make it. Ca2james (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Summarizes the allegations frankly without using excessive detail or quotes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Ca2james's proposed merge as written.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 02:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this is local consensus - the proposal is not to merge - and local consensus does not override community consensus. The discussions are fine - discuss to your heart's content, but the merge is still valid less redundant material. I am preparing a community wide RfC. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The content of any article, including what to retain or exclude in a merge and how to word it, is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. That is why we are seeking consensus for this version of text for the section in question. If you have another version of text you would like to use for the section of this wiki article, open a new thread called "Merge proposal 2", so that people can !vote and comment on that. Right now this version has the most support. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. This version succinctly covers all the relevant notable material without being bloated or tabloidish. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Notice: I have requested input from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Merge since local consensus does not override community consensus, and the AfD consensus to merge is not being followed per PAGs. There are procedures to follow when a merge is controversial; therefore, in order to make it work as smoothly as possible without creating any attribution issues or further disruption, I have requested help from the relevant project. Please be patient and allow time for the process to work. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * how is this merge controversial when there is near unanimous consensus on the version offered? The whole point of the merge outcome at AFD was to discuss on this talk page what material should be...well, merged.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The content of any article, including what to retain or exclude in a merge and how to word it, is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. That is why we are seeking consensus for this version of text for the section in question. If you have another version of text you would like to use for the section of this wiki article, open a new thread called "Merge proposal 2", so that people can !vote and comment on that. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am responding here due to the message left at the Wikiproject Merge page. The best thing to do when there is disagreement about what to merge is to develop a consensus at the target articles page. So I would suggest following whatever consensus develops here. AIR corn (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ based on the strong consensus here. It looks like this version is preferred. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Requests for comment from wider community
The consensus for Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations was to merge. See the deletion discussion regarding what parts of this article should be merged. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Proposal A - merge the new material from Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations into the section Sexual misconduct allegations in the Matt Lauer article, excluding only the redundancies. See Talk:Matt_Lauer or this revision.
 * Proposal B - request a review of merge consensus
 * Proposal C - relist the article at AfD

Votes

 * Notice of this RfC was posted to the TP of WikiProject Biography
 * Notice of this RfC was posted to the TP of WikiProject New York
 * Notice of this RfC was posted to the TP of WikiProject Journalism
 * Notice of this RfC was posted to Village pump (miscellaneous)


 * Support A - abide by the original consensus to merge and exclude only the redundancies. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support D, to merge according to the discussion Talk:Matt_Lauer above and has been implemented here. This does abide by the consensus to merge, as is discussed in the sections above. Merging does not automatically mean that all, or any, content from the source article is merged to the target. Keeping all of the extra stuff from the source is equivalent to keeping the standalone article, against the AfD consensus. Ca2james (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * SNOW Support D .......Like pretty much everyone (or possibly actually everyone, including the admin closer, NorthAmerica) has been telling you, how a merge is done is determined at the talk page of the merged in article; this version has received consensus here. And seriously - the village pump? Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC) The participants of the AfD were pinged; many commented here. That should easily be enough to determine consensus among the AfD participants on how the merge should be done. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support E - topic ban for Atsme from this article and related articles for engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and failure to WP:DROPTHESTICK.  Volunteer Marek   15:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support D noted above, this was already negotiated, discussed, reached consensus, and acted on. I don't know why we're having YET ANOTHER vote.  Enough is enough already.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support D – How can an RfC be framed to exclude the overwhelming consensus as an option? The RfC as written appears to be improper. O3000 (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support D: Use the already-arrived-at WP:CONSENSUS, as with every other merge implementation, whether from a MERGEPROP or an AfD close result. This has been asked and answered numerous times. I recommend the OP withdraw this RfC before they get taken to ANI and risk a topic ban from American politics, since their behavior on this article, its talk page, and the related articles and spinoffs is emblematic of a wider problem that is exhausting the community's patience. Softlavender (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support D: Atmse, this is very disruptive. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Neutralitytalk 00:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment - wider input from the community is needed as local consensus is wanting to delete all the material that was added to create the spin-off and further reduce what was originally in the main article which is basically whitewashing and noncompliant with NPOV. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I've added Proposal D (merge per the discussion above) because otherwise this RfC does not actually present all options. Also added diff of what merge looks like under proposal A. Ca2james (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I called this RfC and that is not one of the choices. Discuss first. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your RFC as written is not neutral and does not provide all of the options; in particular, your options exclude the current consensus, making the RfC question incomplete. It really does look like you're trying to force keep your article against consensus and to justify your position using a misunderstanding of policies and guidelines. Consensus is very strongly against you: at what point will you let this go? Ca2james (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This is what, your THIRD, attempt at trying to get around consensus on this page? The two discussions above clearly indicate you're in a minority of one here. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop being WP:TEND.  Volunteer Marek  15:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't what happened. A handful of editors here are trying to thwart the consensus of an AfD to merge by deleting all of the content to skirt the merge consensus. Please get the facts straight. I am actually following proper procedures by calling an RfC to get wider community input from uninvolved editors because the merge consensus was not adhered to as evidenced by your two highly disruptive attempts to redirect. #1, #2. Please stop your disruptive behavior and follow procedures. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is EXACTLY what happened and no amount of WP:WIKILAWYERing is gonna change that. Time for topic ban. (Actually, wayyyy past topic ban time, but nm).  Volunteer Marek   15:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

