Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1

Archive 1

Problematic Section

There are multiple severe problems with the section no labelled “Alleged Misconduct.” I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but as a paid consultant to NBC News, wish these issue to be reviewed and addressed by an independent editor, as per the WP: COI policy.

First, under Wikipedia policy, separate “controversy” sections are strongly discouraged in WP:CRIT If there is information worth including in an article, it should be integrated into the existing section outlining the subject’s career. “In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias.” WP: CRIT

An entirely separate section here around this matter should therefore be removed. Even if it were not removed, the section header is misleading and highly inflammatory. The section discusses a decision to not publish a story about the sexual misconduct of Harvey Weinstein and others. By using the word “Alleged Misconduct” in the section headline, it suggests that the subject of the article is accused of sexual misconduct. The use of the same word in this context will give a reader scanning the page (or seeing the section header out of context in a search result that includes Weinstein), a false and highly damaging impression. If there is to be a separate section, (which should be avoided), it would need to be labeled in a neutral manner e.g. “Harvey Weinstein Investigation”

Second, the first sentence of the section cites as support a source that does not mention Noah Oppenheim or even NBC. The citation does not support the sentence in any way (the cited source is related to the topic but does not even discuss NBC or Oppenheim), and, the statement itself is inaccurate. The editor must have just written it based on their personal, inaccurate recollection of media reports. This is a violation of WP: OR. The sentence should be removed.

Finally, the third sentence has no citation at all. It is presumably an aggregation of what the editor believes they have heard or seen in the media (a violation of WP: OR ), but without any of the rigor of acceptable Wikipedia sourcing and careful phrasing to conforms with biographies of living persons policy. WP: BLP

So, as of now, there is nothing in this section that should stand. The section should be entirely deleted. “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” WP:BLP

That said, there is genuine information to be included about this subject, but as per BLP policy, it needs to be very well-sourced, fair, and written with a NPOV. Here is our suggestion:

In October 2017, Oppenheim said that NBC had launched an investigation by Ronan Farrow into sexual misconduct allegations against movie producer Harvey Weinstein. “We supported [Farrow] and gave him resources to report that story over many, many months,” he said. But NBC eventually chose not to broadcast a story because “we didn't feel that we had all the elements that we needed to air it.” After several months more reporting, Farrow published a story about Weinstein in The New Yorker, which Oppenheim said filled in the missing gaps. Oppenheim responded to criticism of NBC’s original decision to not air the story by saying: “The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us... Suffice to say, the stunning story, the incredible story that we all read yesterday, was not the story that we were looking at when we made our judgment several months ago.”

I am happy to do any additional research or writing requested by an independent reviewer.

References

--BC1278 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"Our" suggestion? What the hell does that mean? Jytdog (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs but the content is unacceptable - please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I was focused on getting a review of the severe BLP violations. The suggested replacement text, with appropriate sourcing, is easily trimmed down to remove quotes. Here is a suggestion:

In 2016, Oppenheim suggested an investigation into the alleged sexual misconduct of movie producer Harvey Weinstein following a request by NBC journalist Ronan Farrow to investigate sexual harassment in Hollywood. After funding 10 months of reporting by Farrow, NBC decided not to air a story. Farrow was allowed to take his reporting to the New Yorker Magazine and, after several more months of investigation, published a story about Weinstein. NBC faced criticism from Farrow for not running the story, but Oppenheim defended the decision, saying the story still had important missing elements at the time NBC declined to pursue it any further.

References

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 11 January 2018 (UTTC) (UTC)

The current content is fine. NBC news owns plenty of platforms to broadcast its PR about not getting this story. The article communicates that they had it and did not publish it. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues with BLP content

I am an experienced Wikipedia editor but paid consultant to NBC News. As per Wikipedia conflict of interest policy, WP: COI, I'd like to request an review by an independent editor of a highly contentious BLP issue involving inaccuracies. Although as a contentious matter involving inaccuracies, material can be removed without discussion, as per WP:BLP, I'd nevertheless instead prefer an independent review and am brining this to the BLP noticeboard, where an editor with experience in BLP articles can make an independent judgment. The editor who wrote the original material can also enter into the discussion. Since this is a contentious matter in a BLP, the relevant text is going to have to be explained with great accuracy, a "high degree of sensitivity", and a NPOV. Otherwise, it should be removed, as per WP: BLP

The following sentences were added to the story, replacing unsourced material, but still includes important inaccuracies and NPOV issues:

"Later that year, NBC News under his leadership had the rights to Ronan Farrow's story about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and failed to publish it; Farrow took the story to the The New Yorker which published it after the New York Times broke the story.[9][10] The NBC News organization and Oppenheim were criticized for not publishing the Weinstein story..."

1) As context, this NBC News investigation into Mr. Weinstein was suggested by Mr. Oppenheim after NBC News contributor Ronan Farrow more generally pitched an idea to report on sexual harassment in Hollywood (as this article is a bio of Mr. Oppenheim, the fact that he was the one who suggested the investigation is highly salient.)

2) The sources cited do not say that there were "rights" to a Ronan Farrow story to be published (which implies there was a completed story owned by Ronan Farrow). As such, the statement about "rights to Ronan Farrow's story" should be removed.

Rather, the sources state there was a 10-month investigation by NBC News, by Farrow and Rich McHugh, a producer in the investigative unit. After 10-months, NBC declined to further pursue its own NBC News investigation.

3) Aside from being inaccurate, the sentence violates NPOV by saying NBC "failed to publish it." "Failed" is a value-laden word. By way of example, if an editor wrote that NBC "succeeded in not broadcasting a story" because it did not meet journalistic sourcing standards, that would also be a NPOV violation. The description of the decision not to further pursue the story should be neutral and value-free. (Also, NBC News "broadcasts." It does not "publish.")

4) To explain the matter with accuracy,Farrow and other NBC producers had reportedly created a "rough cut." NBC decided not to broadcast a story based on the reporting to date and Farrow, whose contract had expired, requested that he be released on further reporting on the story for the network. NBC later faced questioning as to the decision. As a matter of balance and context, Oppenheim's explanation should be given: he said that NBC made the journalistic judgment that the reporting to date has "missing elements" and was not ready for broadcast. Among other issues, the Hollywood Reporter reported that Rose McGown revoked consent for an on-air interview with NBC and there were no other sources willing to be identified on the record.

4) Following is suggested replacement content. I believe it is accurate, does not violate NPOV, and provides fair context, although I'd request careful review by an independent editor experienced in BLP. Explaining this accurately, so it abides by BLP policy, requires going into some detail.

Oppenheim suggested an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct by Harvey Weinstein after then-NBC contributor Ronan Farrow pitched an idea to report on sexual harassment in Hollywood. After a 10-month investigation by Farrow and NBC producer Rich McHugh, NBC reviewed a rough cut and decided it was not ready to broadcast. Farrow requested he be released from further reporting on the Weinstein story for NBC and after several months of additional reporting, a story appeared in the New Yorker Magazine. Following criticism for not broadcasting a story based on Farrow's work, Oppenheim said that at the time, the story had still been missing necessary elements. The Hollywood Reporter reported that the actress Rose McGown had withdrawn her consent for an on-air interview with NBC, and Farrow had no other accusers on-the-record.

I'd be pleased to do further work and revisions here, if necessary, as guided by an independent editor, or a consensus discussion.

The end section of the final sentence, regarding Matt Lauer, should be separated into its own sentence as it is a different subject matter and is too cumbersome to address here.

References

BC1278 (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

There are no issues with the WP:BLP policy here. Not liking the content is very different from a BLP issue. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Weinstein content

I disagree that there are no issues. It's very unclear from the sourcing what Oppenheim's personal role in the Weinstein story was. Lauer, he probably should have known, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan you don't seem to be responding to the content you removed. There is no doubt that "NBC News under Oppenheim's leadership chose not to publish" (i was changing "failed to publish" to "chose not to publish") when you removed it. What exactly is your objection? Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

What's the timing here? When did Oppenheim start, and when did Farrow walk away? From the sourcing I read, it looked a lot like "all his sources willing to go on the record pulled out, so we delayed the publication". Putting it all on Oppenheim seems misleading. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt the Farrow started working on the story with Oppenheim. There is no doubt that Farrow's contract with NBC was expiring at one point. THere is some he said/she said here about the status of the story. Farrow and independent reports (e.g the NY Times) said the story was ready to go before Farrow's contract expired. NBC says it wasn't ready. There is no doubt that NBC could have renewed the contract, and gotten it published. The New Yorker did, after all and nobody criticized it. At the end of the day the simplest summary, avoiding the he said/she said, is that NBC chose not to run with it. It could have. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• What has this actually got to do with Oppenheim's life story, almost nothing as I review the links, it's clear coatracking here, a total minor issue in his life story taking up a large section in his biography. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

As president of NBC News, the division having one of the biggest stories of 2017 and not publishing it, is definitely relevant to his professional bio. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest if the user has not already added the content to NBC News that they should go and discuss on that talkpage where their desired addition would have more chance of inclusion. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The assertion of NBC News "having" the story and "not publishing it" has been vigorously denied by NBC and is highly contentious. Oppenheim asserted in a memo covered by The New York Times and The Washington Post (citations above) that after supporting 10-months of reporting, the story still had gaps and lacked elements needed for publication. The Hollywood Reporter reported Farrow had no named accusers on-the-record at NBC. The story run by the New Yorker had months more reporting by Farrow, including, crucially, interviews with named accusers. The story as it was reported at NBC was certainly not in shape to be run by the New Yorker right off the bat - it took months more reporting before it met the New Yorker's standards. Many of the best news outlets pursued this story for years without success, so it is simply untrue that there is no doubt NBC knew Farrow would eventually nail down the sourcing. Some citations also suggest it was Farrow's decision to stop reporting on this story for NBC, not vice versa. Lots of people do work without big dollar contracts. I agree that this matter is a tangential to the Oppenheim bio, and probably should not even be included here, but if it is, under BLP, it must be presented in a fair and very accurate manner. BC1278 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I agree generally with the 'coatrack' argument here. The story of how NBC didn't run with it surely belongs on the NBC page. While Oppenheim had somewhat to do with it due to his position, 'NBC didn't run unfinished story' is not relevant to his biography. I'm sure there are lots of stories over the years that NBC have declined that later turned out to be more noteworthy. Its recentism at its best. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I want to caution folks from listening too hard to the PR being carried into WP by BC1278. NBC News has a very very strong interest in the way this story is perceived.

