Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:09, 12 December 2017

The article Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 9 December 2017 with a consensus to merge the content into Matt Lauer. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page. Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Matt Lauer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Lead gives too much emphasis to termination

Yes, Lauer is currently in the news for a scandal. However, the events of November 29 and onward should not take up the majority of the introduction, nor should they be covered in excruciating detail: this is pure WP:Recentism. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, and breaking stories should not dominate a biography in an encyclopedia, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE. I don't believe any more than a couple sentences in the lead should be devoted to his firing, and the most salacious details should be relegated to the body of text. Similarly, his firing should not take up a disproportionately large section if the article, and intricate details unlikely to be relevant in 2 years should be omitted. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

His firing currently is about 18 lines of text in an article which has about 122 lines of text, that seems in proportion. I agree that the lead does not accurately summarize the body, but that can be fixed by adding text to the lead. We don't need to cut anything, which is pretty concise right now as it is. If WP:DUE is an issue with the lead, add some more text to it. It certainly isn't a problem in the body; we've condensed the content of a half dozen or so different 200+ line source articles down to about 18 lines. That's not bad. --Jayron32 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing what you said, I have gone through and moved any details in the lead to the body which were not already covered there, and removed any extraneous detail, such as specific acts and numbers of women (which is unclear anyways given the disparate reports in different sources), which were already covered later. I think we've got the lead into a better balance, without losing detail from the article. I hope this helps some. --Jayron32 20:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I've expanded the first paragraph, so that his non-firing related biography is no longer dwarfed by the events of recent days. I feel there is till too much detail though: I don't think it is necessary to mention Andrew Lack in Lauer's intro paragraph, nor name drop any publications, and there shouldn't be a profusion of footnotes (or any, per MOS:LEAD). Note comparative emphases given to his termination in sources like Biography.com and Encyclopaedia Britannica. Per WP:TERTIARY, tertiary sources like encyclopedias can be useful for evaluating due weight. WP:UNDUE and WP:PROPORTION apply to the lead as well. A succinct yet accurate and proportionately balanced summary might read: Lauer was terminated from NBC on November 29, 2017, following allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior towards a colleague. Shortly after, media outlets reported additional women coming forward with complaints of ongoing sexual harassment. Lauer admitted that some of the allegations were true, and apologized to those he had hurt. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the proposed text. It summarizes the body and removes detail that isn't necessary in the lead. Any unique sources in the lead can be moved to the body if needed. Ca2james (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

AfD notice

There is an AfD in process at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations 13:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of merge per AfD

I merged the information that was included in Matt Lauer sexual misconduct allegations with the section "Sexual misconduct and harassment allegations" per the AfD. I have requested that an admin check to make sure I got everything merged (edit history, TP info) that needed to be merged. 14:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging does not usually mean replacing the existing text with text from the source; it's usually meant to be selective. The current section, copied from the standalone article, is way overblown and undue and needs to be trimmed.

Can the merge be reverted so we can discuss which details, if any, from the standalone article are included in this article? Ca2james (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Who said selective? The result was merge per the close: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations. My suggestion is not to revert because if you do, it will be a violation of consensus. 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it obviously won't be a violation of consensus. Merge doesn't automatically mean full content merge, it can also (and usually means IMHO) mean a selective merge. No one in the AfD said all the content should be merged; those who expressed opinions on the merge said it should be selective. The text before was more tailored to fit in this article IMO. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Those participating in the AfD did not vote to delete it - they voted to merge it. I merged it with what was there already. It was not a "merge discussion" - it was an AfD that resulted in merging because they chose to NOT delete. 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. 15:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I never said anything about the people voting delete. Quite a few people said it should be condensed; no one said the entirety should be merged in. Not voting to delete does not mean all the material is worth keeping or that the existing material should be replaced. Anyhow, I'll take a look over what you've added and what was there before and try to create the best version. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Galobtter! I'm looking forward to seeing the results. Ca2james (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the process and conflating a regular "merge" with an AfD decision to merge and not delete. Merging is a compromise. See Misplaced Pages:Delete_or_merge. What you're wanting to do is a redirect, and that is noncompliant with consensus and compromise. Consensus said MERGE, and now you are trying to delete content that consensus said to merge. At the very least, you should wait the required time frame after an AfD closes and then discuss any proposed changes. 16:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• It's worth noting that, per WP:MERGETEXT, there's no enshrined necessity to merge all content, automatically; so in a case like this, although an administrator defined the consensus as to merge, they deliberately do not define how much to merge. It can be as little as one sentence or as much as all of it. But it is a common misunderstanding that everyhting should be kept in a merger. In fact, that would rarely be the case: the only result in which an AfD allows for intrinsically keeping all the material is, unsurprisingly, 'keep.' Incidentally, I make this comment as an uninvolved editor who took no part in the aforementioned discussion; consider it, perhaps, more in the nature of a point of order. >SerialNumber54129 17:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  Agree. It's now just a regular content discussion; considering people were mostly of the opinion that it should be trimmed only little should be added. I'm too sleepy right now though to execute a better merge, however anyone can BOLDLY do it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

