Talk:James Deen

Alleged victims and accusations

The list of alleged victims and accompanying details was previously removed on BLP grounds[1][2][3]. Please discuss and obtain consensus before reshaping the paragraph into another detailed laundry list given WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NPOV, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Allegations

@Morbidthoughts: I have no idea why you have removed the content citing WP:BLPRESTORE, which says that If [this content] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Significant change was made: the introduction of sources that met the criteria you referenced, WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

You are now taking issue with RS that quotes the DB, but there is no reason to do so. Our RSP entry is a "no consensus" entry that shows a number of discussions in which participants say more discussion is needed, that the entry was previously classified as "generally reliable", that allege a 2020s (i.e. post-2017) decline in reporting standards and that establish possible political provenances of the work, but not issues with statements of fact like this. "No consensus" does not mean "less than generally reliable" or "not usable" or "not as good as other sources"—it means "no consensus"; or, "each article from the publication needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis". In this particular case, you have seen The Independent, The Guardian, MSNBC, Slate, The Daily Dot, HuffPost and New York citing this particular collection of articles in The Daily Beast, which is overwhelming indication that they are reliable for these particular facts.

Your issue with Mic is similar unclear—who has "disputed" its usage where? — Bilorv (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Read Mic (media company): "Writing for Forbes in 2014, Abe Brown described PolicyMic's style as hyperbolic, with a mix of serious analysis of issues and attention-seeking listicles. Brown grouped the site with Upworthy, Buzzfeed, and BusinessInsider as opposed to more conventional news media such as The New York Times and The Washington Post" plus [4]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just seen your comment above. I have no idea what removal of the same information without sufficient secondary sources has to do with the removal of the information with the new sourcing provided. You say in an edit summary that we should avoid naming some victims—okay, that's what I did initially, and then you began to add names, so I followed suit. WP:AVOIDVICTIM is inapplicable here because this article is about Deen, who is not a person noteworthy only for one or two events (he's one of the most notable people in the porn industry), nor someone whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions (the alleged victims here are either independently notable for other events or not notable). I'm also not aware of what part of WP:NPOV calls for censorship of information covered in around a dozen sources because that information is negative. — Bilorv (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I let Amber Rayne through is because she is a separately notable figure and WP:AVOIDVICTIM does not apply to her because she's dead. Every other person that you inserted falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. If you remove their identity, the individual accusations become so indiscriminate that they are covered by the very first sentence of the paragraph that states that several people accused him of sexual abuse or misconduct. Most of the details you want to include were originally reported by the Daily Beast, which is disputed at WP:RSP. Just because reliable sources report on and attribute that coverage to the Daily Beast does not make it more WP:DUE for wikipedia. I looked at several of the citations you added, and the additional citations do not directly verify the detail you put in when multiple are required under WP:PUBLICFIGURE, especially when it came to specific accusations. If you want to add any individual items that have been previously removed due to BLP objections, you must obtain consensus for that item. This has been the standard since the controversy first erupted in 2015. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is confusing to me that you, another editor who has been around longer than WP:RSP, is failing to understand its purpose and limitations. I have explained what "no consensus" does not mean and specifically analysed the discussions listed at RSP for The Daily Beast. It is also confusing to me that you think The Guardian, The Independent et al. citing a source does not make it more reliable. That is in fact one of the most major factors in how and why we attribute sources as generally reliable or sometimes reliable at RSP. Such citations are the most powerful demonstration possible that this specific The Daily Beast article is reliable.

I looked at several of the citations you added, and the additional citations do not directly verify the detail you put in – Can you give me an example? I'm confused as to how they do not do this. For instance, I double-checked that each source referring to Peters used the quoted word "honored", attributed to her agent. Of course I make mistakes when making edits handling a dozen sources, but not on purpose.

How would you prefer for me to solicit further input from other editors? — Bilorv (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

When a RS just repeats what is published in the DB or another source, that is not independent nor direct verification. In the Kora Peters example, that is what happened with Salon while the MSNBC citation you threw in doesn't even talk about the agent. Mic, which is not a reliable source in itself, repeats what was written on Porn Valley Media (PVM) which had reported what she wrote on her blog. Mic erroneously wrote that she wrote a blog for PVM. This all feels like a gossip loop and if you spend time on WP:BLPN (See the recent Katie Price example), you'll realise that the consensus is that biographies are meant to be written conservatively and what matters in a DUE analysis is enduring coverage. Yes, Deen is known for these allegations of abuse which is how RS today continue to present him. But they don't recite the laundry list. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

When a RS just repeats what is published in the DB or another source, that is not independent nor direct verification. – "Verification" is irrelevant to the point here. The point is that the article is reliable in and of itself, and the evidence is precisely that the RSes repeat what the article says without independent verification (and therefore so should we).

The MSNBC source was one of four for Peters, leaving three, when you requested a minimum of two. Your arguments on Mic are about reliability, not that it doesn't mention the information it was cited for. In any case, how are these "several of the citations"?

