Talk:David Letterman

RfC response

• Thousands of WP:RS exist that discuss the incident. In relation to other topics in the section it is easily demonstrates relative notability. All information is easily verifiable. It easily meets weight issues relative to other topics. The section had reached stability in what should be included and overall length of the section prior to being blanked. Arzel (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it really meets none of that, and creating a new sub-topic every other day or so on the same exact subject isn't going to help your case any. Tarc (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. What a massive misrepresentation here. Both Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/bio/manual and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment show no further comment from anyone. To make out that you're bringing us back a response built over at RfC is such a colossal act of Bad Faith and deception that I can't see your opinion being in any way valid or worthy or reply any more. ThuranX (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow is right, where is the misrepresentation? Future reference, why not comment on the section rather than resort to personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made comments. More than one, including proposing some compromises. But you called your section the RfC RESPONSE. that implies that this is a post based on the response YOU received at RfC. At the time of your posting, you had received NO such replies. Since you had earlier announced your intention to go to RfC, then return later in the day with a 'response' from them, I conclude that your intent is deliberate deception. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Try not to assume too much. I simply followed an RfC example from another article. This section is supposed to be for those involved to give 'THEIR' response, not attack other users and question their faith and all around act like a jerk. Arzel (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a dead issue as far as this article is convened. Actual, tangible discussion of the matter is over at Talk:Late Show with David Letterman#Straw Poll -- Palin Joke Controversy.. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Another example of liberal bias which is rampant on wikipedia.... shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre

Coming here I am absolutely shocked that the Palin controversy isn't included. Be it noted that I'm on Letterman's side and the controversy was truly blown out of proportion, but it looks bizarre that it's not here. Read back through that straw poll and the archives, it's in need of some objectivity; this event was so significant, Letterman makes reference back to it or alludes to it in almost every episode since! Things like "tempest in a teapot, being forced into the article for political reasons" — I'm on Letterman's side and against Palin, but I'm still shocked it's not here. Try and take a step back and look at this objectively, without all this absolutely ridiculous squabbling I see above and in the archives. We even had to hear about this in Canada! I actually came to this article today because I wanted to see the "Wikipedia" coverage of the event because I thought it would be the most objective, "facts only ma'am" coverage I could find that wouldn't be biased. Wikipedia isn't here to make a value judgment whether it was blown out of proportion or not—whether or not it was "a tempest in a teapot" in the real world, it was nevertheless a "tempest." Wikipedia is here to recount the facts. I hate it when Google Searches are used for arguments (because they're off all the time), but check this specific gem out:
["Sarah Palin" + "David Letterman" + "Alex" = 340,000]

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

PS The only time "tempest in a teapot" arguments should be used is when the teapot is Wikipedia. If the "teapot" is in the real world, then it's a value judgment if we say it ought not be included because of that. It was a huge issue. It doesn't matter if you or I think it was blown out of proportion. It was big. If an ant set off a nuclear bomb, oh it would be a proportion-blowing-event. But it would be pretty significant. That's what matters.

PPS When I came to this page and hit "CTRL + F + P - A - L - I - N" I actually thought there was something wrong with my browser / find feature for a few seconds.

Good lord you people have very little to do; it's on front page of CNN

And on our damn televisions right now. There was no reason to revert the well cited edits about the affair scandals. CNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.86.114 (talk)

So I see; my revert was in error, my apologies. Jusdafax 03:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes it should go in, but the last few attempts were poorly-written and badly formatted. Work on it here with others and then it can be edited back in. Tarc (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, reverting was correct until we get it right. With all due respect to the IP, there's more to posting information on a biography page than just throwing a link and some accusations that may or may not be accurate. Now that it's protected, we can bring the information here to the talk page and determine what the sources say. If you'd like to be involved, please post what you think the section should say here on this page. Dayewalker (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The news reports are not terribly difficult to understand and the facts related are not terribly difficult to incorporate into the article. What's the big deal? ^Bongo_matic 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a BLP, one who is quite popular, and the story is breaking right now. Plus, this particular article has previous examples of editing relating to similar breaking events that suggest we're better off hashing things out on the talk page first. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN, ABC, and New York Times provide sufficient protection from embarrassment or legal liability. There is no liability or moral culpability or even mistake in stating what is reported in what are generally considered among the very most reliable sources, even if it proves to be erroneous in whole or in part. ^Bongo_matic 03:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This probably needs to stay semi-protected no matter what through the show tonight. There will likely be a firestorm of people trying to edit the page in the next hour once they see the news on their TV set... Semi-protection should help with minimize problems, but people will still need to watch the page. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys live for nights like this don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.86.114 (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You know you're hanging out here too, don't you? Dayewalker (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

lol --220.236.144.41 (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I removed this story from the Late Show article. I really don't feel that the episode is notable just because he announced it last night, nor is this situation connected to the show itself. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

He did break the news on his show, though, so there is a clear connection between the show and the incident. I agree that the primary coverage should be here, but as his use of the show last night has been called "unprecedented" we should probably leave a mention in the show article, at least until the dust settles. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The news broke much earlier in the day, before the show aired. The idea that making this announcement on this episode somehow makes it notable is just ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you're interested in discussing this... I provided an argument and all you can do is use words like ridiculous. I guess we'll just have to see what consensus is. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, folks that use four syllable words need to be kept far away from wikipedia. And watch out, I got automanically banned as a "defacer" because I edited an article on a serial killer and used the word "prostitute". *Sigh*. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert J. Halderman

