Talk:Louis C.K./Archives/2016

Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent

Is this category accurate since the article states that Louis C.K.'s ancestors were Hungarian Jews who moved to Mexico? --BenStein69 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLPCAT, WP:NON-DEFINING, and most importantly WP:CATEGRS, which states most succinctly: "The "defining" principle applies to gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categorization as to any other, i.e.: A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. In other words, avoiding to categorize by non-defining characteristics is a first step in avoiding problems with gendered/ethnic/sexuality/disability/religion-based categories." That is, unless reliable sources consistently and explicitly refer to him as such, we should not categorize him as such. --Jayron32 21:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on Sexual Harassment Allegations

There is a clear consensus against including the sexual harassment allegations about Louis C.K. per WP:BLPGOSSIP.

Editors noted that:

1. Gawker is not a reliable source.
2. Roseanne Barr said "I do not have first hand knowledge, though have heard women make these allegations" and "I have [zero] idea if Louie CK is a sexual offender or not".
3. No reliable sources discussed the sexual harassment allegations outside of reporting on the Gawker rumor, other people talking about the Gawker rumor, Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors, and other people talking about Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors.

WP:BLPGOSSIP says:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

Cunard (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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 sexual harassment allegations about CK be mentioned in this page? --Jpcase (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Existing comments on this issue can be found in the section directly above. --Jpcase (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• No until we get reasonable sourcing. Meaning not gawker. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• No, per Guy Macon. This is a clear example of both what Wikipedia is not, and what verifiability is all about. It is currently all based on rumours and coverage about rumours. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
• No again per Guy Macon (talk · contribs), I would argue that any gossip or tabloid like site could never be considered verified. Iazyges (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: If the consensus is against adding this information, then I can accept that. And I don't want to come across as confrontational by continuously pressing my views. But I just want to clarify that no "gossip or tabloid like site" is under consideration - when Roseanne Barr said that she's heard allegations against CK, she never explicitly mentioned Gawker. It's more or less likely that Gawker is where she got her information, but ultimately, that comes down to pure speculation on our part. It's entirely possible that Barr has heard direct accusations against CK in private conversation - we simply don't know. And I'm not sure that it would be fair to call the Jen Kirkman blind item (mentioned in these sources - The Daily Beast The New York Post) tabloid speculation. Kirkman never accused CK by name, true - but she did bring public accusations against someone. And after CK became associated with her comments, Kirkman publicly acknowledged, in an interview with Chris Hardwick, that the identity of the man she had described was "kind of obvious".