I do not agree with the COATRACK claims. There are several undisputable facts here.

1) News organizations have investigative journalism functions to break stories.

2) Oppenheim ran NBC News starting in 2017; he gets to claim credit for their successes and some of their failures falls on him too

3) There is no doubt that this story was developed by Farrow at NBC News (which is in many lists of Top Stories of 2017) under Farrow.

4) There is no doubt that Farrow took the story to New Yorker when NBC News passed on it.

NBC News and its paid rep here want to emphasize #3 and they are trying to spin away #4. I do not think we should get into the he said/she said of why NBC did not keep the story it had. We should say that they chose not to publish it. Am willing to RfC or whatever but independent editors participating here should provide further elaboration of their thoughts here. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to add content but none of your comments above change my position regarding your desired content at all. I am also ignoring any wp:coi concerns you have and am evaluating the desired adition from a wp:neutral and uninvolved position Govindaharihari (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You asked what it has to with Oppenheim's life story, which I answered, and which you have not responded to. That's OK, others will see that as well Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have read your comments and they have not changed my position regarding my interpretation of wp:policy and guidelines, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• There is a thread here and I am waiting for that to draw more input as a way to resolve the dispute. There is now the big brouhaha with Trump's "shithole" comment drawing all the attention there so I doubt that we are going to get much more action. I will start an RfC soon if we don't get more. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Note - I have updated the link above. That drew no response.Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:SarekOfVulcan and User:Govindaharihari how is this?

Oppenheim worked with Ronan Farrow on the conception of the story about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and the network supported his investigation for several months, but in the summer of 2017 the network withdrew support as the end of Farrow's contract approached, and Farrow took the story to the The New Yorker which published it in October after the New York Times broke the story. NBC News's failure to publish the story it had developed became a point of criticism and subject of reporting in itself, and Oppenheim defended the news division in response.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) (missed ref added Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)) (two more refs Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

• • That's highly contentious in a BLP, so please be especially careful. When a news organization is investigating a possible story, that's all it is. A possible story. The Hollywood Reporter reported that when Farrow presented the rough cut to NBC News, it had no named sources. (citation above.) The one source that was willing to go on the record, Rose McGowan, withdrew her permission, according to Hollywood Reporter. NBC has stated that the story had too many gaps, when it had it. (citation above.) NBC did not "fail" to publish "the" story any more than it "succeeded" in not publishing a story without adequate reporting, in keeping with the high standards of journalism -- those are subjective perspectives that violate NPOV. I put "the" in quotes because what "the" story in the New York Times and "the" story in the New Yorker, were not the same as what rough cut presented at NBC. Referring to "the" story as though they are one and the same is misleading. It makes it seem like Farrow had the same reporting at NBC and the New Yorker. If it was true, he could have published his story within a few days, not after two months more of intensive reporting, developing named sources, including famous Hollywood actresses. Now that Mira Sorvino, Rosanaa Arquette, Ashley Judd, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rose McGowan and many others are on the record with the accusations, this seems in hindsight like an obvious story. But none of this was in Farrow's reporting when he was at NBC. Like NBC News, there were many news organizations that tried to get a story about Weinstein over a period of years but couldn't get enough material to satisfy their standards. These include previous attempts by The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Hollywood Reporter, and New York magazine. BC1278 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278
  • Neither of those sources say that Oppenheim worked with Farrow. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

    • Sorry, meant to say "worked with Farrow on the story". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

    • User:SarekOfVulcan sorry, forgot a ref. Added now it was in the "prince who torched the castle" hollywood reporter ref.Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • That's a bit more persuasive, assuming it's reported correctly. Dropping my objection to the wording, but still noting that it looks like a COATRACK.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
        • What exactly is coatrack? Newsrooms gain fame and glory by their scoops. NBC had this story and let it go, and the story got scooped by the NYT and the story itself was published elsewhere. This became a story in itself that was widely discussed. I've added yet two more refs. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Exactly. NBC let the story go. I'm still not convinced it belongs in Oppenheim's article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
            • NBC is a company. It does nothing but through its executives. Oppenheim is president of the News Division. "To exhibit a firm grasp of the obvious: One of the finest publications on the planet took a look at whatever Oppenheim took a pass on and felt it was worth the effort. New Yorker chief David Remnick, a polymath with formidable news instincts and an even superior track record, decided there was an irresistible tale to be told. No doubt, there was the not inconsiderable challenge of turning a television piece into a print piece for a magazine whose strength is exactly the nuance and depth that can be incompatible with the structures of TV. But the magazine pulled it off." (ref) Ref added above. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
            • To flip this around, if NBC News had broken the story, this is something that would be positively associated with Oppenheim's legacy there ... Jytdog (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• It's COATRACK because it belongs in the NBC News article, not a BLP. And it has already been placed in the NBC News article by the editor who also wants it here. Getting this written here so it's accurate enough for BLP is going to take the article pretty far away from the bio. If you do publish something, though, just be accurate: NBC had an investigation, not a publishable story. Farrow took an investigation to the New Yorker, which they then then developed into a publishable story. Farrow has said the investigation at NBC was "reportable", not "publishable." It is inaccurate to say "the story itself was published elsewhere" because the story in The New Yorker was so different from the investigation at NBC. That is the nuance here. BC1278 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• This clearly needs more input. BC1278 if you choose to participate in the RfC please be sure to disclose your paid representation of them in your !vote, as the purpose of the RfC is to attract input from people who have not been following this. Thx Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• I figured this was going to happen but Farrow's reporting has won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Am looking to see discussion of Oppenheim and NBC passing on the story....

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC) -- Jytdog (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Lauer content

In this diff User:SarekOfVulcan removed the following content

The NBC News organization and Oppenheim were criticized ... when news broke of the sexual harrassment claims against Matt Lauer.

References

The content makes clear that Lauer was senior producer for Today from 2005 to 2008 and ran the show from 2015 to Feb 2017.

What is the objection to that content? Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My objection was mostly to the phrasing that was left after I deleted the previous sentence. Your ellipses above elide that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

So you are OK with this part? Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much. Oppenheim and Lauer worked together on Today for years, if I'm reading the cites right. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, will restore that. Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• That is a poor addition diff to a wp:blp as well and I won't remove it as the editor that removed it has supported it but I will express my regret at it being inserted here. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to concur with Govindaharihari that this subject is off-topic for a WP:BLP. As I mentioned above and below, I am both a paid consultant to NBC News and an experienced Wikipedia editor. I'm going to seek comment on the BLP noticeboard about whether this is WP:COATRACK. But aside from COATRACK, if the sentence does remain published, I think it needs more context in order to satisfy BLP guidelines on "high degree of sensitivity" and "written conservatively." The problem is that this sentence, standing by itself, is incomplete. There were many thousands of articles about Matt Lauer being fired, but only a small number criticized Oppenheim. So leaving that sentence out-of-context makes it seem like the coverage mostly consisted of criticism of Oppenheim, creating a NPOV issue. If this topic is included that under BLP the description of the incident should be more balanced, staring with a neutral description of the situation:

• NBC News executives decided to fired Matt Lauer about 36 hours after an employee made a formal formal sexual harassment complaint against the Today Show host. NBC News said current management, including Oppenheim, had no knowledge of Lauer's behavior prior to the complaint and word of media investigations in the days prior to the firing. But some criticized NBC News and Oppenheim when news broke of the sexual harassment claims.

References

BC1278 (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I have read your note, and don't agree. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the criticism is speculation that NBC News should have known about Lauer's behavior, even though there are is no reporting that it actually did. And WP:Criticism mandates strongly suggests that any criticism include the opposing point of view; all the so more when it's BLP. One can't include a very serious accusation without a denial, if there is one. Here's a shorter version, which does not even touch the current sentence. I don't see why anyone could object given WP:Criticism, unless they think this whole matter is COATRACK.

• NBC News and Oppenheim were criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer. But NBC News said management, including Oppenheim, had no knowledge of Lauer's alleged behavior prior to the November 2017 allegations. BC1278 (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

WP:CRITICISM is an essay that mandates nothing; but sure we can add that they denied any knowledge of it. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked deeper and in addition to criticism (mainly from Fox News), I found sources that say the incident was handled well, so I'd suggest a further modification, unless the whole thing is thrown out for COATRACK.

• The NBC News organization and Oppenheim were criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer, although others said the issue was handled well because Lauer was fired swiftly and management, including Oppenheim, began an organization-wide discussion of sexual harassment.; NBC denied knowledge of any such actions by Lauer prior to the report made at the end of November 2017.

Supporting sources: “NBC executives have moved swiftly and adroitly to clean up Lauer’s mess.” “People saw how quickly NBC News acted, at a great cost to the network, and insiders seem to be taking leadership at its word that the transgressions leading to Lauer’s defenestration were previously unknown at the highest levels of the organization.”

Later on Wednesday, an attorney for Lauer's accuser commended NBC for taking swift action, and for his client's bravery in coming forward. "Our impression at this point is that NBC acted quickly, as all companies should, when confronted with credible allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace," Ari Wilkenfeld of Wilkenfeld Herendeen & Atkinson said in a statement. "While I am encouraged by NBC’s response to date, I am in awe of the courage my client showed to be the first to raise a complaint and to do so without making any demands other than the company do the right thing.”

