Jump to content

Talk:Danny Masterson

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xan747 (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 7 September 2023 (→‎"Convicted rapist" in first sentence?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

He's a scientologist, throw that in there. -Carl M. Langdon

Could you go to the official website of Punk'd[1] to check if that's Danny Masterson was with Kelly Monaco on season 6 episode 3.

I watched the whole entire thing again that it wasn't Danny Masterson.

I don't know who put that his model girlfriend is a Scientologist, they should change that up, there is no bonafide proof of this, and they only recently started dating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.109.115 (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology in Intro?

Is it really necessary to include it in the intro? It seems very inappropriate. The intro for people typically includes the other elements present, such as date of birth and most important works, but not religion (unless maybethey were a spokesperson or if it was why they were famous). Someone should remove it, or argue with me. If not, I will do it in about a week.Landfritter (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that he should be embarrassed about his chosen religion? Or perhaps you are suggesting that it detracts from him to be associated with a "cult"? Which is it, please? Jbottero (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth?

Danny Masterson is in the 1974 births category but on his page it was 1976, anyone know what it really is and change it? just pointing it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.15.105 (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to the booking info in la county jail its 3/13/1976 104.174.109.160 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and relationship

Masterson makes no secret of being a Scientologist (specifically see this interview with Spin), and his membership of that religion has been widely reported.[2][3][4][5] Strange also that we don't mention his relationship with Bijou Phillips.[6][7][8][9]. Fences&Windows 01:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sister

His sister is Alanna Masterson who is currently playing Tara on The Walking Dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.229.29 (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Danny Masterson/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

He's not in that porno movie !

Last edited at 17:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLPCRIME

Someone's anti-Scientology blog is not a reliable source. Before we can include any allegations — and note that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well — we need something more reputable. WP:PRIMARY is also a factor here. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With LAPD confirmation of the investigation, and coverage by ~50 additional news organizations (AOL, Rolling Stone, Variety, etc.), we seem to be approaching that threshold. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-dannymasterson-idUSKBN16A2LS
HuffPo; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/former-that-70s-show-star-danny-masterson-investigated-for-sexual-assault_us_58b9dae8e4b05cf0f4009d01
Washington Times; http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/3/danny-masterson-70s-show-actor-accused-sexual-assa/
LAPD itself has confirmed the investigation; http://people.com/celebrity/danny-masterson-being-investigated-sexual-assault-claims/
So, we're comfortably in reputable-source zone now. TheValeyard (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be edited into the article? I guess it must be a problem keeping negative information on famous scientologists pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.240.184 (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added a brief description using some of the sources noted above. Others may wish to expand it or break it out to its own section as the situation develops. TheValeyard (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The blogs mentioned are NOT "someone's blog" but notable people who can be quoted. Ortega is an investigative reporter not just "someone". So let's have a little respect here. CNN is now reporting this, so this section can be expanded. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/entertainment/danny-masterson-rape-allegations/index.html, who is available to make these changes? I'm baking cookies.Sgerbic (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what there is to expand. All the pertinent facts there. We're not supposed to add salacious overdetail, but just the essential facts. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POV edits

Just a head's-up that WP:SPA anon IP 161.97.196.81 has been adding uncited or poorly cited claims and trying to make WP:SYNTH arguments in favor of guilt. That's clearly against WP:NPOV.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attributing to Ortega

I can see @Tenebrae: doesn’t want a reference to Tony Ortega, but it’s a fair summary to attribute the allegations story to him as most most of the major sources are attributing it to him and reporting it, including ironically both the citations already here (31 and 32). Despite the edit summaries by the editor mentioned, no one added a citation by him or to his site at the Bunker, (whether the Bunker is RS really isn’t the issue here) the citation added was a secondary source, the New York Times who, whether we like it or not, credit Ortega with breaking the story. As do the two sources already in the section, Washington Post et al. So unless there is a valid objection, even if we dislike the journalist, Ortega’s name should go in for breaking the story, and readers can make up their own minds. Mramoeba (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That a blogger, any blogger, made a claim is not in and of itself notable. What's notable is a police investigation, and that's what the article uses. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He didn’t make any claim. He was the journalist who broke the story of the police investigation. Of course he is notable here, reading the refs left in the article, (Personally I would have used New York Times as I used or Washington Post as WP:RS rather than HuffPo or People Celebrity which is what we have here) it is obvious why virtually every article is mentioning Ortega. The page as it stands is disingenuous. I don’t insist upon him being referenced though I believe it is appropriate. Mramoeba (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mramoeba this page does stand as disingenuous, as it is right now. Jooojay (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion among just three editors appears to be at loggerheads, the next step is to call an WP:RfC or ask for a mediator. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It’s hardly worth it. As I said, I don’t insist upon it, the point is minor (unless of course the other editor feels strongly). I have considered all comments and can watch to see if other editors have strong argument. Mramoeba (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support crediting Ortega with breaking the story on Masterson. He was writing about it for months before it gained attention by the mainstream press. He is also the first (and only to my knowledge) to talk about Masterson being a Scientologist. Leah Remini did an episode on Masterson, talking to the women, and A&E did not air it because the police were still doing an investigation. To say that Ortega is just "a blogger" is ridiculous, he is a investigative journalist and a published author. He also has a Wikipedia page here. Of course his name should be mentioned.Sgerbic (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Danny Masterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rape allegations

