Talk:Louis C.K./Archives/2021

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

Categorie:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent 2600:8807:C809:7B00:7576:A29E:4028:2322 (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done added Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent. (You can link a category by using a colon at the start e.g. the previous link was produced by [[:Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent]].) — Bilorv (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the Hungarian-Jewish descent is already there, it's enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: can you explain in what way? What do you mean by "it's enough" and with respect to what guideline/policy? I'm really struggling to work out what you could mean based on the categories in question and my knowledge of diffusing/non-diffusing categories. Or maybe you're saying it's non-defining (why this but not the others)? — Bilorv (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, may point is the father is of Hungarian-Jewish descent (solely in the family of Jewish descent).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC))

I went ahead and reverted your edit. I think it'd be better to argue why it should be removed, rather than why it should be included, as it's objectively true he's of Mexican-Jewish descent. CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict:,

our policies are clear, regardless how you wish to argue, consensus is needed, until then the status quo versions will stand and may be reverted to (your re-revert does not change this). What do you mean by "objectively true"?(KIENGIR (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC))

Objectively true? It's well documented he is a descendant of a Mexican-Jewish ancestry? It's... very clear in the article "C.K.'s father is of Mexican and Hungarian descent. C.K.'s Jewish grandfather, Géza Székely Schweiger, had immigrated from Hungary to Mexico, and to appease his Mexican wife raised Luis in the Catholic faith. C.K.'s mother, an American, is Irish-Catholic." Therefore, Mexican-Jewish. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Am I correct in that you're saying "Mexican-Jewish descent" is not applicable because one parent is (Hungarian-)Jewish and the other parent is Mexican (rather than one parent being Mexican-Jewish)? — Bilorv (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit borderline and complex. E.g. Majoritity of the Jews in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarian Jews, but after the country was dismembered some became Czechoslovak citizens, so per changed nationality they me as well identified as Czechoslovak Jews, however, it does not mean they arent originally Hungarian ones (culture, language, etc.). Here the same analogy could be made if that grandparent became a Mexican citizen. So 50%-50% you may argue for favor or against, cca.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021

Change "Louis Székely" to "Louis Alfred Székely"

Source: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/bostonglobe/obituary.aspx?n=mary-louise-sz-kely-davis&pid=193121372 70.49.16.231 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Done. CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The article as currently written significantly understates and minimizes the serious workplace sexual harassment allegations against Louis CK. The problems begin in the introduction when the harassment allegations are referred to by the vague term "sexual misconduct" and continue through to the section dedicated to the matter where the emphasis is repeatedly placed on CK's claims that he always obtained consent from those he harassed before he harassed them. It would seem either passionate fans or paid representatives of CK himself are editing/watching this page in order to tilt to reflect CK'S preferred narrative, although the possibility cannot be ruled out that this lack of neutrality happened by accident. Mbroderick271 (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We should stick with the term that sources use – NPOV, at Wikipedia, just means fairly representing what reliable sources have to say; your opinions on the matter aren't relevant. From the sources used in the article:

• [1] "Louis C.K. Is Accused by 5 Women of Sexual Misconduct"
• [2] "Louis CK accused by five women of sexual misconduct in new report"
• [3] "Louis C.K. responds to sexual misconduct allegations: ‘These stories are true’"

The only problem I did notice with the article was the use of "harassment" when it wasn't actually in the NYT source. The only possible issue is that these articles could be cherry picked, but googling around most do stick with "misconduct" (though Vox did use the term "harassment"). And yes, before you ask, I'm not a fan of his or a paid shill either. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: I should begin by apologizing for offering unfounded speculation about the motivations of other editors, I only meant to suggest that the article gives the impression that it has been shaped in large part by paid representatives or dedicated fans which is an unfortunate outcome for any article. I have no reason to believe any editors of this article have been paid, and I was a dedicated fan of Louis CK myself for many years so I don't think it's inappropriate for fans (former or current) to edit the page as long as they follow NPOV. The problem is that the article doesn't reflect a neutral point of view, which is my focus here. With that in mind, you have identified a significant part of the problem which is the sources currently used in the article. Of course it's true that the sources you have listed do not use the term harassment, but then again if a paid representative or passionate fan of Louis CK were editing this page, they would avoid using a source that used the term 'harassment' now wouldn't they? The available news stories and analysis covering the scandal use a broad range of terminology, but a vast number of them deploy the term harassment (in the headline in many cases, in the body of the article in others) as you can see here:

• [4] "The sexual harassment allegations against Louis C.K., explained"
• [5] "Louis C.K. Admits to Sexually Harassing Women in Statement: ‘These Stories Are True’"
• [6] "Louis CK The Latest Star To Fade Under Sexual Harassment Charges"
• [7] "Louis C.K. to Perform in Israel for First Time Since Sexual Harassment Admission"
• [8] "What are the Louis CK masturbation claims and what has he said about the sexual harassment allegations?"
• [9] "What Happened to the Women Louis C.K. Harassed?"
• [10] "A Timeline of the Louis C.K. Masturbation Allegations"
• [11] "Louis C.K. Jokes About Sexual Harassment In New Set, Appears To Have Learned Nothing Again"
• [12] "Louis C.K.’s Public Statement Unnervingly Misunderstands the Concept of Consent"
• [13] "Louis C.K. needs to make real amends before he gets a comeback. Here's how he can start."
• [14] "Margaret Cho pushes back against Louis C.K.'s return to the stage in the wake of #MeToo"