“I’m very proud of CBS and NBC for just taking quick action,” Chung said... BC1278 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I'm looking at this again and feel it should be more straightofrward:

• Oppenheim was one of the NBC executives involved in the decision to fire Matt Lauer after sexual harassment claims were made against the Today Show host.

I think that's all that's appropriate in a BLP. Greater detail about both any criticism of NBC News and the commendation of NBC News belong on the NBC News page, not here. BC1278 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

I read your note and do not agree. It is unclear why you are mentioning Fox, as they are not used as a source in the article. I was aware of all the quotes you have cited before I added the content. Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There are two sources you cite for criticism. One is a New York Times article, which notes specifically that the criticism is coming from Fox News and hyperlinks to it. The other is an op-ed piece in Newsweek. I'm evaluating this whole discussion in light of what's going to get added to NBC News after those discussion on its Talk page are conclude. In light of that, it's more obvious to me that the detailed discussion that involves the entire NBC News and Comcast senior management should take place there, not here, in a BLP. I'm going to start an RfC.BC1278 (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

RfC on decision to let Weinstein story go

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.

---

Should the following be added to this article? See discussion above if you like.

Oppenheim worked with Ronan Farrow on the conception of the story about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations and the network supported his investigation for several months, but in the summer of 2017 the network withdrew support as the end of Farrow's contract approached, and Farrow took the story to the The New Yorker which published it in October after the New York Times broke the story. NBC News's failure to publish the story it had developed became a point of criticism and subject of reporting in itself, and Oppenheim defended the news division in response.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

!votes

• Oppose It has not been clearly established that it's relevant to Oppenheim's bio, rather than being a general NBC News failure.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support As president of NBC News, this decision was his; this is what it means to run a news division. He was the one who responded to widespread criticism of NBC News division for letting the story go. If NBC News had broken the story, it would clearly have been credited to him; likewise has been the failure to publish the story. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per others, what is clearly established in the discussion above and in the sources I have been able to read is that NBC are kicking themselves for failing to 'get' this 'scoop'. What is not firmly established (except in very general terms), is NO's 'culpability' or 'caution', nor indeed what his role was at all. Pincrete (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - not biographical. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm still with Sarek on this one I am afraid. I feel its undue in the biography (but would be fine - including Oppenheim's part in not taking it up if sourced correctly, but I think that's weak) on the NBC article or the Weinstein abuse ones. To address a comment Jytdog made in the above section, although it would be unlikely to come up as a contentious piece of information, had NBC taken up the story I would still be against including it in his biography as the sourcing does not indicate he had a significant part in it. From looking at all the above, it does appear that the story NBC passed on at the time was lacking in the later information (on the record interviews etc) that made it a credible piece of reporting - or rather, a piece of reporting an organization was willing to get behind against a powerful media figure. In hindsight perhaps if NBC had shown more confidence earlier on, it might have gained that later credibility, but I am generally unwilling to include this sort of associated negativity in a BLP based on hindsight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support This article should certainly mention his role in refusing to proceed with the Weinstein story. The New York Times has an excellent summary of what happened, including comments from Farrow who insists that NBC could, and should have, proceeded with the story. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/business/media/nbc-news-harvey-weinstein.html

Oppenheim is the president, and was heavily involved in the decision and Fox News made much ado about that, as covered by Variety:

Should NBC News Head Oppenheim Lose His Job Over Weinstein ... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanberr/2017/10/17/should-nbc-news-head-oppenheim-lose-his-job-over-weinstein-expose-debacle/#3e9ba0fb7f55 :

Given the numerous ethical problems at Fox News, it was hypocritical at best for Tucker Carlson to call for NBC News President Noah Oppenheim to resign or for his bosses at Comcast to fire him over the network's botched handling of Ronan Farrow's Harvey Weinstein investigation.

Bottom Line: At least one sentence in this article, with the NY Times citation, indicating that as president, he came under serious criticism for not allowing Farrow to proceed. (It happened on his watch, and will always be an important part of any Bio or Obit written about him.) The NBC News article already includes a full paragraph about the NBC decision, and why it was made. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose This path would lead to every single decision and story regarding NBC News being "connected" to this BLP. "That way madness lies". Collect (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Mild oppose The text suggested in the RfC proposal should have a very specific inline citation practically every couple of words in order for it to pass muster. I checked the sources cited in the RfC. The most I'd think is appropriate for inclusion in this BLP (and let's emphasize that this a BLP article) is the subject not approving the publication of what Farrow had presented, making sure to include his reasoning (e.g. "we didn’t feel that we had all the elements that we needed to air it"). That should be the extent of it. Count me among those who are personally unhappy with NBC' decision to pass on Farrow's reporting (the New Yorker is not more reckless than NBC!) but personal views are to be left out of Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Mild oppose It seems ultimately the matter comes down to whether a matter at a boss's organization is relevant or coatrack to the executive's biography. I am not in favor of blanket statements in either side, but currently I do not feel that the Weinstein story has been sufficiently tied to primarily or solely Oppenheim to warrant a mention. Tfkalk (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a notable episode in subject's life. Could simplify that edit though. Ratel (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

This is already oversourced - here is more:

• These sources detailed a months-long struggle within NBC News during which Oppenheim and other executives slow-walked Farrow’s story, crippling it with their qualms and irresolution.... According to multiple sources inside and outside of NBC News who worked on the aborted story, Oppenheim related to Farrow what Weinstein’s lawyers had said in complaint to NBC: that Farrow had a conflict of interest because Weinstein had helped revive the career of Farrow’s estranged father, director Woody Allen. Weinstein’s representatives would later use a similar line of attack when the story landed at The New Yorker. The magazine, known for its rigorous vetting process, saw no conflict of interest.
• Classic accountability journalism. The New Yorker is now basking in the renown that comes with standing up to a powerful and vengeful man. And to think, the glory could be the property of NBC News, which is where Farrow began his 10-month investigation of Weinstein’s workplace conduct. The 29-year-old Farrow has a non-exclusive deal with NBC News and gathered a great deal of information on Weinstein under the notion that it would appear on NBC News.
• NBC, where I worked for nearly five years, is presently on its heels to defend the decision to kill the Weinstein story, initially brought to them by the network’s now-former correspondent Ronan Farrow (who would eventually publish his findings in The New Yorker). NBC News president Noah Oppenheim defended his network’s decision this week
• On Wednesday morning, Oppenheim addressed the lost scoop at a scheduled NBC News town hall meeting, which was also attended by NBC News chief Andy Lack. He defended management’s decision-making and didn’t want NBC staff to feel “there was anything to be ashamed of,” according to remarks provided by the network. (note, this ref is overall sympathetic to NBC's perspective, but even it refers to this as a "lost scoop."

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• As I disclosed above, I am an experienced editor and paid consultant to NBC News. I won't vote but I'll give you my thoughts. First, this issue was already discussed at length above when it was brought to the BLP noticeboard, as per Wikipedia policy. Both editors responding to the noticeboard query already said this was COATRACK. In my opinion, also, this is COATRACK because it is more properly dealt with the NBC News article, instead of taking us far away from the bio. And indeed, it's already in the NBC Newa article, so the proposing editor, here, is just trying to repeat content. The matter also involves the decisions of numerous NBC executives, not just Oppenheim, and by including it here, it makes it seem like Oppenheim was the primary person behind the decision not to pursue the investigation any further. The sourcing all says numerous NBC executives were involved in the decision, so placing it here instead of in the NBC News article, is misleading.
• The argument that this would be properly placed in the bio if the story had been published by NBC is not persuasive, because Oppenheim was not the central reporter in this story. You can check the bio of David Remnick, editor of the New Yorker, and you will not find the Weinstein story in that article, nor should it be. The proposing editor here surely does not want this bio to include every important story that NBC News does publish during Oppenheim's tenure overseeing the division. That too would be COATRACK.
• Aside from COATRACK, part of the above is a BLP violation. This is inaccurate: "NBC News's failure to publish the story it had developed..." No source says Farrow had "the story" at NBC. NBC had an investigation, which Farrow later characterized as "reportable," which is different than ready to be published. It is untrue and a NPOV violation to state that NBC had a story it "failed" to publish." Oppenheim explained that Farrow's reporting at NBC "had important missing elements at the time NBC declined to pursue it any further. The Hollywood Reporter reported that the only named accuser Farrow had at NBC, Rose McGowan, backed out. By contrast, by the time the New Yorker ran the piece, there were numerous named accusers, including several in The New York Times 5 days earlier." Instead of of the current second sentence in the proposal, if it were approved, it would be accurate and neutral to state:"NBC decided not to pursue the investigation any further after determining Farrow's reporting had missing elements, including, reportedly, an absence of named accusers, a problem remedied after months of additional reporting for the New Yorker.".BC1278 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

"But NBC News executives have strenuously — and until now, privately — pushed back on the narrative that they spiked the story. One NBC News source stressed that Farrow's "early reporting" did not "meet the standard to go forward with a story," and that it was "nowhere close to what ultimately ran in The New York Times or The New Yorker — for example, at the time, he didn't have one accuser willing to go on the record or identify themselves." The source continued: "The story he published is radically different than what he brought to NBC News."

"

References

--BC1278 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Yes that is NBC's line on what happened. We summarize things, and the proposed content says that Oppenheim responded.

What you are obscuring here are the basic facts.

a) NBC had that rights to the story

b) NBC News executives withdrew support and then let it go;

c) there absolutely was a story (now of course published by the NYT, New Yorker, and others).

So NBC executives (and Oppenheim as president of the News division is definitely on the line there) made a judgement call. Which is what executives get paid to do. This was obviously a very bad judgement, which is why there was all the press discussing it and why Oppenheim had to go and give an explanation, and why they are paying you to mind this page. You can try to cut the parsnip anyway you like, but they had a huge story and let it go.