Let's get the name in: Robert J. Halderman Associated Press --C-U RPCV (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surpised Halderman has no Wikipedia page of his own. He's notable -- an Emmy winning director and producer on national television. Why no page on his notable accomplishments, eh? cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So write one, cat. This isn't the place for the conversation. Tvoz/talk 02:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should i? I saw one less than ten minutes ago that was Speedy Deleted! It's at [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Halderman] : "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._Halderman This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. * 17:06, 2 October 2009 DGG (talk | contribs) deleted "Robert J. Halderman" I don't rush in on fools' errands. File this under "What's Wrong with Wikipedia": A random schizophrenic woman named Margaret Mary Ray has a lengthy Wikipedia page for no other reason than that she once stalked a celebrity whom Wiki-writers adore, while the Emmy-winning CBS television news-show director and producer Robert J. Halderman a.k.a. Joe Halderman a.k.a. Robert Joe Halderman does not have a Wikipedia page. Okay, so what do you want to bet that now that Halderman has dared to trouble the life of the Wiki-darling Mr. Letterman, he too will soon have his own Wikipedia page? cat yronwode, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean that to come out as snarkily as it did, cat - in fact I agree that Halderman could have had a page based on his actual accomplishments but is more likely to get one for his dubious one. But whose fault is that really? In any case, this page is to talk about Letterman's bio, not the shortcomings of Wikipedia, no? Tvoz/talk 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, if you see the deletion log, it was deleted for {{g2}} which means that it wasn't an article at all. Even if he would fail an AfD (which I doubt if he has actually won an Emmy), Halderman would certainly not be eligible for a speedy (and DGG is a stickler about speedy criteria, so casting aspersions his way is a the real fool's errand). ^Bongo_matic 06:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sure sure, accuse me of "casting aspersions" on DGG. Great. Eric Berne called that game "Let's You and Him Fight." Only i'm not falling for it. Meanwhile, Halderman's legitimate credits as a director were deleted from the article with the comment line "no evidence he is a director" -- which is pretty pathetic, since he directed (and wrote, and produced) the 2006 prime time special for which he received the Emmy nomination. I've reinserted the credit. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And now, an hour or so later, Halderman's status as an Emmy Award nominee has been deleted from the article with a comment line claiming it is "excess detail." I'll go put it back. This is silly ... but the consistency of the deletions is intriguing. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make unwarranted insinuations about why it was removed. As the person who removed it, I'll state that it was taken out because it has no relevance to the event in question. We've noted what he does, and where he worked in connection to this event. However, the article is about Letterman, not about Halderman's nominations or the film he made. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violation

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons states, "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

This edit adds an unsourced claim to the article. I have removed the unsourced claim. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And once again it has been restored, this time by someone else. Seriously grundle, what the hell are you trying to get at here? Has there ever been a point in Lettterman's history where someone has questioned his sexuality? I cannot recall such a situation offhand, so I really don't see how the "female" descriptor or "several female staffers" actually needs a source. But if you truly need citation for an acceptable assumption, we have "who has acknowledged that he had sexual relationships with female employees", "Letterman admitted that he had sexual relationships with female employees", or countless others. Goddamn, I cannot believe we're wasting time on this. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. In response to Grundie, i took it out (again) as i had no sources, but, hey, now i'll put it back in with these sources. Thanks. Cheerfully, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I find it highly unnecessary, honestly. Grundle is warping BLP policy to cover any claim, when the cited passage there really has to do with questionable claims. That the staff members he has liaisons with were female is not a questionable claim IMO. Perhaps it is a little non-politically correct, but I still think people are assumed heterosexual unless there is something out there to indicate otherwise. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to numerous sources, Letterman himself referenced "female" employees, so Grundie was off-base on his or her research on that issue. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Should we add citations behind every single "he" description of Letterman before Grundle removes it per "BLP" as unsourced?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Letterman extortion attempt

In the related section of this most recent affront to David Letterman it contains info I believe to be incorrect. It implies that Letterman said the sexual relationships he had with certain employees were "creepy". That is not what he said. What he said was "creepy" was reading about them in the papers that Halderman left in his car. There is a very big difference there. Please listen to his explanation from his Thursday night show again and make this necessary correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirley2315 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the text. It was clearly out of context and implied things that the actual events do not support. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"The creepy stuff is that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show." -- David Letterman. It's gonna go back in. cat Catherineyronwode (talk)

But make sure it doesn't sound like he had "creepy" sex. You get my point.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, cat, that didn;'t do it. When he said "the creepy thing is" he was referring to a reference earlier in the explanation which said that the guy was going to reveal "creepy" things that Letterman had done. He repeated the word. You are making it sound like Letterman on his own is characterizing the sex as creepy and that is distinctly not what the context was. Why exactly do you find it so important to include the word, by the way? We do want to avoid editorializing in our choice of quotes. I also wonder if we're not giving too much weight to this incident over all. Any thoughts? Tvoz/talk 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak paragraph in the Extortion section

According to Eve Tahmincioglu, a business news reporter for MSNBC, "CBS suppliers," such as Letterman's Worldwide Pants, "are supposed to follow the company's business conduct policies" and the CBS 2008 Business Conduct Statement contains clear directives about employer-employee sexual contacts: “If a consenting romantic or sexual relationship between a supervisor and a direct or indirect subordinate should develop, CBS requires the supervisor to disclose this information to his or her Company’s Human Resources Department to ensure that there are no issues of actual or apparent favoritism, conflict of interest, sexual harassment, or any other negative impact on others in the work environment." It is unknown whether Letterman has been in compliance with this directive.

This paragraph sounds like pretty weak synthesis. I think this is why it relies so heavily on quoting the original source, as it would look obviously synthetic if it wasn't purely quoted. I know the source is reliable and all, but I believe it should be removed or another reliable source independently commenting on the same thing should be added. It seems reasonable to assume a company's suppliers would have to follow some of their "policies" but it seems slightly absurd to envision one company forcing its "suppliers" to follow its employment codes. The original source relies on a particularly tendentious / stretched line of reasoning, and the way the quotes are posited here makes it appear less so than the original. I think for "encyclopedic" policy sake, this paragraph should be worked on (or removed). Any comments?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this:

According business news reporter Eve Tahmincioglu, "CBS suppliers," such as Letterman's Worldwide Pants, "are supposed to follow the company's business conduct policies." and the CBS 2008 Business Conduct Statement sates that “If a consenting romantic or sexual relationship between a supervisor and a direct or indirect subordinate should develop, CBS requires the supervisor to disclose this information to his or her Company’s Human Resources Department...."