You keep using the insulting phrase "laundry list" (and now also "gossip loop") to belittle the hard work I put into my edits, without regard for the fact that my additions were extremely selective and included only a small proportion of the information and allegations I read on this topic. My edits do not mention the majority of Deen accusers, and stick to the facts repeated in multiple reliable sources. I would like you to stop using that phrase.

It's also insulting to tell me what I would think "if [I spent] time on WP:BLPN", which I have spent many hours reading and a couple writing at (obviously, I've been around for 7 years). — Bilorv (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of further comments by Morbidthoughts, or any input from the WikiProjects I solicited responses from, I've started an RfC. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: sexual misconduct allegations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the following sexual misconduct allegations be described in the article, whether with the below wording or some other wording? — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

One performer said she was told by her agent that she should feel "honored" after, in a non-anal scene, Deen repeatedly attempted to penetrate her anus and she resisted, so he choked her and forced it in. Another woman described an incident of being physically restrained and then repeatedly hit by Deen on set. A separate pornogrpahic actor said that she had "almost been raped" by Deen.

Several other similar rape and misconduct allegations are uncontroversially included in the article, as are the consequences for Deen—his production companies, advice column and role as Adult Performer Advocacy Committee chairperson were all dropped. Deen's response to the above allegations is already given in the article, Deen later gave an interview to The Daily Beast where he claimed to be "baffled" by the accusations and denied or offered counter-explanations for them. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Removed performer names in the example text, and clarified the RfC focus slightly. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Comments

• Yes: some details like whether to cite Mic and whether to name Peters, Lux and Fires are not too important to me (though none are low-profile as they have sought out pornographic careers, and these are their stage names, not real names). However, the details of these allegations are important in contextualising the consequences to Deen's career and the nature of the allegations made against him (they're not more serious, nor less serious). They are selectively chosen, as many more allegations against Deen were made, but these are the ones reported in reliable source.
  The Daily Beast (RSP entry) is "no consensus" at RSP, which means that we should evaluate the specific article's reliability here in an individual capacity. As The Daily Beast has been cited for its reporting on allegations against Deen in many reliable sources, including some of those above and some in the article (highlighting a few: The Independent, Washington Post, The Guardian, MSNBC), this set of articles is reliable in this context, when supported by multiple other reliable sources.
  WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires that we have multiple reliable sources for each claim, as we do here. — Bilorv (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• No, I believe the amount of detail in the article now suffices. I find myself on the side of WP:AVOIDVICTIM as well as WP:DUE. Not every accuser needs to be listed by name, with their specific accusations. Saying Several other women in the industry subsequently came forward with their stories of abuse is a nice, succinct, way to cover it, although it should probably be changed to came forward with allegations of abuse for NPOV reasons. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish: can you explain to me which bit of WP:AVOIDVICTIM is applicable? Deen is not noteworthy only for one or two events. Additionally, you say Not every accuser needs to be listed by name, with their specific accusations, but I've said that not naming the accuser is fine by me, and it is not the case that the above paragraph represents all accusers, just the most significant cases not included so far. — Bilorv (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. For most of the accusers, this will likely be their only time mentioned in major media, and the most notable (wikiwise) thing they'll do. Repeating the names in this context, likely the only place they'll be mentioned in an encyclopedia, as accusers and possible rape victims seems pretty powerfully in the camp of participating in or prolonging the victimization. As for not naming the accusers, if it's fine by you why is there an RFC? I think mentioning accusations by the person who kicked off the wave of accusations is fine. Personally, I would probably drop the Bree Olson and Brian Street Team mentions as well. Is someone writing on their personal tumblr about his own interactions with Deen, saying that he had seen Deen be "overtly mean" to Joanna several times worth covering in an encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    As for not naming the accusers, if it's fine by you why is there an RFC? – Perhaps you've misunderstood (and maybe I can edit the RfC statement to clarify this). The RfC is over whether to include the allegations in some form, not over whether to name the accusers. The original iteration of the addition, for instance, used the phrasing "One performer", "Another woman", "A separate performer", but I changed this for consistency after Morbidthoughts introduced one of their names in the article. Or, another suggestion might be to say "allegations included that Deen forcibly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene, physically restrained and hit a woman ..." — listing more concisely what the allegations are rather than just a vague "allegations of abuse" followed by the consequences of the allegations.

    Would you perhaps support this content instead of Brian Street Team? It all comes from much better sources than a tumblr quoted in an entertainment webzine. — Bilorv (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    Several other women in the industry subsequently came forward with allegations of abuse. The allegations included that Deen forcibly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene and that he physically restrained and hit a woman. would be a better way to handle it. I'd be okay with something like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

    Bilorv, how about In total, eight women came forward with allegations of abuse and unnecessarily rough sex during scenes. The allegations included claims that Deen foribly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene, that he physically restrained and hit several women, and forced one woman's face into his crotch to "sniff his testicles." Amber Rayne said that during a shoot, Deen punched her in the face and caused her anus to bleed with violent anal sex to the point that she needed stitches. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