Nomeclature of course is not the only problem with this article. Because if you read any of the articles (including the Times piece that broke the story, any of the pieces that use the term "misconduct" or any that use "harassment") the allegations described fit the textbook definition of workplace sexual harassment. So whether we use the term harassment or misconduct, what's most important is that the nature of CK's behavior is conveyed accurately in a neutral way. Previous editors have put the emphasis of the entire section on CK "asking for permission" and otherwise insinuate that some of CK's victims were amused rather than horrified and disturbed by his behavior. Additionally, they end the section by relating CK's personal apologies to his victims without mentioning that in one case his apology revealed a further episode of harassment against a victim who has not yet been identified. Compare this article to the one on Dominique Strauss-Kahn and you'll notice that despite the fact that Strauss-Kahn has been acquitted or otherwise had all charges dropped against him, the seriousness of the allegations against him is conveyed in the article, and the prominence of the scandals in Strauss-Kahn's life is likewise represented accurately, whereas in this article they have been practically relegated to a footnote. Mbroderick271 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There has been no consensus made about the use of the term harassment over misconduct. Merely your confirmation bias through googling "Louis C.K." CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mbroderick271: the page history of this page is publicly known, so which editors specifically are you saying are "passionate fans or paid representatives", because in either case that's a problem we want to know about? As for the content, I've made an edit here because there's no sense in listing topics with no comments on what C.K. said about them, but other than that if you have concrete suggestions of sources that are missing, places where facts are unsourced or taken out of the context of the source (I couldn't find the Auschwitz stuff in the sources in the article), or material that should be reworded then either make those changes yourself, and if someone disagrees we can discuss, or lay out the specific changes here. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes this, I'd like to see as @Bilorv: has mentioned a specific list of accused paid-contributors that are in violation of Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure before you can make such a claim. Which is a pretty serious one. CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mbroderick271: - My counter-point would be that the articles that focused on C.K.'s assassination of character in 2017 overstate and maximize the consensual private sexual conduct of a man made very public and that expanding these issues to beyond what they have become in the story of his life would certainly go against WP:UNDUE. Oh guess what? I don't get paid to edit either nor do I have an affiliation - you'll find most of my edits are on Canadian COVID-19 statistics and not on Louis C.K. ... CaffeinAddict (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. C.K.'s conduct wasn't "consensual". Nor can I see any articles which say that there was any "assassination of character" in 2017. — Bilorv (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I apologize for offering what came off as wild speculation about the motivations and/or financial arrangements of other editors. I simply wanted to express that the article gives the impression that it has been shaped in large part by paid representatives or dedicated fans which is an unfortunate outcome for any article. I have no reason to believe any editors of this article have been paid, and I was a dedicated fan of Louis CK myself for many years so I don't think it's inappropriate for fans (former or current) to edit the page as long as they follow NPOV. I want to personally apologize to you or anyone else who may have felt impugned by my earlier comments. I have proceeded to do as you have recommended and made changes to the artiicle myself. Thank you for the advice. Mbroderick271 (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with some of your changes. However, some introduced close paraphrasing from the New York Times source, and some are inappropriate as they give inordinate or inappropriate detail. We describe events holistically and dispassionately, not as a second-by-second emotional description of the event. We can't include every fact, because there are too many, so we need to be choosing the most important ones and say as little as possible to convey the thrust of what happened and what the response was. "Cover-Up" is not an appropriate section title unless we can describe the event as a cover-up in Wikipedia's words—we can't, as I think you know from how you phrased the prose in the section. You also have some unsourced text. I don't have time to go through all of the sources at the moment, and I don't know which sources you were drawing from with these changes, but as you've got the same source cited consecutively and had unsourced sentences, I'm not convinced the current version of the article is such that every sentence is sourced inline by the immediately next available reference (or one of the references if multiple are presented adjacent to each other). If this is not the case, please can you fix this? — Bilorv (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Thank you for your help with copyediting and I largely agree with your comments and will do my best to make further edits that improve the article along the lines I think you are suggesting here. But I'm a little unclear on the meaning of some of your comments, and if it wouldn't be too much trouble could you please clarify what you mean about the cover-up stuff? Why can't we describe the event as a cover-up in Wikipedia's words? The architect of the cover up admitted to the cover up while maintaining that he never intended to cover anything up though he now acknowledges that it probably appeared to be a cover up to those involved. Obviously anyone with an ounce of brain can see that Becky's statement strains credulity and twists itself in logical knots to try avoid any kind of legal culpability, but we as editors don't have to report the version of events that is most amenable to Becky's continuing career in Hollywood. Again, I want to make clear that I don't understand your point here but I would like to so I can continue to improve the article. Mbroderick271 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you're trying to learn, Mbroderick271, but I don't think this internet-argument-style "Obviously anyone with an ounce of brain can see that [statement which many people would dispute]" approach is helpful, even though in this case I do agree with your opinion. If you need to describe something as "obvious", it usually means you don't have a source for it, which makes it original research and hence not appropriate to include in an article. If you do have a source then take out the "obvious" and replace it with "according to [linked source]". I don't care about what's obviously true. I care about what's verifiable from reading reliable sources—that's how Wikipedia is written. Let's say that every week I see 100 people adding something they claim is a fact, not always in my subject area of expertise, and 20 of those "facts" are untrue (these numbers are on the low side if anything). Removing things without a source is how I take an impossibly large burden off myself (to research 100 topics a week for half an hour each to see which 80 facts are true) and make it a smaller burden onto the people adding content (to spend a few minutes giving a source for each true piece of information, as they know where they learned it from). And if I do neither then no-one else is going to sort things out (we're chronically lacking volunteers) so Wikipedia becomes as an aggregate much more fabricated.

To describe the event as a cover-up in Wikipedia's words, we need at minimum one high-quality source which describes it as a cover-up in the organization's words, and for legally or morally contentious topics we often need more. You say that Becky "acknowledges that it probably appeared to be a cover up to those involved" (emphasis mine). This isn't (a) a reliable source for fact (like, say, The New York Times) describing anything; or (b) anyone actually saying "it was a cover-up" (per the italicised words). (On the other hand, it is a reliable source for saying "Becky said '[exactly this quote]'".) If you give me a source which explicitly describes the situation as a "cover-up" (not "like a cover-up" or "seemed to be a cover-up")—and not an editorial, where the opinion is that of a commentator, but a factual reporting piece—then that's when discussion over whether it's neutral to describe it as such, whether other sources contest the statement and whether it satisfies WP:BLP (which requires that we err on the side of caution) begin. Without that, there's nothing to discuss because there's nothing verifiable on the table.