-- leaving the ref intact, or, possibly, giving the entire statement in the ref block. I'll do it and let's see how you like that. -- cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds a bit better, but makes the problem clearer. It says "are supposed to follow the company's business conduct policies." Such external and corporate-interaction based "business" policies may mean something totally different from internal "employee" conduct policies. To assume a company can dictate the way it interacts with another company and its overarching principles isn't much of a leap. To assume a company would dictate another company's specific internal employment policies is much more of a stretch. This is why I think another source would help.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I shortened it all a lot more than outlined above and combined two paragraphs into one. As for your hair-splitting about "business" policies versus "employee" policies, i think that an employee policy is a subset of a company's overall business policy. Let's leave it as is for now; i am sure we will be hearing about the intricacies of this thing for weeks. The fact that Letterman said, "I hope to protect my job" would indicate that he thought his job was in danger. Why and how -- and if this is actually the case -- remains to be seen. Catherineyronwode (talk)

Sounds fine. The "hair-splitting" was in terms of scale and specificity. I know that the employee policy would be a business policy, but a rather specific one to be micro-managed by another company.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS As you seem quite knowledgeable in this area and have worked on it quite a bit, what do you think of my suggestion below? I have placed it also on the pages for Stephanie and Joe.

Actually, the CBS policy appears to refer to other companies, such as production companies, in this sentence: "CBS requires the supervisor to disclose this information to his or her Company’s Human Resources Department" (italics mine)

Deleting the Birkitt and Halderman pages is not going to fly, as i outline below. Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Extortion given undue weight → may require its own page

The extortion is (understandably) receiving undue weight on this page and needs to be cut down. This event has also spawned off to the articles Joe Halderman and Stephanie Birkitt, which both only hit WP:BLP1E (Stephanie, while having a long lived article, is truly otherwise non-notable). These should all be merged into one article which covers the whole issue, its history and its players. Then the BLP1Es could be removed and the undue weight in Letterman (here) could be cut down to a reasonable size (eg., WP:NOTNEWS) with a link to "Main article: 2009 David Letterman extortion attempt" or something similar. Comments?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Joe Halderman is notable in his own right. Any film and television writer, director, and producer of his stature and career-length should have an article at Wikipedia, and the fact that he was nominated for an Emmy Award would virtually guarantee that his bio would withstand any attempt to delete it as non-notable. I would vote a stong keep.

• Stephanie Birkitt is notable. She appears regularly on a top-rated television show. I think that her bio would withstand attempts at deletion per non-notability. I would vote to keep.

• On spinning off the sex scandal and extortion attempt into its own article, we do have precedent, of course, with articles like John Edwards extramarital affair. The spin-off should be titled something like "David Letterman sex with employees and extortion attempt." I fear (and rightly so, given WP history) that there is an ongoing attempt to astroturf the story by painting Letterman as a victim and buriying the lead, namely, his admission of sex with employees, including at least one young college student who was told to keep the affair "secret" from other staff members. Thus -- and i wish to state this very, very clearly to you, due to your having titled this section of the discussion page "Extortion given undue weight" without mention of the sex scandal and Letterman's perception that his job is at risk -- if you title the spin-off "Extortion Attempt Against David Letterman" i will oppose you, and move to rename it. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this will probably warrant a spin-off article, but I disagree on the wording above. Right now, this is notable because of the extortion attempt, which is illegal. If the extortion attempt results eventually in Letterman facing charges or getting fired from CBS due to the circumstances, perhaps then the focus would be shared between illegal acts. As it is now, it's notable primarily because of a two million dollar extortion attempt, as reported in relaible sources. Dayewalker (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Make it "very, very clear to me" because I clearly have some sort of insidious ulterior motive here? I don't care about the title, in particular, I'm just trying to be as objective as possible here. ... "sex with employees and extortion attempt" is verbose and unencyclopedic sounding. But I really don't care, it can go that way if that's what consensus says. I was just trying to go with policy and use the clearest title which would be the most recognizable and reflects the media coverage. I seriously doubt any contributors would ever enter the whole verbose title you suggest in the search field, but perhaps a more terse and to the point one would. Clear, crisp and to the point. Regardless, the "extortion" is what made this event significant. If there were no attempt, even if the same "sex with employees" info was leaked, it would never have reached the level it has. Extortion of 2 million dollars is much more serious legally, regardless of your personal ethical opinions, than sex with a few people, which was in no way illegal, and it isn't even clear if it was against policy. I see the debate getting hopelessly polarized at this point, because initially I was trying to take the objective centrist position, but now that you have characterized me as someone who must be warned "very, very clearly" of the implication that I am dangerously close to "an ongoing attempt to astroturf the story by painting Letterman as a victim and burying the lead . . . ." Not really, I just think (as the user below says) that Wikipeida is not news and there's undue weight. I have no sinister whitewashing desires. I just want this article to abide by the policies.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think the lead of the story here is - at present - about the illegal extortion attempt, not the sex. This may change, but the way the story is presently reported, Dayewalker and Peace and Passion are completely right that the felony charge of extortion is the overwhelmingly main point. There is undue weight to the story overall in this bio, and the attempt to skew it into a story about the "admission of sex with employees" is really not true to the reality of the reportage, nor is it right for his lifestory at present. Again, this could change - but the statement that somehow the "lead" is being buried is preposterous. (By the way, it was well known that Letterman had relationships with staffers - he married one. This is not the true news here.) Tvoz/talk 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP, the developing story, and Wikipedia's role in covering it

Several things here... one, any notion of creating a separate article may well be premature. While it is certainly tempting to do so, we really need to take the time to see how this develops. Keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, not Wikinews; the onus is on us to report the encyclopedic material, not the breaking news. For my part, I'll be mostly keeping an eye on the BLP-related issues, but I'd add that the section is drifting into speculative material and I'd recommend that new topics be discussed here before they are added to the article. Unless there is an actual examination of CBS's policies, and a direct statement about WWP's obligations in that regard, we cannot guess as to the ramifications. Similarly, we cannot speculate or imply anything with regards to Letterman's job status; the "protect my job" quote is not suitable as we have no idea if he was serious or if he was being sarcastic. We would need to hear something more concrete to determine if this is warranted. As I said earlier, this is not Wikinews; there will be a lot of details that are better suited to their coverage, and that we will need to wait and assess properly before including here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The "protect my job" quote is not only "suitable," it is necassary to the finishing of the statement he made.