The basic facts are not complicated. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You are taking a subjective POV that running a story without named accusers is bad judgment. There are also arguments that say this was good judgment -- running stories with only anonymous sources undermines their weight and believability, therefore making it harder to report in the future. You are trying to replace the evaluation of a team of senior NBC News executives with your subjective POV that the investigation by Farrow at NBC was ready to run. This is all COATRACK, but is easily remedied just by providing more details. NBC News declined to continue the investigation because Farrow had found no accusers willing to be named. After several more months of investigation, Farrow found several named accusers and the New Yorker ran the story. If this were the NBC News article, one could also note that there was subsequently coverage of why NBC News didn't continue it's reporting. This is BLP, so you have a special obligation here to be careful with being fully forthcoming with facts and not damage a subject's reputation just to be terse. But we are getting SO COATRACK here.BC1278 (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

You have misrepresented what I am saying; I have at no point said that they should have run the story in July or August. Do not continue misrepresenting what I am saying. Do see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I think COATRACK is decisive here, but putting that aside, if it were published, I am requesting more context be added so a reader will not think that the rough story with all anonymous accusers reported at NBC is the same as the stories with multiple named accusers published by the NY Times and The New Yorker. That is how the proposed language now reads, creating the BLP for living persons problem, harming the reputation of the subject because of lack of context. It's also unsourced conjecture that the final decision was his (whereas we do have Hollywood Reporter sourcing that Oppenheim specifically asked Farrow to investigate Weinstein), which is why some version of this belong on the NBC News article (already there), not here.BC1278 (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)BC1278

OK so the allegation that i have actually violated BLP (which applies on talk pages like this one) remains, and the very hard spinning continues; this has become a matter for other forums now.

Since you thrown up so much distraction down here, again the proposed content is:

NBC News's failure to publish the story it had developed became a point of criticism and subject of reporting in itself, and Oppenheim defended the news division in response

You are arguing extremely hard against something that this does not even say. Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

He defended not having the level of certainty needed to run a major story? Shock! Horror! How could he??? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about SarekofVulcan? Humor doesn't work well in written interchange. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, this article does need a mention about the NBC News President's role in the Lauer and Oppenheimer issues. Here's what Newsweek says about Oppenheim's role re: Lauer. WHO IS NOAH OPPENHEIM? AMID MATT LAUER FIRING, NBC NEWS PRESIDENT REPORTEDLY SAYS IT NEEDS TO DO BETTER http://www.newsweek.com/who-noah-oppenheim-matt-lauer-nbc-news-president-726515

  Oppenheim told staffers about the Weinstein story, "The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us. Suffice to say, the stunning story, the incredible story that we all read yesterday, was not the story that we were looking at when we made our judgment several months ago."

   Maybe so, but the idea that covering for a powerful person is "deeply offensive" rings hollow after the Lauer news. Oppenheim was surely aware of allegations against his Today Show star, given the high profile stories planned by, among others, Variety. There there was an environment of bullying, sexual and otherwise, right under his nose.

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• I encourge folks to make sure they have read this piece from New York Magazine which pulls together the reporting from other news sources about what happened internally. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

There were wilder claims in the media that Oppenheim had conflicts of interest through his Hollywood ties (e.g Phil inquirer referenced above, even stronger in , which the content is not even trying to report (but which Oppenheim responded to when he said "“The notion that we would try to cover for a powerful person is deeply offensive to all of us,”

The content is not going anywhere near there and just gets makes it clear that NBC News under Oppenheim had the story and let it go.

I remain stunned at the very hard push to erase this. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• In case folks are not aware of all the refs (the article cites just some of them) (emphases added):
• AdWeek NBC News President Tells Staffers Why He Passed on Ronan Farrow’s Harvey Weinstein Story
• NYT: How Did NBC 'Miss Out on a Harvey Weinstein Exposé?
• Chicago Tribune: NBC News president defends losing Weinstein story
• Philadelphia Inquirer: NBC News passed on Harvey Weinstein scandal, leading to New Yorker and New York Times exposes

The harshest ones were:

• HeffPo How Top NBC Executives Quashed The Bombshell Harvey Weinstein Story (covered in turn by salon
• WaPO opinion piece: NBC president responds to Weinstein backlash with mumbo-jumbo
• Fox, covered in Real Clear Politics Tucker Carlson: NBC News President Noah Oppenheim Should Resign Over Weinstein

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 22 February 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.

RfC on inclusion of Matt Lauer content

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.

---

Should the following be added to the article in place of the current statement on the topic:

• Oppenheim was one of the NBC executives involved in the decision to fire Matt Lauer after sexual harassment claims were made against the Today Show host.

References

See discussion so far at: Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#Lauer_content

I will not vote as I am a paid consultant to NBC News. But essentially, I think the fuller discussion of this should take place on the NBC News page - discussion ongoing at Talk:NBC_News#Expanded_info_on_Matt_Lauer. Plus, of course, it's also on Matt Lauer. In order to explore this topic fairly, you need a bunch of context. You also have both critical and supportive statements about NBC News's response. But if you go down this route of explaining the situation fairly, it becomes very COATRACK for a blp. BC1278 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Note on Voting Below In addition the notices on the projects for Media and Biographies, every editor has been notified with previous involvement with the Noah Oppenheim article on the Talk page: Govindaharihari, SarekofVulcam, Peter K Burian, The Gnome, Pincrete, Only in death does duty end. Collect. In addition, the most recent users active on WP: CRITICISM Talk page were notified because of their expertise in thinking through the issue of criticism in articles. Sceptre, User:G. C. Hood, User:DavidCary. Users who recently contributed to the Talk page of articles related to NBC News were also notified: User:Tfkalk DocWatson42. I could keep going down this route with NBC News-related article participants but responses have started to come in since I started on the RfC. Initially, it had been slow. BC1278 (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Lauer !votes

• Keep the current content. I don't mind adding the line above but of course we don't erase negative content, which is already well sourced and quite gentle. I also find it ...interesting that the NBC rep wants to give Oppenheim credit as the President of the division for firing Lauer but any other kind of responsibility falling to Lauer is COATRACK. That is just.. hm Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you think this incident merits inclusion in the article, then the facts of the incident, as it specifically relates to the subject of the article (Oppenheim), should be summarized before launching into any criticism. That's what I've tried to do here. To go the next step, if an abundance of sources justify it, any criticism would also need to be specified as it relates to the subject of the article (not just the organization he works for) rather than left completely undefined as just "criticism", leaving the reader clueless. And, once you've decide a criticism section is justified, you also need to balance it with a support section. All of this is common sense fairness for an encyclopedia to maintain NPOV. These issues have been thought through carefully in the essay WP:CRITICISM.BC1278 (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Oppose This path would lead to every single decision and story regarding NBC News being "connected" to this BLP. "That way madness lies". Collect (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify Collect, is your vote to not include the proposed content AND also delete the current, more extensive content in the article about this incident?

"The NBC News organization and Oppenheim were criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer; they denied knowledge of any such actions by Lauer prior to the report made at the end of November 2017." BC1278 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Delete The claim might be relevant to NBC News, as an organization, but not specifically relevant to every person in any position of authority at NBC. Collect (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

All that the content does it make it clear that these things happened when Oppenheim was runnning things (at three levels of increasing authority). The NBC rep is trying to paint this like the content holds Oppenheim responsible. Which is bullshit and what this is, is an effort to suppress association between Lauer and Oppenheim. Which is just awful. Read what the content actually says. I agree that if it said something like "Oppenheim allowed Lauer to harass women" or "Oppenheim ignored what everybody knew about Lauer", this would not be supportable and would be a BLP violation. The content doesn't say anything even approaching that.

The way madness lies is in being persuaded by bullshit from PR rep to whitewash even the temporal association from this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: To be clear, this RfC is not about removing the sentence already in the article, which BC1278 quotes above. The RfC is about adding a new sentence wherein it Oppenheim's involvement in the eventual firing of Lauer is mentioned. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, to be honest, I think this content should be deleted, on the same lines as Collect. Regardless of my own personal view of Oppenheim, which is rather critical, I don't think we should be using the Wikipedia article as a coatrack. Now, if this has ramifications for Oppenheim down the line, I'd be willing to re-examine this. Sceptre (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose wording above. That makes it sound like he only came in at the end, instead of working closely with Lauer for years at Today. I prefer the wording currently in the article, that he was criticized. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan But I couldn't find any source that criticizes Oppenheim specifically because of his job working with Lauer at the Today Show. I looked (but there are many dozens of sources, so it could be there somewhere.) It's not in the cited sources, which speculate on what NBC Management could or should have known. That's the problem with the current wording - "criticizes" could mean anything if not given further explanation and context. Maybe some people might have criticized NBC for firing him at all, for example (you can't tell.)BC1278 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• Yes, add that sentence to the article, with the NY Times citation. Oppenheim was one of the NBC executives involved in the decision to fire Matt Lauer in late November 2017 after sexual harassment claims were made against the Today Show host. It will be part of every bio and obit done on Oppenheim over the future years because it was important and because he was involved. The same goes for the Weinstein situation which was even more significant in his career. NBC and its management were NOT really criticized re: Lauer; they were criticized re: the Weinstein situation. Peter K Burian (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Collect (as usual). Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep the current content. [Edited, after realizing the mistake in the title, which caused BC1278 to worry about my sanity. :-) Sorry!] The critical words in the sentence "Oppenheim was one of the NBC executives involved in the decision to fire Matt Lauer..." are the words "one of the NBC executives". The proposed sentence would merit inclusion if (a) the firing was of some very significant importance in context, or (b) Oppenheim was the sole executive deciding to fire Lauer. Evidently, neither of the necessary conditions is valid. The proposal should be rejected on account of the "undue weight" rule. -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Let me repeat that, personally, I find the whole course followed by NBC executives in this affair, prominently including Oppenheim, to have been not just weak and but downright wrong from a strictly corporate-interest point of view. If I were to describe events to my friends I'd use strong language. That is my personal viewpoint. Which, I think, is shared by the Jytdog. But personal opinions don't have any place in Wikipedia. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify your vote, The Gnome, do you Oppose and want to keep the current language in the article, or do you oppose the new sentence and also want to also strike the current language about Lauer in the article?BC1278 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Far more than being careless, I hate being unclear! :-) To clarify: I support retaining the following wording as it currently appears in the article: "Oppenheim was made president of NBC News in February 2017. The NBC News organization and Oppenheim were criticized when news broke of the sexual harassment claims against Matt Lauer; they denied knowledge of any such actions by Lauer prior to the report made at the end of November 2017." I oppose adding the sentence, proposed by BC1278, as follows: "Oppenheim was one of the NBC executives involved in the decision to fire Matt Lauer after sexual harassment claims were made against the Today Show host." Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Keep the current content. I respectfully disagree with Collect and the others who feel that this does not warrant inclusion. Lauer was NBC News's biggest star when he was fired so I think that warrants a mention on the NBC News head's page. Furthermore, Lauer was at the Today Show and Oppenheim was the SVP in charge of the show. I could be in favor of a sentence detailing Oppenheim's role (that way it also helps remove potential concerns of coatrack), but not that sentence. Tfkalk (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Lauer discussion

As I mentioned, I think an extended description of the incident is already being formulated on the NBC News article, where it certainly belongs. To keep it here, you'd have to also add the multiple statements of support to balance the cited criticism (see best practices suggested at WP: CRITICISM).

