Talk:Michael Goguen

Untitled

Page submitted for deletion; page created to promote negative tabloid coverage and legal issues. Non notable other than legal issues. Gentry862 (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM and MOS:QUOTE

Based on guidance from WP:QUOTEFARM and MOS:QUOTE, I've adjusted the Controversies section to reduce the number of quotes from one citation. I attempted to keep the information paraphrased fair and balanced, but it's not clear to me if all is notable enough to be kept on the page. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zulu Roger: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Blackandyellow412 (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC).

Sorry just saw these messages, never used the talk feature before. Sent you a message there regarding finding a compromise together. Let's find a quick solution we're both happy with and move on.

I have undone your third attempt to delete factual and objective text, from a reputable source, that was added on Nov 23 2022 as there has not been an adequate explanation for its deletion. This seems to be disruptive editing. Zulu roger (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zulu roger These edits were made per my note above about reducing the number of quotes from one source so that the content follows guidelines from WP:QUOTEFARM and MOS:QUOTE. I've been following guidelines from WP:DISCFAIL to avoid WP:DE.

The content can remain fair and balanced when paraphrased. We should also seek input from other Wiki editors on what information is noteworthy per the recommendations in WP:PUBLICFIGURE in order to know what should be paraphrased. Quotes such as “boasted about casual hookups” are not noteworthy but editorialized. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion and paraphrasing quotes in Controversies section

Which quotes from the New York Magazine citation under Michael Goguen#Controversies should be included and which ones should be paraphrased?

(RfC because Talk:Michael Goguen#WP:QUOTEFARM and MOS:QUOTE did not come to a conclusion) Blackandyellow412 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) I think that the section has a bigger problem, which is that it doesn't clearly describe the nature of Marshall's various allegations, nor distinguish Marshall's claims from the legal case vs. Marshall's claims in the Intelligencer article. Presenting that source's information in Wikivoice is a step in the right direction. I've made some bold improvements to address my concerns, but obviously will adhere to whatever consensus is arrived at here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your help. Since the lawsuit was dismissed, I want to be cautious about contentious material about a living person in order to adhere to WP:BLP. I suggest removing the wild accusations listed. I’m finding the entire section difficult to follow between the defrauding, lawsuit, and gossip - it’s confusing to understand what’s related, what’s necessary, what’s contentious. I went ahead with bold edits as well to cut this back and make it easier to understand. Open to feedback. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree with the further edit and have reverted it--we have solid sources reporting on the saga and giving significant detail, and ignoring this material seems like a violation of WP:DUE. If there are any objections to my change, we can go back to the pre-discussion status quo. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• I changed the name of the section since it violates WP:CRITS. This question it too broad for comment. Agree with Rosguill. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I was trying to avoid an edit war with @Zulu roger because he was failing to discuss and needed others to comment, so thank you for jumping into the conversation. We can work from @Rosguill's version, but it's not entirely accurate. For example, the NY Magazine article does reference relationships several times and meeting at a variety of venues. Additionally, in the first paragraph of the section, wouldn't it be more accurate to say "racketeering" or "RICO violations" instead of "cover up Goguen's sex life"? I made a minor grammar edit while we discuss further. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  The source supporting the claim regarding texts to Marshall reads but I had copies of his text messages with Marshall, in which he frequently boasted about casual hookups with women he met at strip clubs. While "relationships" is used in other contexts in the article, it is superseded by more specific language with respect to the texts. As for "racketeering" or "RICO", both the Intelligencer and Daily Beast note that the civil lawsuit raised allegations regarding Goguen's relationships with women; only Daily Beast mentions racketeering, neither mention "RICO". The extent of the Intelligencer's investigation only makes sense if readers are aware that such allegations were involved in the suit. I think that the current sentence in the article, they had founded together to cover up Goguen's sex life, making wild accusations about Goguen's relationships with women., could be flipped or otherwise reworded a bit (e.g. ...to cover up Goguen's relationships with women, making wild accusations about Goguen's sex life), but I don't think it makes sense to skip over the nature of the allegations entirely. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Another could argue that if Marshall's claims were dismissed in the court of law and undermined by Silverstein's reporting, why mention them at all? Is that libelous? Should the second paragraph then be, "Silverstein examined Marshall's con and interviews with witnesses and alleged victims undermined Marshall's claims against Goguen. Silverstein then...." Blackandyellow412 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  • The 2nd paragraph is a little wordy. It could be summarize some to read something like:

  In November 2022, New York published a piece that examined Marshall's con and the claims against Goguen. Interviews with witnesses and alleged victims undermined Marshall’s claims. Marshall attempted to use the media against Goguen. “One of the strategies Marshall seemed to have in mind was to recruit a credulous journalist who would faithfully repeat the claims from the civil lawsuit against Goguen. (The New York Post and the Daily Mail did publish stories about Goguen’s alleged crime in the months that followed.)”

• That's just a suggestion and it could some some work, but the salacious details aren't really necessary since the central story is about Marshall. Nemov (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  We don't follow the courts, we follow the available, reliable, independent sources, which do draw attention to and spend significant effort in examining the claims themselves. I think it would be disingenuous to exclude the details given significant weight by the Intelligencer. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with @Nemov and I think the edits are concise and well written. Even WP:BLP states, "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." This could also call into question the opening that repeats Marshall's civil suit claims that were dismissed. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Given Markbassett's comment below, should we shorten the second paragraph further to remove the quote?

  In November 2022, New York published a piece that examined Marshall's con and the claims against Goguen. Interviews with witnesses and alleged victims undermined Marshall’s claims and Marshall attempted to use the media against Goguen.

  Also, circling back on the first paragraph in the section - I examined the citation and it does not mention sex life. I think it would be more accurate written as:

  A civil lawsuit filed by four former employees led by Matthew Anthony Marshall in February 2021 accused Goguen of racketeering and made wild accusations about Goguen's relationships with women.

  Appreciate everyone's input on these suggested edits. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov @Markbassett @Rosguill would appreciate your input on the suggested content above based on all of your previous feedback. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That is good. (Minor typo “attempted to use” should be “attempts to use”.) It dropped the literal quote which did not have WEIGHT for inclusion. Separate from the RFC question, it also summarises events neatly without repeating salacious WP:BLPGOSSIP. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this is good. Nemov (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• My personal preference is to leave out literal quotes unless multiple third-party coverage gives the quote significant WP:WEIGHT. It's too open to being a quotefarm. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2023 (UTC)