This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.67.17 ( talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
# What did James study in University? # Did he complete his degree? # How to add a link to his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeVBDgameAI0Qhf7leaPhYw ? # Mention of the ducks is missing in the main article
Synapse001 ( talk) 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
yes
So I nerd sniped myself here as i thought he looked younger than 1980 and I saw the birth date was unsourced so I went looking. The first unsourced birth date added was 1989 here This was then “corrected” here again with no apparent sourcing. I have googled around and can find no source for this guy’s age except this website which I’m not sure counts as a reliable source? Anyway I think the birth date should be remove the birth date for now until a good source can be found. -- JackSlash ( talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I wandered down here and clicked the link to Bluffable and the domain is parked, I remember there was some specific syntax to mark outdated links? -- Michcioperz ( talk) 16:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The current page states "was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault" which is different to "a dozen women" coming "forward." For not all the women allege assault or rape.
Moreover, removing "a decade older than his alleged victims." Indeed that whole sentence is opinion and conjecture. Tompg ( talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
More than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch. I can see a slight ambiguity in The Hollywood Reporter in that it describes at least one incident of sexual misconduct (the Urinetown story) that does not involve Veitch making physical contact, but it is not clear that this is counted among the (more-than-)dozen. The Independent's word helps us address this ambiguity, because of their reliable editorial fact-checking policies. Either the incidents discounted still amount to more than 12, or THR was only counting assault/rape.
I'm sorry; I can't see the power dynamic being a common thread or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. The Independent article is a re-write of the THR article. The "incidents" did not amount to more than 12. It's clear from the article that the number of people who reached out about the incident is ~12. The article alleges three rapes with three women. The people who contacted the THR about those rapes are among the dozen women. To say that "more than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch," insinuates that there are more than a dozen separate incidents," yet this is clearly not the case. Let us focus on the facts. I am sorry for reverting the article instead of talking. But it does seem to be mostly opinion and biased; particularly so since one of the article's editors was one of the women who made an accusation. ( Tompg ( talk) 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).
or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. Which source says this? The Independent directly contradicts this interpretation. Your claims of bias are inappropriate as The Independent is a high-quality reliable source with strong editorial policies, as determined by consensus amongst the Wikipedia community (see WP:RSP). THR too. It seems clear to me that THR did not publish all of the details of all of the conversations they had, just a select few to fit within a normal article length.
Regarding "sorry for reverting." I mean sorry for not following protocol; I believe the reversions remain fair. The Independent's story was based off of THR's story with no further investigation or fact checking done on their end; they were reporting on the story. The 'bias' I'm claiming is because one of the editors of this wikipedia page is one of the accusers. With regard to what THR didn't publish I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on this. The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusations. Not a dozen separate accusations. The wiki needs to make this clear. ( Tompg ( talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).
I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on thisbut also
The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusationsand
The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checking. Which is it? Both of your claims are speculation, unless you have a source of information which I have yet to see.
No, not at all. Just a fan. The accuser is (Redacted) and who goes by (Redacted) on twitter and, it appears, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompg ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checkingis original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Asking purely out of curiosity but does direct contact with James Veitch count as a reliable source to control the contents of this article? Because while he hasn't made a public statement, he's very open to discussing his side of the story in private with people who backed his Kickstarter project, Lock-Down: The Game. The narrative he tells presents a version of the story that, while subjective, does actually fill in a lot of mystery surrounding the allegations. Specifically an admission to inappropriate behavior (but denial of rape/assault) that gave him a reputation.
Furthermore, information about a separate confirmed rapist on the same campus, a completely unrelated ban of Veitch from campus (theft), and an unwillingness to speak out against the victims because the length of time between when these allegations were made, are all very important things to consider. This is particularly important when there's an association between a separate rapist on campus, his admittedly creepy persona, and the time between the allegations and when they were brought forward.
In other words, the pliability of vague memories, especially ones of this severity, are so easily manipulated that even good faith actors can unintentionally make a person truly believe, without a shred of doubt in their mind, that their recollection of the event is true and accurate, regardless of whether or not it really is.