Others said the issue was handled well because Lauer was fired swiftly, within 36 hours of the formal complaint, and NBC News management, including Oppenheim, began an organization-wide review of sexual harassment.

This is just a stub bio of the guy who was one of several people involved. Someone who wants to explore this issue in greater depth will have the links over to the Matt Lauer description and soon, the NBC News description. A brief mention here, linked to the extended write ups elsewhere, seems most in keeping with best BLP practices. We don't have to repeat the same extended write up in three different articles.

References

--BC1278 (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

• I also agree with Collect above, that the entire incident might be considered COATRACK to a BLP. But I was trying to suggest some sort of compromise by providing a short summary of the incident as it relates to Oppenheim, with the hyperlink to a longer description on a more relevant Wikipedia article. BC1278 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278
• Note: The source used does mention a criticism about Oppenheim re: Weinstein but does not link "criticism" of the Lauer affair to Oppenheim per se. I added a Weinstein claim as backed by the source, and still feel the link for NBC News and Lauer is hitting the cloakroom at full speed. Collect (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect, about this diff with edit note "source only mentions Oppenheim re Weinstein and does not criticize him for Lauer" -- the last paragraph of the newsweek ref cited there is "Maybe so, but the idea that covering for a powerful person is "deeply offensive" rings hollow after the Lauer news. Oppenheim was surely aware of allegations against his Today Show star, given the high profile stories planned by, among others, Variety. There there was an environment of bullying, sexual and otherwise, right under his nose.". Did you not see that? (am fine with the change to the Weinstein bit btw - that was nicely done actually) Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Maybe so" is a clear indication that what follows is opinion only, and is not a statement of objective fact. Opinions generally must be cited and ascribed as opinions of the person writing them. Collect (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

It is too bad that one cannot edit an edit note. The source absolutely "criticizes him for Lauer". You can change the grounds of objection, sure, but your edit note says what it says.

This AP piece published in the Chicago Tribune is critical of Oppenheim (and lack, and NBC management, reporting: "Mika Brzezinski said that "when the story broke, to be very honest, I was not shocked." Her co-host and fiance, Joe Scarborough, said he attended a Friar's Club roast of Lauer a few years ago where sex was an omnipresent topic. "The whole theme was that he does the show and then he has sex with people, with employees," he said. "So was this whispered behind closed doors? No. It was shouted from the mountaintops and everybody laughed about it."" It also reports on the NY Daily News editorial that criticizes the claim read by Oppenheim that executives had no knowledge. So now you have three refs criticizing him; sure we can name them. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Collect Since you made an edit that includes the denial of knowledge of complaints, if this is to be included, I'd request that for that part of the sentence, it hue more closely to the statement from NBC, since it's not precisely the same as what is written in Wikipedia: the exact statement from NBC, as quoted in the NY Times source says: "...prior to Monday night [November 27], current NBC News management was never made aware of any complaints about Matt Lauer’s conduct." This is narrower than what the language in Wikipedia now says.BC1278 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)BC1278

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.

source used for Oppenheim/Lauer "criticism" actually only supports Oppenhein/Farrow criticism

A source was used to say that Oppenheim was directly criticized for the Lauer affair. The problem is that the source does not make that criticism, but mentions the Weinstein/Farrow article as causing criticism of Oppenheim. I rather suspect that the single line I added is pertinent without being COATRACK, while the bit about Lauer is, as indicated in the RfC above, is COATRACK. That is, the only sentence which makes sense is the single one that Oppenheim was criticized for NBC News handling of the Weinstein material. All the rest is COATRACK IMO. Other opinions? Collect (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

You put this in two places. See my reply above. I find the "coatrack" claim to be PR spin by NBC; this is one of the most blatant and naked exercises of hard corporate spin that I have encountered in WP and I have encountered a lot. There is lots of criticism in RS of Oppenheim for not breaking the Weinstein story when the news division he ran had it, and for the Lauer thing. Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

First, please don't lay the COATRACK argument at my feet. I requested (after disclosing a paid COI) a more balanced discussion of Weinstein and I proposed alternate language. I never mentioned COATRACK when I made my request for the existing language to be looked at. Others then came into the discussion as part of the ongoing RfC originated by Jytdog and the clear consensus was the entire Weinsten matter is COATRACK. Talk:Noah_Oppenheim#RfC_on_decision_to_let_Weinstein_story_go Some nine people have weighed in, as of now. So this discussion is better placed in the RfC, which is still active for a few days. It's too confusing to break off into another section. I'd ask this be moved to the RfC re: Weinstein language.BC1278 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

The word appears 30 times on this page. 18 of those are yours. You are pushing that claim very hard and it is baloney. A COATRACK would be going on and on about how bad sexual harassment is in this article. The content that has been proposed summarizes reliable sources that very clearly criticize Oppenheim and the organization he runs for missing the Weinstein story when they had it and for missing Lauer's long history of sexual abuse. The content draws no conclusions about why those two things happen (drawing them and running with them about the Evils of Men or something, would indeed be coatrack). The actual content is nothing like that. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I said I agreed with the argument once others brought it up. But the Talk page history is clear about Weinstein. I proposed alternate language because to just say he was criticized, without context or the opposing view, is biased. Other editors then originated the COATRACK argument.BC1278 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)BC1278

Which you have flogged harder than anybody.Jytdog (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NBC news September 11 attacks

This article contains the following sentence: "At NBC News, Oppenheim led coverage of presidential elections, the September 11 attacks, and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Given that Oppenheim graduated from Harvard in 2000, it is implausible that he "led coverage of... September 11 attacks", which occurred less than two years later.

The whole sentence is unsourced and vague: e.g., which Presidential elections?

It appears that this sentence is an edited version of his out-of-date LinkedIn profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/noahoppenheim) that amplifies his contributions and importance: "He has covered presidential elections and the War on Terrorism, reporting from Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories."

Removing the whole sentence seems like the most straightforward edit.

192.222.197.155 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I added 'citation needed' tags for both 9/11 and "led the war coverage". Part of it may come down to being couched in vague words, but it deserves much more scrutiny. tedder (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

It's been several days and no one has objected to removing this sentence, so I'm removing it. If someone can provide a citation to part or parts of the sentence, they can restore it as appropriate. 71.181.67.186 (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment Noah Oppenheim

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.

There is a very strong consensus that the allegations deserve a place in the lead. There is currently no consensus on how that information should be presented; further discussion may be necessary to elucidate its final form. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lead paragraph for Noah Oppenheim say in its second sentence that he “is known for attempting to stop Ronan Farrow's reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases.”?

• Yes , leave it as is.
• No, remove it but leave the event in the body of the article.
• Edit it in a different way.

BC1278 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No, remove it from the lead, but leave the event in the Career section of the article. (Please note I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant to NBC.) There are two reasons. First, Oppenheim is primarily known as the president of NBC New and a screenwriter of major Hollywood movies. While there was a lot of press about the Farrow events following the publication of Farrow’s book, and this should be part of the body article, this lead is improperly focused on a discreet news event. WP: RECENTISM and WP: NOTNEWS, rather than his entire career.

