Talk:Jens Erik Gould

Regarding inaccurate, defamatory and badly-sourced edits

There appears to be a few self-annointed individuals who persist in adding in content to this person's biographical article which are intended to defame him based upon past employement with a company (The Knife) that was started up by members of the NXIVM multi-level marketing self-help organization. It is clear that NXIVM contained a subgroup or division which was a cult that was involved with criminal activities. However, it does not appear to be established that all people who were involved in the NXIVM self-help program were aware of criminal activities, much less involved in them. Further, there does not seem to be evidence that other companies operated by the cult leader, Keith Raniere, were necessarily involved in any criminal activities, much less all of the employees of those other organizations.

As such, mere association with bad people, inaccuracies, and aspersions are not within the guidelines for Wikipedia (see WP:BLP and WP:BLPREMOVE). Further, original research as defined in Wikipedia guidelines is also disallowed (see: WP:NOR). Mere op-ed articles or blogs are also not suitable materials as citation sources to base statements upon. And, in this case, adding in paragraphs of materials about NXIVM (albeit factual and properly cited) are inappropriate in light of WP:UNDUE, and should be weighed in context with the other notable details of the individual's biography. Expansion on information about NXIVM would be more appropriate on Raniere's page, or perhaps as a standalone article about the organization itself.

Notable materials, neutrally worded, and properly cited can and should be added.

I would say it is questionable as to whether mere employement at The Knife is notable at all -- surely there are other employees as well as other people who went through the NXIVM self-help program that are also completely uninvolved in the horrendous criminal activities. Not every single position in noteworthy individual's lives is a noteworthy fact in of itself. In this case, the noteworthiness seems to be merely that there was an indirect, tenuously connected scandal not really involving the person in the biographical article.

WmLawson (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't defamation if it's true. "Defamation is the act of communicating to a third party false statements about a person, place, or thing that results in damage to its reputation."

You refer to "a few self-anointed individuals," but you are clearly the self-anointed arbiter of truth when it comes to this article. Every time someone edits this article to indicate what is actually notable about the subject (nominal leadership of NXIVM affiliate The Knife Media/The Knife/The Knife of Aristotle), you erase the edits with misleading notes and/or refer to WP:BLP as though the guideline exists to protect living persons from any and all negative association whatsoever, while ignoring the guidelines that speak to criteria for notability. This subject simply isn't notable without reference to NXIVM. The most appropriate solution might be a simple redirect to NXIVM.

For example, in your last reversion of my edit, you stated "these issues were brought up years back and decided by defacto consensus." In fact, the outcome with respect to deletion was "No consensus."

Your edit of 8 August 2022 reads: "→‎Career: Love it when someone removes a citation, only to then leave a "citation needed notation". But, easily verifiable/replaceable. Also, removed non-noteworthy detail." Actually, your aside about "non-noteworthy detail" meant that you stepped in to revert an editor's restoration of NXIVM/Knife-related information (cited with edit notes) that had been removed without explanation by a previous user. That was clearly the bulk of your edit, which was obscured by your note. You have been doing this under your current alias since at least March 2019.

Your use of misleading edit notes extends to this Talk page. On November 25, 2020 you edited the Talk page with the following note: "Added notation about ongoing defacement of the article." Your note explained the addition of one line - seven words. You did not mention deletion of this passage from your Talk page:

"Unsigned-in persons have kept adding in material attempting to establish that Gould was a "member" or "spokesperson" for NXIVM. However, the Wikipedia article about Keith Raniere and other sources indicate he owned multiple companies such as Consumers' Buyline and National Health Network, as well as The Knife, so it is not clear that Gould was anything more than an employee for one of Raniere's other companies, and uninvolved in any NXIVM sex cult activities. Unreferenced material and original research should not be added to Wikipedia articles -- only properly researched material from acceptable sources should be used as reference citations."

Your characterization of NXIVM and the entities under its umbrella in Talk, above, is out of date, to put it mildly. Wikipedia's current article on NXIVM reads: "NXIVM (/ˈnɛksiəm/ NEK-see-əm) is the name commonly used to describe the personality cult of imprisoned racketeer and sex offender Keith Raniere. NXIVM is also the trademarked name of the defunct corporation that Raniere founded, which provided seminars and videos in the field of human potential development."

