Talk:Sara Bronfman

Unreviewed
Is this still unreviewed? Perhaps the template should be removed. 71.165.9.190 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Involvement with NXIVM
Any additions to the article concerning her involvement with NXIVM need to be well-sourced and worded per WP:BLP. I've already removed unsourced speculative and inflammatory language from this article.  freshacconci  (?) 21:22, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Attempted removal of anything related to NXIVM
, you have made several edits which appear to be trying to remove any reference to NXIVM from this page, trying to claim "over-referencing" as a reason to remove references which refer back to NXIVM. Care to explain further?  Grey joy talk 07:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removal related to NXIVM
I have made several edits that are related to NXIVM as they are misleading and confusing. I have removed the content as she is not a member of NXIVM. The edits made by me are more accurate. The content on it stated that she was in the leadership team and a leading founder of this organization but in reality, she was not a leader nor she was the founder. The Forbes link used by me clearly shows that she was not charged with anything or implicated. She does sustainability. She joined it as a self-help class.

Also, note that the content of NXIVM was just referencing the Surname as Bronfman which does not signify who she is Sara or Clare. Sara was nor convicted nor proved guilty in any case. Therefore it's worth removing the content related to NXIVM. Rather I would suggest that the section removed should be shifted to Clare Bronfman page. Link showing the list of culprits in the case of NXIVM. This has no Mention of Sara Bronfman.

Suggestions are welcome. I am reading laws these days and was doing a case study. This brought me here! Aliza Mauzy 15:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Detailed note for the edit
Firstly, when the edits were made by me, Greyjoy reverted the edits made by me over the page and asked me to state the reason on the talk page. I did state the reason and re-reverted what was reverted by Greyjoy. Later 'I dream of horses' jumped in and reverted the edits as 'unexplained content removal'. He/she didn't even spare me a minute to post the reason on the talk page to respond to Greyjoy on the talk page. Hence I took permission from 'I dream of horses' and reverted the edits and supported the content with the latest news which was more reliable than the previously posted links. Once I got permission I again made the edits and stated the reason for the same. But now another person Freshacconi jumps in stating that this is not how it's done. I was asked to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page and get feedback. I was informed that one editor cannot make such major changes to sourced content. Therefore I made the discussion open for all nearly for a month. Since no one turned up so I took the initiative to make changes again following the guidelines and instructions as per my seniors. Also, she has no connections with NXIVM. This is quite evident from her official website.
 * You need to wait for feedback and consensus before making mass changes. We are all volunteers and aren't required to abide by your timeline. Also, a personal website is not a reliable source.  freshacconci  (?) 13:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Here is her new initiative backing up what it says on her profile page. She is clearly no longer associated with NXIVM and so this description is out of date. I appreciate that you are volunteering, I am volunteering too. I just don't think this description is accurate to who she is now and doesn't define her. On searching in google for her name one will come across 5/10 of the recent stories coming from Frank Report, who is clearly on hate campaign against her. She has no criminal record and never been charged with anything. For this we have more strong reliable sources of the Forbes and the Times Magazine. From the looks of what she is doing positive things. I feel bad for her being tied to this sex cult when it's not who she is connected too at all.  Alizamauzy  (?)  12:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to resolve the disputed neutrality via relevant discussion
I would like to put the forward an argument in support of my verdict that everything about NXIVM on her page, any current mention of it, and her sister should be removed because it's her sister and not her. The Wikipedia editors just call her 'Bronfman' because it's Clare and not Sara. Thus, irrelevant for this page and reason for my reverts.

Portions to be removed are-
 * On June 19, 2019, a Federal District Court in Brooklyn convicted NXIVM founder Raniere of sex trafficking and racketeering.[14]

Link 12 should be removed as it's a broken link. Also below content should be removed as it's her sister and not her but they just call her 'Bronfman' because it's Clare and not Sara. Thus, irrelevant for this page.
 * According to one source, "She founded the company's VIP Programs, which provide distinguished individuals with special training and coaching. These programs[,] facilitated by the company's President Nancy Salzman, were responsible for launching ESP into the British and Irish markets in 2005." Soon Sara Bronfman was on the Executive Board of ESP and had become "Director of Humanities, Regional Vice President, Professional Coach and Head Trainer."[12]


 * In September 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Bronfman in the Brooklyn Supreme Court, asserting that she "ensnared" Isabella Martinez and Gabrielle Leal, among others, into taking costly classes as part of "a fraudulent scheme nationwide" for Raniere and NXIVM.[13]Aliza Mauzy 13:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not remove dead links as they can be archived, as 12 has been. As per the lawsuit the full quote from the reference states "Bronfman’s sister, Sara Bronfman-Igtet, is instead the target of the Brooklyn Supreme Court class-action suit, which claims that she “ensnared’’ Isabella Martinez, Gabrielle Leal and others in “a fraudulent scheme nationwide” as part of Raniere’s cult, Nxivm." So that shall not be removed.  Grey joy talk 05:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Sara was never convicted nor she was jailed. She left NXIVM before it's demise for family. Aliza Mauzy 05:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I request you to remove those lines "In September 2018......" as in the same post you are referring states - "Bronfman-Igtet has not been charged in the criminal case involving her sister, Raniere and a host of others, including “Smallville” TV actress Mack, who face charges from money laundering to sex trafficking and kidnapping."Aliza Mauzy 12:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * She has not been charged in any criminal case, but she has had a class-action lawsuit filed against her. Which is what that sentence is referring to. Please sign your posts by using ~ at the end.  Grey joy talk 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My submission for making changes on the article
I put my submission again with the links of the judgment by the court. Both the judgments have no mention of Sara. Sara was not being charged nor implicated in this case. It's evident from the judgments released in July 2018 and June 2019. Since the vanity fair and the NYPost articles were written in 2010 and 2018 respectively before the court judgment was released, they should be removed.

