Talk:Max Landis

Sexual assault allegation

Putting it here, just in case it mysteriously vanishes from the main article again.

Sexual assault allegation

On December 22, 2017, Max Landis was accused of sexual abuse and sexual assault by Anna Akana on Twitter, hours before the release of the Netflix film Bright.[1][ttps://twitter.com/AnnaAkana/status/944091631484944384][2][3][4]

Sources are blogs and a twitter feed. Quoting directly from one of the sources: "it’s true that these are allegations on Twitter, many of them second-hand, and I haven’t seen any stories yet from a publication with fact-checkers and vetting."[5] Seems like a very good reason not to put this in an encyclopedia article, until more reliable sources can be found. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, he now has a named accuser in Allie Goertz, who has accused him of sexual harassment. Posting here in case the page is scrubbed. Again.

[6]

MLS102 (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sexual assault allegations should be in the article. It is ridiculous that Wikipedia, whose platform is to has an open website with creditable facts and information about topics. While we don't know if the sexual assaults had happened. We need to remember where there is smoke there is fire. A number of women did come forward.I am ashamed that Wikipedia is trying to silent the women who already have spoken out against Max Landis. For Wikipedia to claim that the sexual assault section is defamatory then they should delete the website.--Ncam (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Ncam

"where there is smoke there is fire" is such an inane expression, like as you haven't heard of Smoke machines or Dry ice.

An encyclopedia should stick to Reliable Sources. -- 109.76.131.91 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Who did he sexually assault? Who did he sexually abuse? Who did he sexually harass? Max Landis has an abrasive personality which triggers a lot of sensitive people, but inviting Allie Goerts into a bathroom aka "Neverland" does not count as definitive sexual harassment because nothing happened. He could have just as easily had the intention offering her drugs, but we will never find out. I thought this site is supposed to be about facts, not rumours. Check the sources again if you must. This section could just have easily been called "Smear Campaign". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.49.110 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Max Landis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110504152436/http://viewer.zmags.com:80/publication/19bb0be3 to http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/19bb0be3#/19bb0be3/46

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopediac tone / industry news

This article seems to me to be too much in the vein of an industry magazine and less of an encyclopedia article. About half of the article is about upcoming projects and information about unproduced spec scripts. Normally an article about a industry figure will include a sentence or two about projects in production, but this article seems to be dominated by it. This can also be seen by the fact that almost all the sources are industry sources such as Variety and other even less reliable transient news site, as well as a lot of his own tweets, rather than more reliable academic sources. This leads to most of the article being quite trivial and hagiographic. I'm going to start paring it down and hopefully finding more sober, balanced sources. If you have objections or comments, please make them known. Ashmoo (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Landis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120130044117/http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/forbes-features-members-of-the-tribe-in-30-under-30/6811 to http://www.jspace.com/news/articles/forbes-features-members-of-the-tribe-in-30-under-30/6811

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations

Daily omission of the allegations is kind of ridiculous. You can't just pretend it didn't happen because you like him.

I agree that the sexual assault allegations should be in the article. It is ridiculous that Wikipedia, whose platform is to has an open website with creditable facts and information about topics. While we don't know if the sexual assaults had happened. We need to remember where there is smoke there is fire. A number of women did come forward.I am ashamed that Wikipedia is trying to silent the women who already have spoken out against Max Landis. For Wikipedia to claim that the sexual assault section is defamatory then they should delete the website.--Ncam (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Ncam

RFC on current events and past incidents being included as controversies.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to keep the section, but to take extreme caution to avoid biased sources. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

---

There was concern from many editors regarding the addition of allegations against the subject of the article. Mainly with unreliable or bad sources (such as blogs) that contained potentially libellous information. I changed this to this, with opinionated wording & bad sources all taken out & a reliable source The Daily Beast added. So the question is what should be done with the subsection Sexual Misconduct Allegations? -- Wilner (Speak to me) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove
• Amend
• Keep