If others feel that it's inappropriate to ever mention allegations against a public figure, unless a direct accuser has come forward - regardless of how many reputable news sources have discussed the allegations - then I'm genuinely willing to respect that view. I just want to make sure that my proposal is being properly understood. As I see it, this shouldn't be a conversation about sourcing, as we have plenty of reputable news sources to draw from. The real objection, it seems, is one of insufficient evidence. Personally, my understanding of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is that strong evidence is not required when mentioning allegations on Wikipedia - so long as the lack of such evidence is clearly communicated to readers. If no one agrees with me on this though, then I'll stop trying to make my case. --Jpcase (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it appears that no one agrees with you. Unsupported rumors, and reports about those rumors, are simply unencyclopedic. 14:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Jpcase, you keep writing things like "If others feel that it's inappropriate to ever mention allegations against a public figure, unless a direct accuser has come forward - regardless of how many reputable news sources have discussed the allegations" without ever naming any reputable news sources that have discussed the allegations. Please stop doing that. Gawker and Roseanne Barr have discussed the allegations, but neither is a reliable source. Everything else you have cited consists of sources talking about Gawker, sources talking about Roseanne Barr, or sources that don't mention Louis C.K. at all. This has been explained to you several times. Please stop this WP:IDHT behavior. You are on the edge of becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Okay...I'm sorry. I can see how I've been engaging in WP:IDHT, and I apologize. In all the years that I've spent on Wikipedia, this is my first ever RfC, and I've almost never been involved with BLP articles. So I don't have any prior experience with this sort of thing. I've only ever gotten into a small handful of disagreements with people on Wikipedia, and I guess that I don't have proper perspective on how to approach them. The thing is, I actually enjoy these kinds of conversations (crazy I know), not because I enjoy being confrontational, but because I don't equate disagreements with arguments. It's fun for me to go back and forth, trying to understand another person's point of view. And that's what I've been trying to do - understand your point of view; not force my own on anyone else (although I'll readily admit that I've probably failed in communicating this as my intention). At first, it seemed that people were objecting to my proposal on the grounds of insufficient news coverage, and I had trouble understanding that, because the Daily Beast, the New York Post, and New York magazine are all RS and have all discussed these allegations. Now, I'm starting to realize that you and I might have a different understanding of the word "source". When I say things like, reputable news sources have discussed these allegations", I mean exactly that they have discussed the allegations, not that they've made the allegations. It seems to me though, that you're using the word "source" to refer to people or publications that have actually made allegations against CK. And your right that no one has made any allegations against CK, other than Roseanne Barr, Jen Kirkman, and Gawker. If the objection is that we need more reliable sources that have actually made allegations against CK, then I not only understand that; I'm willing to accept that. But I wouldn't have recognized that as your point, had I simply stopped responding once it became clear that no one was in agreement with me - sometimes it takes awhile for misunderstandings to be cleared up. Still, perhaps reaching an understanding isn't necessary for these kinds of conversations, so long as a consensus has been reached. While I may personally enjoy hashing out disagreements with people, I realize that most others don't and often find it stressful or irritating. So again, I apologize for not dropping the issue sooner. --Jpcase (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Bot summoned. Just to clarify, the source for the allegations are The Daily Beast, NY Magazine, and The New York Post? Normally, three separate reliable sources mentioning something, even if controversial, should be sufficient for a mention in an article. But in this case the sources themselves don't seem to be making an accusation, just referring to rumors themselves. I think per WP:BLPGOSSIP WP has a high standard for BLP articles and I'm not sure we can attribute something so highly contentious when the sources themselves are so unclear and aren't necessarily presenting this information as true. I would say keep this out of the article until there is something more substantial. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• Wrong. The sources for the allegations are not the Daily Beast, NY Magazine, and The New York Post. The sources for the allegations are Gawker and Roseanne Barr. The Daily Beast, NY Magazine, and The New York Post talk about Gawker and Roseanne Barr's allegations without in any way making any allegations themselves or implying that Gawker and Roseanne Barr are reliable sources. And actually, it's just Gawker. Barr never made any allegations. She simply said that she had heard rumors. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• This is like saying Wikileaks is the only source for the Edward Snowden leaks. It's irrelevant who reported an allegation first, if other reliable sources report on it too that's their journalistic discretion and I don't think WP editors have the discretion to ignore that. Your assertion that Barr "never made any allegations" is incorrect. First hand knowledge is not a requirement to making an allegation. I get the sense that your personal hostility against Gawker is coloring your views on this issue in general. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

What part of "I do not have first hand knowledge, though have heard women make these allegations" and "I have [zero] idea if Louie CK is a sexual offender or not"[1] are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• No - Not until the accusations can be confirmed in reliable sources. It is not enough to be "rumored". We must tread lightly on sexual harassment allegations, especially on a BLP. Leave off the page for now. Meatsgains (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not per WP:GRAPEVINE. Summoned by bot. This type of vague, unsubstantiated tabloid fodder is explicitly prohibited by the BLP policy. One procedural point: I would suggest that the originator of this RfC link to the proposed passage in question. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: This was my first RfC, so I'm not entirely sure how they're supposed to be done. What passage should I have linked to? If you're referring to the exact content that I was suggesting be added to the article, it can be found in the Discussion section below - but I'll reproduce it here as well, in the italicized text:

In June 2016, following previous tabloid coverage, allegations of repeated sexual harassment, attributed to CK, were brought to wider public attention by Roseanne Barr in a Daily Beast interview. A year earlier, Barr had tweeted, "I have 0 idea if [Louis C.K.] is a sexual offender or not-but there [are] MULTIPLE accusations in Hollywood's working woman circles. He [should] answer". A few weeks before the 2016 interview with Barr, C.K. publicly commented on the allegations, saying, "Well, you can't touch stuff like that. There's one more thing I want to say about this, and it's important: If you need your public profile to be all positive, you're sick in the head. I do the work I do, and what happens next I can't look after. So my thing is that I try to speak to the work whenever I can. Just to the work and not to my life." --Jpcase (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

That's helpful. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• No Ah well it seems despite commenting below twice, I forgot to actually vote. 'No' as per bloated cesspool. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: the source for this is Gawker. I agree with Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert) regarding Gawker:[2]

"At some point recently, an underling at Ziff Davis had to pitch the Gawker acquisition idea to CEO Vivek Shah. As you know, underlings travel in small packs, so let me describe the way I see that meeting going down."