The claims presented by James Veitch both explains his reason for not wanting to speak publicly out of a justified fear of exacerbating the situation, but also his ownership of inappropriate behavior (which is not equivocal to rape or assault) in college specifically, could be misinterpreted as confirmation or evidence of said allegations as seen by the response one of the women had for coming forward.
We're facing a very real situation where allegations can and have irreversibly destroyed the careers of those accused for no reason other than having their name share a sentence with the alleged crime. As such, I do firmly believe that good faith efforts should be made to mitigate the severity of this damage until an investigation confirms or denies the claims presented. Especially in a situation where such an investigation hasn't been started as of the time the edits to the article were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4402:9440:9866:3EB5:6E7E:77A6 ( talk) 06:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
hI, Bilorv. This page's content clearly looks like a BPL attack on the artist. First of all, according to the US laws (and Wikipedia is subject to the US laws), Veitch is not a public person, therefore he has the rights for privacy. Second, all allegations are just newspapers scoops and look more like witch-hunt for artists's money, so popular nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, there are no legal cases in the courts, so these allegations do not have any place on this page. I believe that if this content is not removed, this might bring to litigation against Wikimedia Foundation and I think this needs urgent attention of other editors and OTRS. It is better to remove all of it or most of it. Undue weight too. -- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
P/S: No legal threats were made - I did a comment that hypothetically the content might bring to the issues in the future and put the tag on the page to prevent these issues. I'm not an attorney or an interested party in litigation, just another editor who is concerned and wants to help. Do not bring any WP:NLT to me as they are not relevant. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv The meaning of undue weight is that the page pays too much attention to controversial topics of the allegations of people who did not even filed a lawsuit (either civil or criminal) against the person. Also, by removing the tag, it looks like you are not ready to have a civilized dispute and pretend to own this page. The tag is for all the editors to take a look and have a second opinion on this page. I will put it back. Please, do not remove it until this dispute is not resolved. I also consider to go the Administration Board and OTRS regarding this weird behavior of removing tags without correcting the issues first. Wikipedia has the tags for a reason - to help improve page. And I suggest you to read more on undue weight tags. I do not have any registered account, so there is no logging out here. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) To have sources on something which is not confirmed (allegations) does not mean that you can violate BPL policy here. Wikipedia is clear on privacy and decency regarding all non-public persons. Allegations are virtually nothing as there no legal cases. Also, there is no information on denying the allegations which makes it "undue weight" content automatically. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv, I have to say that I'm disturbed by the way these allegations have been reported and I'd be even more concerned if there's evidence that someone who is actually involved in the case has been editing the article. Accordingly I've put some protection on the article so that new and unregistered users can't edit for the next few weeks. Deb ( talk) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have made some modifications based on a BLP review prompted by a BLPN post. It does not matter if the complainer was a blocked sock. Please do not restore without obtaining consensus in addressing the issue of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:07, 29 January 2021
“In 2009, Veitch adapted John Keats’ letters and poetry for theatrical performance produced by Pale Fire Productions at Keats House museum. In 2015, Veitch authored Dot Con: The Art of Scamming a Scammer. (First published by by Quadrille), a book depicting his experience in dealing with email scammers. The second edition of the book published by Hachette came to light in 2020.
Sources:
Add “author" and "playwright" to the occupation in the Info box panel and to the first sentence in the Summary (Lead section)
Add more info from the Hollywood Reporter after this sentence: "Veitch declined to comment on the allegations when contacted by Hollywood Reporter, "but a source close to him says he denies all allegations."
As The Hollywood Reporter notes: …"none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct and Sarah Lawrence College says they did not receive any complaints of sexual assault or harassment..."
"In September 2020, Veitch was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterjamesveitch ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I want to start off by acknowledging the fact that I have a real-life connection to the individual this page is written about. This is why I am stating my concerns here rather than editing the page directly. My relationship to the subject does not invalidate my interpretation of the issues I see within this page. I would like to get a consensus view here on some of the page edits that I believe violate Wikipedia rules and have a negative impact on the subject of this page.