It is offensive to suggest rape allegations are part of someone's "personal life", please stop placing it under that section of the article. These rape allegations are well published and are no longer merely "speculation", especially when the sources include large publications like the NY Times. This is one of many similar cases (Weinstein effect), we have other examples on WP of how these types of allegations are handled. Why is this WP article being handled differently? Jooojay (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. But you obviously have an axe to grind and appear to be on some mission to denounce people accused but never even charged with sex crimes. Read WP:BLPCRIME. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen on similar pages there is usually a seperate section, sometimes titled Controversies or similar, where the person in question has been accused but not charged. I was thinking of Kevin Spacey and George Takei for example. I haven’t actually been through a list (if there even is one) but it seems Joojay has a point. It seems a bit odd to make this part of his personal life. Also regarding WP:BLPCRIME we have a citation to metalsucks.com and twitter, how are these WP:RS? Is there not a source for these? I have not been following whatever you imply by an ‘axe to grind’ so excuse me if it is relevant to the point made above. Mramoeba (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly sure what you mean by an "axe to grind" Tenebrae, I am not at all connected to Danny Masterson or any of these allegations - and by using the word "allegation" it clarifies this is not a charged crime. And an allegation of a crime is not part of someone's personal life. Jooojay (talk) 05:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, anyone can allege anything. That doesn't make it true, let alone what makes an already notable, established media figure notable.
There's professional life and personal life. Allegations of something done on personal time, unrelated to work, is personal. I'm asking sincerely: Please explain how something that happened between two people unrelated to work is not personal.
RE "axe to grind": One does not have to be connected to someone in order to want to shame them. Indeed, someone connected to him likely would not want to shame him. Either way, we don't shame people on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tenebrae, at the point in which it has made international mainstream news, it is no longer a personal matter solely between two people. We don't say murder allegations are personal events, so why is rape allegations treated any different? We do (historically) add crime allegations to WP bios in the case it makes reliable news sources (such as Danny Masterson has). I don't think anything that was written was accusatory, suggested shame or guilt. If you think there was, I am happy to discuss that further. NOTE: Section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures, and Danny Masterson is a public figure. Jooojay (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that I belatedly realized I had meant to say WP:PUBLICFIGURE rather than WP:BLPCRIME. My error. That said, WP:PUBLICFIGURE states we include credible, WP:RS-cited allegations in an article, not in the lead, which it otherwise would have specified as proper, as guidelines/MOS do elsewhere. Placing allegations in the lead when that is not what an already notable subject is notable for is a blatant attempt to "shame" a subject. And shaming subjects is a BLP vio. Incidentally, your post above makes it sound as if suggested removing the allegations — and I unequivocally, absolutely suggested no such thing, and have even edited the allegations section, adding cites, etc.
Whether or not allegations — and again, there are not even criminal charges here, let alone a trial, but just unsubstantiated allegations — are "international mainstream news", they still have nothing to do with a subject's professional life unless one were trading sex for promises to cast someone in a movie role or some other professional quid pro quo. That's not the case with the Masterson allegations. They involve his personal life only. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about placing anything related in the lead Tenebrae, all of my edits you reversed were in the section called "rape allegations" (which have been demoted to the "personal life" section). The Danny Masterson rape allegations have had a noted/published delay in the police investigation, which have been removed from this article. Everything that was previously written fit within WP:PUBLICFIGURE, it was stated as an allegation only, with a multitude of reliable published sources. Rape is not part of someone's personal life or sex or part of a professional life - it's a crime allegation and it deserves it's own section. Jooojay (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're talking around each other. I believe at one point in the zillion edits to the article this month, someone had put the rape allegations in the lead; I might be conflating this with another article, or I might even have been thinking of this. So I guess we're in agreement the allegations don't belong in the lead.
I'm not sure what you mean by "have had a noted/published delay in the police investigation." We say the 2000s allegations were made in March 2017 and that LAPD investigated.
"Rape allegations" is in its own section, under the larger "Personal life" section. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to be dragging on, I will summarise the placing of the allegations on other pages (which I believe is what Joojay is talking about, all other considerations aside) in the hope that it will draw some kind of agreement on where the section goes. I am using the 12 men mentioned in the lede of Weinstein effect for want of a better list:

So in summary it would appear common to have a separate section, or in some cases under work where its possible it is related to work (I haven't read all the pages). Mramoeba (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mramoeba, for putting it more eloquently and taking the time to do a more formal comparison. Jooojay (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except other stuff exists, and if other articles are WP:UNDUE, then we fix the other articles rather than bring this one down to that level. Mramoeba, either inadvertently or not, neglects to include articles such as Jeffrey Tambor where the allegations are under "Personal life." Additionally, every case is different: Spacey, C.K. and Batali, for instance, have admitted wrongdoing; while I still would put this under "Personal life" in those articles, there is a clear distinction with Masterson, who has denied the allegations. Again I stress the word: allegations that were investigated by police, who found nothing with which to proceed. This attempt at shaming him by throwing a spotlight on unproven allegations that aren't being investigated is clearly WP:UNDUE and a equally clearly a POV attempt at calling him guilty.
Feel free to call for an RfC if you'd like, but I don't think attempting to suggest someone is guilty when these allegations aren't at the level of police investigations is going to go over well. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like with the Jeffrey Tambor it had been a seperate section and someone edited it and changed that in November 2017. Allegations and news articles about allegations are not "suggesting someone is guilty", please stop conflating the issues Tenebrae. Jooojay (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I am. Tell us: What is the point of elevating mere allegations into their own section if not to spotlight them? And why spotlight them, when simply stating the facts within the context of a larger life puts them in perspective? The only reason to spotlight them is to purposefully draw attention to them.
So if we're purposefully drawing attention to them, let's ask why. Why draw attention to unproven allegations the subject has denied and even the police don't believe are genuine enough to investigate for criminality? The only reason to do that is to shame the subject and deliberately try to suggest that he is guilty. Otherwise, I ask: Why spotlight these unproven allegations? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a large news article from a reputable source about an allegation of a crime, it's already spotlighted. Nobody editing WP wrote those news articles, why are we pretending that they don't exist here? Jooojay (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is just dishonest: No one is "pretending they don't exist" — they're right in the article. The only issue is whether to shine a glaring spotlight on them rather than include them within larger context and perspective.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to read that the police found no evidence of criminality Tenebrae, can you please share your source(s)? Especially since new claims keep surfacing and it was published that there were known police delays, and as of December 2017 they were still conducting an investigation. "Pretending they don't exist" was in reference to the news sources and details that are removed from this article now, which includes removing the link to Weinstein effect. Jooojay (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to this HuffPo story, the most recent report had gone to the LA City Attorney's office as of mid-November, and the City Attorney has since done nothing publicly with it. I would also note that while the piece rather irresponsibly claims "overwhelming" evidence based on some shadowy, anonymous source, which is WP:GOSSIP we can't include, Masterson's attorney is on the record stating to Vanity Fair that previous LAPD investigations were closed with no finding of criminality, saying they

already investigated this matter twice. The first time in 2004 and then again earlier this year. Both investigations have been closed. No charges have been filed against our client. Any suggestion that there is ‘overwhelming’ evidence against Mr. Masterson flies in the face of reason. If there were overwhelming evidence of felony conduct against anyone, let alone a celebrity, law enforcement would arrest and charge that individual immediately.

Again I ask: Why are you so hellbent on throwing an WP:UNDUE spotlight on nothing more than unproven he said-she said claims? The allegations are in the article, properly in context. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“either inadvertently or not” Please, I was quite clear stating which pages I was looking at. There is no need for that, I am trying to be fair to help settle a dispute. Mramoeba (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude on here is rude Tenebrae, I don't have time to literally go over and over the terminology for you - not everything is literal. This multiple person rape allegation is in reputable news, and the news is worthy of notation, it's not about anything more than that - if the outcome is as you say, then let's add that too. I am done with discussing this issue further with you, as obviously this is getting nowhere and I have more important concerns. Best of luck to you in this new year. If anyone else wants to chime-in, please do so. Jooojay (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's being rude to try to uphold neutrality and avoid WP:UNDUE. The facts are all in the article, presented in context and perspective What is improper, I believe, is what seems a deliberate attempt at spotlighting these unproven and denied claims unduly in order to shame the subject and push a POV that he's guilty ... even though — as indicated above with a direct quote by an officer of the court, who speaks the truth about police investigations in the 2000s never resulting in charges — there are nothing more than unproven allegations. Anyone can allege anything against anyone for any reason. These made news, so they're in the article. Why then push to have unproven, denied allegations spotlighted in their very own section when they're already in their own subsection? It's an attempt to shame the subject, and that's wrong. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations are no more spotlighted in either configuration on the page. You are failing to see the points that either of us have mentioned and you have several times resorted to implying some kind of nefarious intent to Joojay and implied that I am somehow misrepresenting the information. I can quite see why Joojay is fed up and I have no idea why you continue to have a go at him/her. Despite the fact that you have years of valuable contributions to Wikipedia far in excess of others, you are blowing this out of proportion. No editor has tried to unduly accuse this actor of anything and the points are entirely minor. Also your comments about Tony Ortega earlier were entirely uncalled for. I concur, life is too short to waste any more time over this. Mramoeba (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Bixler-Zavala