If you sincerely believe that "we have no idea if he was serious or if he was being sarcastic" about his "hope to protect [his] job," then you'll have to say exactly the same about his stated intent to protect "these people." Likewise, you'll have to cast doubt on his intent in stating his felt need to "protect [his] family." Ditto the "protect myself" portion of the quote.

For some reason, you have chosen to "speculate" that -- with nothing in his inflection or gestures to indicate that he had transitioned from serious to sarcastic in the space of those four phrases -- we can't use the last sentence as we don't know if it was a joke. I think you should have a better reason to cut his full paragraph right before the last sentence than your bizarre sudden attack of doubt.

I am reinserting the conclusion of his statement so that it reads in full as given by the source cited. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've explained on your talk page, I have removed the text due to concerns under the biography of living persons policy. If there is a solid consensus here - consensus, not just one opinion - that it is warranted, then it can be returned. However, in this case, it remains out until such a consensus is reached, non in until deemed to be removed. Please note that this is an administrative call - if you disagree with it, you are more than welcome to challenge it, but please do not restorep the text without further discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, it is not your right to dictate what remains "out" or "in" -- yet once again you deleted the final sentence of his stament, "I hope to protect my job."

What are you trying to prove? Why is so important for you to clip off the last sentence of his statement? Dozens of other sources give the full quote. There is nothing controversial about is existence. Millions of people have heard him say it. Is this worth an edit war?

I asked you to explain what you are up to -- both here and on your user talk page -- and so far your arguments have literally made no sense to me. You are claiming that quoting the last sentence of his four sentence statement about protecting friends, family, self, and job either involves "speculation" about whether he was being "sarcastic" or it is a BLP violation. And now you're trying to claim both of these at once!

I hope that others will weigh in on this matter soon. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, it is not a question of my rights as an editor, but instead my role as an administrator in maintaining the biography of living persons policy. Note that I have not said that the text is eternally banned; I have been quite clear in stating that it needs a clear consensus from the editors here, not just the opinion of one person. I have also been quite straightforward in calling for said discussion, and have even recused myself from the discussion as an editor in light of my involvement as an administrator. I also welcome the involvement of other editors, as that is exactly what I have been saying is necessary to resolve this issue. If that discussion concludes that the text is acceptable, then by all means it can go back in; . Please see the following section, which I was writing as you were posting your note, where I have called for the discussion to begin. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Great, and now, over on my user talk page you threatened to block me from Wikipedia over a five word sentence David Letterman told millions of viewers on nationally broadcast television and which has been printed in hundreds of newspapers. Groovy, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained to you on your talk page that your above comment does not accurately reflect the nature of our conversation there. I would ask that any further discussion regarding that matter remain on your talk page, or else with the alternatives I've offered to provide. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Protect my job" text and WP:BLP

FYI, I have removed the "protect my job" portion of the text as an admin action due to concerns under the biography of living persons policy. The concern is that it suggests a potential situation that is not supported by the references provided to date. Given that concern, the proper action is to remove the text to the talk page for proper discussion. If there is a solid consensus here that the text is acceptable, it can certainly be restored. (It should be noted that, as I have made this call as an administrator, I will not be participating in the related discussion in anything other than that capacity.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, let me make it clear that this is not a question of whether or not he said the line. The BLP issue, I feel, lies in Wikipedia's use of that part of the quote, given that we don't know if Letterman was serious, and that we are also using text about CBS policies, (at one point) speculation as to whether Worldwide Pants has to follow that, and so on. With BLP articles, we have to consider the impression that is left with the reader, and whether we are implying (intentionally or unintentionally) that there is an actual issue. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

All right, before consensing, let's make this clear, since Ckatz has deleted part of the text.

What David Letterman said was this:

"I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. [...] [56] Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would. [...] I feel like I need to protect these people — I need to certainly protect my family. I need to protect myself. I hope to protect my job."[57][58]

Ckatz claims that quoting Letterman in full is improper because we are "speculating" that Letterman was being "sarcastic" (whatever that means when the man is a professional sarcastic) or that somehow the sentence "I hope to protect my job" constitutes a BLP violation. He feels we must only allow the following portion of Letterman's statement to appear in Wikipedia:

"I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. [...] [56] Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would. [...] I feel like I need to protect these people — I need to certainly protect my family. I need to protect myself."[57][58]

Sidenote: When i heard him, i actually thought he said, "I need to protect myself and I hope to protect my job"-- but relatively few sources transcribed it that way -- Newsday, the Washington Post, the New York Daily News, and a few blogs also heard the "and" in there. For example, see this Washington Post partial transcription: 'Letterman told America Thursday night he acted as he had because he felt a need to protect the women involved and his own family, adding, "I need to protect myself -- and I hope to protect my job."' However, i just found a copy of the broadcast on youtube (they are coming and going as CBS is taking them down for copyvio reasons) and what he actually says is:

"I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. [...] Would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would. [...] I feel like I need to protect these people. I need to certainly protect my family, I need to protect myself, uh, hope to protect my job, uh, and the friends that, everybody that has been very supportive through this."

There is no sign of sarcasm, just a long list of whom and what he feels he needs to protect.

I will now cast my consense:

• Keep the full statement, including "I hope to protect my job."

Happy consensing, one and all!

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has taken on an uncomfortably POV slant that is inappropriate - this is a bio of Letterman's life and career, not an exegesis on CBS' employment policies or a place for speculation by the news media about sexual harassment (which has not at present been alleged regarding Letterman). There seems to be an agenda editing here, and I think we need to rein it in for the BLP we're writing here. Time to write a separate article where all of this could go with this section as summary - this level of detail does not belong here, and it is far too soon to reach the conclusion that this matter has risen to level of importance that is implied by its prominence here. What's the rush? Tvoz/talk 06:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Was there really an affair?