There are a number of concerns about the contents of this page and its compliance with the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy In particular, there is a concern about the harm being caused to the subject’s life and whether the content of the biography is fair. The following is a quote from the BLP policy (emphasis added):
At present, both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of the biography contain serious allegations about the subject’s private life. Reference to these allegations was added to the subject’s biography on 5 September 2020. The subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court and there is no suggestion that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities. Indeed, no legal proceedings have ever been initiated in respect of any of these allegations. At present therefore, the allegations are untested and have never been subject to any sort of scrutiny. They are strenuously denied by the subject.
The nature of the allegations is such that they are highly damaging to the reputation of the subject. As you will no doubt be aware, the BLP Policy, states as follows (emphasis added):
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle which should be afforded to all individuals, including the subject of this page.
Whilst allegations have been made to the Hollywood Reporter – they remain just that; untested, unsubstantiated and hugely damaging allegations. The harm caused to the subject’s life by these allegations has been significant – both in terms of the psychological impact and the impact upon his career. Three years have now passed since the publication of the allegations, but there has still been no action taken by any authorities or individuals involved, nor is there any suggestion that there will be. Indeed, the article confirms that “none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct.” The only reports made appear to have been to the media. Repeating such allegations is therefore arguably assisting in trial by media.
In the circumstances therefore, I am respectfully requesting that page contributors review the content of the subject’s biography with reference to the BLP Policy. I consider that the biography as presently drafted infringes the BLP Policy and should therefore be amended, so that reference to untested or untried allegations is removed.
Char296 (
talk)
19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
As to the question of whether to mention allegations of sexual misconduct in the article, the discussion resulted in a rough consensus to include such mention. A sub-point addressed sufficiently and distinctly in the discussion was whether to include mention in the lead. There is no consensus as to whether to include in the lead.
Multiple editors have evaluated the subject, the specific information, and the relevant secondary sources and there is a rough consensus that (1) the subject is a public figure and that (2) the subject's biography would be incomplete without the coverage of this topic from those sources. Editors suggested implicitly and explicitly that WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied. There were dissenting opinions as well.
Perhaps the strongest argument against inclusion is that the origination of the topic at hand is from a single source, with other sources referring to that one. However, there was also mention that the reporting has not been retracted. Consensus did not form around this objection.
On the topic of inclusion in the lead, while the majority of editors seem to prefer inclusion, broadly speaking, (1) editors were less firm about inclusion, and (2) editors objected more strongly to it. The primary additional argument provided against inclusion in the lead was provided by one editor, and that is the fact that the lead is currently short, meaning that the topic is a large part of the lead.
Should the article on James Veitch mention allegations of sexual misconduct? — Bilorv ( talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Collapse non-neutral RfC framing by an editor with a
conflict of interest —
Bilorv (
talk)
11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Should this page refer to historic allegations of sexual offences being committed, when those allegations have never been investigated by law enforcement agencies, nor have the allegations ever been the subject of any criminal or civil litigation in the 14 years since the alleged offences? I consider that this content contravenes the biographies of living persons policy (because of the potential harm and unfairness caused to the subject) and I would be grateful to receive input from experienced editors in relation to this question. Char296 ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the {{ rfc}} tag).I did those two things in order. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
A common thread in several of these stories is Veitch—a decade older than his alleged victims—pressuring underage women to drink and then assaulting them while incapacitated. [3](Note that this isn't synthesis because the source says it's a common thread.) The allegations are well-sourced and necessary to understanding the subject's career. A plurality of the sources about Veitch are about the allegations. Further reasoning above. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The person opening the RfC is effectively asking us to adjudicate on the fairness or unfairness of the accusations. Were we to decide that these have never been tested or followed up and therefore should be 'put aside', we would effectively be making a judgement about the claims. At the very least we are documenting the existence of a 'glitch' in his career, we have a duty to record it neutrally, but not to 'gloss over it'. If Veitch wants to contest the claims, he should take action against THR if he considers the accusations to be unfair or inaccurate.
Exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, clearly this material is relevant to his notability and has adversely affected his career which is what we document. Pincrete ( talk) 06:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.67.17 ( talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
# What did James study in University? # Did he complete his degree? # How to add a link to his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeVBDgameAI0Qhf7leaPhYw ? # Mention of the ducks is missing in the main article
Synapse001 ( talk) 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
yes
So I nerd sniped myself here as i thought he looked younger than 1980 and I saw the birth date was unsourced so I went looking. The first unsourced birth date added was 1989 here This was then “corrected” here again with no apparent sourcing. I have googled around and can find no source for this guy’s age except this website which I’m not sure counts as a reliable source? Anyway I think the birth date should be remove the birth date for now until a good source can be found. -- JackSlash ( talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I wandered down here and clicked the link to Bluffable and the domain is parked, I remember there was some specific syntax to mark outdated links? -- Michcioperz ( talk) 16:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The current page states "was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault" which is different to "a dozen women" coming "forward." For not all the women allege assault or rape.
Moreover, removing "a decade older than his alleged victims." Indeed that whole sentence is opinion and conjecture. Tompg ( talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
More than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch. I can see a slight ambiguity in The Hollywood Reporter in that it describes at least one incident of sexual misconduct (the Urinetown story) that does not involve Veitch making physical contact, but it is not clear that this is counted among the (more-than-)dozen. The Independent's word helps us address this ambiguity, because of their reliable editorial fact-checking policies. Either the incidents discounted still amount to more than 12, or THR was only counting assault/rape.
I'm sorry; I can't see the power dynamic being a common thread or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. The Independent article is a re-write of the THR article. The "incidents" did not amount to more than 12. It's clear from the article that the number of people who reached out about the incident is ~12. The article alleges three rapes with three women. The people who contacted the THR about those rapes are among the dozen women. To say that "more than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch," insinuates that there are more than a dozen separate incidents," yet this is clearly not the case. Let us focus on the facts. I am sorry for reverting the article instead of talking. But it does seem to be mostly opinion and biased; particularly so since one of the article's editors was one of the women who made an accusation. ( Tompg ( talk) 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).
or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. Which source says this? The Independent directly contradicts this interpretation. Your claims of bias are inappropriate as The Independent is a high-quality reliable source with strong editorial policies, as determined by consensus amongst the Wikipedia community (see WP:RSP). THR too. It seems clear to me that THR did not publish all of the details of all of the conversations they had, just a select few to fit within a normal article length.
Regarding "sorry for reverting." I mean sorry for not following protocol; I believe the reversions remain fair. The Independent's story was based off of THR's story with no further investigation or fact checking done on their end; they were reporting on the story. The 'bias' I'm claiming is because one of the editors of this wikipedia page is one of the accusers. With regard to what THR didn't publish I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on this. The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusations. Not a dozen separate accusations. The wiki needs to make this clear. ( Tompg ( talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).
I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on thisbut also
The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusationsand
The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checking. Which is it? Both of your claims are speculation, unless you have a source of information which I have yet to see.
No, not at all. Just a fan. The accuser is (Redacted) and who goes by (Redacted) on twitter and, it appears, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompg ( talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checkingis original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Asking purely out of curiosity but does direct contact with James Veitch count as a reliable source to control the contents of this article? Because while he hasn't made a public statement, he's very open to discussing his side of the story in private with people who backed his Kickstarter project, Lock-Down: The Game. The narrative he tells presents a version of the story that, while subjective, does actually fill in a lot of mystery surrounding the allegations. Specifically an admission to inappropriate behavior (but denial of rape/assault) that gave him a reputation.
Furthermore, information about a separate confirmed rapist on the same campus, a completely unrelated ban of Veitch from campus (theft), and an unwillingness to speak out against the victims because the length of time between when these allegations were made, are all very important things to consider. This is particularly important when there's an association between a separate rapist on campus, his admittedly creepy persona, and the time between the allegations and when they were brought forward.
In other words, the pliability of vague memories, especially ones of this severity, are so easily manipulated that even good faith actors can unintentionally make a person truly believe, without a shred of doubt in their mind, that their recollection of the event is true and accurate, regardless of whether or not it really is.
