Talk:Richard Stanley (director)

Domestic Violence Allegation

Is a blog post by the subject's ex-wife claiming domestic abuse enough of a citation to add to an as-yet created Personal Life section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:160:E708:6:0:0:1:753A (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Blogs are not considered reliable sources. If and when there is a criminal or civil case, there will be media coverage and then the allegations would be able to be introduced with the accompanying references. Ifnord (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Here here! In fact the French courts have thrown out the case and Richard has a judgement in his favour which I am hoping to be in possession of soon. I think he was treated terribly and was assumed to be guilty without any evidence. He has suffered loss of earnings and reputation on one womans say so. Isolde1883 (talk) 12:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

@Match150 and Meryfela: I just wanted to say that we have a strict policy on biographies of living persons. I've removed the blog citations (which are considered unreliable). Personally I would wait until more reliable sources publish it; one or two sources will not do it for such possibly contentious material. Please review WP:BLP before doing anything; and discuss it on this talk page instead of reverting. Thanks! Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The blogs are supported by Deadline, which is reliable. The blogs should stay. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Should stay, all sources say "alleged" or "allegations" and aren't, as the editors claim, "slander". @2600:1700:6e0:2f70:1db5:326f:981f:cb4 , @Meryfela , @‎161.230.158.124 . If the editors are actually Richard's relatives (as some have claimed to be) or Richard himself, he/they should take this up with the news outlets reporting the story and not try to use Wikipedia to rewrite history and pretend a thing that is currently documented as happening (i.e. Richard being accused of domestic abuse and subsequently being let go by SpectreVision) haven't actually happened. The relevant point isn't whether or not the allegations are truthful, but that the allegations HAVE been made, that is what has been reported and that is what the (mostly anonymous) editors are trying to erase. The page'll be locked down and protected if need be.KenzoShibata (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: If the blogs are backed up by Deadline, then cite Deadline, not the blogs. See WP:PSTS and WP:BLOGS. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding or removing abuse allegations

@Skywatcher68:, @Sungodtemple:, @JBW: Admin JBW repeatedly removed content on the article pertaining to the abuse allegations, on the grounds that it violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (this is independent of the edit war between users and people claiming to be Stanley's relatives). I argue that this is inconsistent with Wikipedia's treatment of similar, contemporaneous topics (i.e. Armie Hammer) and that the offending content in only reiterating news that has been reported in reputable outlets. I don't believe it's inappropriate or against biographies of living persons to include info in bio section about SpectreVision cutting professional ties to Stanley, when that has been reported in reputable outlets and by SpectreVision itself. This isn't about the veracity of abuse claims proper, but simply acknowledgement that reputable sources have reported it and that it has had relevant consequences that belong in Stanley's bio (i.e., loss of employment). All that being said, I would like to get a second opinion from another admin with experience on these sorts of subjects, with all due respect to JBW. Note to them that I wasn't aware of Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring at the time, and will not due so again. KenzoShibata (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

KenzoShibata I have carefully re-read the relevant section of the policy, and decided that Richard Stanley qualifies as an exception as a "public figure", so I have reverted to a version that you edited. JBW (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

JBW I'm not seeing the changes, the current version of the page is yours from 21:52, 25 March 2021‎. Is it okay if I revert it myself? KenzoShibata (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

KenzoShibata I thought I made the changes I referred to, but evidently I somehow failed to save the changes. Whether I made some mistake, or there was a software failure, or what, who knows? Anyway I see you went ahead and made the edit anyway. JBW (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And remember, WP:EW → WP:Edit warring, because edit warring → EW... :) Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Since this issue is still seeking consensus, I recommend including the material, since

1. it has been reported in reliable media; and
2. whether true or not, the allegations have had a material impact on Stanley's career in that a major studio has ceased its association with him and withheld payments of royalties for past work based on the allegations.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the addition and then self reverted once I saw this discussion, with a permalink to the talk page revision by WikiDan61. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not believe the community has reached consensus on this issue yet. Adding or removing this material should not use this discussion as a rationale until this discussion has reached consensus. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this is popping up again. I took a shot at cleaning it up a touch, removed a pretty low quality source and a statement only cited to that. Removed a statement cited only to a tweet as well. Clearly the allegations are WP:DUE, so they should be included, as should the recent development. How does this look to everyone? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, should we remove the accuser's name per WP:AVOIDVICTIM or is the coverage such that we should keep it in the prose? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

{{BLP noticeboard}}

• Noting discussion.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Accusers Now Charged

Seems those who claimed this individual committed violence against them have been charged with harassment, libel, defamation and ‘behaviour having as its object or effect a degradation of working conditions which may infringe the rights to human dignity, health or a professional career’ under France’s Code Penal and Code Travail.

https://www.facebook.com/1207327430/posts/pfbid032fNyyvPU77P2YZUZh6hvq2vfE6HFwz8B8nN7B3MT9qN84UHDHpbZUL4EhM3XAwNVl/?d=n 2403:580D:E2FE:0:1DE3:AE41:149F:3293 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)