The last paragraph in the extortion attempt section, as it is written now, seems to claim that Letterman was having "affairs" with female employees. Has that even been claimed? I know he was having sex with female employees, but until about 6 months before the blackmail attempt he was single, and at least some of the woman were definitely from long before that. If no one can show a verifiable source that claims any of these relationships happened after March of 2009, I think the word "affair" should probably be removed under WP:BLP. To put it another way, I can't see anyone reading the last paragraph without thinking that it said he cheated on his wife, and I have neither heard nor seen any evidence of that. Especially the Ann Curry comment about "multiple affairs", when I have not heard any verifiable accusation that he had any. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed that last small paragraph as per above. After re -reading it, it was plain that it stated he was having affairs in the opening sentence, and then used a quote of "multiple affairs" after that. If anyone can show that he was actauly acused of having these relationships after March 2009 (when he was married), you can put it back in. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The two relevant definitions at dictionary.com: "an intense amorous relationship, usually of short duration"; "a romantic and sexual relationship, sometimes one of brief duration, between two people who are not married to each other". The definition at merriam-webster.com: "a romantic or passionate attachment typically of limited duration". The only dictionary I've found that requires one participant to be married in order for the word "affair" to apply is wiktionary, and it seems obvious to me that by nature that's the least reliable source. The word "affair" has been consistently applied in the media to describe the liaisons (which, again, indicates that the wiktionary definition is just wrong, since I think it should describe how the word is actually used). Propaniac (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Odd, I have never heard that term "affair" used for sex when at least one person wasn't married... That is what "having an affair" means. Can you actually name any other time in history where the term "affair" has been used to denote consensual sex between 2 single individuals? --Electrostatic1 (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Another way of saying it, can you see any reasonable person reading the last paragraph and not thinking it was saying that he cheated on his wife? --Electrostatic1 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if I've kept a list of famous sexual liaisons throughout history and how people referred to them. I can only say that the dictionary definitions I quoted above are pretty consistent with how I would have defined the word, and that I don't think the paragraph in question is more likely than the preceding paragraphs to imply that he was married at the time. I agree it would make sense to clarify somewhere in the section that he was not married when the liaisons took place (as I think CBS has issued a statement to that effect, IIRC). But I don't think we should remove the whole paragraph simply because a media personality used the word "affair." Like I said, several of the sources use the word to describe the situation. Propaniac (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if there's a consensus that the word "affair" should not be used, I would defer to that. Propaniac (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker of 62 years of age and a reasonable person. During the entirelty of my life, from when i first heard the idiom circa 1954, "affair" has only meant that the two parties referenced were not married to one another. The way i learned the language, a married person can have affairs and a single person can also have affairs. The dictionaries also support this definition. Obviously, being familiar with the term from family usage and from reading dictionaries, i read the sentence as a claim that the two referenced people were not married to one another, without any conclusions being stated about the married state of either party with respect to a third party. I think that the editor who objected to the use of the term "affairs" was simply misinformed on the meaning of the word. It happens; no praise, no blame. cat, not logged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

O.K., apparently it was I who didn't know better... My apologies. --Electrostatic1 (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been speaking English almost as long, Cat, but I agree with Electrostatic on this - "affair" has implications and is not necessary to convey the story. Was he having an "affair" with Lasko before they married? I doubt anhyone would word itt that way. Using "affair" does imply something illicit, and could well be a BLP problem. We need to go back to our sources that are specific to Letterman and his original statement which said he had sex with women who worked for him. Further, I believe the story here should be more about the extortion attempt and of course the reason for it, and less about some people's opinion about whether or not they think it is possible for a person to have sexual relationships with staffers without a hostile work environment. This is Letterman's bio, and Kathie Lee Gifford and Ann Curry's musings about such situations are not relevant here at present as they are generalizations, not directly connected to any information they have about Letterman, his staff, or these events. I am just as much a feminist as any other editor, and I have my own opinions about this behavior, but they don't belong here now - there will be plenty of time for adding such material if and when they relate directly to Letterman. Take it to sexual harassment or any similar article - as Kathie Lee said, "We don't know" So we should not be including her speculation based on things that really are not relevant to his biography. If you read the section now, it's skewed away from the story, and toward social analysis not directly related to him, and therefore inappropriate here in my opinion. Tvoz/talk 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Affair" is indeed one word that might be used to describe his affir with Ms. Lasko before their marriage. Calling their affair "dating" is actually a misnomer, since "dating" means selecting a date and making an appintment for each meeting.

The reason the term "illicit affair" exists is to describe ILLICIT (unlawful) affairs. Regular affairs are not illicit unless stated to be such. All the rest are just affairs.

Other adjectives commonly or stereotipically associated with the word "affair" in biographical writing are "long-term affair", "one-year affair" (there's a book of that name, quite amusing), "off and on affair", and "brief affair."

There is no reason to dumb down Wikipedia. Ann Curry knows the proper use of the word "affair" and to remove her statement, as was done, in the belief that this is somehow a BLP violation is really dumb. As for the validity of quoting Gifford and Curry in a bio of Letterman -- if not them, then why Oprah Winfrey. It's a little late to claim that other television personalities are not to be referenced in this bio!

I feel bad for Wikipedia because more than once i have seen folks here cling to their poor language skills when they should instead be embracing the great language education that they can get from writing in an openly edited venue like this. I'm serious -- what's the use of having an encyclopedia if it is run along lowest-common-denominator principles by people who refuse to abide by dictionary definitions of common terms because it somehow just seems "wrong" to them to learn the actual definition of a common word?

cat yonwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the one mentioned in the article, there is no indication of when any of the sexual relationships / encounters took place. Letterman said "my wife is hurt by my behavior"; if all the sex with staff took place before he began his relationship with the woman he is now married to, then she wouldn't reasonably be hurt by it. That would strongly suggest that at least some of the sex with staff happened during in the years he was in a relationship with her. If that were not the case, he would almost certainly have said that it all ended many years ago. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "Sex With employees" section as per UNDUE

I've been BOLD and renamed this section, and I'm bringing it here for discussion. I feel, as I stated in the section above, that the main focus of the "Sex with employees and extortion attempt" section should be the illegal act of extortion, and not Letterman's sex with co-workers and employees. Right now, the two million dollar extortion plot is the most notable thing about this event, rather than consentual sexual relations. It seems undue to hang this on Letterman's sexual activities, rather than the illegal act attempted against him.