The claims presented by James Veitch both explains his reason for not wanting to speak publicly out of a justified fear of exacerbating the situation, but also his ownership of inappropriate behavior (which is not equivocal to rape or assault) in college specifically, could be misinterpreted as confirmation or evidence of said allegations as seen by the response one of the women had for coming forward.
We're facing a very real situation where allegations can and have irreversibly destroyed the careers of those accused for no reason other than having their name share a sentence with the alleged crime. As such, I do firmly believe that good faith efforts should be made to mitigate the severity of this damage until an investigation confirms or denies the claims presented. Especially in a situation where such an investigation hasn't been started as of the time the edits to the article were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4402:9440:9866:3EB5:6E7E:77A6 ( talk) 06:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
hI, Bilorv. This page's content clearly looks like a BPL attack on the artist. First of all, according to the US laws (and Wikipedia is subject to the US laws), Veitch is not a public person, therefore he has the rights for privacy. Second, all allegations are just newspapers scoops and look more like witch-hunt for artists's money, so popular nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, there are no legal cases in the courts, so these allegations do not have any place on this page. I believe that if this content is not removed, this might bring to litigation against Wikimedia Foundation and I think this needs urgent attention of other editors and OTRS. It is better to remove all of it or most of it. Undue weight too. -- 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
P/S: No legal threats were made - I did a comment that hypothetically the content might bring to the issues in the future and put the tag on the page to prevent these issues. I'm not an attorney or an interested party in litigation, just another editor who is concerned and wants to help. Do not bring any WP:NLT to me as they are not relevant. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv The meaning of undue weight is that the page pays too much attention to controversial topics of the allegations of people who did not even filed a lawsuit (either civil or criminal) against the person. Also, by removing the tag, it looks like you are not ready to have a civilized dispute and pretend to own this page. The tag is for all the editors to take a look and have a second opinion on this page. I will put it back. Please, do not remove it until this dispute is not resolved. I also consider to go the Administration Board and OTRS regarding this weird behavior of removing tags without correcting the issues first. Wikipedia has the tags for a reason - to help improve page. And I suggest you to read more on undue weight tags. I do not have any registered account, so there is no logging out here. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) To have sources on something which is not confirmed (allegations) does not mean that you can violate BPL policy here. Wikipedia is clear on privacy and decency regarding all non-public persons. Allegations are virtually nothing as there no legal cases. Also, there is no information on denying the allegations which makes it "undue weight" content automatically. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 ( talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Bilorv, I have to say that I'm disturbed by the way these allegations have been reported and I'd be even more concerned if there's evidence that someone who is actually involved in the case has been editing the article. Accordingly I've put some protection on the article so that new and unregistered users can't edit for the next few weeks. Deb ( talk) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have made some modifications based on a BLP review prompted by a BLPN post. It does not matter if the complainer was a blocked sock. Please do not restore without obtaining consensus in addressing the issue of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:07, 29 January 2021
“In 2009, Veitch adapted John Keats’ letters and poetry for theatrical performance produced by Pale Fire Productions at Keats House museum. In 2015, Veitch authored Dot Con: The Art of Scamming a Scammer. (First published by by Quadrille), a book depicting his experience in dealing with email scammers. The second edition of the book published by Hachette came to light in 2020.
Sources:
Add “author" and "playwright" to the occupation in the Info box panel and to the first sentence in the Summary (Lead section)
Add more info from the Hollywood Reporter after this sentence: "Veitch declined to comment on the allegations when contacted by Hollywood Reporter, "but a source close to him says he denies all allegations."
As The Hollywood Reporter notes: …"none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct and Sarah Lawrence College says they did not receive any complaints of sexual assault or harassment..."
"In September 2020, Veitch was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterjamesveitch ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I want to start off by acknowledging the fact that I have a real-life connection to the individual this page is written about. This is why I am stating my concerns here rather than editing the page directly. My relationship to the subject does not invalidate my interpretation of the issues I see within this page. I would like to get a consensus view here on some of the page edits that I believe violate Wikipedia rules and have a negative impact on the subject of this page.