Keith Raniere is referred to in his article as "an American criminal convicted for a pattern of racketeering activity including human trafficking, sex offenses, and fraud. He co-founded NXIVM, a purported-self-help multi-level marketing company offering personal development seminars and headquartered in Albany, New York."

Your comments above, in Talk, do not reflect consensus about the nature of NXIVM. None of the edits you have misleadingly reverted on this article have alleged criminality, as far as I can recall, but you insist above that mere mention of subject's employment with the organization amounts to a criminal allegation. You assert that anyone who acknowledges this subject's involvement with NXIVM is making a defamatory allegation of criminality, apparently.

Furthermore, and as stated in my edit notes, many of the sources cited in the content you erased already appear in The Knife section of Wikipedia's NXIVM article.

The cited sources indicate that the subject held a leadership role at The Knife, a NXIVM affiliate, for multiple years and personally handled hiring/recruitment. This is significant within the subject's own career, not as an "indirect, tenuously connected scandal." Subject has no other noted "editor-in-chief" roles. Your inclusion of innumerable local and regional awards, grants, and scholarships contradicts your purported focus on notability/relevance/significance.

See WP:JOURNALIST. This article probably should not even exist, particularly if it is intentionally misleading, which it appears to be. 74.15.198.174 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for posting on the Talk page. However, please desist in further additions/reversions involving this until or if consensus is reached here as per Wikipedia policy. (See: WP:BLP and WP:CON.)

Personal attack is unnecessary - I take a wide interest in many subjects across Wikipedia, and similarly weigh in on other topics when it appears neutrality is in question.

It was defamatory when you added "Cult member" to the subject's infobox without citing reasonable references to support that factually. "Cult member" is not in evidence, so your tone is not merited after such a sloppy update that was not supported. Also, it is possible to cast "false light" upon someone under defamation law by presenting facts in a misleading way. Wikipedia guidelines establish that one is supposed to exercise especial care with the biographies of living persons, and to not open Wikipedia up to potential liability.

I cite Wikipedia's policy about biographies of living persons (WP:BLP) judiciously, because it states:

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV); Verifiability (V); and No original research (NOR). Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

So, you are warned that if you continue adding the material that is in contention without first reaching consensus you may get reported for administrator intervention.

It further states:

"Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

As such, it is expected for bio articles to be conservative, and not necessarily to give undue weight WP:UNDUE to facts that may not be sufficiently notable to be maintined in an encyclopedia entry about a person. (Hence, WP:BALANCE) For instance, not every single job that Walter Cronkite had is listed on his bio. Likewise with other major figures -- not all facts are noteworthy. A tangental or coincidental association with a scandalous group is not necessarily grounds for inclusion, particularly when the subject is noteworthy primarily for other reasons. Wikipedia has a very high standard for content about living people, and is not for scandal-mongering as per WP:NOTSCANDAL. Does one similarly insist on branding all employees or customers of the self-help company with NXIVM and attempt to suggest criminal involvement? Likely not.

As I referred to in my post here three years ago, these issues in the case of this subject were brought up at that time and were decided through the removal of items given undue weight, improperly supported by references, and by the administrator's warning of individuals who persisted in breaking the rules by repeatedly reverting changes without discussing and achieving consensus.

As you quoted, there was indeed apparently a corporation -- not just the cult entity: "NXIVM is also the trademarked name of the defunct corporation that Raniere founded, which provided seminars and videos in the field of human potential development," and there were reportedly thousands of people who were involved in the self-help company through taking its courses. Certainly, it was established that the company side of it contained some illegal operations within an inner circle. However, what is not established is any proof that all employees or customers of that company were involved in illegal activities, including Mr. Gould. Further, it is not established that Gould was working for NXIVM per se, but was instead working for the separate company, and it it is not established that he was a member of the "cult" as you earlier added to the infobox.

