Jump to content

Talk:James Veitch (comedian)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Misterjamesveitch (talk | contribs) at 17:23, 18 January 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is written like a review

No objectivity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.67.17 (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But most importantly, no free toaster! 2A00:1028:8380:7D82:79DF:C98F:D234:BB7C (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It almost sounds like a commercial and I think somethink must be done about it.--Martilito (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Things we need to know

# What did James study in University? 
# Did he complete his degree? 
# How to add a link to his YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeVBDgameAI0Qhf7leaPhYw ?
# Mention of the ducks is missing in the main article

Synapse001 (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny?

yes

Unsourced Birth date

So I nerd sniped myself here as i thought he looked younger than 1980 and I saw the birth date was unsourced so I went looking. The first unsourced birth date added was 1989 here This was then “corrected” here again with no apparent sourcing. I have googled around and can find no source for this guy’s age except this website which I’m not sure counts as a reliable source? Anyway I think the birth date should be remove the birth date for now until a good source can be found. --JackSlash (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluffable is down

I wandered down here and clicked the link to Bluffable and the domain is parked, I remember there was some specific syntax to mark outdated links? --Michcioperz (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations

The current page states "was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault" which is different to "a dozen women" coming "forward." For not all the women allege assault or rape.

Moreover, removing "a decade older than his alleged victims." Indeed that whole sentence is opinion and conjecture. Tompg (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did the women allege if not assault or rape? The Independent says More than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch. I can see a slight ambiguity in The Hollywood Reporter in that it describes at least one incident of sexual misconduct (the Urinetown story) that does not involve Veitch making physical contact, but it is not clear that this is counted among the (more-than-)dozen. The Independent's word helps us address this ambiguity, because of their reliable editorial fact-checking policies. Either the incidents discounted still amount to more than 12, or THR was only counting assault/rape.
Please read WP:BRD for an explanation as to why your repeated reverts are uncivil and unhelpful. It would be productive if you were to suggest alternate wording which accurately summarises the allegations, rather than repeatedly removing all such description. I can see that "a decade older than his alleged victims" is in need of improvement. However, it is not "opinion and conjecture" to accurately summarise the Hollywood Reporter article. Some summary needs to be made of the incidents which the article discusses, so I ask what one-sentence description you feel is most accurate. Certainly the THR article makes it clear that alcohol, and power dynamic between a grad and undergrads are common threads, so we would need to mention these. — Bilorv (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; I can't see the power dynamic being a common thread or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. The Independent article is a re-write of the THR article. The "incidents" did not amount to more than 12. It's clear from the article that the number of people who reached out about the incident is ~12. The article alleges three rapes with three women. The people who contacted the THR about those rapes are among the dozen women. To say that "more than a dozen accusations of rape and sexual assault were made against Veitch," insinuates that there are more than a dozen separate incidents," yet this is clearly not the case. Let us focus on the facts. I am sorry for reverting the article instead of talking. But it does seem to be mostly opinion and biased; particularly so since one of the article's editors was one of the women who made an accusation. (Tompg (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

or a dozen people coming forward with the same story(ies) as a dozen allegations. Which source says this? The Independent directly contradicts this interpretation. Your claims of bias are inappropriate as The Independent is a high-quality reliable source with strong editorial policies, as determined by consensus amongst the Wikipedia community (see WP:RSP). THR too. It seems clear to me that THR did not publish all of the details of all of the conversations they had, just a select few to fit within a normal article length.
Rather than being "sorry for reverting", it would be an act of good faith if you could revert your most recent edit as a demonstration of good faith. Thank you for the reply. — Bilorv (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "sorry for reverting." I mean sorry for not following protocol; I believe the reversions remain fair. The Independent's story was based off of THR's story with no further investigation or fact checking done on their end; they were reporting on the story. The 'bias' I'm claiming is because one of the editors of this wikipedia page is one of the accusers. With regard to what THR didn't publish I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on this. The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusations. Not a dozen separate accusations. The wiki needs to make this clear. (Tompg (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)).[reply]