There are a number of concerns about the contents of this page and its compliance with the Biographies of Living Persons policy.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy In particular, there is a concern about the harm being caused to the subject’s life and whether the content of the biography is fair. The following is a quote from the BLP policy (emphasis added):
At present, both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of the biography contain serious allegations about the subject’s private life. Reference to these allegations was added to the subject’s biography on 5 September 2020. The subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court and there is no suggestion that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities. Indeed, no legal proceedings have ever been initiated in respect of any of these allegations. At present therefore, the allegations are untested and have never been subject to any sort of scrutiny. They are strenuously denied by the subject.
The nature of the allegations is such that they are highly damaging to the reputation of the subject. As you will no doubt be aware, the BLP Policy, states as follows (emphasis added):
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle which should be afforded to all individuals, including the subject of this page.
Whilst allegations have been made to the Hollywood Reporter – they remain just that; untested, unsubstantiated and hugely damaging allegations. The harm caused to the subject’s life by these allegations has been significant – both in terms of the psychological impact and the impact upon his career. Three years have now passed since the publication of the allegations, but there has still been no action taken by any authorities or individuals involved, nor is there any suggestion that there will be. Indeed, the article confirms that “none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct.” The only reports made appear to have been to the media. Repeating such allegations is therefore arguably assisting in trial by media.
In the circumstances therefore, I am respectfully requesting that page contributors review the content of the subject’s biography with reference to the BLP Policy. I consider that the biography as presently drafted infringes the BLP Policy and should therefore be amended, so that reference to untested or untried allegations is removed.
Char296 (
talk)
19:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
As to the question of whether to mention allegations of sexual misconduct in the article, the discussion resulted in a rough consensus to include such mention. A sub-point addressed sufficiently and distinctly in the discussion was whether to include mention in the lead. There is no consensus as to whether to include in the lead.
Multiple editors have evaluated the subject, the specific information, and the relevant secondary sources and there is a rough consensus that (1) the subject is a public figure and that (2) the subject's biography would be incomplete without the coverage of this topic from those sources. Editors suggested implicitly and explicitly that WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied. There were dissenting opinions as well.
Perhaps the strongest argument against inclusion is that the origination of the topic at hand is from a single source, with other sources referring to that one. However, there was also mention that the reporting has not been retracted. Consensus did not form around this objection.
On the topic of inclusion in the lead, while the majority of editors seem to prefer inclusion, broadly speaking, (1) editors were less firm about inclusion, and (2) editors objected more strongly to it. The primary additional argument provided against inclusion in the lead was provided by one editor, and that is the fact that the lead is currently short, meaning that the topic is a large part of the lead.
Should the article on James Veitch mention allegations of sexual misconduct? — Bilorv ( talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Collapse non-neutral RfC framing by an editor with a
conflict of interest —
Bilorv (
talk)
11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Should this page refer to historic allegations of sexual offences being committed, when those allegations have never been investigated by law enforcement agencies, nor have the allegations ever been the subject of any criminal or civil litigation in the 14 years since the alleged offences? I consider that this content contravenes the biographies of living persons policy (because of the potential harm and unfairness caused to the subject) and I would be grateful to receive input from experienced editors in relation to this question. Char296 ( talk) 15:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC) |
If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question (after the {{ rfc}} tag).I did those two things in order. — Bilorv ( talk) 12:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
A common thread in several of these stories is Veitch—a decade older than his alleged victims—pressuring underage women to drink and then assaulting them while incapacitated. [3](Note that this isn't synthesis because the source says it's a common thread.) The allegations are well-sourced and necessary to understanding the subject's career. A plurality of the sources about Veitch are about the allegations. Further reasoning above. — Bilorv ( talk) 11:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The person opening the RfC is effectively asking us to adjudicate on the fairness or unfairness of the accusations. Were we to decide that these have never been tested or followed up and therefore should be 'put aside', we would effectively be making a judgement about the claims. At the very least we are documenting the existence of a 'glitch' in his career, we have a duty to record it neutrally, but not to 'gloss over it'. If Veitch wants to contest the claims, he should take action against THR if he considers the accusations to be unfair or inaccurate.
Exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, clearly this material is relevant to his notability and has adversely affected his career which is what we document. Pincrete ( talk) 06:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)