We don't make-up policy as we go along. Again, I strongly suggest that you review Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations and the arguments presented for merging and the ones presented for keeping - there were no delete arguments - the consensus was unambiguously to merge. What you are arguing on this TP now is opposite what the policy supplement describes as procedure, and it is noncompliant with the consensus result of the AfD. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument to delete the contents of the article that was merged. I followed consensus using WP:Merging#Selective paste merger, the prevalent reasons given for merging during the AfD was that the article (the one proposed for deletion) wasn't long enough to demand being a spin-off, not that the information should be excluded. The combination of keep arguments and merge arguments were unambiguously clear about keeping the contents of that article and merging it with Matt Lauer. 17:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Step number 2 of the WP:Merging#Selective paste merger says to Cut/paste the non-redundant content from the source page into the destination page. You didn't do that: you replaced the existing text with text from your article. Your version does not have consensus here, and I ask that you revert your addition so a better merge can be executed. I would be happy to BOLDly do all that myself but given our past history it would be better if someone else did it. Ca2james (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

My argument has always been merge and consolidate. Write concisely, not expansively. There is no overwhelming reason to cover the issue in excruciating detail, certainly not much more than had existed in this article before AFD. It would be stupid to cover Lauer's Olympics coverage or any other event in such detail. We don't need separate headers for each sub-element, nor a day-by-day breakdown of events. Does this mean some facts get omitted? Yes, as per the nature of an enclycopedia (gleaning the essentials from a myriad of sources). Responses from so and so are largely unnecessary: he was fired, apologized,we don't need everyone's 2 cents. And block quotes are not needed anywhere in this article. User:Atsme, try to look beyond WP:RECENTISM, and let's frame this event proportionally and historically with an eye towards what will be still be significant in a year or two, like what would be found in any publication with a professional editor. (can you imagine how cluttered and banal this article would be if every stage of his life was covered in equal weight?) And again, we need not add information simply because they are in the news. Most news articles by their nature are inherently myopic, giving only the news of the day. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Matt Lauer's firing will be remembered for a very long time along as will all the others. Getting fired from a multimillion dollar contract in disgrace is not something that will be forgotten anytime soon. Consensus determined the biographical material in this article wasn't long enough to warrant a spin-off/content fork. I worked up a summary of reasons stated to Merge (no mention of deleting the material) per the AfD iVotes:

1. That article isn't so long to demand a subsidiary article.
2. Agreed with #1.
3. This is not an incident but a culmination of actions through out his career and should be in context.
4. ...we don't need a new article for every new set of allegations because we aren't the news.
5. Significant issue but merge with Matt Lauer.
6. No cause for a content/POV fork;
7. An scandal that brought down one of the most bankable names at NBC News is worthy of an individual article.
8. There is absolutely no reason that this material cannot be covered in the article on Lauer.
9. Merge to Matt Lauer per WP:TOOSOON as the contents of this article fit comfortably into the Lauer article.
10. Merge at least for now. There’s room in the main article.
11. Merge all of the "(whatever celebrity/politician) sexual misconduct allegations" articles to the main article on each person.
12. Merge
    

Including the 6 KEEP iVotes, 18 out of 25 iVotes essentially supported merging with no mention of deleting any material which left 7 iVotes (6 + 1 redirect) that mentioned trim/condense.