I am removing them as they are not proven, false, fabricated, and misleading as per the judgment declared in July 2018 and June 2019. This also transpires that she was neither accused nor she was proven guilty. Mentioning any information related to this means neither we are complying with the Wikipedia guidelines of stating true and verified facts nor we are being neutral to resolve the issue raised on the page.

Furthermore, I would like to state that there are two cases the editors are mixing with. One whose judgment was released in June 2019 which I have already addressed. In this case, there is no mention of hers anywhere yet the editors are referring to false facts, which is pointless and futile. If the editors want the mention of Vanity fair links link then they should take it to Clare's page as she is one the main culprits of the NXIVM sex cult. Secondly, the new editor 'LosAngelesOfTruth' is referring to the second case that was filed in January 2020 in which Sara Bronfman is one of the defendants but not found guilty. So why mention any of this at all? The link the editor has posted is a lawsuit filing copy. . The editor must know that courtroom is a dirty playground, where a hell lot of accusations are invented/fabricated /raised against one or the other party. But this doesn't imply that the alleged person was guilty. It also implies that whatever are the allegations stated in the lawsuit can't be considered as a fact to be referred to in Wikipedia until proven in the court. In addition, I would like to apprise the editors with the fact that on page 12 of the same complaint where the court verdict was made, there too there is no mention of Sara. I am making five major edits for the following reasons: -
 * Replacing the link of Vanity Fair about the family with the existing link of Legacy Webb changed her first name to Georgiana and married Bronfman in 1975, two years after his divorce from his first wife, investment-banking heiress Ann Loeb. used on Edgar Bronfman Sr.
 * Replacing the Vanity Fair with the Democrat and Chronicle as it clearly indicated that she was not even charged nor implicated in the first case but was a defendant in the second case.
 * Removing references as they are referring to Clare and not Sara. Most of the editors here are confused about two different cases. Another thing I would like to state here is since the page is of Sara we should state facts of Sara here and leave the facts of Clare to be used on Clare's page.
 * State that as per reference she was not found guilty even in the second case because of the reasons stated above.
 * Reference 30 is stating something which is not true as it is referring to the Frank Report and Sara has requested to google to remove the Frank Report and has given a declaration that she was not charged with any such case.

As per the Wikipedia guidelines and policies, editors are encouraged to have a discussion over the talk page before posting anything on the page. I also request them to discard all links involving Sara in the first case as they are not true. I have made an in-depth research again for the case study and found that we should state the actual facts instead of false facts prevailing over the internet.Aliza Mauzy 11:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating that the New York Post and Forbes references are "referring to Clare and not Sara" is not accurate, both of these refer to Sara (the NYP quite clearly refers to her several times). I have used the Forbes article as a citation for the statement that she introduced Clare to NXIVM in the article.  Grey joy talk 05:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanity Fair is a WP:Reliable Source.  Criminal convictions of Raniere and Clare Bronfman are relevant and cited in RS coverage of Sara.  FrankReport has proven to be a reliable source on the subject of NXIVM.  "Not found guilty" misleadingly suggests an indictment against Sara when there was none;  in US law  'guilty/not guilty' is only for criminal cases.   Per Greyjoy, offered justifications from this user show inaccuracies.  Finally, editing patterns suggest WP:PAID while the citation of Subject's defamation complaint to Google suggests WP:COI. Feoffer (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Feoffer, Before explaining anything to you I would like to give you a clear declaration that my editing doesn't involve contributing to Wikipedia about myself, family, friends, clients, employers, my financial and other relationships. My edits are purely made under good faith, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Please go through each and every detail of the case. Your pattern of editing clearly show's WP:VANDALISM, WP:PAID and also shows that you have used outdated articles published before the court outcome and removed referenced content eg she was found not guilty and added sentences with no references to vandalise this page. Please note the following points:

On the basis of the above I am reverting the changes made by you.Aliza Mauzy 11:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The introduction content you have made does not have any evidential reference. You have not provided any references for your edit here which is must to have the neutral point of view. Furthermore I would like to state that I have already provided the references stating she was not involved in it until its demise months ago. This was accepted by Greyjoy and other editors.
 * You are talking about the FrankReport which is totally false and has been deindexed from google as it is malicious and defamatory. It is not a reliable source. Please check the reference of Luman Databse.
 * You removed where it said she was found not guilty, even though this was supported by the court document reference.
 * Your have not edited on any other page apart from this and NXIVM and you hardly make much edits in a year and you have specifically criticised any non-negative edits. This is concerning and shows that you are a paid layperson with poor editing skills and not a real editor.
 * Your edits are based on outdated content which were based on non reliable sources(FrankReport) as the news was made before the court gave it's judgement. Hence they are having no sense mentioning outdated and non reliable sources.
 * You have provided the reference of Stamford Advocates. This reference is outdated as it was made before the judgement came. The news article was written months before the court gave it's judgement.