"Underling 1: I think we should buy Gawker’s business. It’s a perfect fit with our company."

"CEO: In what way?"

"Underling 1: Well, Ziff Davis is a digital media company that specializes in websites for consumers making important buying decisions."

"CEO: Go on."

"Underling 1: And Gawker is like a rapist eating his own vomit."

"CEO: Wait, what?"

"Underling 2: That’s not all. When you think of Gawker, you automatically think of Hulk Hogan’s penis. That’s like a celebrity endorsement without the licensing fees."

"CEO: Why in the world would we want that in our portfolio?"

"Underling 3: They get a lot of clicks."

"CEO: But reputation-wise…"

"Underling 1: Gawker isn’t the only property we’d be buying. It comes with Jezebell."

"CEO: Tell me about Jezebel."

"Underling 2: Well, Jezebel is what you’d get if a Zika virus took the wrong prescription meds, burrowed into a day-old turd, and called itself a publication."

"CEO: What would the whole thing cost?"

"Underling 3: Probably only $100 million or so."

"CEO: And what exactly would we be buying?"

"Underling 1: Well, we’d mostly be buying their talent."

"CEO: Such as?"

"Underling 2: We’d get their writers, who apparently can’t get jobs at credible publications. And we’d get an executive team that is filled with sociopaths who chose one of the rare employment situations in which you can destroy the lives of strangers from a distance."

I don't like Gawker as a source is what I am saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Guy Macon. If it expands outward to garner real reliable source coverage, then potentially yes — but not so long as Gawker is the only source we've got. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Gawker is pretty much the archetype for a gossip site. WP:NOTGOSSIP I don't think this is even a close call, so long as the only coverage is in Gawker. New York magazine The Daily Beast, of course, is a reliable source, but there the allegation is in the voice of Ms. Barr. There's no indication that New York the Beast has fact-checked the allegation at all. Ms. Barr is a fine comedienne, but she's definitely not a news source with a reputation for fact-checking or professional editorial control.
  The material should stay out unless and until it garners significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. David in DC (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I've struck my comment. It's based on a faulty assumption on my part, and flawed reasoning based on that assumption. User:jpcase has pointed out below where my errors lay and has done so in a particularly gentle and matter-of-fact way. Thank you, jp. David in DC (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: @Bearcat: @David in DC: Sorry - I probably should have provided a little more detail at the outset. You're all right, that the rumors did first start cropping up in Gawker. And I agree that Gawker isn't a quality source. But those initial rumors have gradually picked up steam. And quite a few reputable sources have since taken notice. As outlined in the section directly above (I'm not going to repeat everything that was said up there, but those comments should officially be considered a part of this RfC), the allegations have been discussed by three Daily Beast articles [3] [4] [5] (two of which provide significant coverage), a New York magazine article [6] (in which CK is questioned multiple times by the interviewer about this topic), a think piece entirely devoted to this topic, published by a branch of the New York Post [7], and multiple episodes of the Cracked podcast (Cracked probably wouldn't be considered RS by a lot of people, but is nonetheless a well-regarded and incredibly popular publishing outlet). I'm not trying to argue that these allegations carry merit - they're vague, that's true, and no one has publicly accused CK of anything. But a lot of people are talking about these allegations; people whose voices carry weight in the media - including, but not limited to Roseanne Barr. It's my opinion that these allegations are notable and should be discussed in the article in a neutral manner. I realize now also, that I should have posted the exact statement that is being considered for inclusion. It can be read below:

In June 2016, following previous tabloid coverage, allegations of repeated sexual harassment, attributed to CK, were brought to wider public attention by Roseanne Barr in a Daily Beast interview. A year earlier, Barr had tweeted, "I have 0 idea if [Louis C.K.] is a sexual offender or not-but there [are] MULTIPLE accusations in Hollywood's working woman circles. He [should] answer". A few weeks before the 2016 interview with Barr, C.K. publicly commented on the allegations, saying, "Well, you can't touch stuff like that. There's one more thing I want to say about this, and it's important: If you need your public profile to be all positive, you're sick in the head. I do the work I do, and what happens next I can't look after. So my thing is that I try to speak to the work whenever I can. Just to the work and not to my life."