Second, the substance of this statement is disputed by multiple well-regarded sources and “all significant viewpoints” need to be represented anywhere this event is described. WP:VALID. This is best accomplished in the body of the story, not the lead. Farrow’s book says that Oppenheim assigned Farrow the Weinstein story. Farrow then spent 7 months reporting it. He had no on-the-record sources willing to appear on camera but did have sources willing to speak anonymously. NBC News executives, including Oppenheim, said the reporting didn’t meet its editorial standards to broadcast a story. Farrow asked to take his reporting elsewhere. Oppenheim agreed. Two years later, in a book, Farrow said he discovered he was obstructed because NBC News had yet-to-be revealed sexual abuse accusation with Matt Lauer. NBC and Oppenheim vehemently deny this - and say Farrow’s reporting wasn’t substantiated enough while he was at NBC to meet their editorial standards, especially regarding the use of anonymous sourcing. The denial was widely reported by top-tier sources. In addition, the New York Times media reporter Ben Smith wrote an investigative story examining into Farrow’s reporting and called into question his conclusions about what happened. Smith says that in general, Farrow’s reporting can be “misleading.” For example, he says Farrow “describes the facial expressions and physical gestures of NBC executives during his meetings with them, and then deduces dark motives.” So, while Farrow's accusations can be included in the article, they should not be presented as undisputed facts in the lead. BC1278 (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Yes,leave it as is. A substantial part of the article is dedicated to him trying to stop Farrow. Leads are supposed to summarize the article. The sentence is well sourced, and NOTNEWS/RECENTISM do not apply in this case. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Leave it but move I suggest leaving this information in the lede but putting it at the end of the lede section, after the information about him producing the Today Show. Given the coverage of the situation, it should be included in the lede of the article. Quorum816 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, but create a separate lead paragraph for it. Oppenheim's involvement in that scandal was a major part of his tenure as NBC News' president and the part that has received the most coverage; it is central to his legacy in that position. It makes up over a fifth of the article and a third of the article's sources. I don't particularly agree that the statement is disputed by well-regarded sources; Oppenheim has denied it, and the sources have covered that denial, but none have put their editorial voices behind it, so it falls under WP:MANDY (if anything, we are giving it more weight than it deserves.) Far from exonerating him, Ben Smith's piece does not even mention Oppenheim. Beyond that, to the extent that there is a long-term debate over the subject, that would only increase its prominence and make it more important to include - unless there is a clear consensus supporting denials rather than merely covering them, they only serve to increase, not decrease, the weight of the controversy being denied, because they establish that this was such a major part of Oppenheim's tenure that he felt the need to repeatedly deny it, while making clear that the underlying assertions are credible enough that all those denials resulted in was coverage that he said it rather than a fundamental change to the way it was reported. Finally, it's a bit bizarre to claim WP:RECENTISM for something that happened three years ago. In fact, it is still receiving WP:SUSTAINED coverage; see eg. [1][2] from earlier this year. --Aquillion (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Leave it as is The lead is meant to summarize the body of the article, so I oppose any removal of Farrow/Weinstein from the lead. I also support Aquillion's idea above on creating a separate lead paragraph to further explain his involvement in the scandal. Some1 (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Leave it as is per Some1 & Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d Idealigic (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead cannot cite something as a fact that has a credible opposing point of view, without explaining the opposing POV. The NBC News denies this allegation. If it is in the lead, then it must include the denial by Oppenheim and NBC News, just as it is the body of the article. The body of the article now includes: "Oppenheim denied Farrow's claim and said that the reason NBC News chose not to report on the story was that the available evidence did not meet their journalistic standards." And the source cited for the claim, The Los Angeles Times, has this paragraph up top: "In response, NBC told the Times that “the assertion that NBC News tried to kill the Weinstein story” was “an outright lie.” Andy Lack, the chairman of news, issued an 11-page memo dismissing it as “unfounded intimations and accusations.” Noah Oppenheim, the president of news, said that I was “never told to stop in the way he’s implying.” [3]. “All significant viewpoints” need to be represented. WP:VALID. This seems obvious. I's also point out that the source in the lead for this statement does not even mention the Weinstein events. So it's unsourced to boot.BC1278 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

Help resolving RfC above?

{{admin help}} Hi. It's been about 70 days since the last comment on the RfC above. Could an uninvolved admin determine consensus?

Thanks, BC1278 (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm disabling the help template as it duplicates the request that you posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Please be patient. 78.28.44.187 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Request Edits March 2021

Please note I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant to NBC News, as disclosed at several times above. As the Wikipedia Contact Us page [4], the subjects of articles should post any requests for changes to the article page if they believe the article is “incomplete, inaccurate, or biased...” There are some important Career events widely in the media which are missing from this article about a high profile media and entertainment figure. I am hoping independent editors will review these requests. Thanks for your consideration.

1. Replace the first paragraph in the “Television” “CNBC/MSNBC” subsection:

“Oppenheim co-created CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer, was executive producer of Scarborough Country, and senior producer of Hardball with Chris Matthews. In 2003, as executive producer at MSNBC, Oppenheim was sent to Baghdad to assess whether the negative media coverage of the Iraq War was justified, and published what was later described as "a devastating critique on the behavior and practices of reporters from the mainstream outlets" there. In January 2015 Oppenheim was appointed a senior vice president and given control of the Today Show; he had worked as a senior producer for the show from 2005 until 2008.”

WITH

Oppenheim started his television career at MSNBC in 2001 as a senior producer on Hardball with Chris Matthews. He then became the executive producer of Scarborough Country when it launched in 2003. Later that year, Oppenheim wrote an op-ed criticizing the media’s coverage of the Iraq War. He left MSNBC in 2004 after NBC Nightly News executive producer Steve Capus and anchor Tom Brokaw complained about the article coming from an NBC-affiliated producer. Oppenheim returned to NBC in 2005, where he helped create CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer, and worked as the Emmy Award-winning senior producer of “Today” until 2008.

• Explanation: Reorganizes Career section to be in chronological order and rewrites sentences for clarity and to add dates. Rewrites sentence about his op-ed about the Iraq War to be neutral in tone, and updated timeline to reflect that he left the network after the op-ed was released.

Here is a slight rewrite for clarity, as suggested by User:Tedder, below.

Oppenheim started his television career at MSNBC in 2001 as a senior producer on Hardball with Chris Matthews. He then became the executive producer of Scarborough Country when it launched in 2003.

Later in 2003, Oppenheim wrote an op-ed criticizing the media’s coverage of the Iraq War. NBC Nightly News executive producer Steve Capus and anchor Tom Brokaw complained about an opinion article being written by an NBC-affiliated producer.

He left MSNBC in 2004, returning NBC News in 2005, where he helped create CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer, and worked as the senior producer of The Today Show until 2008. In January 2015 Oppenheim was appointed a senior vice president and given control of the Today Show; he had worked as a senior producer for the show from 2005 until 2008.”

2. In the Television subsection, after the “CNBC/MSNBC” section please add a new section called “Reveille” and add a new paragraph:

In 2008, Oppenheim joined Los Angeles entertainment group Reveille as its vice president of development. At Reveille he oversaw development of “Breakthrough with Tony Robbins,” on NBC, and The Buried Life and It's On with Alexa Chung on MTV. He was named Reveille’s head of unscripted development in 2009. Oppenheim left Reveille in 2010 to pursue a full-time screenwriting career after his script Jackie made the Black List.

• Explanation: Follows the established structure of the article’s career section. Adds missing information about Oppenheim’s time at Reveille, his positions and shows he developed, and his transition to screenwriting. Adds reliable supporting sources.

Here is a revision based on comments from Tedder below.

In 2008, Oppenheim joined Los Angeles entertainment group Reveille as its vice president of development. He oversaw development of various television shows including “Breakthrough with Tony Robbins,” The Buried Life and It's On with Alexa Chung He left in 2010.

3. In the “Television” subsection, NBC News section, please add as the first sentence:

In January 2015, Oppenheim returned to NBC as senior vice president of “Today.”

• Explanation: Adds date Oppenheim returned to NBC as an executive, and a supporting reliable source. Organize sections in chronological order.

4. Move the Writing subsection to come after the Television subsection.

• Explanation: Reorganizes Career section to be in chronological order, since Oppenheim became a writer after he was an established television producer.

5. In the Writing Subsection, please add this as the new first sentence:

He began working as a full-time screenwriter starting in 2010 after his script Jackie made the Black List.

• Explanation: I have removed a request that has already been implemented and instead. moved a previous request that was part of #2 to the Writing subsection where it makes more sense.

6. In the Writing section, please replace the paragraph:

Oppenheim wrote the screenplay for the film adaptation of James Dashner's young adult, science-fiction, dystopian, fantasy novel, The Maze Runner. He also wrote the screenplay for The Divergent Series: Allegiant, a film in the Divergent film franchise. Oppenheim is co-author with David Kidder of the Rodale Press series The Intellectual Devotional. One of the volumes was 8th on The New York Times list of hard-cover political bestsellers in November 2007.

WITH:

In October 2006 Oppenheim and David Kidder co-authored the Rodale Press series The Intellectual Devotional. The series’ volume “The Intellectual Devotional, American History” made the The New York Times Best Seller list for political books in 2007.

In 2011, Oppenheim was hired to write the screenplay for the film adaptation of the dystopian novel The Maze Runner. He also wrote the screenplay for The Divergent Series: Allegiant in 2014.

• Explanation: Reorganizes paragraph to list Oppenheim’s writing credits in chronological order and rewrites for grammar. Adds name of the book that made the NYT Best Seller list. Adds date Oppenheim was hired to write “The Maze Runner” and “Divergent.”

I slightly trimmed this directly in the request above to address the User: Tedder requests. It is a simple re-org of existing content so it will be in chronological order. BC1278 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. BC1278 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I refactor your "point 1" for clarity? It took me a while to read through it. Generally, I agree and think it helps. A couple of things that I disagree on:

• your "point 2" about Reveille seems a little long, just a little too self-promotional for my comfort. The first three sentences need to be reduced to be less of a narrative CV. The fourth, about Jackie, should just end with "he left in 2010".
• On the contrary, "Jackie" needs a little bit of contextualization, which will help with "point 5". One long sentence (or two sentences) should be sufficient to explain Jackie, the black list, and the award, rather than having them split up.
• On "point 6", I'm entirely opposed to it similar to the "point 2" concerns. I don't know how to write it so it sounds less promotional/undue, but something about it seems weird to me.