And Atsme, you keep undoing the redirect at the other article. Here you did it with the edit summary of personal attack "The article stays until the merge discussion has been finalized.". For God's sake. We've already had TWO discussions "finalized". You just started a THIRD because you didn't like the outcome of the first two. It's freakin' finalized. YOU, not me, are the one being disruptive since you are clearly edit warring against consensus, and conniving at ways of getting around it. You've been warned several times about this kind of behavior, most recently by User:Bishonen. You promised to step away, or tone it down, and you've done neither.  Volunteer Marek  15:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speaking of battleground behaviour, I received a vaguely threatening (which felt very chilling) note from Atsme on my Talk page after I restored this article to the status quo ante. Ca2james (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In the interest of saving time, can you withdraw the RfC? Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirecting, especially if it is the result of talk page consensus, is often the best (sometimes only) option for a merge close at Afd. No one in the discussion mentioned what should be merged and neither did the closer. Merge !votes without specifying these details are not terribly helpful and it is up to the people doing the merge to decide what should be taken from the article. Nothing is a perfectly valid choice, especially if it leads to WP:undue concerns at the target article. See WP:Merge what for more thoughts on this matter. AIR corn (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Although at ANI she apparently agreed to step away from this issue:, Atsme is still re-litigating this on User talk:Bishonen (and other user talkpage[s]). -- Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matt Lauer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.usaweekend.com/00_issues/000430/000430matt_lauer.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419075833/http://www.eonline.com/celebrities/profile/index.jsp?uuid=b57520d3-4a9d-40e3-93b3-40d1cd0264c7 to http://www.eonline.com/celebrities/profile/index.jsp?uuid=b57520d3-4a9d-40e3-93b3-40d1cd0264c7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Years active in the Infobox template
Matt Lauer is currently not active in his profession. Should that not be reflected in the infobox template? Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC) For reference, here is what the template says (emphasis added). "Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable. Use the format 1950–2000, or 1970–present if still active (note the use of an en dash, not hyphen). If no dates of birth and/or death are known for the subject, only a floruit date range, as is common with ancient subjects, this parameter can be used for it. If approximate (circa) dates are known for either or both, put them in the birth_date and death_date parameters." Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I think it is too soon to conclude that he is not active in his profession. Even if he is currently not a journalist for Today, Wikipedia should not become the primary source claiming his career as a whole ended in 2017. The parameter should either remain "1979–present" or be removed as potentially misleading. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why are you saying having the years_active parameter in the infobox ending in 2017 means that his career is over? If and when he resumes his career, the years_active parameter can have a new span. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because that is what it would mean. Active ending in 2017 means, by definition, that he is no longer active after 2017. JTRH (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As a further example, the date in Brian Williams' box doesn't end in 2015 with his firing from Nightly News and resume when he got a new role at NBC. It says "-present", which is accurate. JTRH (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Lauer's father's lifespan
An IP  insists on repeatedly adding the birth and death date of Lauer's father, with little or no justification. Myself and have repeatedly defended the removal. It is not only uncited, but unwarranted per Manual of Style/Biographies, which states "Outside of the lead section, birth and death details are not included after a name except in a case of special contextual relevance." This article is not about his parents, and there is no contextual relevance to their birth or death years, let alone specific dates, and unlikely to cause any confusion. Even if this information is verifiable, mere verifiability does not necessitate its inclusion, per WP:ONUS. Note also that the supposed reference [www.filmreference.com/film/16/Matt-Lauer.html filmreference.com] does not mention the lifespan of Lauer's parents, and even if did it it is not a very reliable source, and even if it were, we are under no obligation to include such info, per above. IP, please stop edit-warring and convince us why these dates must be in the article. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding the identical behavior of, probably the same person. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

-2017 or -present?
There's a back-and-forth slow-motion edit war about whether "years active" should end with "2017" or "present." He hasn't worked since he was fired in 2017, but using that as the end date for his active career implies knowledge that he'll never work again. I prefer "present," but I'm primarily interested in avoiding an edit war. What do others think? JTRH (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fired, but not dead. I prefer present. O3000 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Fired, but not dead" is an excellent way to put it. JTRH (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * "Present" implies he's still active, which he isn't (at least not right now.) I'd go with 2017 - we can always update it later if he becomes active again. But if we don't terminate a "years active" range for a period when someone is definitely inactive, what's even the point of having it? Currently he's not active, he hasn't been active since 2017, and speculation that he may become active in the future isn't relevant - we can't reference it right now per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and if he does revive his career we can just update the article then. --Aquillion (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)