Speaking of rape allegations, can this be better explained? "Cedric Bixler-Zavala said in November 2017 that Masterson raped his wife" Whose wife? Masterson's wife? or Bixler-Zavala's wife?Sgerbic (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone tried to add the name of the person who was reportable raped according to Bixler-Zavala. Tenebrae was correct that we should not name her. But Tenebrae should not call her a "victim" as that is assuming guilt and I after reading the whole argument above, thought Tenebrae was all about not claiming a crime had happened? So what I was asking for was if someone could clear up if it was Bixler-Zavala's wife or Masterson's wife that the claim is about. Just needs a little rewording, not naming anyone.Sgerbic (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sgerbic - one of the people alleging she was raped by Danny Masterson is Cedric Bixler-Zavala's wife and she was also formerly Masterson's girlfriend. The citations should support this.[10] Jooojay (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. That information is indeed in the article already, supported by three cites.
Sgerbic is absolutely correct in that I should have said either "alleged victim" or "Bixler-Zavala's wife" or some such term. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jooojay the sentence as written currently does not make it clear if we are talking about Masterson's wife or Bixler-Zavala's wife, just says "his wife".Sgerbic (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sgerbic, yes I agree with you it is unclear, please do go ahead and edit it. Jooojay (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind looks like Tenebrae already edited it. Jooojay (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of...?

I know Wikipedia has rules for BLP and such, and I appreciate them, but have we gone so far that we allow sentences like this:

In March 2017, four women made allegations against Masterson prompting a Los Angeles Police Department investigation.

Okay... allegations of what? That he eats puppies? The next sentence:

Masterson, through his agent, has denied the allegations....

Again, allegations of what? Murder? Arson? Embezzlement? Being an outer-space alien? Allegations that he wears a toupee? I think we should say what the allegations are, or we should not have them on here! I don't understand how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons can be so construed that we mention and cite ALLEGATIONS but then don't say what those ALLEGATIONS ARE. I get Wikipedia readers can click the citation links or google it, but the article reads weird. "Made allegations" just reads so silly. We don't have to get graphic with the descriptions, but we could say "allegations of sexual improprieties" or "allegations of rape" or "allegations of sexual crimes."

Or am I just dense? TuckerResearch (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Masterson is a public figure, and per WP:BLP the term allegation can be used with a detail of what the allegation is (ie. the alleged crime). I agree it is not helpful to remove this detail. Jooojay (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested page protection (possibly not for the first time) because IP editors persist in removing the nature of the allegations without explaining their actions. DonIago (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: appears it is happening again, bouncing IPs - removing only the allegation portion. Jooojay (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request page protection? DonIago (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

He is a rapist 2607:FEA8:1DE0:1881:349C:552E:1823:F421 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tag

I believe I've adequately addressed:

Granted, he's currently on track to continue this lawsuit in November. Don't think there's anything left to include without veering into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory. @Orangemike: I'm guessing you were referring that his case details needed to be updated. Thoughts on removing tag for now until November? I'm following the case and can make sure this section remains updated. But would prefer other editors to jump in for neutrality sake. -- Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

To add to this article: in which year (or in which approximate year) Masterson first began practicing Scientology. Or did he grow up the child of Scientologists? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the exact timeline, but his mother and stepfather married in 1984 and were both Scientologists at the time, so while I can't swear that he was *born* into Scientology, he was raised in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.112.170 (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OR?