1. Trim and merge
2. contents can be summarized and merged to his main article.
3. keep a lid on excessive detail, bloated prose, and/or laundry lists of reactions that violate WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROPORTION.
4. this material can be quite easily condensed
5. Redirect
6. any additional information as needed
7. so it shouldn't be that hard to merge the most notable bits

Lauer was fired from a multimillion dollar job because of his sexual misconduct - his alleged behavior toward women is now included in the section the same way it is for all the other cases - it's called consistency and if inclusion of public victim names and their allegations passes NPOV and notability in the other BLP articles, it passes here as well. WP doesn't whitewash and censor what the sources say. The information that was merged is supported by RS with inline citations, and where necessary, in-text attribution for any material that might be challenged. Wikilawyering will not change consensus. There was already one attempt to redirect that was reverted by the closing admin who stated in the edit summary: "(Undid revision 814530850 by WWGB (talk) An actual merge does not appear to have occurred)" I had the copy/paste worked up by paragraphs, but there were interim edits that created an edit conflict (which I noted in my edit summary), so I couldn't do it paragraph by paragraph as originally intended. I did it the way I did to avoid further edit conflicts and to preserve the original material and citations. 02:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Wikilawyering will not change consensus"; yes but completely transferring the material from an article that the community determined shouldn't exist as a standalone is Wikilawyering around the outcome. Merging has never meant "copy-and-paste". All this has created is WP:UNDUE weight for one recent event, making it appear as if Lauer is most notable for these allegations. This should be condensed into three paragraphs -- tops -- and I am not sure if the article creator of the allegations page should take part in the trimming if they think the current mess in the article is appropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What happened in the AfD is past history and not relevant to this discussion. You didn't properly merge the source text but instead overwrote the existing text. It's been shown above that you do not have consensus to perform the merge in that way.

From the above, I'm guessing that you're not going to undo your changes yourself. Therefore, I'm going to undo the changes you made - restore the status quo ante, as it were - so we can start the merge process from scratch and figure out how to best incorporate your text into this article. You had some good wording in your text and some good references but there's too much detail in many places. Ca2james (talk) 04:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Status quo ante restored. Ca2james (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI I'm working up a comparison of the two versions. Ca2james (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of current and standalone article text

Another edit conflict

Ca2james, your disruption has not been helpful in getting this merge done properly. I am weary of the accusations, your overreacting, and the reverts. As you will see below highlighted in yellow is the information that was already in the article before the merge. The highlight in pink was also in the article and the merge simply reordered and reworded some of it, but it's there. The text that is not highlighted is what was merged, some of which ended-up being duplicates I never had a chance to correct because you and Galobtter reverted the merge against consensus, and before I had a chance to thoroughly go over it for accuracy. It would have been far more helpful if you had simply fixed the duplicates and followed consensus. 06:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The merge did not simply and some of it; it replaced the text completely, pasting in the majority of the standalone article and rewording everything that was there before. While some of the current text needs work, most of the wording is fine as-is and changing it was unnecessary. It would have been better if you'd done the merge much more selectively or perhaps left it for someone else who was not quite so vested in the standalone article.

Regarding the below table, I don't understand why text is struck out. I also don't understand the "doesn't make sense" note; what doesn't make sense? Could you please clarify those points? I'll take a look at the actual text and make some proposals later, if no one beats me to it.

Finally, please stop accusing me of doing things I'm not doing, like being disruptive or overreacting. Ca2james (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and your consistent show of ill-will toward me. As I explained, our edit interaction analyzer supports what I'm saying and other editors have acknowledged it. You have not relented. I am trying to get this issue resolved via discussion but you are making it very difficult by badgering me. You are misinterpreting WP:PAGs - you have misinterpreted the merge even after I showed in yellow highlight that I merged information to what was already in the article. The highlights match the existing text - the merge added material per CONSENSUS. If you still cannot understand why your revert was disruptive, then I have nothing more to say to you. You violated consensus to merge and now you're trying to justify why you violated it for all the wrong reasons. Please stop. If you don't understand why I struck text when the information is written in super text at the beginning of the strike, then perhaps you should read WP:CIR. 14:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the super text applies to the struck text; I didn't see that, before. Ca2james (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Table comparison showing merge

Comments

As I mentioned already, the article will do without the undue description of the Today announcement: only a sentence is necessary to identify the "who" and "when" without the inessential scope on things like facial expressions. The reactions section, at least as it appeared in the former sexual allegations page, should be avoided completely. We can steer clear of more tedious text if we remove the Today segments "where Lauer engaged in questionable behavior towards women". Because I'll ask: how does this benefit the reader? Instead of a section that is supposedly focused on the sexual allegations, there is a whole paragraph of every obscure instance of Lauer acting rudely on TV.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

