Talk:Joe Lonsdale/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page lock?

1/29/2015: Probably a good time to lock this page for awhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD89:8710:21E:C2FF:FEA5:AC79 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE violation

This deletion [1] seems to have violated WP:BLP WP:PUBLICFIGURE:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

WP:BLP says, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article." (My emphasis.)

Can you explain to me why it does not belong in the article? Why does it not violate WP:BLP to delete it? --Nbauman (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is weird not mentioning the 10-year campus ban for sexual misconduct, provided we make the nature of the misconduct clear. And it is weird not mentioning the suit against Lonsdale and his suit against his accuser, too. This all needs handling very sensitively, and the wording should be carefully worked out and agreed-upon here before anyone adds it to the article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, very minimally, with this edit cc Nbauman. A lot more can be added, but this is a start. I also tried to clean-up some of the excessively promotional, repetitive and tangential content, e.g. details about Palantir. There's plenty of room for further improvement though.--FeralOink (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rape Allegations

This section is plagiarized directly from the cited New York Times article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comlag225 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

For anyone trying to add this material to the article, please keep in mind that per WP:BLP it is preferable to wait until there is a legal outcome. Wikipedia should not be a rumor mill. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:BLP which says that it is preferable to wait until there is a legal outcome. Can you please cite the text for me?

We have lots of WP articles about alleged rapes and other crimes for which there is no legal outcome, and in some cases there will never be a legal outcome. Would you delete the Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev page until there is a legal outcome?

BTW, by definition, plagiarism is unattributed copying. You can't commit plagiarism if you attribute the source. --Nbauman (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed some duplicate content with the New York Times article, and rewrote to avoid copy vio's. I also removed phrases like "heinous acts" and "sexual depravity". While I personally doubt the full scope of the allegations made about Mr. Lonsdale (I am female and a Stanford University engineering graduate), my opinions are irrelevant for WP. There are multiple NPOV sources that have reported the situation. Recentism isn't a valid reason for excluding the rape and assault/abuse charges either. The case has been receiving press coverage since 3 Feb 2015. I don't understand why my edits were reverted, and would ask that they be restored.--FeralOink (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Nbauman and FeralOink: Per long-standing convention we prefer to omit this type of material until there is some kind of binding legal event. I used the word "outcome" and I apologize because that seems to infer a conviction/acquittal scenario, but what we're looking for is more like an initial indictment or a dismissal or something like that. See the last point of WP:VICTIM and WP:BLPCRIME. While these refer to the creation of articles, we've made them apply often (by consensus) to the addition of material to existing articles as well when appropriate. There is "prior art" so to speak around this, unfortunately I can't recall a specific relevant example where a tech personality as well was accused of assault or abuse against their wife/girlfriend and we prevented the inclusion of coverage until he was actually charged with a crime. Maybe Ponyo remembers better than me, I know she's been involved with these in the past when they've landed on OTRS or WP:BLPN. Ultimately the important thing to remember is that by including the allegations we become part of the he-said-she-said rumor circle, and that's exactly what we don't want. Keep in mind that "we prefer" is obviously open to consensus and considered on a case by case basis - I would recommend opening a thread at BLPN and seeking the opinion of other editors more versed in contentious biographical material. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be going against the specfic example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is part of WP:BLP.

Replace "politician" with "tech personality", and "affair" with "rape", and you have the present situation. WP:BLP says,"it belongs in the article." By deleting it, you seem to be violating WP:BLP.

You seem to be saying that there is a "prior art", which is not documented in WP:BLP or any other guideline, which overrides WP:BLP. Is that right? --Nbauman (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I find your characterization of an affair being equivalent to an allegation of rape to be rather specious, nor do I consider WP:PUBLICFIGURE to necessarily apply to what are essentially vanity bios where the coverage is niche at best and they exist only because the community decided to lower the notability bar back in the day. This isn't Bill Cosby where the claims are on MSNBC and CNN every night. With that said, no, there is no specific policy constraint for the addition of this material. I was merely communicating to you what has been done in the past under consensus with situations like these, in consideration for the parties involved and with the idea that Wikipedia should not be involved in documenting (and by extension, propagating) allegations of this sort. Your account is autoconfirmed, the protection was meant only for what I assumed would be a slow revert war with IPs clamoring for social justice. Knock yourself out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Clougherty did accuse Lonsdale of rape, in the NYT story and elsewhere.

As for WP:NOTABILITY, there were several articles about Joe Lonsdale in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal alone even before the sex abuse charges). That meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." So he's definitely notable. I don't see why it's a vanity bio. I would think that deleting unfavorable material would make it more of a vanity bio.

You seem to be saying that you would not revert it if I or User:FeralOink put it back in. Is that correct? --Nbauman (talk) 03:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the boss of this encyclopedia, I'm just telling you what we've done in other cases like these. By the way, the "prior art" example I mentioned is Gurbaksh Chahal. By consensus we prevented the addition of any of the controversial information until he was actually charged. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 08:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is fact, not supposition or allegation, via http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/02/universities-inadequately-protecting-victims-in-sexual-assault-cases

"In May of 2013, Cloughtery and her family asked Stanford to look into "Lonsdale's conduct."... The school found that Lonsdale had violated the rule against relationships between mentors and students and that he would be prohibited from mentoring for 10 years. Following further investigations, Stanford found that Lonsdale had "engaged in sexual misconduct" while with Clougherty and he was "banned from campus for any purpose."