You say I don't believe it's appropriate to speculate on this but also The THR story is of a dozen accusations making the same accusations and The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checking. Which is it? Both of your claims are speculation, unless you have a source of information which I have yet to see.
As for the accuser editing this page, could you tell me the name of this editor and how you know that they are an accuser? I've not looked in detail but I couldn't see this at a glance.
I notice that your account is over three years old and in this time you have just made a handful of edits relating to Veitch. There could be many valid reasons for this but I would like to know which it is. Are you Veitch or a friend of his? If so, this is allowed, but there are some basic measures which you might need to take to comply with Wikipedia policy (such as creating a user page with a line reading "I have a conflict of interest with topics relating to the comedian James Veitch"). — Bilorv (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Just a fan. The accuser is (Redacted) and who goes by (Redacted) on twitter and, it appears, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompg (talk • contribs) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite. You're claiming "bias" in a page because a person with what we could classify as an undisclosed conflict of interest made two edits, the first reverted in full by me and the second of which added two facts—the first that HBO Max dropped Straight to VHS because of the allegations; and the second a quote from a HBO Max spokesperson—neither of which you have contested in any form during any of your edits, instead focusing on two paragraphs which the user did not touch?
In the meantime, you have now three times refused to follow polite protocol, which would see you reverting your edits until we can come to a consensus, and so my assumption of good faith is now beginning to wane. I would now like to see you provide evidence that in this particular case, The Independent did not follow the strong editorial fact-checking procedures that the Wikipedia community have established that, in general, it does. Otherwise your comments are best suited to The Independent's complaints procedure, as the newspaper actively issues corrections.
I would also ask why you removed the topic of sexual allegations from the lead—other than the obvious reason that you are a fan of Veitch—when WP:LEAD requires that we summarise all aspects of the body of the article with appropriate weight. I count five reliable secondary sources now in the article about the sexual assault allegations and their consequences, out of—generously—eight reliable secondary sources in the article which are substantially about Veitch. We can also look at the pageview count to see if the allegations might be something he is well-known for: [1]. The evidence is overwhelming. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's come to my attention that you gave the accuser's full name, which is not publicly available from their Twitter profile. This is doxxing and has been redacted by an oversighter. I understand that I asked you for evidence (a mistake on my part not to clarify our outing policies) but do not post this information again (including the Twitter handle). — Bilorv (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry which evidence? (Tompg (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Evidence that The Independent did not follow the strong editorial fact-checking procedures that it is known for in this particular case. Otherwise your claim The Independent's story [had] no further investigation or fact checking is original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asking purely out of curiosity but does direct contact with James Veitch count as a reliable source to control the contents of this article? Because while he hasn't made a public statement, he's very open to discussing his side of the story in private with people who backed his Kickstarter project, Lock-Down: The Game. The narrative he tells presents a version of the story that, while subjective, does actually fill in a lot of mystery surrounding the allegations. Specifically an admission to inappropriate behavior (but denial of rape/assault) that gave him a reputation.

Furthermore, information about a separate confirmed rapist on the same campus, a completely unrelated ban of Veitch from campus (theft), and an unwillingness to speak out against the victims because the length of time between when these allegations were made, are all very important things to consider. This is particularly important when there's an association between a separate rapist on campus, his admittedly creepy persona, and the time between the allegations and when they were brought forward.

In other words, the pliability of vague memories, especially ones of this severity, are so easily manipulated that even good faith actors can unintentionally make a person truly believe, without a shred of doubt in their mind, that their recollection of the event is true and accurate, regardless of whether or not it really is.

The claims presented by James Veitch both explains his reason for not wanting to speak publicly out of a justified fear of exacerbating the situation, but also his ownership of inappropriate behavior (which is not equivocal to rape or assault) in college specifically, could be misinterpreted as confirmation or evidence of said allegations as seen by the response one of the women had for coming forward.

We're facing a very real situation where allegations can and have irreversibly destroyed the careers of those accused for no reason other than having their name share a sentence with the alleged crime. As such, I do firmly believe that good faith efforts should be made to mitigate the severity of this damage until an investigation confirms or denies the claims presented. Especially in a situation where such an investigation hasn't been started as of the time the edits to the article were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:543:4402:9440:9866:3EB5:6E7E:77A6 (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:V. Wikipedia only considers published reliable sources. I've removed your Dropbox links without opening them because there's no way that what you posted is BLP-compliant and not a copyright violation. James Veitch's claims on Kickstarter or a game are not a reliable source and have no place in Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BPL Attack