If the extortion attempt results eventually in Letterman facing charges or getting fired from CBS due to the sexual admissions, that would be another major event that would deserve its own section. Right now, I think the title is undue. Dayewalker (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change, as stated elsewhere on this page, probably too many times. Tvoz/talk 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Thirded" by me. Explanations in other sections.... Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. While the extortion attempt is only part of the story, all the other section titles that have been proposed sensationalize the situation. I'd support a more inclusive heading if someone could come up with a reasonably neutral wording. ^Bongo_matic 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some folks might wish this were only story about Dave as the victim of an extortion plot by some nameless Joe -- but

• Tonight Letterman apologized to his wife and told the nation that she was "horribly hurt" by his sexual contacts with staff members and that his marriage is in trouble.
• Tonight Letterman referenced Mark Sanford as a way of talking about the sex scandal. Mark Sanford was a man who had an affair and tried to hide it, and was never the victim of an extortion plot. In Letterman's monologue, comparing himself to Mark Sanford, he did not mention the extortion plot, only the sex scandal and the possible collapse of his marriage.

How can anyone here say that Wikipedia is putting "undue weight" on the sex scandal when Letterman himself is broadcasting the sexual aspects of the story all over the nation?

I will be returning the sex aspect back into the subhead title, as this is what Letterman himself is now leading with.

In order to look for neutral wording that had previously been found acceptable in other bios, i checked the Mark Sanford page and the John Edwards page.

• On the Sanford page: "Disappearance and affair."
• On the Edwards page: "Extramarital affair."

So, i will be BOLD and place on the Letterman page the subhead "Affairs and extortion attempt" in the hope that this will be sufficiently neutral, espcially given Letterman's Sanford-referencing confession on-air tonight.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cat, I really wish you wouldn't add it back without discussion, and letting other editors also make their cases. You've done a good job above of chronicling what Letterman's been saying, but that still doesn't make it the main notable point about this incident.

In short, how many celebrity marriages have public troubles, affairs, and divorces? Contrast that with the number of celebrities involved in multi-million dollar public extortion plots. Dayewalker (talk) 02:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should strive for a wee bit of decorum and less like a screaming TMZ-style tabloid, to be honest. The focus of the story is on the extortion attempt, not solely on the sexual relationships. Tarc (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may add my .02 in here. The section involving his sexual exploits is a bit overly long when it comes to the details involving previous employees. So far he has not mentioned if they were NOT consensual, therefore any hint on there being "sexual harassment" be taken from that section. Additionally, "Affair" might be a bit strong of a word; granted, he has been seeing his current wife for a number of years before he finally got married, but there has been no information (that I've read) about when the relationships occurred, and to be perfectly honest, why doesn't one think that his wife(then girlfriend) would be clueless, if not implicit in the relationships? I've known kinkier things have happened in the past.

Leave out "MOST of the quotes", leave out the talking heads making their viewpoint about the matter and concentrate solely on the blackmale aspect part of it with only adding sections that are relevant to the blackmail case itself.--Hourick (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cat has now changed the title of the section back, and also rewritten the lead sentence of the section to focus on the affairs and not the extortion. I really don't want to edit war on this, but it seems consensus is against the rename, and this is a BLP issue. Any thoughts? Cat? Dayewalker (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The basic consensus in this section seems to point towards 5 to 1, but that's just my opinion, not that of "Big Media" trying whitewash the event.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's trying to deny the events existed or whitewash them out of the article, rather most editors favor the illegal multi-million dollar extortion attempt as the more notable of the events for now. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker, your description of what i did is not complete. Please note that i added an entire paragraph covering Letterman's public apology to his wife, his confession of marital troubles, and his self-comparison to Mark Sanford. This material could have been added by anyone, as it has been online for half the day, but it was not, so i did it.

I also eliminated some ridiculously non-professional writing referring to the bio subject as "Dave" and replaced this nickname with his surname, as is Wikipedia style.

Finally, yes, i reverted the lead. I did so because, as the section header says, this is a current event. The revelation of the September 9 extortion attempt was news on October 1 -- but by October 2, the news was about Stephanie Birkitt and her diary. Then, on October 3, the news was about Heather Holly, who claimed to have had a secret sexual affair with Letterman while a an intern and a college student. October 4 (a slow news day, being a Sunday) was devoted to commentary by (mostly female) television newspeple. Today, Octovber 5, the news is about Letterman openly confessing to having had affairs, making a public apology to his wife, and noting that his marriage is in trouble because of his sexual affairs.

You may wish the story had stayed locked down as it was last Thursday, as an extortion story, but it keeps moving forward and changing. At this point, more paragraphs deal with the affairs because the affairs have taken up more daily news cycles than the extortion attempt. That is in the nature of current events sections -- they are always works in prgress.

Claiming that the affairs are UNDUE or a BLP violation, as some here have done, is disingenuous, as the affairs have now been in the news for five days straight.

Next, leaving aside the arguments of BLP vios and UNDUE, Dayewalker, you say that "most editors favor the illegal multi-million dollar extortion attempt as the more notable of the events for now." The extortion attempt is notable, for sure, but as a story it did not spring de novo from Joe Halderman's fertile mind. Rather, it is grounded in the sexual behaviour of David Letterman, which he has now repeatedly and openly acknowledged, and which others have come forward to speak about.

Without the subhead mention of Letterman's affairs / sex with staff, we, as writers, have no basis for subsequent textual mention of Stephanie Birkitt, Heather Holly, or Letterman's remarkable on-air apology to Regina Lasko. They become off-topic in their own section. Don't you see that? The whole section, including the accusation against Joe Halderman, rests upon the foundation of Letterman's sexual conacts AND the extortion attempt.

Eventually we will spin this section off into its own article. Until then, it must be accurately titled. Our best choices are "Sex with staff and extortion attempt" or "Affairs and extortion attempt." Because "affairs" was such a troubling word to some editors, i reverted back to the completely bland "sex with staff" tag. Personally, i'd prefer "affairs," as it is shorter.