My goal has been to center the information primarily on the criticism that CK has received from a high-profile figure, rather than on the allegations themselves. Hopefully, the above phrasing accomplishes that. --Jpcase (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

So the only sources you actually have are [1] A Gawker rumor. [2] Other people talking about the Gawker rumor. [3] Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors. [4] Other people talking about Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors.

None of those are acceptable sources under our WP:BLP policy. Wait until it gets reported in a reliable source or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: It sounds to me like you don't have a problem with the sources, per se, - The Daily Beast, New York magazine, and the New York Post are all RS - but rather, with the very credibility of the allegations. I understand your concern - really, I do. And I've expressed that concern in the previous section of this talk page. One could certainly argue that it was irresponsible journalism for these well-respected publications to run articles on unsubstantiated rumors. But personally, I just don't see it as our place to cast aside sources on the basis that they should have done better fact-checking. When a reputable news outlet runs a story, that story becomes notable, whether or not the facts check out - as happened, with say, Rolling Stone's controversial article on UVA a couple years ago. Even if an allegation has been proven false, or is likely to be false (or, as in this case, is just extremely vague), that doesn't mean it should be left out of Wikipedia - it simply means that we need to be extra careful in how we present the information. WP:PUBLICFIGURE states, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article". The policy doesn't say that an allegation needs to be proven or even well-supported by evidence. When crafting the statement that I would like to include in this article's Personal Life section, I took cares to emphasize that the allegations initially stemmed from tabloids and are only notable because notable figures in the media have commented upon them. --Jpcase (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If desirable, we could certainly add further context, by mentioning Jon Stewart's defense of CK in a public Q&A forum - or analysis from the New York Post think-piece, stating that the author acknowledged the allegations as troubling and possibly true, but also lacking in strong evidence. --Jpcase (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which clearly shows why we dont put gossipy stuff like this in BLP's. You end up in a loop of including more and more low-quality sources until its just a bloated cesspool of unencyclopedic unsubstantiated allegations and rebuttals. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Re "...just a bloated cesspool of unencyclopedic unsubstantiated allegations and rebuttals...", the internet already has Gawker and 4Chan. It doesn't need another. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: @Guy Macon: Which sources do you consider low-quality? The Daily Beast? The New York Post? New York magazine? If you have problems with any of the specific publications, then I'm willing to have a conversation about that. And we certainly don't have to add Jon Stewart's rebuttal or the New York Post think piece. I was just floating those ideas as ways that we could potentially add greater balance. But again - I agree that the allegations are unsubstantiated; I don't agree that they're unencylcopedic. The UVA rape story turned out to be largely unsubstantiated, but still carries encyclopedic value when placed in appropriate context. What makes this situation different? We do carry a responsibility to protect the image of public figures from tabloid journalism - I don't feel that our responsibility extends to protecting their image from reputable news sources. --Jpcase (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a single source that isn't:

• A Gawker rumor.
• Other people talking about the Gawker rumor.
• Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors.
• Other people talking about Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors.

Only sources that do not fit into the above categories are worth discussing. Got any? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Well, there's the Jen Kirkman blind item, which several of those sources also discuss. And it isn't entirely clear what Roseanne Barr means, when she says that she has "heard women make these allegations" [8] - has Barr simply seen the same online rumors as the rest of us, or has she held private conversations with women claiming to have been harassed by CK? Either way, let me ask - Is there any point at which you would consider a rumor (regardless of where it originated from) to be encyclopedic? If say, CNN ran a news story about sexual harassment in the comedy world and mentioned the rumors, or if Time magazine ran a story about it, would your feelings change? Or do you take the position that unsubstantiated rumors never have a place on Wikipedia, regardless of how many reputable news sources have decided to comment upon them? --Jpcase (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The only citation you provided above is just more other people talking about Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors. I know you want to add this rumor to the article, but you have to find a reliable source other that Gawker or Barr.