This is directly from Stanford University, http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/28/palantir-co-founder-joe-lonsdale-04-accused-of-sexual-assaulting-then-stanford-student/

"Clougherty and her mother reported Lonsdale’s actions to Stanford in February 2013, according to the lawsuit. After an investigation of Clougherty’s allegations, the University banned Lonsdale from campus for a minimum of 10 years under its Title IX policy. According to Stanford spokeswoman Lisa Lapin, the University cannot comment on the case without a FERPA waiver from Clougherty or her counsel."

Bloomberg describes it as a high profile case here, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-02/clougherty-s-sexual-assault-suit-against-formation-8-s-lonsdale I'm not suggesting Wikipedia needs to reproduce the most lurid claims of the NY Times article, e.g. menstrual blood, flaccid insertions and so forth! I DO think there should be a "Controversies" heading, that says something to the effect that Lonsdale's behavior at Stanford was determined to be in violation of Title IX (which is part of US law). Even one sentence provides coverage. To say nothing at all is an obvious omission. Waiting for the civil case resolution could take years, according to Bloomberg. I'm sorry for my poor formatting, will try to return to fix it later.--FeralOink (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an allegation, until Londsdale is actually legally charged with a crime (or failing that, there is a civil suit or something like that). That is the crux of my argument against including this, based on experience with the exact same types of issues in the same types of articles. When we document allegations we become part of the gossip mill. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

No, FreeRangeFrog THIS portion is NOT an allegation. According to Stanford University, via The Stanford Daily http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/01/28/palantir-co-founder-joe-lonsdale-04-accused-of-sexual-assaulting-then-stanford-student/

"After an investigation of Clougherty’s allegations, the University banned Lonsdale from campus for a minimum of 10 years under its Title IX policy."

That is a fact. Lonsdale has a civil suit pending against him. Wikipedia includes both civil and criminal cases. Regardless, of the lawsuit, it is a fact that Lonsdale was banned under Title IX. That warrants a sentence in his BLP. It is not alleged.--FeralOink (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, being banned from a University campus does not qualify as criminal charges. You say there is a civil suit though, is there coverage of that? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, extensive coverage. In addition to the Stanford Daily stories about the lawsuit cited above, Formation 8 And Palantir Founder Joe Lonsdale Named In Sexual Assault Lawsuit Joe Lonsdale answers sexual-assault claims with defamation suit The Stanford Undergraduate and the Mentor "In January, Clougherty filed a civil suit against Lonsdale, accusing him of sexual abuse." The Sickening Rape Allegations Against a Silicon Valley Mogul "Lonsdale doesn’t come with the mysterious mythology that surrounds Peter Thiel or have the name recognition of Mark Zuckerberg, but despite being only 32 years old, he’s well established among Silicon Valley’s elite." Tech investor Joe Lonsdale counters rape allegations --Nbauman (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh, well then there you go. Just make sure the addition is balanced and neutral please. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The allegations against Lonsdale are newsworthy; they were the subject of a New York Times magazine cover article. Thus this story should be reported as with the allegations against Bill Cosby. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/the-stanford-undergraduate-and-the-mentor.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.243.148.28 (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done, minimally, with this edit.--FeralOink (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well edited FeralOink, thank you. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Image copyvio

Please see here on Commons for details.

--FeralOink (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social calendar

Every speaking event that Joe Lonsdale is associated with does NOT need to be included in this article. I am removing some of the multitude of less notable ones.

If the IP editors want to add biographical details or relevant business-related news about Joe Lonsdale, that's great. At present, the list of his speaking engagements is the lengthiest part of the article, which is ridiculous. We are not a public relations agency. --FeralOink (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed some more of the speaking engagements, as the references section was ridiculously long given that the article is so brief. It is now at 40 references, which is still far too many for such a brief article, but I'll leave further pruning to others. --FeralOink (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree, (in 2020, and this was even said in 2015). Unless the speaking engagements are mentioned in a secondary source, they are probably not significant enough to be included in the article in the context of just a list. And most look to be primarily sourced or not sourced at all, so I'll remove all of the ones that don't have an independent source. - Whisperjanes (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

For further explanation, since the content has been continuously added back again: Please read the Wikipedia policy about keeping WP:PROPORTION -- it says, "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." I don't think a list of all speaking events should or needs to be included in an encyclopedic biography. My other concern with the content is that the sources are not independent of the event they are talking about (meaning they are primary sources about each event). My thinking is that if there are not reliable, independent sources that talk about an event, then it most likely isn't significant enough to include in an encyclopedia article. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

2 September 2020 comment

This is one of the poorest billionaire articles on living persons. Look at some others, such as Bill Gates (yes, he's older) but it's clear Lonsdale doesn't have a team of sleuths writing positive things about him like some do - ahem ahem --2606:A000:1228:4033:4871:B0F1:53E4:6FE (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)