@Cambial Yellowing: Could you explain how I'm misinterpreting this text, "after jurors, who were leaning strongly toward acquitting him, [...] Two jurors voted for conviction on the first count, four voted for conviction on the second count and five voted to convict on the third count," in the AP News source? Because I was only stating a fact that jurors (at least the majority) did initially vote to acquit Masterson, but ended up deadlocked. Would you paraphrase it in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text does not explicitly state what you added. The principle of jury secrecy / equity means we do not know how they structured their vote (ie if it was binary etc). No reliable source has said a majority voted to acquit, and that’s not what the statement you quote says. You need to strictly stick to what the source says ie two, five voted to convict etc. Don’t add original research about other votes, and don’t editorialise. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Convicted rapist" in first sentence?

For any celebrity convicted of a crime, Wikipedia is always quick to be edited so this is the first sentence in the person's bio. Seems kind of vindictive and against overall neutrality, no? The crime is also usually not the reason the person is famous, so I've always found it amateur for an encyclopedia to draw attention to this in the fist sentence. 216.205.235.186 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the page for R. Kelly page for example. It should absolutely be mentioned. conman33 (. . .talk) 23:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, that page just got updated to remove that mention from the lead sentence. I have doubts that it's due weight to mention it in the first sentence as well, though I have no issues with it being brought up in the lead. DonIago (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was me. Xan747 (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Conman33, there is a large difference between mentioning something, and presenting it as defining characteristic of someone. No-one is suggesting that the rape conviction not be mentioned. The issue is whether it should be brought up in the first line. Masterson was notable enough for an article many years before the rape issue was raised. I agree that it is not appropriate to mention in the first sentence. The conviction is prominently discussed in the article, and in user:Xan747's version of the lead, so we're not hiding it or downplaying it. Meters (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the clean way to link a diff, but I did some cleanup on the lead section, and moved the felony conviction details to the final sentence of the first paragraph. Let's see how long the revert takes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Masterson&diff=prev&oldid=1157953715 Xan747 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xan747: The easiest way is to put square brackets around the diff's URL, like this [http://website.com/something.html] and it will translate into a citation-like number, like this: [1] . Grorp (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thx Xan747 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If R. Kelly's page can mention it then so can Danny's. Otherwise it sounds like a racist double standard to me.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is the consensus on this page, not what has been done on one particular other page. Meters (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think @Jaydoggmarco has a point here but I agree with @Meters: the place to argue for changing the R. Kelly article is on the R. Kelly talk page. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Harvey Weinstein's page says "convicted sex offender." Weinstein was convicted of rape. Can we agree on using that phrase? Aresef (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is a large difference between Harvey Weinstein and this bio. Weinstein is very much noted because of the allegations and his conviction. That contributed significantly to the MeToo movement and we even have the Weinstein effect. Masterson not so much. Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This same discussion has been going on over at Roman Polanski, with the examples of Weinstein and Epstein given in argument for including "convicted rapist" in the lede sentence. I agree that Masterson's case certainly doesn't rise to the level of those latter two. Polanski is arguably more notorious for his crime than Masterson, but IMO still not enough to warrant lede sentence labeling as a convicted sex offender. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you seek to add labels such as "actor" or "rapist", wiki guidelines suggest you use words which describe what the person is known for. Masterson has been known as an "actor" for decades, yet only recently by certain celeb-watchers and scientology-watchers as a "rapist". Call him "actor", but using "rapist" doesn't fit with Wikipedia guidelines. See also WP:UNDUE. The lead paragraph is half about the rape conviction anyway, so using the word "rapist" is unnecessary and too POV-pushing. Grorp (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What "POV" is the word "rapist" pushing? glman (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing

Last line of criminal case states up to 30 years. This is inaccurate. It is 15 years to life for each count (30 years to life). Or, at LEAST 30 years. 2603:800C:2000:8C0:1DD4:A28A:EEA8:5C87 (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my bad, fixed it. Thanks. Xan747 (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request

Under Sexual assaults and criminal trial, please add that he was taken into custody after the verdict was read. https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/danny-mastersons-second-rape-trial-1235616690/amp/ 2600:100C:A202:5967:432:4F4D:33CC:C303 (talk) 06:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Grorp (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current location

According to the prisoner tracking website Vinelink.com, Daniel P. Masterson is being held in the Men's Central Jail in Los Angeles. There is no way to link directly to that info as far as a reference on WP. If anyone can find a reliable source for it, it can be included in the article. Other notable inmates have their location included in the article. But be careful, just saying that Vinelink says he is there would be an original research violation. Also, please note that there is another "Daniel Masterson" in custody in California at another facility. Be very careful if adding any info about which jail he is in. (Current info as of June 2, 2023) Juneau Mike (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Juneau Mike, I found a TMZ article which gives the jail, and the detail that he's being held in "administrative segregation" (protective custody) and added all that in this diff. Xan747 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danny_Masterson&oldid=1174332292"