If CNN or Times started running articles discussing Gawker rumors or discussing Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors, we might have to reevaluate whether CNN and Time are reliable sources, or we might cover it in the article, if CNN or Time gave us something beyond discussing Gawker rumors or discussing Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors. It would depend on what the sources said specifically. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: So essentially, are you saying that you feel The Daily Beast, New York magazine, and The New York Post have discredited themselves and should no longer be considered RS? --Jpcase (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No. That's not the problem. The problem is that you want to misuse them as sources. A reliable source talking about Roseanne Barr saying that she has heard rumors does not magically elevate Roseanne Barr into a reliable source, nor does it magically create a reliable source confirming the rumor. It is a reliable source, but only for the claim that Roseanne Barr said that she has heard rumors.

It's as if you took this article from The Independent and tried to use it as a reliable source for a claim that Kim Jong-un has created a wonder drug that cures Aids, Ebola and cancer. Has The Independent has discredited themselves and should no longer be considered RS? Of course not. Can it be used as a source for the miracle drug claim? No.

I am done debating you. There is no consensus for the change you want to make, and it is clear that further arguments will not change your mind. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: You're misconstruing my views - I agree with every point you just made; I only disagree with your conclusion. The Independent not only shouldn't be used as a source to claim that Kim Jong-un has created a wonder drug, it couldn't be used in such a manner, since it never makes such a claim. Rather, the The Independent reports that the North Korean state media has made these claims. If somebody wanted to add information to the Wikipedia article on Kim Jong-un, detailing all of the outlandish propaganda that has been released about him by the North Korean press, then I would support such an effort - so long as the added information is explicitly identified as false propaganda within the Wikipedia article. I've never tried to argue that Roseanne Barr herself is a reliable source, nor have I tried to argue that any source exists "confirming the rumor". My argument is solely that the allegations are "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented", as required by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If you have a different interpretation of this policy, then I am genuinely open to listening. I realize that I may be arguing too aggressively for my stance, and if I've crossed a line, then I apologize. No disrespect has been meant. As I've said a few times above, I actually do understand why one would feel concerned about mentioning the allegations in this article. I sympathize with and respect much of what you've expressed - I've simply reached a different conclusion. --Jpcase (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Why do we care what Roseanne Barr thinks? Is she a notable expert in sexual harrassment? Was she a party/victim to harrassment? Was she a witness? Is her opinion in any way relevant to the accusations? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Even if we were to discover that Roseanne Barr is secretly a world-renowned expert on sexual abuse with multiple peer-reviewed papers on the subject, that still would not be good enough because Roseanne Barr never made any allegations about Louis C.K. In fact, she was quite specific: "I do not have first hand knowledge, though have heard women make these allegations" and "I have [zero] idea if Louie CK is a sexual offender or not".[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I see that the bot has been summoning comments for this a couple of weeks after the conversation petered out, which is odd. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Sexual harassment allegations