Discussion

• Keep, but tweak to work without link to The Mary Sue, per User:Euryalus's point about The Mary Sue being less reliable than it should be.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 06:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Also seems that the MovieWeb source listed by User:Aquillion could augment the Daily Beast source. I propose adding that source to it. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 19:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep These are all credible publications. -- User:Redandwhitesheets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 07:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, but word cautiously and avoid excessive weight. Here is another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquillion (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep Boycool (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. My personal sentiment since the beginning.Tr114 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep, but make sure it states somewhere in the section the word alleged.--Ncam (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Keep covered by multiple reliable sources. Sro23 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(Bump...) This discussion has been up for a while and everyone seems to be in favor of including the accusations, so... Boycool (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Boycool42:, I'm all for it, it seems slow... but... I think in order to be sure we should keep it up for about a few more days. There were at least 4 editors who expressed concerns with the content, so something tells me we would be shutting a portion of the consensus off prematurely. 00:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment What partly concerns me is the lack of specifics. 'Sexual misconduct' is a vague and fairly subjective term covering a very wide range of behaviours. Given the relatively low quality of the sources, I would suggest extreme caution in handling this. Pincrete (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the consensus if fairly obvious, so I'm closing this RfC after over a week of being opened. I mentioned that it was best to wait a few days for more votes, and both of those votes were for to Keep the section. I agree with @Pincrete: however and I think re-adding the section should be a collaborative effort. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 03:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sourcing Concerns Used to Delete Daily Beast Article Cite

Other users and I have tried repeatedly to write about allegations contained in reputable sources, including the Daily Beast. Since when can Wikipedia editors decide that a well-regarded news source is not credible enough for their taste to mention. Can they decide that a Washington Post article is not reliable? A NY Times article?

In trying to write about this matter, I've been threatened for the first time in my many years of editing on Wikipedia. I edit rarely, but when I have it's been of people who were altering articles about themselves. This happened with JT Leroy in May 2007 and later with Tao Lin. If you go back and look at those, you can see that I was right that the other editors repeatedly removed information that was unflattering to the subject of the article despite appearing in a reputable news source.

Even JT Leroy didn't try to threaten me when I fought her repeatedly scrubbing references to her identity being a fraud.

Now that I've been threatened, I will no longer write on this page. And btw, if anyone starts off a message by saying they are not threatening you, they are threatening you. I received this on my talk page: "For your own sake."; "I'm not trying to threaten you, I just want to make you aware that if you keep adding that blog post to the Max Landis article, things might excalate (sic) and you could be bannned (sic) from editing...."

In reaction to this threat, for the first time since I started editing in 2007, I will give up and stop fighting against what appears to be an effort to scrub a page. Again, the Daily Beast is a reputable source and it is not for an editor to determine on his or her own that said article despite meeting the Daily Beast's requirements for publication, does not meet Wikiedia's. This site is legitimate as a secondary source for information. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Beast#Awards : "In 2017 the website won three New York Press Club Journalism Awards in the internet publishing categories of Entertainment News, Crime Reporting and Travel Reporting.[33] In December the Los Angeles Press Club’s National Arts and Entertainment Journalism Awards annouced the platform had won 4 awards for 2017 reporting including investigative articles about the Nate Parker rape case, Comic Bob Smith's struggle with ALS and remembering Bill Paxton."