I notice that you didn't address which sources you used to draw out the new information you added and so I'm still concerned we have sentences which don't match up to the immediately following sources. Is that the case? — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I worry that further improvements to the article may have to wait until CaffeinAddict ceases editing the article to overwhelmingly favor the subject's point of view. He claims not to be a paid representative of C.K. but his edits are indistinguishable from what a paid representative would do to protect his client. C.K. has a history of using paid flunkies to silence his victims and cover up his history of workplace sexual harassment.

I'm spotting a lot of unreliable sources in that list, but broadly speaking, regarding terminology – I think I agree "harassment" could probably be used. I think it's probably true that Louis C.K. only admitted to what he would call "sexual misconduct", though sources seem to describe the allegations against him as either. Though, importantly, "harassment" is probably a more precise term than "sexual misconduct", so I think it makes sense to use that term if sources are more split. E.g. if half of the sources said something was a red ball and the other half just said it was a ball, we should probably call it a red ball as it is more accurate.

Regarding broader structural changes, a lot of your edits seemed fairly problematic, but seem largely fine post Bilorv's copyediting. Agree with everything Bilorv said above. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: Thank you for your help in this matter. I have followed your suggestion and edited the article to call a ball a red ball, so to speak. Mbroderick271 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

These new edits are blatantly WP:UNDUE and constitute using MOS:WEASEL words, like switching misconduct to harassment in an attempt to besmirch this comedian's character. This event is obviously a largely topical and important event in the comedian's life but is a blip on the actual history of his long and prolific career. None of his actions were or will be criminal and this completely hogwash attempt to blow up what remain "he said she said" allegations that reminded the masses that even the very important #MeToo movement had it's limits. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it's apparent Mbroderick271 is just going to start an edit war and take over the page because they think they're right without generating any proper consensus. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: I think you may need to reread (or read for the first time) the relevant sources because you seem to be having to be difficulty grasping the basic facts of what happened and how these events fit into the larger context of both C.K.'s career and the #MeToo movement at large. Until then, please refrain from further vandalism. Mbroderick271 (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think two people talking on a talk page is a "consensus", or to falsely accuse me of VANDALISM. When in fact I'm restoring the page to OLDER edits until a REAL consensus can be reached. You are talking in an echo chamber and I will certainly bring attention to this discussion. CaffeinAddict (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Comment on content, not contributor, and please don't accuse people of "hogwash attempt"s to damage living people. Your own opinions on the topic are noted, but irrelevant. More attention to the discussion is generally okay, so long as it is not selectively canvassed, but in this particular case there's a lot of moving parts and I don't think we've begun to nail down any of the concrete sources and possible changes, so more comments about everything but the kitchen sink may just be overwhelming. I gather that some of the changes you are making are factual corrections, which is good, and what I was trying to establish above (which are the sources you are all reading, so I can check each fact?). @Mbroderick271: can you stop undoing changes without an edit summary and, for each change you want to make, outline the sources which support each change (preferably by briefly quoting from them)? — Bilorv (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Yes I will stop and my apologies for my many mistakes so far. I have been editing on Wikipedia for over a decade but have never edited a controversial section on a established page before so I think perhaps I'm getting a bit overwhelmed by the conflict and difficulty in establishing consensus. I would like to address the sourcing and fact checking issues you have mentioned but I am going to take my time doing it, one thing at a time, so we can do our best to avoid further personal conflict and "edit wars" (a term I was not too familiar with until now). Mbroderick271 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging users who originally worked on this article's section or discussed the content when they were just rumours: Connor Behan, IAmTylerSanders, Tenebrae, Winkelvi, Guy Macon, Jpcase, furiouslySerene, Coretheapple, Meatsgains, David in DC, Bearcat, Sro23, Jayron32.

I will be actively removing myself from editing this article until more discussion is generated. I encourage other editors to do the same. This is not a race. These allegations and revelations happened 4 years ago already, there is no sense of urgency here. We are WP:NOTNEWS. CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, It's been so long since I edited the article, I'm going to have to take some time to familiarize myself with the issue and with my involvement, whatever it was. I have no idea what editing I did or what I may have contributed to the article, or what discussion I may have had. I will assert, for the record, that I'm neither a "paid shill" of Louis CK, nor a particularly big fan of his. I'm aware that he's an actor and a comedian, I've seen a few stand up routines of his many years ago, but haven't really been following his career lately. I'm also aware of the allegations against him, but I've not been following the story for a long time and forgotten most of it. It will take me a little while to get up to speed with the new developments so I can contribute to this discussion.--Jayron32 18:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay. So I found the edits I made, dating from August 2017. There was a dispute over some text, and my only involvement was to enforce WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP to ensure that text is left out of the article until consensus was reached to add it first. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, and did not then either. My position has not changed: with regard to WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP, changes and additions to existing text require consensus first on the talk page insofar as there is a dispute, there is a clear policy that contested text remains out of the article until it is clear there is consensus to add it. I have no opinion as to which side is correct here, merely that we maintain status quo ante bellum until after we have a clear consensus, and when there is a conflict over a bit of text either being in or out of the article, it stays out until such time as consensus exists to add it. --Jayron32 18:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, I have restored the 21 February 2021 version (stable version from before the edit war). This version was stable other than typo fixes from 25 January 2021 to 20 March 2021‎. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this correctly. The consensus among Wikipedia editors is that this article should read as if it was written by Louis CK's publicist? Mbroderick271 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What part of "I have no opinion as to which side is correct here, merely that we maintain status quo ante bellum until after we have a clear consensus, and when there is a conflict over a bit of text either being in or out of the article, it stays out until such time as consensus exists to add it." are you having trouble understanding?

Make your case here on the talk page. See if there is or is not a consensus for it. If you continue the edit war I will take this to WP:ANI and seek a topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mbroderick271: No, I didn't say that. Please read the words I said again. I said the article will remain without contested text until a consensus is reached as to what to do with the contested text. If you, Mbroderick271, want to be a part of that consensus building and you want your voice to be heard, what you won't do is completely make up false things people didn't state, and claim that that stated them. If you want to be part of consensus building, you'll be civil and you'll make your case and that's it. --Jayron32 11:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is WP:DUE for us to list the four named accusers and briefly explain how Louis C.K. betrayed their trust. The edits I made to this article a couple years ago aimed to preserve this but remove exhaustive detail very similar to what was in this edit. A few phrasings from that time are apparently no longer in the article. First, I said that C.K. masturbated in front of Goodman and Wolov "without waiting for a response". Second, I said that Corry received an apology "in some form" which allows for the fact that it was a highly flawed apology. If you think we can make the article more neutral by restoring these parts, I have no problem with that. But otherwise, the evidence that the current wording tries to take C.K.'s side does not sound convincing.

• If a paid representative or passionate fan of Louis CK were editing this page, they would avoid using a source that used the term 'harassment'... and so would an editor checking which term the highest quality sources prefer. Vox et al might be reliable but they're not at the level of the New York Times.
• Compare this article to the one on Dominique Strauss-Kahn... Are you saying that the Louis C.K. article should document misconduct in greater depth because C.K. has not been acquitted of a crime? It's the other way around. There is less on the table because he hasn't been charged with a crime.
• Previous editors have put the emphasis of the entire section on CK "asking for permission"... which is important since otherwise he would have been committing a crime.
• ...and otherwise insinuate that some of CK's victims were amused rather than horrified and disturbed by his behavior. If that were the case, there would probably be a lot more about Sarah Silverman.

Being terse is not the same as being biased. Connor Behan (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I support re-addition of both of those wording nuances: "without waiting for a response" and "in some form". — Bilorv (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I plan to restore these tomorrow if there are no objections. Connor Behan (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I really don't see how it's productive to create the impression here that all of your efforts to make sure WP:BRD is followed have been ruined. The three edits that have been made since the last time you restored the February version were discussed on the talk page and did not receive objections. Some other proposals being discussed are bigger and more contentious, but I no longer see any evidence that someone is trying to edit war them in. Connor Behan (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

I propose that the following two editors agree to voluntarily stop editing this page, its talk page, and any closely related pages for a period of six months.

(In alphabetical order)

• CaffeinAddict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mbroderick271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This does not imply any wrongdoing. My advice would be the same if one of the editors was was good and pure and without flaws of any kind, and the other completely wrong about everything.

My reasoning:

Both editors appear to believe that the other editor is "the problem" and that if only the other would stop then all of the other editors would be able to fix any issues that article has. So let's see if either of them is right. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree to this proposal, and will end my editing on both the talk page and the article following this comment. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree. The other editor mentioned his focus on Wikipedia is Canadian COVID-19 statistics. My focus on Wikipedia is comedians and filmmakers, and when I read this article I was shocked by its poor quality. I would like to improve it. Respectfully, I feel this proposal is likely to lead the article to return to the status quo ex ante, an outcome I'm not willing to accept. Mbroderick271 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please be advised that editors who take the position "an outcome I'm not willing to accept" are likely to end up blocked. Again, make your case for whatever changes you wish to make here on the talk page. Do not edit war any further or there will be consequences. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your proposal, Guy Macon. Mbroderick271 is responding positively to feedback, despite their initial aggression and uncollegial attitude (see Special:Diff/1021788983). The discussion can't continue without them, as they are the one who raised concerns. I was trying to get to the bottom of what specifically their concerns were, and no-one else can answer that question. Aggression begets aggression so do not be surprised that the more you threaten someone with "consequences" they have already been politely made aware of (by myself), the more likely they are to be aggressive back. — Bilorv (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I also can't support your reversion to the status quo when what was happening is that consensus was slowly emerging through rounds of iterative bold edits followed by others copyediting/fact-checking the changes, and then discussing points of contention—each of us involved in the discussion was doing each of these tasks. There are too many moving parts, like I said above, to keep track of them all by discussing them point-by-point. Perhaps you would rather we set up a sandbox and workshopped things there? And then maybe you could explain whether you actually disagree with changes like my one here, which in part included fixing an unsourced claim and went uncontested by three editors with very different points of view, and if not whether I can reinstate that now (it's not part of the disputed topic of C.K.'s sexual misconduct and you've reinstated a BLP violation). — Bilorv (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that you don't like my tone. but it was appropriate for someone who decided to continue the dispute with article edits rather than seeking consensus on the talk page. Would you rather they were blocked without warning?

If you think that the edit warring and personal attacks are actually "consensus slowly emerging through rounds of iterative bold edits followed by others copyediting/fact-checking the changes, and then discussing points of contention" then I must disagree. That description does not appear to reflect what has been happening here.

At least two editors (myself and Jayron32) have taken the following position:

"My position has not changed: with regard to WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP, changes and additions to existing text require consensus first on the talk page insofar as there is a dispute, there is a clear policy that contested text remains out of the article until it is clear there is consensus to add it. I have no opinion as to which side is correct here, merely that we maintain status quo ante bellum until after we have a clear consensus, and when there is a conflict over a bit of text either being in or out of the article, it stays out until such time as consensus exists to add it."

...a position that is well supported by policy.

I don't care whether you support my reversion to WP:STATUSQUO. Our policy (WP:BLP is clear:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

(Feel free to complain about the tome of "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing").

Make your case here on the talk page. See if there is or is not a consensus for it. This is not a request. This is a requirement. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv was doing an admirable job reminding Mbroderick271 of some of the Wikipedia policies he had overlooked. But the burden for overturning a previous long-standing consensus should be higher than this. Sticking with the February version for now while proposed changes are made in a sandbox sounds perfectly appropriate. On the other hand, I think the two editors named above should be welcome to keep discussing this article on the talk page. Connor Behan (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I was suggesting that they voluntarily step away and let others have a chance. Certainly they are free to reject my suggestion. Seeing as only one of them agreed, should we invite the one who left back? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I will have more to say about this when I'm done with work but if you're a frequent editor of Wikipedia I would imagine you'd be embarrassed that the long-standing consensus was to misrepresent and protect the reputation of a serial sexual harasser in a way that is indistinguishable from what a paid PR representative would put out there if given the chance. Again, I am probably way less experienced than most of the folks on this talk page, but I have to imagine it's hard to take pride in your work if this is the kind of thing you let stand. Mbroderick271 (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep repeating this "paid PR" idea, Mbroderick271, and I don't see how you could expect the above rudeness to help achieve the outcome you want. I've had the displeasure of interacting with many paid PR people on Wikipedia and what they do in this situation is blank the misconduct section and gaslight you. — Bilorv (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Hey - I basically agree with what you're saying here. Since I'm sure you're sick of my apologies by now, I'm gonna take a few days off from this and come back fresh on Monday or Tuesday. My approach to this has become overly emotional and uptight and I see now that many of my comments on this Talk Page have been counterproductive and harmful to my goal which is to improve this page so that it reflects NPOV rather than what I think is an overly deferential approach to the subject's own perspective on the matter. Thanks again for your help with this, I'll be back to work on this again in a few days. Mbroderick271 (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment, Mbroderick271—sounds like a plan to me. — Bilorv (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mbroderick271: are you still interested in further discussion? — Bilorv (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: Yes. I've been busy at work but I would like to improve this page. I believe it should reflect the actual reported pattern of harassment that CK exhibited throughout the 2000s in workplace settings. I felt very frustrated by the approach of some other editors here which seemed to me to be both dismissive as well as passive aggressive. But you have been very perspicacious and have already helped me become a better editor from your comments. Mbroderick271 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well I've started a new section below and let's see what common ground there is between anyone still interested in discussing this topic. — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to Guy Macon for attempting to keep the peace here, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. I have resumed editing the article to conform with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested change by Bilorv

In the above discussion Bilorv writes "maybe you could explain whether you actually disagree with changes like my one here"

I created this section so that Bilorv can make their case for this change, as required when editors disagree about the content of a BLP. If nobody objects, we can roll the change back in. I will hold off on my opinion untill I see Bilorv's argument for making this change. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond mostly to your comment above, but in the section you want us to discuss it in, Guy Macon. I've just drawn your attention to Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced and you've told me I can't remove it. The case for reinstating this edit is that the current material is not sourced by the citation that follows. The solution (my edit) is to introduce a source which describes what C.K. talked about in the stand-up hour, and then summarizes that description. If you want it in bold: the article currently contains a BLP violation i.e. unsourced content. Nobody has disputed that the past content was a BLP violation, and BLP violations must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Can you please fix the BLP violation I've pointed you to twice now? — Bilorv (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Specifically the unsourced content is the mention of Auschwitz and non-binary people (in the latter case, the source merely says C.K. discussed "common pronoun etiquette in transgender and nonbinary communities", not non-binary people). — Bilorv (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: in your edit here you shuffle about with the BLP violation without removing it. Can you please weigh in here? — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

There has to be a source for the inclusion of the material, but the video itself (if publicly available) is an OK source for it. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I'm a bit confused. I don't think the video is legally available as it's just a set he was workshopping (no filming generally allowed in these things), but regardless what I'm saying is that the current source doesn't verify the given sentence. What I'm suggesting is to add a source which talks about more of the stand-up topics and then summarize that source i.e. to make this change. Would you support that change? — Bilorv (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, That edit looks like an improvement to me if it's supported by RS. (t · c) buidhe 00:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, all from Vulture (RSP entry). — Bilorv (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Unless someone objects I will make the suggested change as being supported by consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've restored this content as there's been some support and no objection. — Bilorv (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Since a list of topics mentioned in a comedy set is not contentious, I hereby dispute that the past content was a BLP violation. The Auschwitz piece which happened to be missing from the CNN source is clearly verifiable and should be addressed by adding a source. I.e. separated from the more extensive change. Connor Behan (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Connor Behan: the claim is not that the material is unsourceable, but that it is unsourced. Unsourced material about a BLP is necessarily a BLP violation. I'm in favor of adding your source and some Auschwitz mention, in addition to my change, part of which was introducing a source for the unsourced "nonbinary people" comment. — Bilorv (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I will assume that you were not being intentionally misleading and instead just made an error, but you quoted "BLP violations must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" in defense of an edit that added material.

I agree that if one editor sincerely thinks that a claim is a BLP violation that claim should be immediately removed while we discuss it. Bilorv, please identify which words you believe are a BLP violation. What you wrote above ("the article currently contains a BLP violation i.e. unsourced content.") can be addressed by removal or by adding a source. It appears that Connor Behan has provided a source. Does anyone object to me adding that source immediately while we continue discussing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it's very gracious of you to attribute your mistake to not be an "intentionally misleading" act on my part, but I've already explained the exact BLP violation. My edit removed a BLP violation (including the unsourced mention of Auschwitz), and separately added a source and a new sourced description (including the addition of a source for the unsourced mention of non-binary people). I simply can't understand why you need to be told three times that there is a BLP violation and still fail to read the article and the given source, but since you say that "if one editor sincerely thinks that a claim is a BLP violation that claim should be immediately removed while we discuss it", I've done so.

On the other hand, re-addition of the Auschwitz mention with the CBS source and the change that I made are now both uncontroversial, per the discussion above. — Bilorv (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Saying "J.K. Rowling is British" without citing it doesn't rise to the level of BLP violation. In any case, I support re-adding the condemnation by Parkland survivors and possibly the mention of Auschwitz. The other stuff received substantially less coverage. Connor Behan (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, all instances of unsourced text about a living person violate WP:BLP. In this case, the claim is that someone was joking about Auschwitz, not that someone is British. — Bilorv (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

No, WP:BLP reserves that label for unsourced text that is "challenged or likely to be challenged". The statement about J. K. Rowling is unlikely to be challenged which is why I brought it up. Not because I forgot which article we were talking about. Connor Behan (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong on two counts: that's the requirement for the citation to be inline, not the requirement for a reference to appear in the article (all material must be referenced); and I literally did challenge it (it is also likely to be challenged because it's a claim about someone joking about Auschwitz). — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested change by Guy Macon

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#WAAF Blogs ( https://waaf.radio.com/blogs/ ) I propose removing the WAAF Blog citation.

I have no problem with the claim "The jokes drew condemnation from Parkland survivors" (it is sourced in the "Parkland survivors respond" section of the CNN citation), but the claim "...and a divided reaction from fellow comedians" while almost certainly accurate, requires a citation to a reliable secondary source. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing the WAAF source and the "divided reaction from fellow comedians" seems acceptable to me so long as we retain the well-sourced response from Parkland survivors. — Bilorv (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone else object? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

striking my comment because it has become clear that certain participants are not willing to stop edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Vulture article

I have replaced the editorialized interpretations from the vulture article as it quite often uses different wording than when they actually quote Mr. C.K. I have linked to their respective and appropriate wikilinks as well.

This is the article: [15]

Here are my changes:

• 1 - C.K. did not say non-binary but rather gender neutral, he commented on pronouns so I linked to the article Gender neutrality in languages with gendered third-person pronouns as it's a more specific topic.
• 2 - C.K.'s joke about Asians all being women was part of a larger joke on Human penis size (which included a joke about black men having large penises). I linked to that article with the appropriate subsection at Human penis size#Size and race.
• 3 - I linked to the pejorative version of the word "Retarded", a derivative of "Retard" here Retard (pejorative)
• 4 - And finally it is important to note the joke about the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (previously known as the Parkland shooting, but the article is now named that so I removed the additional text) was about the survivors of the shooting, not the victims.

I hope these explain my edits.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As per my last edit, the quote IN THE BODY OF THE ARTICLE is as follows:

"They’re crazy! These kids are nuts!” But they’re not. They’re fucking neeeeh. They’re just boring, fucking telling, “You shouldn’t say that!” What are you, an old lady? What the fuck are you doing? “Neeeeh, that’s not appropriate!” Fuck you, you’re a child! … They’re like royalty. They tell you what to call them: “You should address me as ‘they/them’ because I identify as gender-neutral.” Okay. You should address me as “there” because I identify as a location, and the location is your mother’s cunt … "

CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I literally edit conflicted on self-reverting the gender neutral comment, as I only saw this comment just now (I loaded the page Louis C.K. after your first edit but then got distracted by something). I can see why you think Vulture is incorrect, though it's not necessarily quoting the full material on that topic. I've never seen that set so I don't know. Your change for the avoidance of doubt is reasonable. (2) is kind of fine, but Vulture highlights the "all Asians are women" comment presumably because it thinks it particularly offensive/noteworthy, and we should too for the same reason. (3) is uncontroversial. (4) I would argue that "victims" can include people who didn't die from the shooting, but "survivor" is a problem-free term to use. You've addressed my raised issue of poor prose in repeating the word "joked", but are now going against the original impetus for my edit (which received talk page support where yours has not): quick-firing off a list of topics doesn't help anyone because it doesn't give indication of the nature of the jokes.

For instance, if you said "James Acaster joked about transgender people" and "Ricky Gervais joked about transgender people" in the respective sets where they did so then you would be misleading the reader, because Gervais's punchlines were at the expense of transgender people, whereas Acaster's were at the expense of anti-transgender opinions. Here, who can tell what C.K.'s jokes were at the expense of? And without this, how can you really understand what his comedy is about, why this particular set received criticism etc.? The objections were not simply that C.K. joked about the school shooting. It was that the jokes were at the expense of school shooting survivors. And so this context needs to be mentioned—given that reliable sources are clear enough to allow us to do this.

It is unfortunate that you chose not to participate in the week-long pause given to see if there was any objection to the edit that I made, and more unfortunate that you continue to revert and edit over a version with consensus, as you could have suggested the improvements (like linking) here and someone else could have added them for you (or you could have added them if there was no response). As for the shouting, I'm sorry to have made you angry but keeping a level head makes it more likely that others will take you seriously. — Bilorv (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: any objections to adding wording that explains the nature (rather than simply the topic) of C.K.'s jokes in this set? — Bilorv (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Are they not the same thing? Care to elaborate? CaffeinAddict (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you read the comment above that one? — Bilorv (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Any final takers on an objection or shall I make an edit so that the article explains the nature of the jokes in the set? — Bilorv (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Going once, going twice, and sold to the change of explaining the context of the topics rather than just listing them. — Bilorv (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't particularly find the phrase "at the expense of young people who use" rather than "about" to be objective and following WP:NPOV. This is editorialization. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained to you why "about" is ambiguous, unclear and removes information. I have taken into account that you don't like this phrase and used something else, "criticising". — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegations (again)

Alright, to those still interested in discussing, I think we should start with the common ground on what needs changing. At least three editors participated in (and seemed to approve) of the changes here. There's a change of a section header from "Sexual misconduct revelation" (silly tabloid-style non-neutrality) to "Sexual misconduct allegations", which seems like a definite improvement. There's a trimming of a C.K. quote without removing much information because, well, people ramble as they speak in real life but we like quotes short and snappy. There's additional explanation of the nature of the allegations and of the responses by professionals associated with C.K. (looks sourced; I haven't double checked yet). There's also a couple of small bits of rewording. I don't see any reason not to reinstate these changes as a new base level from which to work from. Does anyone see any possible issues? — Bilorv (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

1 - I don't disagree with the word "allegations". Without being CRYSTALBALL - all they're ever going to be are allegations, a "he said, she said" situation as none of the allegations are serious enough to actually go to court. So by all means call it sexual misconduct allegations. The previous suggestion around the edit war was "Workplace sexual harassment" which I don't think meets the definition.

2 - "responses by professionals associated with C.K." Because C.K. works in an industry where there are tonnes of others working, there's a lot of opinions floating around. There's a kind of tugging match between those who don't approve of him Tig Notaro and Pete Davidson for example, some who are on the fence Amy Schumer and Jerry Seinfeld and then there's people who are defensive of him like Joe Rogan, Ricky Gervais and Chris Rock. There's also the people who support him who have also made him the butt of jokes in their own material - Dave Chappelle off the top of my head. I almost would say this is like when you have a film reference or something pervasive that becomes a "popular culture" phenomenon. It seems to be like Louis C.K. is a discussion topic in and of himself. Where is the line we draw with how many voices we include or exclude? CaffeinAddict (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see agreement on (1). For (2), I understand what you've said but not how it relates to the particular change I'm talking about, one medium-length paragraph about C.K.'s manager. I was rather asking you where the line is. The way we determine roughly how many words to include is with the amount of coverage in secondary sources, and in the article I'm counting five ([16][17][18][19][20]) sources cited inline that are primarily about the manager topic, plenty for the content proposed. What you say is a separate topic and that does look like content we should be including; give the sources and let's work out which specific comedians are most-mentioned by newspapers. — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe "Sexual misconduct allegations" is an appropriate terminology to use. Misconduct could be interpreted to mean adultery or something legal, which is what his former manager wants us to believe he thought he was covering up (obviously a lie). "Workplace sexual harassment" is both more precise and kinder to Louis CK then what I would prefer which would be "Sexual assault accusations." Sexual assault is accurate and is the terminology used by Seth Rogen here. But maybe we should go with “Workplace sexual harassment” and if you don’t understand why I would suggest reading this article (or perhaps just sticking to Canadian Covid-19 statistics, your chosen field of expertise?). Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the above comment was addressed to Caffein addict. I have to be honest with you @Bilorv:, I don't think CaffeinAddict is editing in good faith here, and he has clearly stated his view of what happened is directly at odds with what is reported in the New York Times and all the other prominent news sources that are the basis for this whole section. This page isn't going to be accurate unless people who think minimizing sexual assault is really good and cool cease editing it. Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay - but you're not following the consensus again though Mbroderick271. The previous reversion of your edits by other editors was to reach a consensus on the matter. I'm just one voice and so are you. There's not much discussion happening here. CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Mbroderick271, if you want to edit on Wikipedia then you have to work with people you disagree with. If you don't want to take another person seriously and assume that they have reasonable beliefs based on intelligent reasoning then they will not assume the same of you. Don't tell other people that they are not welcome here. As for your proposed suggestion, basing something off a tweet one comedian made is a non-starter. You also quote a Vox article but seem to have overlooked that there are a wealth of reliable sources with diverse and mutually exclusive opinions on the subject matter. I don't support "sexual assault accusations". As for "sexual harassment" (I don't think "workplace" properly captures some of the situations), I'm interested, but the first question at hand is: is "sexual misconduct allegations" better than "sexual misconduct revelations"? — Bilorv (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether allegations or revelations is used, if the term 'misconduct' is used Wikipedia will continue to obscure the nature of Louis CK's offenses against five human beings. Seth Rogen has called CK's actions sexual assault because they clearly meet the legal standard of sexual assault as defined by the Department of Justice. CK committed nonconsensual sexual acts against five human beings and this Wikipedia page continues to emphasize that CK "asked permission" without making clear that his victims did not answer in the affirmative. They did not give him consent to masturbate at them. He has continued to insinuate otherwise in his comedy, just as he used to lie to the press claiming none of it ever happened. One of the women he asked was a coworker on the set of a Television sitcom. That is obviously workplace sexual harassment. The page as written emphasizes that he admitted to his actions (in the introduction to the article) rather than that he lied about and covered up for years, it emphasizes that he asked permission with very little context explaining that he did not receive permission, it gives extended time to Jerry Seinfeld's overly labored comedy bit about "groveling" without mentioning that equally if not more famous comedian Seth Rogen has described CK's actions as sexual assault, and yes maybe that last one is less important but taken together the impact of this article is to carry water for CK's PR and legal teams (even if that's not what any one individual editor intends, and I don't think and have no evidence to suggest any editor is working for CK directly). Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wanted to append a comment to say that I think I don't totally understand the process here, as far as when to edit - basically we discuss changes here and then one of us makes the agreed upon changes after we reach consensus? Where is the drafting actually done? Because I'm clearly a little behind the curve here, I will cease editing the main article for a few days and read up on the rules so I have clarity and don't screw up again. Mbroderick271 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We cannot explicitly imply that something is a crime when C.K. has not been convicted of anything because of WP:BLPCRIME. I think your comment above still focuses a lot about what you think, but not a lot about what should be written on Wikipedia and where the sources for that are. (Seth Rogen is not a unique authority here—as CaffeinAddict notes, many comedians have dissenting views.) For the "workplace" comment specifically, it is the case that some of the cases are not in a workplace setting, not that all of them are not, and a section header needs to describe all of the information that it covers.

As for the process, yes, it's better to wait until agreement. You can suggest specific wording changes or we could all agree on "this information needs to be added" (or whatever) and let the person who adds it write it their way, and then tweak or discuss further as needed. You don't have to stop editing the article but it's just a finding of mine that the more someone edits the article during a discussion, the more likely they'll just piss everyone off and nothing will be changed. You do have to abide by the edit warring policy, which is often misunderstood as only preventing you from making four reverts within 24 hours, but is more generally about not making repeated changes that you know others disagree with.

I'm seeing an objection to changing "revelation" to "misconduct", but no objections to the other changes I started this section by listing, so I plan to make those other changes soon. — Bilorv (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see every mention of CK's pattern of 'asking permission first' to be coupled with the important context that he did not receive consent according to his victims. Are there objections to changes along these lines? Again, I will take a few days off of editing to read up on the rules but ultimately these are changes I'd like to work on, with other additional changes I will suggest for further discussion in the coming days. Mbroderick271 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's take the case of the (now-current) passage: [Accusers] included comedy duo Dana Min Goodman and Julia Wolov, who claimed that they had been invited to C.K.'s hotel room in 2002 during the US Comedy Arts Festival, where he asked them if he could take out his penis. The two women assumed he was joking but C.K. masturbated to completion in front of them. What, if anything, would you change? We already acknowledge precisely how C.K. "asked permission" and what the women's responses were. If you want to say explicitly "the two women did not consent" then you need a reliable source that says "the two women did not consent" (not just a description of the events more generally), in accordance with verifiability and no original research. — Bilorv (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I've (re-)made the changes initially proposed above, with the exception of the contested "misconducted" header, as I am not hearing that anyone prefers any of the other current content, and we've already discussed each of the changes earlier and seen the justification for it. — Bilorv (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@CaffeinAddict: I'm really disappointed by your behavior here. You had plenty of time and opportunity to discuss specific issues you had with these changes and you just wait until they're introduced into the article to unilaterally change it yourself? Some of these changes I agree with, and I've left those up even though I would be justified to revert them as lacking consensus, but some you need to discuss. It's "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, don't discuss, reintroduce with consensus, revert again and refuse to discuss". I can't for the life of me understand why—again—you are choosing not to propose improvements or give your full thoughts on this content before it is introduced as uncontroversial, not afterwards. It's very disheartening to me. — Bilorv (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't really care. There's only three editors bouncing around arguing about this is is why I took it to ANI - I'd like all of us to eventually step away and let someone with true objectivity edit this article. Right now I'm making sure the article doesn't use language that infers any behaviour by C.K. that isn't proven or suggests criminality. CaffeinAddict (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(arbitrary break)

Adding an arbitrary break to filter out personal differences and get back to the article.

• 1 - I take issue with the phrasing of "behavior towards his female coworkers " as I don't believe in every context the women were coworkers. This is the wrong context. Two women also doing stand-up at a festival are not coworkers. This is some attempt to equivocate stand-up comedy to an office setting. I don't know where this whole "coworker" thing comes from but it's wrong. I believe it should be "bahavior towards women in his life" or "person life" or something to that effect.

• 2 - I take issue with the phrasing of "Following C.K.'s harassment of Goodman and Wolov" this implies that what they said was gospel and C.K. has been proven to not have consented. He claims the incident was consensual. Their word against his. Nothing has been proven. I believe it should objectively mention the incident as I had written before.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

On (1), I'm fine with the changing being phrased, but not to "personal life" because just as you say that not every context is co-workers, it's not all "personal life" either. Would "behavior towards women colleagues" or "behavior towards women in his professional life" work?

On (2), I don't understand. The New York Times verified that C.K. described himself as "repulsive" for the actions described, apologizing for it. — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) "behavior towards women in his professional life" sounds most appropriate given the variety of circumstance.

(2) "harassment" implies it wasn't consensual. C.K. claims he asked for consent ([21] & [22]), Goodman and Wolov do not. Nobody knows what happened in that hotel room except the fly on the wall. I think there needs to be a delineation of these two claims. Nothing has ever been proven so it's simply just one side against another.

CaffeinAddict (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

In (1), fine by me, and done (for now).

In (2), I think you've linked to the wrong things, as neither mention Goodman and Wolov. I also think you're reading the wrong thing: Goodman and Wolov do say he asked for consent, but continued without them giving it. You might want to read RAINN's description of what consent is, and it explicitly lists as what it isn't, A partner who is disengaged, nonresponsive, or visibly upset (emphasis mine). — Bilorv (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that people who call C.K.'s actions "consensual" are using the legal definition while people who call them "non-consensual" are using the moral definition. But I just removed "harassment" from the sentence in question as this is also a term that the NYT opted not to use. Citing the apology is synthesis since C.K. stopped short of calling himself a harasser. Connor Behan (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and thanks for weighing in. I would dispute the claim that the actions were legally consensual (in the U.S.): this is not a matter we can know either way without this being taken to trial, but lack of active consent is a relevant legal factor (if that was indeed the case). — Bilorv (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter - the truth does. But we don't know the truth is because C.K. claims one thing and some of the women who've spoken out say another. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yo Coffee Man, Louis CK denied everything until his accusers spoke out publicly to the press. Usually when someone lies about something, you should trust their later statements less. Correct me if I'm wrong but you continue to give his later statements (in which he does not directly contradict his accusers but only subtly implies what he did was more consensual than they have claimed) equal weight to the victims who have no history of false statements about the matter simply because Louis CK is a man, and you believe men are generally speaking the truth more than hysterical women exaggerating their unimportant experiences to destroy reputations (even though this brings them no financial gain). Do I have that right CaffeinAddict or am I missing something? Mbroderick271 (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of how wikipedia works. This is not some essay you're writing to prove your point. This is an encyclopedia aimed at presenting the scenario in a non-biased way. What C.K. did or didn't do is only outlined in the articles talking about the events. The events are already flawed because they are being remembered by human beings and humans are fallible. You can't just keep editing the article to suggest that anything is objective truth. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Mbroderick271: stop making comments like this. We're writing an encyclopedia article based on what secondary sources (not ourselves) think, so restrict your comments to that. As for the edit, I appreciate the rephrase by CaffeinAddict but I do not agree with the addition at all so I've removed it. I found the initial wording "and then they ran out of the room screaming" quite infantilising and I don't see why this information is such an important part of the story that it needs mentioning. It's better to keep it succinct and avoid extraneous details that don't really affect the facts of what C.K. did or what the consequences of that were (and "screaming" and/or "laughing" doesn't really tell you how it affected the subjects, particularly in the long-term). — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree it's unnecessary and agree with it's removal. As the original quote was "laughing in shock" it seems to be quite editorialized. It seems to be the agreed position on both sides is that C.K. asked to masturbate, he proceeded to masturbate and the pair left at some point. There's details in there that are contentious and every article is going to speculate one way or the other. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sexual harassment

Do we think that Louis C.K.'s pattern of behavior qualifies as harassment, and why do we structure the article to focus on Louis' admission of his behavior rather than his repeated denials which only changed when 5 women accused him of harassment? Can someone other than a Louis C.K. fanboy who believes his word (despite his pattern of lying about his behavior in the past) over the women he harassed please answer me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbroderick271 (talk • contribs)

Photo

So - my thoughts on the recent photo change which has now been reverted by The One I Left was that I thought a more recent photograph was a good idea, although for a biographical page I understand we probably want more of a headshot. Would be happy to generate discussion on this. CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Relevant criteria on choosing an infobox photo (roughly by decreasing importance): high-quality image; not an awkward facial expression; headshot/less of surroundings and body in frame; recent; facing inwards ("looking at the reader"). (Recency is more important in cases other than C.K. if they've drastically changed appearance.) The 2017 image is more recent, but C.K. is sort of mid-speech, whereas he looks better with his 2012 smirk, and there's more body and surrounding background. So I prefer the 2012 image. I don't think that's necessarily too old, but if you're looking for a more recent I'd do a search for compatibly-licensed Flickr images (as I'm not seeing any improvements on the 2012 image in Commons). — Bilorv (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have searched on Flickr extensively. I think the issue to my eye is the smirk is an awkward facial expression. CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest one of the following:

CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)