Some of the cited sources appear to be blogs or op-eds, or all dependent upon one op-ed, and would generally not be considered acceptable sources for the connections you appear to be making.

Simply having you state that one employment is significant is not particularly how Wikipedia works - you will need to cite reliable sources that make the case for significance or noteworthiness. It appears that one of the blog posts used as a citation in the NXIVM article was subsequently deleted by its publication and likely should not be included in that article. The main NXIVM article does not include him as a central figure.

The information you keep removing in the Awards subsection is a part of what establishes the subject's noteworthiness it appears, and unlike the material you keep adding in, it represents significant awards or acknowledgments from organizations that are themselves recognized as noteworthy by Wikipedia. Your note on the editing page falsely claims his employment that is not reported widely or significantly is the "main source of notability" for him -- this is false. The article appears to have been initially founded on the noteworthy basis of his career work and awards, not upon the association with the corporation or subdivision of NXIVM.

Your edit notes further suggest that the subject is insufficiently worthy of having a Wikipedia bio. So, which is it - that the subject is significant because of the connection you're making to the cult, or do they not merit having an article at all? You really cannot have it both ways and you have now argued both simultaneously.

I believe the content should not be added into Gould's bio, because it is not established to be noteworthy, and it appears to be an effort to tarnish him through guilt by mere association. It's an association that is pretty loosely established at that, whilst being mischaracterized as being involved-in or a member-of a cult.

WmLawson (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the cult reference should not be added to the subject's bio page. I do not see sufficient references to support an allegation that he was a cult member, nor that he was responsible in some way. The references to his journalistic work at the NY Times, NPR, Bloomberg, and Time magazine, along with his awards, seem to establish his notability.

Bhartzer (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems that administrator intervention is warranted. 74.15.198.174 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

You have not followed policy with discussing prior to reversion. Merely your opinion that the article is not merited unless the Knife reference is added for the journalist is insufficient for making that so. As I outlined above, it follows policy to revert contested negative material for bio pages unless consensus is reached - the prior defacto consensus for the past three years should stand unless you can cite sufficient basis to inject the non-noteworthy employment into the article. As I outlined earlier, not every job is listed in Walter Cronkite's bio. Also, if someone had a very illustrious career but worked very briefly for Enron, that does not necessarily merit inclusion in their article. Not all facts merit mention. WmLawson (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no cult reference on the page. The subject's only known management position has been added. Please provide reasoning to support your edits.

It is merely your opinion that it is non-noteworthy. Subject worked for multiple years as editor-in-chief at The Knife Media. Sources cited include subject's own works.

Subject is not Walter Cronkite. Walter Cronkite's bio is irrelevant to article. It is nice of you to say that the subject's career is illustrious, but this does not connote notability. 74.15.198.174 (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's the issue: To assert that materials should be added to the article, the facts they present need to be noteworthy, and your references need to make that case. You also, at this point, must discuss the basis of your argument that these points are sufficiently noteworthy enough for inclusion BEFORE you add that material back to the page yet again -- this is the second or third warning you have ignored, and you must follow Wikipedia guidelines before adding the contended material again.

This may be a moot point, anyway, because none of the citations you provided are acceptable under multiple Wikipedia guidelines.

There are 4 problems with your first reference citation.

1. The Paste publication itself is really only considered acceptable as a citation source primarily for music and entertainment reporting, and it isn't considered a reliable source for topics much beyond music/entertainment. It is also not particularly known for conducting investigative journalism.
2. The article appears to be a mix of reporting about the author's personal experience and an op-ed piece. Op-ed is generally unacceptable as a source for biographical facts or when making value judgments about a subject for an encyclopedia article.
3. The author intermingles facts, assumptions or leaps of logic, and personal observations (including using the "cult" term very loosely) and does not formally establish how the companies were related or structured. While what he wrote was compelling, and we might agree with or have assumed the same conclusions under the experiences he described, simply saying stuff looked sketchy and loosely connecting things together does not an investigative article make.
4. Finally, the article makes factual errors, such as presenting that staff listed on the organization's website were not real (based on the writer's feeling that they just didn't look real to him), while it now appears based on other published documentaries or reports that the staff members listed indeed do exist. So, the article has some demonstrable errors and does not present as a thoroughly provable piece of investigative journalism. Overall, this article does not appear to be a reliable source of information and does not particularly focus on Gould so much as it relays the author's opinions about the company and his suspicions about its motivations or relationship to NXIVM.