And if/when similar reporting is done by say the NY Times, will this then be allowed or will it too be reviewed de novo by editors here and deemed unsuitable as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Redandwhitesheets, I have started an RfC just above this post, if you care to give your comments about it. Apologies if something I said to you made you feel threatened? I clearly stated I wasn't lodging a personal threat at you, but just making you aware that even if your edits are valid, some wikipedia ediotrs are out for blood and will use them against you to try to block you. The best course is to stick to the rules and just hope for change. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 05:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I took it as a threat and I appreciate your clarifying that it was not intended that way at all. I still will no longer work on this page as it appears that people are actively refusing to allow in material despite there will be articles from highly reputable sources of news, such as the Daily Beast. I hope that you and others will make sure that when a news source you deem credible, say the NY Times, LA Times or Washington Post write about this, as they may do, that this entry will reflect that and not be continually scrubbed clean. I hope this is in the proper format as I've never had to engage in such a back and forth on a talk page. And again, I've been doing this as needed (which has been rare) since 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No prolem. The issue I am now seeing is that every time The Daily Beast link gets added (which is a great reference), there are still other sources that are less reliable, so editors (one specifically that I won't name) keep reverting without care for the good sources inline in the name of seeking consensus. It's frustrating, and this seems to be one of those rare instances where certain Wikipedia editors are letting their partisan thoughts cloud the mission of Wikipedia. (see also [here] for a point about that in regards to The Mary Sue link being noncompliant in this instance.) If you voice your opinion on the above RfC it would go along way to getting this solved, as consensus is what we need to get it on the page. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 06:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Could you please add in the Daily Beast link then without the other sources and see if it gets reverted? Right now, as I see it, it keeps getting scrubbed clean/reverted to a version with no mention of these issues. So perhaps editors who are upset with that, just revert to a version that mentions it. Perhaps you could set a new "norm" by writing a version that includes unassailable sources like the daily beast and making a note of it so if people do revert after a scrubbing, they revert to this version. Or perhaps there is a way to get it locked with the Daily Beast cite in it. Of course, it is possible more stories will come out in the next couple of weeks so my big concern is if the page keeps getting scrubbed clean even then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redandwhitesheets (talk • contribs) 06:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The allegations need to be on this web page. It is a game changing fact that he's being accused (he has removed himself from social media from the day of the first accusation even). This makes no sense why it's not on here. Donmike10 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not on here because it has not been reported anywhere other than the Daily Beast. There have been discussions about the Daily Beast in the past:

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_39#The_Daily_Beast_as_a_source
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_93#The_Daily_Beast

The consensus of editors seems to be that Daily Beast, by itself, is not enough to source controversial BLP content. The page was protected for persistent BLP violations. Pending changes reviewers are supposed to take into the account the reason a page was protected before accepting an edit. Instead of disruptively trying to edit war this into the article, and WP:NPA against the multiple reviewers who have reverted this, any one of these editors was free to comment on the discussion I opened at BLP/n Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Max_Landis. SeraphWiki (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

In looking at those two cites, they appear to only have years old discussions of this issue. There is no consensus in either post. This appears to be cherry-picking very old commentary to find discussions about using Daily Beast as a source. The first link is from July 2009. The second is from April 2011. Presumably, discussions of a periodical from almost seven years ago are not particularly relevant to today. Esp. as compared to awards from this past year. Also, in so far as there is a consensus, it appears to be that it is a legitimate source of news. Neither of those cited discussions has a clear consensus against the use of the Daily Beast as a source of news. Rather than an individual Wikipedia editor substituting his or her own judgment for what constitutes a legitimate news source, let's see how journalists themselves feel about this publication as noted above regarding awards in their field from this last year. See, e.g. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Beast#Awards : "In 2017 the website won three New York Press Club Journalism Awards in the internet publishing categories of Entertainment News, Crime Reporting and Travel Reporting.[33] In December the Los Angeles Press Club’s National Arts and Entertainment Journalism Awards announced the platform had won 4 awards for 2017 reporting including investigative articles about the Nate Parker rape case, Comic Bob Smith's struggle with ALS and remembering Bill Paxton." If users cherry pick which articles they believe in and which they don't from award-winning news publishers, then Wikipedia would be a free for all with subjects of articles either wiping clean bad news about themselves via sockpuppets or paying a legitimate editor to do so on their behalf. Are anonymous editors now going to judge de novo the journalistic merits of articles in Slate, Saloon, the NY Times, the LA Times, Politico, The Washington Post, etc. If the answer is no, then it's clear that the Daily Beast fits within that world of reputable sources. Redandwhitesheets —Preceding undated comment added 01:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Another possible source is MovieWeb: here. I think that in combination with the Daily Beast, they're enough to support at least a mention. It's important to provide context and disclaimers from those sources, though. --Aquillion (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I think that's a good idea. They seem to be a good reputable source. they splt their opinion section and keep the news fact-based. I'm for it. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 19:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

If anyone wants my attention please ping me, I'm taking this page off my watchlist. SeraphWiki (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Name

@SeraphWiki and SeraphWiki: {{request edit}} has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

• For edit requests relating to a conflict of interest, please use {{edit COI}}.
• If you are partially-blocked from editing the page, please use {{edit partially-blocked}}.
• If the page is protected, use one of the following:
  • {{SPER}} for semi-protected pages
  • {{EPER}} for extended-confirmed protected pages
  • {{TPER}} for template-protected pages
  • {{FPER}} for fully-protected pages
  • {{IAER}} for interface admin protected pages