These are my opinions. I'm leaving the edit request open for others or for you to comment on. I'd be comfortable with you making the edits in points 1-5 directly as they can be smoothed out. tedder (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tedder:. Thanks for your careful consideration. I waited to see if anyone else wanted to weigh in before responding to your comments and questions. So:

• I think you should refactor #1 as you suggested. I attempted to make the order chronological, correct the timelines, and make language more neutral. I'd be pleased if you continued to improve it.
• I take your point on #2. I tried to just hit the highlights that were covered by the media -- do you mind doing the haircut or do you want me to suggest language here?
• For #6, the suggested content is almost identical. I proposed rewriting it so it is in chronological order and I corrected the grammar. I also added the dates for the movie screenplays - that's the one content addition. You can't tell from the current text that it is out of chronological order because there is no date for the screenplays. So I think you should at least add the dates to the screenplays (with the reliable sourcing) to the current text.
• While I appreciate you trust me to do direct edits on #1 to #5, I never do direct edits when I have a COI except to reverse overt vandalism. It's just not a good idea for a paid editor. It's been two weeks and no one else has weighed in. Do you feel comfortable making these edits? Anyone who disagrees can always reverse them later. Thanks again. BC1278 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tedder: Hi. No one else has weighed in and it's been eight weeks. Thought I'd see if you'd want to implement your review as I just can't do it due to my COI. BC1278 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Status of this request

Hi Tedder, I am working on reducing the backlog over at CAT:EDITREQ. I was wondering whether you and BC1278 had come to an agreement about what should be done and, if that is the case, whether we could close this request? JBchrch talk 12:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

JBchrch (talk · contribs) As of today, there's been no response or edits as per Tedder's review from March 3. As I explained, I shouldn't do any direct editing on an article like this, even if expressly given permission to do so by a reviewing editor, because there has been contentious content. BC1278 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather a third party evaluate and make the edits. tedder (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I did a quick readthrough and none of the essence of the article would change, it seems just to be copy editing for clarity and chronological order. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:Thanks for taking a look in July. As you noted, this is all straightforward stuff. A couple of editors have now said they support but no one has had the time to implement. Thought I'd see if you might have the time? Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Patapsco913: Hi. Since you have taken a very recent interest in editing straightforward biographical details of this article, I thought you might want to review the proposed straightforward biographical updates in this section pending, since March 2021. Two other editors have already reviewed them, above, and said they generally looked good with one of the editors asked for modest changes to Requests #1 and #2. The editor suggested I edit these directly in the article but I can't do this because of my declared COI. I have taken a stab at following his guidance for revising #1 and #2 directly below those two requests.

Also, as this has been pending since March, it does not include a request to add a sentence about Oppenheim recently winning an Emmy Award. So I'd propose you also consider adding this sentence as the final paragraph of the Television sub-section of the Career section.

In September 2021, Oppenheim won an Emmy Award for his role as executive producer of the NBC News Special: Trump Town Hall.

Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The requested edits are all denied because the article would become excessively bloated. Quetstar (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Quetstar: While I appreciate that there is backlog on RE, two editors have already looked at these requests and essentially approved of them -- we were only held up by the exact wording of #1, #2 and especially #6. There was no issue with #3,4 and 5. Indeed, the first reviewer said he trusted me to implement #1 - #5 directly on this article ("I'd be comfortable with you making the edits in points 1-5 directly as they can be smoothed out.") but I declined to do so because I think COI editors should not do direct article edits. The second reviewer said "none of the essence of the article would change, it seems just to be copy editing for clarity and chronological order." So, if you're going to disagree with two other editors, please do a proper review item by item and state why you disagree, so there can be a substantive discussion.

The tradition of the RE queue for many years has been to individually address each Request and provide a specific reason for rejecting. modifying or accepting. If you're going to do blanket rejections without taking the time to go through them individually then the RE queue is just arbitrary and will undermine the official mechanism of declared COI participation. The result will be more undeclared COI editing. You only make one point -- bloating - which is especially unwarranted here where the article is heavily overweighted to a controversy section, yet the subject of the article has had a varied and high-profile career, extensively covered in the media. BC1278 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@BC1278 I know, but I take the whole article and the notability of the subject when considering edit requests. Since he is mostly known for his controversies, I believe that the article is good as is, but I'm open to discussing the matter further if needed. Quetstar (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I am re-opening and requesting a review by an independent editor. There was an improper review here by User: Quetstar, who has now bowed out of working on all REs. In response to a complaint that Quetstar rejected virtually all REs with little rationale or explanation, Questar recently said "I admit I've gone overboard with my responses and rash attitude. I am going to take a break from this, as COI requests have been consuming my patience.". Wikipedia_talk:Edit_requests#Issues with editor reviewing Requested Edits) For similar reasons, Quetstar was also recently cautioned by another experienced editor to lay off working on the Request Edit queue. |dif

Unfortunately, this leaves the RE here without a review since March 2021, even though three editors have now been through it, with the first saying I could implement 5 of the 6 requests directly on the page even though they asked for rewrites on some item (something I didn't feel I should do because of my COI); a second editor saying they thought the requests were fine; and the third doing an improper blanket rejection.

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, you did the brief review a few months ago. In the interest of getting this finally resolved after >8 months, do you think you can take another look? To save you time, if you instruct me to implement some or all of these directly on live page, I feel it would be proper so long as you approve the exact language and explicitly ask me to implement. I have added new language to each request responding to the specific rewrite instructions of Tedder. BC1278 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say if another editor checks it and approves as well, I wouldn't have any objections to you making the edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:. Thank you for your cautious response. I am very cautious, too. especially on a page such as this, which has had disagreements. Some editors find it improper for conflicted editors to reach out to specific editors for review of proposed edits unless, as here with you, an editor has already been specifically involved in the RE discussion, unsolicited. Do you think you could pick one or two editors who would be neutral and ask them to evaluate? This proposal went from being #2 on the queue when Quester improperly closed it (after 8 months) to #194 as of today (perhaps another 6 month wait). If the RE queue is the only route, I should just re-post it anew since it's a mess to get through all the reviews and revisions on this post. Thanks. 22:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested‎, sorry to ping you, but I assume you're 100% neutral on this matter. Could you take a quick look over the requested edits above, and let us know if you think they're fine? I'm far too lazy to make all those edits myself, and the person with the COI would like to make them. I don't see an issue myself, but I wanted another uninvolved editor to take a look before telling the COI editor to just make the edits. If you're not interested in taking a peek, that's also fine. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Reading through the request chronologically I'd read the original request, see issues and then that those issues were had already been dealt with in a revision. I can see no reason the revised changes can't be implemented. Holding this up on the technicality that no-one has time is why WP:IAR exists, User:BC1278 should be allowed to make the changes. Can I suggest that each of the 6 changes is made in a separate edit, then once done I or User:ScottishFinnishRadish could check them (that way no doubt can longer over the edits). ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request #1 implemented. @ActivelyDisinterested:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:. Thanks for breaking the log jam. As requested by Actively, I made the first of the six edits for individual review. Will await OK before proceeding to the next one. BC1278 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine from here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request #2 implemented, Noah Oppenheim#Reveille @ActivelyDisinterested:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:. BC1278 (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I made a minor edit, removing a show with no blue link. Looks good now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request #3 implemented, Noah Oppenheim#NBC News @ActivelyDisinterested:, @ScottishFinnishRadish: BC1278 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request #5 implemented, Noah Oppenheim#Writing @ActivelyDisinterested:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:. I have skipped #4 because it actually doesn't solve the problem of chronological order. His screenwriting career happens dead in the middle of his time in Television --- before he was president of NBC News, but after he was at MSNBC, CNBC and Revielle. And his NY Times best seller was in the early Television period. It might be best to get rid of the sections Television and Writing and just have the sub-sections, so events can be in order. For now, though, I suggest just skipping #4. Thanks. BC1278 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. One more, I believe? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request #6 implemented, Noah Oppenheim#Writing @ActivelyDisinterested:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:. At least this re-organizes the Writing section so it is in chronological order. BC1278 (talk)

I've gone through each edit and checked them against the request. There are some minor differences, but nothing I believe to be of any importance. I'll leave the final sign off and closing of the request to ScottishFinnishRadish. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the second opinion. I feel Wikipedia should be a bit nicer to coi editors that follow the rules, so this worked out well all around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I just reviewed them with a suspicious eye and I'm entirely fine with them too. tedder (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional eye. I was a bit wary of handing the request this way, but it seemed pretty effective, and it's often easier to check on an edit when you see it made, rather than just posted to the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed lead

I saw this article mentioned on WP:BLP/N and agree that the lead could use some work. Would something like this meet anyone's approval? It's based on a proposed lead posted to BLP/N by BC1278. I removed a bit of what I saw of as fluff, and adjusted the second paragraph which addresses his part in trying to kill Farrow's reporting. As always I'm open to any copyedits, changes or just plain old not liking it.

Noah Oppenheim (born 1977 or 1978) is an American television producer, author, and screenwriter. He became president of NBC News in 2017. Oppenheim was previously the executive in charge and senior producer of NBC's Today Show and head of development at the production company Reveille. He co-created CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer. Oppenheim wrote the screenplays for several movies. He is the co-author, with David Kidder, of The Intellectual Devotional.

In 2017 Oppenheim's suggested Ronan Farrow interview Rose McGowan which started Farrow's investigation into the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. NBC News ultimately decided not to publish Farrow's reporting, a decision Farrow says Oppenheim, president of NBC News at the time, played a major a role in.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Looks good to me. I also left a note on BLP [5] about your suggestion. User: Zaereth suggested there that if no one had objected after a week or two, that was as close to approval as we were probably going to get. As disclosed, I have a WP:COI and will not directly edit Wikipedia articles for that reason. Would you mind doing the implementation? Many thanks. BC1278 (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm stuck phone editing for a few days, so it'll have to wait until doing real edits isn't comparable to soaking my hair in paraffin wax and lighting it aflame. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seems like you are back online without a burned scalp. Thought I'd ping you about this. BC1278 (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to remember to do it tomorrow, sorry, totally forgot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That's all set. I think I got all the wikilinks and citations in place as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive327#Noah_Oppenheim was the BLP/N thread which had responses from a couple people other than myself that preferred removing the "known for" language, as well as moving the Weinstein stuff. I think the current lead places more prominence on the Weinstein issue, and better follows our sources and prose. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• Strenuously disagree that that BLPN showed sufficient support for a complete lead rewrite. While I could support some additional information on it in the lead, as well as some mild rewording, the heavy, sustained coverage and the major impact it had on Oppenheim's career trajectory makes it significant enough that it should still be at least mentioned in the lead section. I also flatly disagree with every aspect of the wording of the paragraph as-is; it emphasizes that Oppenheim suggested the story to Farrow, which is not significant and is not something he is well-known for, and it inappropriately frames Oppenheim's efforts to kill the story as purely Farrow's opinions (...a decision Farrow says...) when numerous other sources have supported that description. No part of that second paragraph is usable, nor was it (as far as I can tell) brought up in the brief BLPN discussion you used as a justification for adding it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, @Smallbones, @Masem, @Zaereth. Aquillion has reverted the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive327#Noah_Oppenheim, as implemented by User: ScottishFinnishRadish with his suggested language above. I have pinged all the editors from that discussion or this section. In the BLPN discussion, none of the suggested versions of the lead were written to start off with widely disputed statement that Oppenheim attempted to stop Ronan Farrow's reporting at NBC News -- NBC News has characterized this as an "outright lie." and New York Times media reporter Ben Smith wrote an entire investigative piece challenging Farrow's account. Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True? While there were various NPOV suggestions for the exact language of a neutral lead here, none of them used the voice of Wikipedia to take sides in this widely reported dispute. The reversal by Aquillon seems to be ax grinding - connected to a current RfC on a related subject - Talk:NBC News#Request for Comment NBC News Farrow_Reporting - with Aquillon trying to block opposing POVs. BC1278 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

I don't feel strongly enough about this to revert without further input from other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Leave lede as is, it's fine. I don't think @BC1278: should be commenting here still per WP:PAYTALK, especially since he is mentioned in the article. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Smallbones about leaving the lede. Re: WP:PAYTALK, I stopped participating because the edit incentives and time incentives are completely different. tedder (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

BC1278, please remember to WP:AGF. Obviously when I noticed a proposed change on an article that seemed, to me, to introduce serious POV problems, my first instinct was to check related articles to make sure they weren't encountering similar issues. Especially given that this set of articles has received mainstream coverage for NPOV issues related to this incident in the past, I'm naturally going to check all NBC-related articles that touch on this controversy whenever an issue related to it comes up on any of them to make sure that those related problems haven't been reintroduced in multiple places. I'm also a bit surprised you would try to cite the Ben Smith piece - it received extensive criticism in the media (eg. [6][7][8].) The reality is that Farrow won a Pulitzer for his reporting, which makes a columnist like Smith's opinions on him fairly undue, comparatively, at least as a tertiary piece of commentary on an article that is not itself about Farrow. Regarding NBC's denials, I feel that they fall under WP:MANDY unless there's coverage supporting them, ie. we're not required to reflect every detail of their response or denial. I'm not opposed to some degree of rewording, but like I said on the other article, your proposals here go way too far, giving undue weight to stuff like Oppenheim's role in starting the investigation. --Aquillion (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Virtually every major publication in the country wrote entire stories about Oppemheim's claim that Farrow's accusations are false and a smear, motivated by Farrow having a personal axe to grind. Just a few: [9],[10], [11] [12], [13], [14]. The entire media is reporting that NBC News accusation that Farrow is lying about his own work at NBC News - yet this lead uses Wikipedia's voice to presume that Farrow is telling the truth about Oppenheim and Farrow's accusation should be the first sentence of the bio. This version also leaves out that is was Oppenheim who started Farrow's investigation into Weinstein, as Farrow himself reports in his book. Please note that following Ben Smith's reporting (he got ahold of Farrow's final NBC News draft and it had no on-the-record sources), Farrow quietly retracted one the main claim undergirding his accusation against Oppenheim: that he had multiple named sources on-the-record in all the NBC drafts he presented for broadcast. Farrow now says he "misspoke" and meant to say sources "named or willing to be named." [15] BC1278 (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I cannot speak to anything involving BC1278 and paid editing, but ignoring that, simply looking at the diff [16] shows that the current version (the version reverted back to) is far less impartially worded than what it could be, without losing the key factor why Opphenheim is likely most notable (the situation around Farrow). It is far too quick, in Wikivoice, to point a figure and shame the person, whereas the original wording still leaves the shame that has been assigned to him but after establishing why this was an issue due to his position within NBC. Wikivoice cannot be coming out the door as accusational as the current lede presents, and simply by a bit of rearranging the same details are still presented but without the accusational tone. --Masem (t) 04:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that adding In 2017 Oppenheim's suggested Ronan Farrow interview Rose McGowan which started Farrow's investigation into the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations can be treated as merely "rearranging the details", no. Are you asserting that fact that he suggested that is a major part of his notability? --Aquillion (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonably summary of the Harvey Weinstein section of the article. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The current wording suggests he was unknown, as president of NBC news, until the Farrow story. From the article itself In 2017, it was Oppenheim's idea to put Ronan Farrow on the story about the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations, which were credited with popularizing the Me Too movement; NBC News ultimately, however, failed to publish it, a decision Farrow blamed on Oppenheim. Seems like a pretty good summation, even adding that he was president of NBC news at the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As long as we discuss the top-level aspect of the situation around Farrow within the lede, then we are covering the reason they are notable in the lede (as I read it, if the Farrow thing never happened, he would be just some major top level exec which may or may not meet NBIO; it was clearly being involved in the situation with Farrow that made him notable per GNG). Now, whether the prior suggested wording is the best way to do it, I can't be sure, but it is far less finger-pointing in wikivoice than the current "He...is known for attempting to stop Ronan Farrow's reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases." (which is far too direct in what should be a impartial voice). --Masem (t) 13:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Just an informational note: Oppenheim met GNG, and other specialized WP:BIO criteria, long before Farrow's accusation. Before becoming president of NBC News, he ran The Today Show, where he won an Emmy Award; he co-wrote a series of bestselling books; and he wrote or co-wrote the screenplays for multiple Hollywood films. [17],[18] The WP page about him goes back to 2007. [19] BC1278 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Zaereth: again, the only editor from the previous BLPN discussion not to weigh in here too. Could be this has to go back to BLPN. BC1278 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a bad habit of not looking for pings. It took me a long time to even realize that the little red and blue boxes at the top of my screen did anything but brighten up the page. I don't know what really to say at this point. It's been a long time, and this only sticks in my mind because it makes me think of Oppenheimer, but my assessment is still much the same as before. To be very blunt, as currently written, it reads like a little kid wrote it, and I would encourage anyone in support of this wording to take some courses on expository writing. Especially the phrasing of "known for", which is a very subjective thing and poor grammatical construction (following a past-tense verb with an adverb made out of a preposition), and is more than a bit weaselly. This isn't supposed to be persuasive writing; save that for the talk page. It reads as very amateurish and editorial. Zaereth (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

As this discussion is unresolved, I started an RfC. BC1278 (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Is the lead Impartial/Balanced?

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.

---

Is the second sentence of the lead for Noah Oppenheim ("He became president of NBC News in 2017 and is known for attempting to stop Ronan Farrow's reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases.") a violation of WP: Impartial and/or WP: Balance and should the recently deleted version of the lead, covering the same topic, or some version of it, be restored? dif BC1278 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, the vote/survey is not to delete the topic from the lead. It is only about whether the current language is impartial, and whether the reverted version (or some other neutral version) should be restored. i.e. attributing the accusation to Farrow and provide the denial from NBC. The previous version gave the topic more weight.here BC1278 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes to (a) (current version is not impartial) and (b) (restore previous version or some version of it) I have a COI I have disclosed here before. This sentence is not a summarization of the main body, which makes an effort at both being balanced and impartial. Virtually every major news publication in the United States wrote major stories that Oppenheim, speaking on behalf of the entire NBC News network, said that Ronan Farrow fabricated the accusation that this sentence presents as a settled fact. Oppenheim says he and NBC News did not attempt to stop Farrow's reporting; that in fact, Farrow just did not have enough on-the-record sourcing to run a story while at NBC. Just a few of dozens of stories: New York Times,Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today. Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides in a dispute with reputable sources of equal prominence contradicting each other, under WP: Impartial. In addition, the phrasing that says Oppenheim “is known for” this is an example of WP: Weasel; none of the sources in the body of the article say this. It is an unsupported and unnecessary characterization made to skew the lead away from being impartial. BC1278 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I prefer my version because I think it reads better than the current lead. It covers the same information, and does it more neutrally while summarizing the article contents. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The version offered by ScottishFinnishRadish can be seen here. -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• No The claims made by Ronan Farrow caused a sensation in American media as well as a strong reaction by NBC and Oppenheim who rejected the claims. Both the claims and the rejections were quite notable, as shown by the avalanche of sources, to such an extent that claims of undue weight are trivially refuted. Therefore, we should cover this serious episode in the main text and mention it in the opening section. But we should also be careful and avoid taking sides. The proper wording is: "He became president of NBC News in 2017. The same year, Ronan Farrow claimed that Oppenheim attempted to stop his reporting on the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse cases, a claim that Oppenheim and NBC have strongly rejected." -The Gnome (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Would that go after the opening paragraph I wrote, or somehow replace wording in the current lead? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging The Gnome, as I don't know if they are watching the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• (Thanks, ScottishFinnishRadish.) The obvious place for the above text would be at the very end of the opening paragraph. -The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Gnome's version above is a marked improvement. Regulov (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• No It is given due weight: a decent chunk of the article's body covers the scandal. ~ HAL333 15:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: But is the current language impartial? Sorry if my RfC language was confusing. It is not intended as a proposal to delete from the lead. Its asks only if the current language is impartial, and if not, should something like the previous version be restored (where it actually is give more weight.)BC1278 (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• No, per User:The Gnome. I also support his re-wording as an improvement. Fieari (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• No - I support User:The Gnome's version, since it would also be weird to not mention the information in the lede, seeing how a sizable part of the article deals with this particular scandal. The manner in which the wording exists right now is far from being impartial. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2021 (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.

References