Talk:Matt Lauer

-2017 or -present?

There's a back-and-forth slow-motion edit war about whether "years active" should end with "2017" or "present." He hasn't worked since he was fired in 2017, but using that as the end date for his active career implies knowledge that he'll never work again. I prefer "present," but I'm primarily interested in avoiding an edit war. What do others think? JTRH (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Fired, but not dead. I prefer present.[1] O3000 (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Fired, but not dead" is an excellent way to put it. JTRH (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• "Present" implies he's still active, which he isn't (at least not right now.) I'd go with 2017 - we can always update it later if he becomes active again. But if we don't terminate a "years active" range for a period when someone is definitely inactive, what's even the point of having it? Currently he's not active, he hasn't been active since 2017, and speculation that he may become active in the future isn't relevant - we can't reference it right now per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and if he does revive his career we can just update the article then. --Aquillion (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations -- possible wp:blp adjustment needed re choice of quote

I'm considering replacing the quote "What people need to understand is that there is a flip side to Matt-the-serial-adulterer persona, and that’s all the women he didn’t hook up with — and they didn’t always fare so well," with the longer quote from the same reference, " '....if he flat-out wasn’t interested in you? Then you might as well have been invisible,' the source adds. 'For the most part, women served no purpose for him unless he was attracted to them. So if he wasn’t hot for you, it was only a matter of time before you’d become more and more marginalized.' "

The quotes come from one source, and in our article the first quote incorrectly could sound like it's a compilation of independent reports, compiled by the People magazine journalist, by a collection of staffers who didn't fare well after receiving and resisting adulterous approaches.

My worry is that as it is, the first quote may violate wp:blp analagous to saying "An anonymous source says that Joe Bloggs is a serial killer for sure."

The more detailed later quote describes behaviour on Lauer's part which, if true, seems a report of equally unfair behaviour. More importantly, something that could have been experienced first-hand by the individual source. And it sounds like a direct quote where the same one source is describing what happened to them specifically.

I'm partly going by intuition about the second quote being believable, but also the first quote neeeds to carry a lot of weight if we really decide to allow it to suggest a series of adulterous attacks followed by revenge. Curious if anyone has any thoughts about replacing one quote with the other. I'm not really committed to either quote in particular. Createangelos (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Since no-one has replied, I will *not* make this edit, but I am going to correct the singular/plural issue, replacing 'staffers' with 'a staffer.'Createangelos (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A direct quote, by definition, comes from a single person. JTRH (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Public relations editing/white washing

I just read this article. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 the article may need looking over to make sure such white washing is properly identified and previous contents re-instated as needed. Graywalls (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Timeline confusion

With respect to this text:

Two weeks after Lauer's firing, Addie Zinone, a former Today production assistant, made an additional accusation, saying that she had a consensual sexual relationship with Lauer in June 2000. Zinone claimed that the relationship was an "abuse of power" on Lauer's part because Zinone said that she felt that turning down Lauer's advances would have hurt her career.

Earlier in the article it says he was fired late November 2017 after investigations of his conduct. As written it kind of reads like "two weeks later in early December 2017 she said something about stuff that wouldn't happen for another three years."

In other words, it looks like the statement itself happened back then, or that there's ambiguity as far as when the events took place. Since the events, according to both cited articles, definitely place the misconduct in 2020, perhaps it could be cleaved off into a new smaller paragraph, underlining the fact that it's a separate event from other relationships. 71.47.252.144 (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2023 (UTC)