hI, Bilorv. This page's content clearly looks like a BPL attack on the artist. First of all, according to the US laws (and Wikipedia is subject to the US laws), Veitch is not a public person, therefore he has the rights for privacy. Second, all allegations are just newspapers scoops and look more like witch-hunt for artists's money, so popular nowadays. To the best of my knowledge, there are no legal cases in the courts, so these allegations do not have any place on this page. I believe that if this content is not removed, this might bring to litigation against Wikimedia Foundation and I think this needs urgent attention of other editors and OTRS. It is better to remove all of it or most of it. Undue weight too. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLT. Wikipedia takes legal claims very seriously. Volunteer editors such as myself are not the right people to report such issues to. Please log in if you have an account. — Bilorv (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:BPL. I suggest to leave the tag until the content is removed; otherwise we might have an issue here. It is for other editors to get involved and save the litigation or other claims. I don't have to register an account to edit and talk and you can't request it from me legally. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P/S: No legal threats were made - I did a comment that hypothetically the content might bring to the issues in the future and put the tag on the page to prevent these issues. I'm not an attorney or an interested party in litigation, just another editor who is concerned and wants to help. Do not bring any WP:NLT to me as they are not relevant. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean WP:BLP. Please explain what you mean by "undue weight", given that five of the eight reliable secondary sources currently in the article are about these sexual assault allegations. Recall that Wikipedia's aim is to report what is discussed in reliable secondary sources. It is not a courtroom and nor do legal outcomes make content more/less likely to be covered, only the amount of coverage in reliable sources.
You are of course welcome to edit without an account, but I asked because the majority of people familiar with the terms "BLP", "undue weight" and "OTRS" and who engage in a talk page discussion have an account. Logging out in order to avoid scrutiny is not allowed, so I wanted to ensure that this is not what you are doing, but of course long-term unregistered editing is completely allowed. — Bilorv (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv The meaning of undue weight is that the page pays too much attention to controversial topics of the allegations of people who did not even filed a lawsuit (either civil or criminal) against the person. Also, by removing the tag, it looks like you are not ready to have a civilized dispute and pretend to own this page. The tag is for all the editors to take a look and have a second opinion on this page. I will put it back. Please, do not remove it until this dispute is not resolved. I also consider to go the Administration Board and OTRS regarding this weird behavior of removing tags without correcting the issues first. Wikipedia has the tags for a reason - to help improve page. And I suggest you to read more on undue weight tags. I do not have any registered account, so there is no logging out here. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC) To have sources on something which is not confirmed (allegations) does not mean that you can violate BPL policy here. Wikipedia is clear on privacy and decency regarding all non-public persons. Allegations are virtually nothing as there no legal cases. Also, there is no information on denying the allegations which makes it "undue weight" content automatically. 2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C073:77E7:A9AB:D4D7 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To anyone reading this back, please note that this IP address has been checkuser blocked. — Bilorv (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misterjamesveitch17:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC):Bilorv, I have to say that I'm disturbed by the way these allegations have been reported and I'd be even more concerned if there's evidence that someone who is actually involved in the case has been editing the article. Accordingly I've put some protection on the article so that new and unregistered users can't edit for the next few weeks. Deb (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] 

Template:BLP noticeboard

I have made some modifications based on a BLP review prompted by a BLPN post. It does not matter if the complainer was a blocked sock. Please do not restore without obtaining consensus in addressing the issue of WP:OR and WP:UNDUE per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2021

Misterjameveitch

Request to edit my page

  • Hey everyone, since my page looks incomplete and unbalanced, I’d like to ask for additional editing.
  • Request 1: - Add following information to the “Career” Section: - Add following information to the “Career” Section:

“In 2009, Veitch adapted John Keats’ letters and poetry for theatrical performance produced by Pale Fire Productions at Keats House museum. In 2015, Veitch authored Dot Con: The Art of Scamming a Scammer. (First published by by Quadrille), a book depicting his experience in dealing with email scammers. The second edition of the book published by Hachette came to light in 2020.

Sources:

  • Request 2:

Add “author" and "playwright" to the occupation in the Info box panel and to the first sentence in the Summary (Lead section)

  • Request 3:

Add more info from the Hollywood Reporter after this sentence: "Veitch declined to comment on the allegations when contacted by Hollywood Reporter, "but a source close to him says he denies all allegations."

As The Hollywood Reporter notes: …"none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct and Sarah Lawrence College says they did not receive any complaints of sexual assault or harassment..."

  • Note: this is literally what Hollywood Reporter wrote and I believe it makes the statement more balanced.
  • Request 4: Removal of the sentence from the Lead (Summary) section.

"In September 2020, Veitch was the subject of more than a dozen allegations of rape and sexual assault."

  • Note: The allegations never escalated to any lawsuits or litigation since the article. The other articles were based on the Hollywood Reporter article and contained no further information, allegations or investigative reporting.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Veitch_(comedian)&oldid=1066500589"