The only other compromise i can offer is that you and your editorial team can write a section on the extortion attempt and the upcoming Halderman trial, while i write a separate section on David Letterman's sexual affairs with staffers. Would that satisfy you?

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why must you clutter our discussion with your faulty assertion that I "may wish the story had stayed locked down...as an extortion story" and referring to me and my "editorial team?" Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not an "assertion." I am trying to understand why it is so important for you that the sex affairs not be named in the subhead. I am literally grasping at straws here, trying to understand your reasoning and the reasoning of others in forcing us to write a section that does not refer in the title to the actual topics of the section's contents.

Meanwhile, i am adding to the section, in preparation for a spin-off, which we all know is coming, per previous examples of this type (e.g. John Edwards and John Edwards extramarital affair

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Just a note, that last paragraph about "compromise" really kinda sounds like a sectional example of WP:Content forking (as opposed to the usual article-based forking). We should be able to synthesize (not the "bad" synthesis) it into one neutral section, rather than two sections which will just tend to develop in a polarizing manner.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, Peace and passion. Do you see mine, that by eliminating any reference to the Affirs / Sex with staff from the sub-head title, the content of the section becomes off-topic in its own section? To me its like writing an article on Dog and Pony Shows and calling it Dog Shows. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Borderline and past-the-borderline sexual relationships are a dime a dozen, whereas extortion attempts are relatively infrequent. The contrast with Sanford is absurd to include—suggesting that he'd prefer to be on the Appalachian Trail was a joke (i.e., part of his job). The fact that there is focus in tabloid publications (and some more reputable ones) on the sexual activity (and questions as to whether it is misconduct or otherwise) does not mean it should be given detailed coverage in a BLP.

• The extortion attempt is sufficiently notable to be covered in some degree of detail.
• The affairs (if we're permitted to use that word) should be mentioned in with sufficient specificity to give readers an understanding of why the kerfluffle (with staff, while he was in a long-term committed relationship, ex-girlfriend of the extortion perpetrator), but not tabloid-level detail.
• The allegations / concern as to "misconduct" should be mentioned.

This view isn't a defense of the actions, or a reflection of my prudishness, but an assessment of what is encyclopedic. ^Bongo_matic 05:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I've brought this up on the WP:BLPN board in hopes of getting more opinions on the matter. Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD) In regards to Cat's assertion that the affairs must be mentioned, otherwise they are off topic, I disagree completely. "Extortion" pretty much sums it up. In a section called "Extortion," you'd full well expect to read about the topic of the extortion. By giving the affairs (which were all consentual sexual relationships, I believe) the same heading as the extortion plot, we place them both at the same level. Dayewalker (talk) 05:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bongomatic said, "Borderline and past-the-borderline sexual relationships are a dime a dozen, whereas extortion attempts are relatively infrequent." Would you say that on-air talk-show hosts' confessions that their marriages may fail due to their affairs, accompanied by contrite apologies to their wives who are "hurting horribly" are also "a dime a dozen"? Please explain. cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you make a good point, those kinds of things don't happen often. That's because the confession and subsequent apologies would never have occurred on air if not for the extortion attempt, which is the most notable thing about the situation. Dayewalker (talk) 05:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Frequently, information that would be private for others is made public for various reasons when it pertains to entertainers or others in the public spotlight (by no means a large fraction of notable people, FWIW). In this case, the information was (allegedly--worth keeping that clarification in the article) the subject of an extortion attempt. The brouhaha may or may not have been similar had the conduct been revealed for another reason or in another manner, but we don't live in a hypothetical universe. Here, the revelation and subsequent tizzy has been directly related to the alleged extortion attempt and Letterman's choice of how to handle it (i.e., not paying off the perpetrator to keep the information under wraps. To imply (as below) that the coverage of the details of the affairs constitute good journalism rather than undue weight is silly. ^Bongo_matic 06:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Affairs and extortion: horse and carriage

For those who think that mentioning affairs or sex with employees is somehow "tabloid", or "not as notable" as a claim of extortion, all i can say is, "Where were you when we were working on the John Edwards story, the Mark Sanford story, etc?" People just DO these things -- they have affairs and they mess up their marriages and they even apologize to their wives on national television. To write about sucvh events in a biiography is not to become a "tabloid" writer -- it is just recounting notable events in a celebrity's life.

Second, for those who still insist that the heading of the affairs-and-extortion section must only mention the extortion for fear of being UNDUE or a BLP vio, i offer the following selection of headlines from reputable, non-tabloid sources. I could have collected 1,000 more:

These six lead with "affairs" and follow with "extortion"

• Letterman admits affairs; claims extortion

(Salon), (WWL-TV), hundreds more

• David Letterman Admits Having Affairs, Claims Extortion

(AP), (KTNV-ABC), dozens more

• David Letterman admits to sex with staffers; extortion suspect arrested

(LA Times)

• David Letterman Admits Affairs at Center of Extortion Arrest

(Foxnews), (KADN-TV), many more

• Letterman affairs at center of extortion arrest

(MSN)

• Letterman admits affairs; 48 Hours staffer charged in extortion

(SF Chronicle)

These six lead with "extortion" and follow with "affairs"

• Letterman faced extortion over sexual affairs

(MSNBC)

• David Letterman: Extortion attempt after I had affairs with staff

(Newsday)

• David Letterman Extortion: Admits Relationships With Employees

(Huffington Post)

• David Letterman Discusses Extortion Attempt, Sexual Affairs With Employees

(CBS)

• Letterman victim of $2 mln extortion over affairs

(Reuters), (NY Times)

• Letterman Victim of Extortion Plot over Affairs with Staffmembers

(imdb)

In my opinion, "Letterman admits affairs; claims extortion" is the best of all the headlines. It leaves Halderman innocent until proven guilty (let's watch those BLP and due process violations!) and it is a mere five words in length.

Seeing these combo headlines (and there are thousands of duplicates of some of these), i really cannot get behind a BLP-motivated or UNDUE-motivated Wikipedia restriction of the sub-head title to the extortion angle only.

I realize from past experience that some will attempt to counter this reality-check by stating the obvious -- that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper.

Well, true enough, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia cannot be as well written as a newspaper, as on-topic as a newspaper, or as concise as a newspaper.