My advice is to call an RfC or challenge the close because I believe it does belong and consensus to merge confirms it. I'm also going to get clarification regarding the DS on BLPs that require consensus before restoring material that was challenged. 14:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Three editors here have told you consensus does not mean replacing the text with your overly-detailed former standalone article. Merging has never meant that. If that were not enough, an admin with over 500,000 edits-worth of experience has described to you "oftentimes" articles are not merged verbatim. Challenging the close will get you absolutely nowhere but NorthAmerica did recommend alerting editors from the AFD, neutrally.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the article until a merge has taken place per AfD Merge, so if you're not familiar with that policy, I recommend that you become familiar. I'm in no hurry. 19:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What a clever and subtle disparaging on my intelligence; thank you for giving me more time to reaffirm what I already know about merging. I'll ping those editors for you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

No, there was no intentional disparaging. If anything, it was to get you to do the pinging because I'm working on other things right now. I find it curious when editors who choose anonymity get their feathers ruffled because another editor doesn't know who they are, what they know, why they would have either exceptional or passing knowledge about WP PAGs, and so on. Based on the comments here, it certainly hasn't been presumed that I know anything about PAGs based on the way I've been disparaged and how a merge consensus has been treated, and there is no anonymity where I'm concerned. Ha! Oh, well. Sometimes collaboration feels more like herding cats and other times it flows so perfectly and reflects productivity at its finest. 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Jayron32, Rhadow, Alexf, Fettlemap, Xxanthippe, Softlavender, Muboshgu, Classicwiki, Paintspot, Kiteinthewind, Johnpacklambert, Power~enwiki, Objective3000, AmaryllisGardener, Animalparty, My very best wishes, Neutrality, K.e.coffman, Kierzek, Jacknstock, FallingGravity, and DGG: participants of the recent AFD, please help us decide what should be merged into this article. Thank you.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• The rule , of course, is NOTNEWS. It applies to what's in an article as much as it does to whether we should have a separate article. For material that will be of possible interest this week, but not a few years from now, the proper places for that is the newspapers. (I almost said WikiNews, but they do not yet have an article). There are some WPedians, who would have said "permanent interest," but I interpret that phrase to mean that anything people might reasonably still want to look up a year in the future is likely enough to be important indefinitely. The miscellaneous incident do not qualify. The long quote from him about the event isn't even of temporary interest. The reactions from the various entertainment personalities is somewhere in the middle. It is impossible to have perspective on what really needs to be covered in Dec 2017. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• It's important to keep WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE in perspective in the determination of what should ultimately be merged. North America 21:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think the current, six-paragraph version (here) is more than sufficient. I do not think there is much encyclopedic value in a bloated 13-15 paragraph version. Neutrality 23:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• It belongs in the section. There should not be any stark contrasts and/or inconsistencies in how our BLPs are presented to our readers. We should not treat living persons differently because of their political persuasion, skin color, gender, nationality, religion, popularity or wealth - no whitewashing, no BLP coatracking. If we're going to cite NPOV/BLP policy to remove criticism and in-text attribution from one BLP then we need to be consistent across the board and apply those same policies to all BLPs. We are not supposed to censor, advocate, soapbox, take sides or play politics. We write what the RS say, and use in-text attribution if there's a chance the statement will be challenged. It's not UNDUE when it's factual information about a high profile individual that was fired because the evidence presented was convincing enough to warrant it. We should not censor information from our readers, especially that which reveals the ugly side of workplace violence/abuse, and in this case, sexual abuse against women. 01:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• I removed the miscellaneous "behavior" as a reflection of the general consensus made here thus far. Fortunately, I was not influenced by "political persuasion, skin color, gender, nationality, religion, popularity or wealth". That was most likely the biggest issue in the current text but more can be condensed with continued deliberation here.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• I think Neutrality's version noted above is sufficiently detailed without getting repetitive or trivial. It covers enough and is well-cited. --Jayron32 12:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

When you're done trimming this BLP, please work on the other BLPs that have "sexual misconduct allegations" in the title so we can at least have BLP consistency across the board. 12:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No. --Jayron32 12:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *Harvey_Weinstein_sexual_abuse_allegations, Roy_Moore_sexual_misconduct_allegations, Al_Franken#Sexual misconduct allegations, Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations, James_Levine#Sexual assault allegations, and when those are done, there are more. 12:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to start individual discussions on any of those articles, no one here will stop you. --Jayron32 12:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok - your views are understood. All I'm asking for here is consistency across the board in the way we treat BLPs but without collaboration, the spin-off articles will remain and the sections that don't spin-off will continue to be BLP coatracks, depending on who the BLP is, of course, because there is no consistency. 13:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