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to {{help me}}. The submission I made was to edit the name for Max Landis. It is currently listed as John Maxwell Landis, though I have confirmed with the subject that is not their birth name. Their birth name is not even Maxwell. However, I did not know or understand that Wikipedia has strict COI implemented guidelines, which make sense. However, I argue that I, being a fan and acquaintance of this subject, could not find evidence of the name John Maxwell Landis anywhere. Not on his work, or in articles about his life. I've never seen him credited as such on IMDB or in any films, including those he was in when he was young, such as his father John Landis's films. As is the policy I just read through, I am requesting that someone else help me to edit this back to where it is correct. I am more than happy to step aside, but I have been unable to find any evidence that his name is John Maxwell Landis, and have only found evidence to the contrary. I feel like this change was made in bad faith in an attempt to connect Landis to his father in a negative way, as both he and his father have relatively negative reputations with the press. If this submission is incorrect as well, that's fine, but this was my last shot. I also was not trying to edit war, which I guess is a thing. I was trying to make an edit in earnest that I felt was appropriate, given the fact that the other name exists nowhere else but wikipedia. There is no citation stating that is his name either, and I argue that the burden of proof shouldn't lay with me, but with whoever changed that submission to begin with. I could find no birth announcement, no articles concerning the subject listing a full birth name that was different than his listed name on all of his credits. I am not hired by Max, but have been in communication since finding this out. Again, I want to clearly state my COI so that this isn't seen as some biased attempt. If that information is wrong, and the subject is lying to me about his name, then please, cite the source that came from and be done with it.

The only somewhat objective source I was able to find was this: https://www.californiabirthindex.org/birth/max_landis_born_1985_16909434 , confirming the Birth name and date. There are also no John Landis names listed after 1971. 15:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfalvey7 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Reply 25-FEB-2019

  Reverted to status quo ante  

• The unreferenced change in name in the article from Max Landis to John Maxwell Landis first occurred just over one year ago. The edit was made by an anonymous IP, who placed it in the infobox under the |birth name= parameter. And there it sat for about a year, unnoticed, until January of 2019, when the editor TheDarkKnight180 placed the name in the lead section. Neither of these edits were sourced with references.
• The changes have been reverted.

Regards,  Spintendo  01:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2019

Remove "He has been accused of emotional and sexual abuse by several women." from the introduction of the page. This matter is mentioned below and viewers of the page can simply scroll down to access such content. At the end of the day, we don't need to attach the bad/worst things people have done in their lives to their introduction (while I can only speak for myself, I can tell you that I don't include the list of bad things I've done in my life into my elevator speech or when I'm making introductions). While the validity of the content in Wikipedia is paramount, how it is produced can be done so in a matter that does not paint each person in the worst light possible. And if the goal is to do so, then there are plenty of pages in which this goal is not met (ex. Kobe Bryant, Hillary Clinton, John F Kennedy). Thank you for what you do. 71.254.105.109 (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done The relevance of this line is important to the notability of this individual at this time. Regarding your other examples, those people are primarily known for many things beyond "bad stuff"; Max, however, is not. A better example to look at it is perhaps Bill Cosby. --Jorm (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Personally I had never heard of this individual until he landed very much in the news. I support the decision above and added this article to my watchlist to help ensure that the article is not whitewashed by his fans, family, and staff. -Jordgette [talk] 21:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of the lede paragraph is to summarize the most notable things a person is known for; the body of the article is for the details (and for less notable info). Whether those are good things or bad things is not relevant. And for the sake of NPOV we certainly don't limit ourselves to what the subject of the article would choose themselves. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Needless Section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The criticism that Landis called the Star Wars character Rey a "Mary Sue" is only heard about half a million times a day in Star Wars discussions and Its certainly not worthy of mention in this article since it is a very common criticism of the weak character development in episodes 7,8,9. A character can win lightsaber battles (never picked one up before), swim perfectly (raised on a desert planet), perform mind tricks, all with no training ... SystemBuilder (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

His comments are mentioned here because the controversy received media attention. If you want to argue about the validity of those comments, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.