Seriously, invoking Wikipedia's "encyclopediac" mission after tonight's clean-up of the article, with its cozy, fannish little references to "Dave" this and "Dave" that, seems like a joke to me.

By the way, i left one "Dave" in the article, just for kicks. A No-Prize to the first editor who spots it and removes it.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, you left two (with a third in a quote).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Added sub-sub-heads; prep for spin-off

Tonight i added a series of sub-sub-heads to the sex/extortion section. I did these things in preparation for a potential spin-off of this topic into its own article. They also help us think about the topic more clearly, in my opinion.

While doing that, i also tried to make sure that the word "alleged" was added to every reference to Halderman -- folks had been VERY careless, calling him "the perpetrator" when he has not even been brought to trial yet, a serious BLP viollation.

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus or unilateral editing?

Am I missing something here - always possible - or is Cat acting as a majority of one against at least five other editors? The fact that as the story develops there might be justification for a separate article on this matter doesn't mean this one should be transformed into it just because one editor wants to do so. This is not AT PRESENT, as I and others have said numerous times on this page, a matter that should dwarf the rest of his life which is what we're supposed to be writing about. And the unilateral way that it is being done is disturbing. That's not what consensus means, and we're not the news. Tvoz/talk 18:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be a fair description of what's going on, since one side of this discussion is choosing to discuss the matter on the talk page without reverting, and Cat discusses while reverting. While some of her edits are good (changing the "Dave's," for example), most of them are her POV as seen on the talk page, which consensus is against. I've tried to talk about it here and also on the BLP noticeboard. Dayewalker (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's odd, Tvoz. You're the one who wrote "Time to write a separate article where all of this could go with this section as summary..." ( 06:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)). So i am following YOUR lead on the idea that there will be a separate article. Frankly, i think the section is now ready to break off into its own article.

I am not trying to ram anything down anyone's throat; i am trying to handle this story the same way that similarly complex, many-player or multi-BLP breaking stories have been handled for other celebrities and politicians, namely,

• to let the sub-section grow until it assumes too big a footprint with respect to the subject of the bio page on which it has appeared (this has now happened),
• to break the sub-section off into its own story page in an orderly, fully-covered, and well-linked manner,
• to craft well-written one-paragraph sub-section summaries with links to the new article from each BLP bio-page involved in the story,
• to continue to edit the breaking story on its own page until it is resolved,
• to monitor each bio-page that links to the story and make regular one-sentence updates to their link-paragraphs, only as necessary, and only until the story is resolved.

In this case, the following housekeeping chores need to be done now:

• (1) The new article (ported intact from the David Letterman page) needs a good title and a newly written one paragrapgh lead .
• (2) Three different "see also" or "main article" tags, each with its own one paragraph summarization, need to be written:

• (A) to fill the space where the article now sits on the David Letterman page
• (B) to add to the Stephanie Birkitt page
• (C) to add to the Joe Halderman page.

Normally i would do these myself, but today i have pre-scehduled appointments and cannot take the time. If no one else writes the intro graphs, the summary graphs, and the see-also / main-article links by tomorrow, i will gladly take on the work. I do this sort of thing all the time and am both comfortable with the methodology and the style necessary to accomplish the task.

Cordially, cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this is worthy of a separate article, and it should receive a hefty trimdown if it is to stay here in this one. Way too much detail, bordering on WP:UNDUE. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was exactly that - way too much detail for this article, bordering on undue weight. If a separate article were written it would stand or fall on its merits - I'm not prejudging whether it would be considered an appropriate stand-alone. But I did not suggest or mean that this section should continue being expanded, nor has anyone agreed with the shift in focus from the extortion to the sex. If you want a separate article, Cat, set one up. And then editors may consider whether it should stand. But please stop unilaterally deciding what this article should be. Your position has not garnered any support here. Tvoz/talk 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. This article seems to be a magnet for POV junk. From the Palin "controversy" to this issue, it's like people think that every negative thing that happens needs to be dissected, expanded, and dumped into this article. As to the issue of a separate article, I think that's an extraordinarily bad idea, mainly just on BLP grounds. It must be remembered that Letterman's reputation isn't the only one affected by this issue. UnitAnode 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to streamline the section, omitting details that are not central to the matter and can be found either in other WP articles or the sources. Look forward to others improvements. ^Bongo_matic 04:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe it is far better than it had been in the past. It can use a little more contraction, but not much more before it affects the quality of the section. Great work, Bongomatic! While I don't care particularly about Letterman overall, I hope this blows over quickly so this article can stabilize.--Hourick (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CBS News reports ...

Today, October 6, CBS News reports that Birkitt and Letterman were romantically involved during the same time that Birkitt was living with Halderman in Norwalk, Connecticut. This contradicts Letterman's statement on his show that the affiars were "in the past." I have added a one-sentence account of this CBS News report to the article.

There is also a separate CBS News article circulating today that cites an "Expert" who says that Letterman faces the prospect of being dropped by CBS. I did not include this item, as it does not arise from internal CBS memoranda.

Note that both of these stories originated with CBS News. 'Nuff said.

cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Sex scandal figures

This has been removed on the basis that 'the scandal is the extortion, not the sex'. However, the scandal combines both those aspects; it fits the criteria of a sex scandal. Letterman is certainly a public figure. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point i think it's both about the sex and the extortion, and i am noticing that a good deal of it is also about lying. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Letterman is the central figure in a high-profile scandal of a sexual nature. Without the sex, there could be no extortion attempt. Sex is a major part of the scandal, not merely a side issue. The fact Letterman is the extortion victim does not make it any less of a sex scandal, nor him any less of a sex scandal figure. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bill Clinton got in trouble because of sex. Letterman is not in any sort of similar trouble; the guy who tried to extort millions of dollars here is. Try to see the difference there, rather than projecting your own biases onto sources to make them say what you want them to say. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Letterman is in trouble – with his wife; he stated that on his show earlier this month. Whilst it is true that Letterman's career is probably safe (whereas Clinton was lucky to remain President until the end of his term), he is still a sex scandal figure. As the article states, he has received a considerable amount of criticism for his actions. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)