A foolish consistency is a bad idea. We should treat each article as that article needs to be treated. --Jayron32 14:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, but how is treating like articles differently not a form of editorializing or possibly even tendentious editing? WP:OM applies to all articles, including our favorite BLPs. Omitting victim descriptions that are cited to RS using in-text attribution is omission that would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. To remove those descriptions is whitewashing and noncompliant with NPOV. I’m not convinced that it’s ok to omit victim descriptions from one BLP while including them in others as per WP:CENSOR which is policy. Regarding foolish consistency, is that what led to our IAR policy? I would welcome the opportunity to write mini-novels with total freedom of expression but I’m having a bit of trouble accepting that doing so isn’t WP:OR. Unfortunately, encyclopedic content requires a neutral, dispassionate tone - and I’m not saying that it can’t be engaging prose - but adherence to MOS and various other PAGs is required. On the other hand, if all of our BLPs are given the same consideration across the board regarding PAGs, you’ll get no opposition from me. 19:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read DGG's !vote at the AfD: "Moore and Weinstein are special cases. Moore because of the political significance, Weinstein because of the importance as the exemplar." The fact that you created an under-4,000-byte Matt Lauer spin-off article less than 24 hours after he was fired , after endlessly railing against the Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations article, seems to indicate some sort of either WP:POINTy-ness or retaliation. If your sole argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS, and you still don't understand why it exists, you are free to AfD those articles. Continuing to argue to keep an article which was AfD-closed nearly unanimously as "Merge", and arguing to preserve all of your text in the merge, equates to tendentiousness and disruptive editing at this point. Softlavender (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I did read it, SL - and it troubled me for the reasons I've already stated. The only disruption I see at this point are your accusations that I'm being disruptive. You are the one continuing to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete. If nothing is merged, then we are not adhering to consensus. I consider the discussion here to be informal, so if something formal is required, please follow procedures and take the necessary steps to either dispute consensus, or file a new AfD. Don't think what is happening here is going to override the AfD consensus - it will either require a new AfD, or an RfC at Village Pump to get a more widespread, uninvolved consensus. 22:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please indicate, with WP:DIFFs, where I have "continu to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete". Softlavender (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

See my explanation below your support for the 6-paragraph version. 23:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, please indicate, with WP:DIFFs, where I have "continu to argue against CONSENSUS which was clearly to MERGE, not to delete" and where I have caused "disruption". Neutrality's suggestion is the current consensus, and it is you who are arguing against the current consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Neutrality's suggestion of this six-paragraph version: . -- Softlavender (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

For the record - your support for the 6-paragraph version indicates support for the status quo prior to the AfD which resulted in MERGE, and that means you are refusing to adhere to CONSENSUS. WP has different procedures in place for those who oppose CONSENSUS, and this is not one of them. 23:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the WP:CONSENSUS at present, it is you who are arguing against the current consensus. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you should refresh your memory about WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't happen just because a few involved editors say it should - that isn't how it works, thank goodness. There are formalities that have to be followed the same way they were followed at the AfD. Please, let's work on getting the article right instead of trying to create disruption when there shouldn't be any. 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please see WP:CONSENSUS, and while you are at it, WP:INVOLVED; and also re-read the entirety of this talk page from "AfD notice" down. -- Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - I've read it. I still stand by what I've said - what we're seeing here is not a formal consensus - it is barely even local. 01:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Neutrality's suggestion - it's enough and this sorta seems like an attempt to stall turning the other article into a redirect, per AfD outcome. Volunteer Marek  00:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Although I also support Neutrality's version, I thought it might be good to look at doing an actual merge. To that end, worked up a merge of the two below. I've pulled in wording from the standalone article for a couple of sentences, moved things around a bit, did some copy-editing, and removed That statement left open the possibility that previous management might have been aware of complaints against Lauer. The complainant wished to remain anonymous, and the press honored its long-standing policy of not identifying the victims of sexual harassment. The New York Times had met with the victim and her attorney, Ari Wilkenfeld, the same day she filed the complaint against Lauer but "she said she was not ready to come forward and tell her story publicly." as I'm not sure these sentences were needed.