When I added the information on CK's harassment allegations, I tried to do so in a way that would present them in the most accurate light. Roseanne Barr's decision to comment on these rumors in a Daily Beast interview, has raised them to a profile of actual relevancy for an article like this - but we shouldn't lose track of the fact that, as of right now at least, "rumors" are all that they are. No one has publicly accused CK of anything. He very well may be guilty, but until more is known, it's our responsibility to discuss this matter in a way that won't carry undue negative weight. So, I feel strongly that the term "sexual harassment" should be used, rather than the term "sexual assault". The dictionary definition of "assault" is to "make a physical attack" on someone. None of the allegations directed toward CK mention, or even imply, any kind of physical contact between him and the women that he's supposedly been harassing. And while both Wikipedia [10]and the Office on Women's Health (a department of the US federal government) [11] classify sexual harassment as a form of sexual assault, meaning that it wouldn't be strictly inaccurate to use the word "sexual assault" in describing these allegations, the word assault still carries strong connotations of physical contact. We shouldn't leave readers with the wrong impression. Currently, the Daily Beast interview with Barr and the New York magazine interview with CK are the only sources in use for this section of the article, and neither of them use the word "assault" in relation to CK. If someone can point to another source of equal merit (so probably nothing along the lines of Gawker) that does use the word assault, then that could be taken into consideration - but personally, I would still feel that such phrasing introduces unnecessary confusion. It's also worth noting that when Jon Stewart was confronted about this matter in a Q&A session a few months ago, the questioner specifically clarified [12] (at around 1:16:28) that the allegations are not of "sexual assault", but rather, "harassment in general". --Jpcase (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur with everything above. --Jayron32 16:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This section has just been removed from the article, again, and I don't agree with the removal. The allegations have made news and been sufficiently covered by reliable sources. That is why the content, while negative, is not libel, and I don't think it's violating WP:BLP. Also think JPcase did a good job presenting the info in a WP:NPOV manner. Sro23 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I will make no comment on whether, in the long run, the information should or should not be in the article, in the end. However, policy is clear and unambiguous per WP:BLP, contentious material must remain out of an article until such time as consensus is reached that it belongs, is relevant and well referenced. There is no "first-mover advantage" on BLPs, we don't favor retaining information if it is being contested, and most importantly, policy clearly supports removing it until it is clearly consensus to include it. Which is not to say it shouldn't be included (and saying that is also not saying it should. I make no value judgement on that). And I quote from that policy page (bold mine): "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." Consensus has not yet been established. Start a discussion, or an WP:RFC if necessary, notify WP:BLPN and get consensus. --Jayron32 18:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

As stated in my edit summaries, I can see both sides of this issue. The allegations are no doubt vague, and the damage that could be done to CK's reputation shouldn't be taken lightly. Still, I stand by my initial decision to add this information to the article. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that CK is treated fairly, I would say, falls to professionals in the media, colleagues of CK, and CK himself. If the rumors are pure libel, than The Daily Beast and New York magazine shouldn't have reported on them. If Roseanne Barr's decision to comment on the allegations in a high-profile interview was irresponsible, then friends of CK and other comedy professionals should come to CK's defense (as Jon Stewart has done - this fact could even be worked into the article). And if CK never committed the actions attributed to him, then he should probably give a more direct refutation than he has so far provided. None of this means that we don't also carry some responsibility in this matter. But personally, I don't feel that it's our call to determine whether the allegations are credible enough to warrant discussion - that decision has already been made for us by the media at large. This is a part of Louis CK's public image now, and even if the allegations are proven to be false (for what it's worth, I sincerely hope that they are - I'm a fan of his work, and it's not my intent to tar and feather his reputation unfairly), they've most likely created what will always be remembered as a somewhat significant chapter in his life. It's worth noting that in recent weeks, the topic has received additional coverage in two more Daily Beast articles [13] [14], as well as an article by a branch of The New York Post [15] Multiple episodes of the Cracked podcast have also mentioned the allegations, although there may be some disagreement as to whether those qualify as appropriate sources in this context. We do, of course, have to ensure that the content is presented in an equitable manner, and I've strived to do so. But the sources exist. The topic seems notable to me. And so I feel that it ought to be mentioned in this article. That said, I'll gladly wait until others have commented, before reincorporating any of it. If no consensus can be found, then I'll respect WP:BLPN and leave it out. --Jpcase (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

...anyone else have an opinion on this? Whether we include the info or leave it out, it would be nice to reach a consensus one way or the other. --Jpcase (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Well, if nobody else responds...would it be appropriate to add a request for comment? --Jpcase (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Also, put a notification in at BLPN asking for additional input. --Jayron32 01:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I left a notification there, as well as at WT:FILMBIO --Jpcase (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus on this is clear, and I won't renew any efforts to include this information, unless such action is supported by other editors at a later date or some major development in the story occurs. That said, I do feel compelled to mention that just a few days ago, the Daily Beast ran a fourth article on these allegations. [16] The article doesn't contain any new information, but it treats the allegations quite seriously and suggests that CK has a known history of downplaying sexual harassment. --Jpcase (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

C.K. and Székely

In September 25, 2016 on Tavis Smiley show, Louis C.K. explains that "C.K." stands for the pronounciation of his Hungarian surname Székely. In the first sentence of this article there is a note for that without a citation. How could we manage to write this information there? For now I just added it to that note. Maybe it should be a sentence on the paragraph? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OktayD (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)