    I think that would be a great way of summarising things, ScottishFinnishRadish, and the facts all look right. Thanks for the write-up. — Bilorv (talk) 13:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) Not including this reliable sourced relevant information about their career would be a neutrality violation. I'll note that naming the accusors is not necessary, as has been discussed above. ––FormalDude talk 07:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes for the version without the performers' names. There is a strong need to protect victims of sexual abuse in Wikipedia articles but I have no idea how that will be achieved by deciding not to mention details of said abuse in the article. Protecting their names is one thing, wanting not to have unsavoury descriptions in the article is another. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, and I am frankly not so concerned about avoiding naming other performers who have made public statements about their experiences. BD2412 T 18:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, just to be clear. After my discussion with Bilorv above, I would be happy with something along the lines of what I provided, or reasonably similar. I'd still prefer to keep non-notable performers' names out, per my reasoning above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely. I am not opposed to including the victim names - they're public knowledge - but I would prefer not to because I can foresee it being rewritten to using words like "claimed" and having scare quotes around everything, thus implying that it was just rumors, while the text provided is definitive.--Jorm (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Revise - Remove any details originally sourced from Mic or Daily Beast per WP:RSP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Remove allegation against agent as it is not against Deen. "Almost been raped" is not descriptive. Better to describe what had happened than rely on a coatrack quote. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

A line item dissection of why I have a problem with the multiple citations that have been thrown about that do not directly verify the listed sentence and are very concerning from a BLP perspective. WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple reliable sources supporting the specific allegation.

• First sentence 1. WP:DAILYBEAST is not a reliable source (Its own editor in chief describes it as a "high end tabloid"[5]), and Aurora Snow is not a professional journalist. She writes a regular column on the industry and what she chooses to write about and who she chooses to interview should not be considered in a WP:DUE evaluation. The evaluation should be based on how independent RS covers this. 2. The Slate article is a commentary article that falls under WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:RSOPINION and cannot be used to assert facts. 3. Mic (media company) is not a reliable source. 4. MSNBC is a reliable news article but does not directly support the detail presented in the first sentence.
• Second sentence. 5. Again Daily Beast. Second it is written by one of the alleged victims, Tory Lux. 6. The Daily Dot is considered reliable for Internet culture topics per WP:RSP. I am not sure if this article qualifies as "Internet culture" but there is a caveat at RSP about assigning weight to content from the DD. 7. The Cut (New York) is a reliable source.
• Third sentence - Non descriptive inflammatory coatrack quote. What is almost rape? Instead use the actual description of what was actually reported as happened in the Independent, Huffington Post, and The Cut (New York).

Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• What do you think about the phrasing I suggested above? In total, eight women came forward with allegations of abuse and unnecessarily rough sex during scenes. The allegations included claims that Deen foribly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene, that he physically restrained and hit several women, and forced one woman's face into his crotch to "sniff his testicles." Amber Rayne said that during a shoot, Deen punched her in the face and caused her anus to bleed with violent anal sex ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict with your question while I was giving a line item discussion of Bilorv's sources. The number of women that alleged abuse has been inconsistently reported depending on the source. It had varied from 8 to 11. As long as all the details in your summary can be supported by at least 2 of the 4 RS I saw listed, MSNBC, The Cut (New York), Independent, and Huffington Post, then I do not have a problem with that. Those details that cannot meet that minimum should be left out per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

In total, nine women came forward with allegations of abuse and unnecessarily rough sex during scenes. The allegations included claims that Deen foribly had anal sex with a woman during a non-anal scene, that he physically restrained and hit several women, and forced one woman's face into his crotch to "sniff his testicles." Amber Rayne said that during a shoot, Deen punched her in the face and caused her anus to bleed with violent anal sex.

That is over-cited, but that way we can trim to just the best refs that everyone approves of. As far as the total number of women, I checked the sources and it seems to agree on nine, including Stoya. The one ref that mentioned 11 included Farrah Abraham and T.K., who I saw in other sources was the same person. It also included an accusation that was not abuse, rather just making them feel uncomfortable. Because of that I think we're good going with 9 total with some number of those cites. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Throw out the Buzzfeed and Slate citations. Another MSNBC article reported the forced anal allegation. while the Washington Post reported on the punch and anal tear. All the sources seem to credit the DB so we must attribute the allegations to the Daily Beast in-text. Rephrase to "attacked and forced one woman's face into his crotch after she refused to "sniff his testicles" to avoid synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, excessive salacious detail is contrary to WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME. There’s just no good reason to go there. There are accusations that have had noted prominence and enduring life impact on him so deserve mention in his BLP. But going beyond just generic terms and summary-level does not fit since the specific details of individual acts accused are not as common and are not what is specifying the consequences. Also, going into details is making this too long, not a match of DUE to coverage and is getting too long to serve BLPCRIME or NPOV BALANCE — it’s edging into a one-sided rant. I don’t think adding details of his defense would help nor mention of legal events or that he is nominally innocent — I think it should just be left as undetailed accusations led to results. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I've gone ahead and notified the BLP Noticeboard about this RfC.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In Media v Career or other

In Media does not seem correct place for:

Deen co-starred with Lindsay Lohan in Paul Schrader's 2013 film The Canyons, written by Bret Easton Ellis.

Any thoughts?

94.126.214.13 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)