Your 2nd reference, to a Playboy article, relies heavily upon the Paste article, and that alone pretty much wipes it out for an acceptable source citation as well. The article takes further leaps based on the demonstrable error in stating that staff "appeared to be fabricated," and quotes the Paste article's author in stating that there was "no proof that there was any work being done by anyone." However, he had shown in his article that he had not gone through the training he criticized and had not worked within the organization, nor had he gone through the paywall to assess any of the ratings of articles the company purportedly did. (The article further cites an example of published Knife analysis that did not involve NXIVM or Raniere, seemingly controverting itself by showing that the organization was indeed performing analysis on reporting -- albeit he clearly disagreed with the conclusions the Knife analysis drew.) This Playboy article is largely only a secondary source WP:SECONDARY, and also appears to be a mixture of op-ed and unproven factual assertions, including erroneous ones, with further opinions quoted from the author of the first article, and it should not be used as a reliable source for this. WP:RSOPINION

The 3rd reference is from a private blog by an apparently anonymous or pseudonymous writer who is therefore, of unknown background/reputation, making them unable to be vetted. The source publication itself is questionable as private blogs are generally not fact-checked and are not accepted as a basis for these types of facts in Wikipedia biography articles. Further, the author of this piece also throws out aspersions, conjectures, and opinions as the main meat of the article. There is info presented that is rightfully condemning Raniere and the NXIVM organization (accepting the allegations in this post were all true), and the article itself does not provide sources nor provide any evidence that Gould was anything more than an employee in an organization separate from NXIVM. There are also wildly bizarre, nonsequitur accusations that Gould "sold his services to the benevolent Vanguard" and it's "unbelievable that Jens Erik Gould works for 'The Knife'" and "Jens, unfortunately, lends credibility to an organization that operates in the absurd."

The obvious issue with this expressed outrage is that the same could be said about Frank Parlato, the owner/operator of the same Frank Report blog where this post is published, implicitly demonstrating that individuals could unwittingly have been drawn into the companies who otherwise would not work there if they had known what was going on within the inner circle (if Parlato was hired on to manipulate the media and to make NXIVM look good, and Parlato was not initially aware of illegal and horrendous activities, then so too could have been Gould). Examining just the internal logic of the criticism makes this dubious. And, Parlato was objectively much more directly within the NXIVM organization, not a subsidiary, so why would Gould be presented as any worse than him? But, opinions about a person are a moot point -- the opinions are not particularly admissible in a Wikipedia article unless expressed by someone themselves significant -- not an anonymous critic. The blog post seems wildly speculative at best, including a photo of OJ Simpson mentioning the murder accusation against him and a photo apparently morphing Keith Ranier with OJ Simpson. The bizarre combo in this article is demonstrably not a source that should be allowed in Wikipedia, and overall seems to be an accusation of guilt by association: Gould worked for a company that was founded by Raniere or was a division of NXIVM that was founded by Raniere -- Raniere and NXIVM did bad things -- therefore Gould participated in bad things. Under this basis, Bernie Madoff's housekeeper is both noteworthy and guilty of his Ponzi scheme. This blog post is pretty much the definition of an unacceptable source to use for Wikipedia.

The fourth and fifth reference citations you added are pointing to content that has been removed and is therefore unverifiable -- adding broken links like this is very sloppy, and this does not provide an acceptable reference citation to use. Was it perhaps removed by respective platforms for being poorly sourced or wrong? No way to know.

In all, these citations cannot be used as they do not meet the high criteria necessary for Wikipedia bios. As I mentioned earlier, negative and damaging items should only be added to biographies if they are from reliable sources and if the sources themselves are of sufficient prominence to establish that the facts are sufficiently noteworthy to mention.

WmLawson (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)