Talk:Jeff Herman

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Reads like an advertisement

This article reads like an advertisement for Jeff Herman, not an encyclopedic article. Omegastar (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not only that, but the list of cases neglects any real follow-up. For example, the suits filed against Kevin Clash were dismissed; they were appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the lower court decision. In effect, the courts agreed with Clash that the relationships were between consenting adults. How many other cases on this list were similarly dead-ended? Theonemacduff (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI investigation

This WP:BLP article has a surprising number of SPA accounts editing both for positive and negative ends. SPA's that have edited here include User:Krepan, User:Dgellis, User:Needtobedisbarred, User:Chocolate Charlie (an indef-blocked sockpuppet), User:AudreyGlover, User:Damian7655, User:Mgold HermanLaw, and User:Wikiitupbud. Both edits and edit summaries tend to indicate a lack of neutrality on the part of these editors, and I would be inclined to scrub out all edits traceable to any of them per WP:DENY. For the time being, given the history of this article, I am imposing administrative sanctions and semi-protecting the page. I intend to get back to this to do a proper cleanup within the next few weeks. bd2412 T 22:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions:

An overall review of this article finds it to be highly problematic, with multiple sources that clearly violate WP:RELIABLESOURCES, including primary source documents, sources that are prohibited for BLP articles per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (such as Medium, which "should never be used as a secondary source for living persons"), the blog site Daily Kos, and even a link to a self-published dropbox. The Hollywood Reporter, while recognized as a source for "reviews on film, TV and music, as well as its box office figures", has not been deemed a reliable source for BLP reporting on figures outside the entertainment industry. However, given the gravity of the issues raised, I have left in the Hollywood Reporter as a source, but only for the limited purpose of describing the controversy asserted. The author of the piece from that source has a specific POV, which makes the piece more of an editorial than news, and I have clarified that. I believe I have cleaned up the worst excesses of the article, both overly positive and overly negative. Given the penchant over the past five years for this article to be edited by newly created SPAs, I am going to continue protection of the page for at least another year. bd2412 T 22:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please amend the flawed tabloid phrase "convicted p_________" to "convicted child sex offender". Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal act of which one can be convicted. Thanks. 151.229.26.18 (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done BD2412 T 03:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]