I have omitted a lot from the standalone article because there's too much detail there: the specific accusations are borderline BLP violations in this article and UNDUE; Lauer's full statement is UNDUE, and there's a lot of quoted material that is better paraphrased. Omitting details of the allegations isn't whitewashing, which is a specific thing that interprets history from the white person's perspective and ignores the history experienced by non-white people. That's not happening here, and neither is Lauer being let off easy or his behaviours being minimized in any way.

All that said, this is my proposal:

On November 29, 2017, NBC News announced that Lauer's employment had been terminated after an unidentified female NBC employee alleged that Lauer had sexually harassed her during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and that the harassment continued after they returned to New York. Andrew Lack, chairman of NBC News, sent a memorandum to his staff that said, in part, "On Monday night, we received a detailed complaint from a colleague about inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace by Matt Lauer. ... While it is the first complaint about his behavior in the over 20 years he’s been at NBC News, we were also presented with reason to believe this may not have been an isolated incident." A network executive said Lauer would not receive any form of monetary settlement because he was fired “for cause”. His now terminated $25-million-a-year contract was supposed to run through the end of 2018.

The New York Times and Variety had been conducting independent investigatons of Lauer's behavior before he was fired. Both organizations said that NBC News management had been aware of their ongoing investigations. NBC said that current management had been unaware of previous allegations against Lauer.

Variety published a more detailed account of Lauer's alleged workplace behavior on the same day he was fired. The specifics reported by Variety's two-month investigation included information from at least ten of Lauer's current and former colleagues. The accusations in the article included alleged incidents where Lauer made lewd or sexually suggestive comments, initiated "inappropriate contact" while alone with women in a locked office, showed his penis to a co-worker, and presented an unwanted sex toy to another NBC employee. Sources told Variety that Lauer particularly preyed on female interns, pages, production assistants and booking agents for NBC programs.

Additional accusations were made public in the ensuing days. On November 29, two individuals filed complaints against Lauer. Stephanie Gosk appeared on the November 30 edition of Megyn Kelly Today and claimed that as many as eight accusers had come forward, including some women who had complained about Lauer to executives, who ignored the complaints. NBC News management denied those allegations.

Lauer issued a statement in which he apologized for his actions and promised to repair the damage he had caused: "Some of what is being said about me is untrue or mischaracterized, but there is enough truth in these stories to make me feel embarrassed and ashamed."

References

References Us Weekly staff (November 29, 2017). "Matt Lauer Allegedly Sexually Harassed Colleague During 2014 Sochi Olympics". Us Weekly. Retrieved December 4, 2017. "Read Andy Lack's statement on Matt Lauer's firing". CNN. November 29, 2017. Retrieved December 2, 2017. Gosk, Stephanie; Siemaszko, Corky; Rappleye, Hannah (December 1, 2017). "Matt Lauer denied sex misconduct to NBC officials before scandal broke". NBC News. Retrieved December 4, 2017. Farhi, Paul (December 1, 2017). "NBC: Lauer said he was 'racking his brain' but came up blank when asked about harassment". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 4, 2017. de Morales, Lisa. "Two More Complaints Against Matt Lauer Filed Wednesday: Report". Deadline. Retrieved 30 November 2017. Cherelus, Gina; Allen, Jonathan. "NBC News fires 'Today' co-host Matt Lauer for sexual misconduct". Reuters. Retrieved November 29, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help) Setoodeh, Ramin; Wagmeister, Elizabeth (November 29, 2017). "Matt Lauer Accused of Sexual Harassment by Multiple Women (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. Retrieved December 3, 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Ellison, Sarah (November 29, 2017). ""Everybody Knew": Inside the Fall of Today's Matt Lauer". Vanity Fair. Retrieved December 3, 2017. Cite error: The named reference deadline was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Jensen, Ellen. "Matt Lauer scandal: There may be as many as 8 victims, Lauer breaks his silence". USA Today. Retrieved 30 November 2017. Steinberg, Brian (November 29, 2017). "Matt Lauer Responds to Harassment Claims: 'There Is Enough Truth in These Stories'". Variety. Retrieved 30 November 2017.

Ca2james (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments on merge proposal

Pinging Neutrality, TheGracefulSlick, Jayron32, Softlavender, Volunteer Marek, and Atsme, who commented on Neutrality's version. What do you think? As I said above, I'm happy to go with Neutrality's version. Ca2james (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I'd be fine with this as well. Neutrality 02:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

What was merged? I'm not seeing anything. 02:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The sentences unidentified female NBC employee alleged that Lauer had sexually harassed her during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, and that the harassment continued after they returned to New York. and A network executive said Lauer would not receive any form of monetary settlement because he was fired “for cause”. His now terminated $25-million-a-year contract was supposed to run through the end of 2018. and associated references came from the standalone article. I thought the wording was better than what was in this article. Ca2james (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This is a good summary which reveals the truth (including the worst of it) while avoiding the blow-by-blow news reporting as it happened, and also avoids BLP violations and speculations. There's not really any need to list every single trial-by-media report and commentary that news outlets posted, and in fact that sort of stuff makes it too wordy and also makes the readers' eyes glaze over, creates UNDUE, and unbalances the wiki article. Softlavender (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Glad to see the newsy reactions section and the paragraph I removed are omitted from this version. Sure, a few things can be whittled down but this offers a solid foundation without jeopardizing the remainder of the article with WP:UNDUE step-by-step reports.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• NOTE - WP:CONSENSUS - Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. WikiProject advice pages, information pages and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay. These comments are local and do not involve the broader community; therefore, they cannot override community consensus of the AfD. I've already explained this, so please, if the plan is to override MERGE, then follow proper procedures to do so. 02:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging involves comparing the two articles and evaluating the information in the source but not the target article. In this case, there was a lot of duplication (as you noted above) and so I evaluated the rest of the source text. My analysis and reasoning is above. If you have another merge proposal, please make it. Ca2james (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge states: You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add new material. If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary. That is not what is happening here - you are censoring new material and keeping what was already in the section. That is not a merge - you have deleted everything at the merged article which goes against consensus. See my Note about local consensus not overriding community consensus. Please follow procedures. 02:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The content of any article, including what to retain or exclude in a merge and how to word it, is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. That is why we are seeking consensus for this version of text for the section in question. If you have another version of text you would like to use for the section of this wiki article, open a new thread called "Merge proposal 2", so that people can !vote and comment on that. Softlavender (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary. This is exactly what is happening here. Editors have evaluated the source text and determined that there is no information to be added to this page. This is part of the merge process. Again, if you have a merge proposal to make, please make it. Ca2james (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Summarizes the allegations frankly without using excessive detail or quotes. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Ca2james's proposed merge as written.--Jayron32 02:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is local consensus - the proposal is not to merge - and local consensus does not override community consensus. The discussions are fine - discuss to your heart's content, but the merge is still valid less redundant material. I am preparing a community wide RfC. 03:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The content of any article, including what to retain or exclude in a merge and how to word it, is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. That is why we are seeking consensus for this version of text for the section in question. If you have another version of text you would like to use for the section of this wiki article, open a new thread called "Merge proposal 2", so that people can !vote and comment on that. Right now this version has the most support. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This version succinctly covers all the relevant notable material without being bloated or tabloidish. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Notice: I have requested input from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Merge#Assistance_needed since local consensus does not override community consensus, and the AfD consensus to merge is not being followed per PAGs. There are procedures to follow when a merge is controversial; therefore, in order to make it work as smoothly as possible without creating any attribution issues or further disruption, I have requested help from the relevant project. Please be patient and allow time for the process to work. 03:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Atsme how is this merge controversial when there is near unanimous consensus on the version offered? The whole point of the merge outcome at AFD was to discuss on this talk page what material should be...well, merged.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The content of any article, including what to retain or exclude in a merge and how to word it, is decided by WP:CONSENSUS. That is why we are seeking consensus for this version of text for the section in question. If you have another version of text you would like to use for the section of this wiki article, open a new thread called "Merge proposal 2", so that people can !vote and comment on that. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I am responding here due to the message left at the Wikiproject Merge page. The best thing to do when there is disagreement about what to merge is to develop a consensus at the target articles page. So I would suggest following whatever consensus develops here. AIRcorn (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Formal RfC for wider input

Requests for comment from wider community

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The consensus for Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations was to merge. See the deletion discussion regarding what parts of this article should be merged.

• Proposal A - merge the new material from Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Lauer_sexual_misconduct_allegations into the section Sexual misconduct allegations in the Matt Lauer article, excluding only the redundancies. See Talk:Matt_Lauer#Table_comparison_showing_merge
• Proposal B - request a review of merge consensus
• Proposal C - relist the article at AfD

iVotes

Support A - abide by the original consensus to merge and exclude only the redundancies. 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Journalism articles
• Mid-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment