Talk:Keith Raniere/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello! I'll be working on this for the next couple days. I find that I'm most efficient if I leave comments as I go, but that may mean that it will take me some time to reply to your responses—I'll probably finish going through the article before I turn back around and re-examine things. Looking forward to working with you!

Having skimmed the article, my first impression is that it's very good, but I've only gone in detail through the lead so far. Full disclosure: I have very little background knowledge on Raniere or NXIVM (which I feel like I have to re-check every time I need to spell it). When it comes to sources, I'll be doing a random spot-check and also checking any facially controversial claims. I try not to leave nominees with a dump of to-do items. When it comes to easy fixes, I'll do what I can myself, unless doing so becomes a huge time drain, in which case I'll list the issue here.

Status: Criteria with the green plus are satisfied. Criteria with the brown/red minus are not satisfied. Criteria with the three dots have not been checked. As you might imagine, it can be difficult to keep track of the changes that go on during a GA review. Once I determine that each category is satisfied, I will do a read through of the entire article to ensure I haven't missed anything before concluding the review.

Reviewer: Jerome Frank Disciple (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   So far very good. I have a few concerns regarding tense—generally, of course, past tense is preferred, but I acknowledge this is difficult with a living subject (who still, as I understand, has some followers).

   There were a few issues in the lead which I've attempted to fix; I've addressed those below.

   I'm not sure about the "Early adulthood" section. I see what that section is doing, but I wonder if something better could be figured out—the date range is a bit all over the place (capturing events from 1982 to 2002). That said, I understand why the 2002 event would be difficult to mention anywhere else.

   They aren't used that many times, but maybe check to see if the passive-voice sentence structure ("it was reported" or "it was revealed") is actually needed as often as it's used. If the reporting itself was a huge story (as is true with some of these cases), then that structure is okay, although it'd be better to say who reported it. But, sometimes, it'd be better to avoid the in-text attribution or reference to "reporting/revelation" altogether. Consider: "In 2015, it was reported that Keeffe had alleged that Raniere directed Canadian investigative firm Canaprobe to obtain" ... that's four verbs in relatively short order, but the real issue is the passive voice. Why not just say, "Keeffe later alleged that top NXIVM officers, including Raniere, had used a Canadian investigative firm to obtain financial information on six federal judges and ...."?

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few MOS:INOROUT and MOS:SURNAME issues, but I've been fixing those as I go. Maybe a slight over use of claim throughout the article, but I don't think it's egregious.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   I'm impressed by the citations overall, though I do have a few concerns. For one, there's quite a few primary sources cited, although it appears that most of those are supplemented with secondary sources (and, of course, on its own, the use of primary sources is fine; it's just something that should be done with caution).

   There are a few instances where inline citations should be used per WP:MINREF. I've added some fact tags to indicate this. One area of note is the Keith Raniere#The purpose and aim of DOS section (which, just a side note, should probably not have a list—just prose works fine there).

   A few of the OR concerns below are also RS concerns.

   Occasionally, in-text attribution is called for. If you're taking an account from testimony at the trial, you should say so (i.e. "X testified that ....") rather than just presenting that testimony as fact and citing the testimony.

   The "charged acts" section needs a few more citations ... is there a single non-primary source that covers all the counts / their bases?

   c. (OR):

   I've run into a couple terms of art that aren't supported by sources—almost as if someone said "oh, what's being described in this source is X ... let's just say X in the article". That's a bit of a bad habit, and, in a few cases, it appeared to be WP:SYNTH. I've addressed most of those issues as I've seen them. But a few linger:

   1. I'd like for us to have sources that use the term "abuse" whenever we use the term—this is a mixed WP:V/WP:NPOV. I realize the reaction here is probably going to be "but of course someone over the age of consent having an illicit relationship with someone under the age of consent is abuse"—and, if I were writing an essay, I'd agree. But, in part because this is a WP:BLP, I think we need sources for the term. If we have a reliable source that says "abused", let's say abused. But if a reliable source just says "illicit sexual relationship," then we should just say that.
   2. The sentence The family's three daughters were sexually groomed by Raniere. That's cited to two sources. Only one uses the term grooming, and it says "allegedly groomed" in the headline, and it attributes the accusations of grooming to the testimony of one the daughters (Daniela) and prosecutors. We already detail that Daniela testified she was groomed, so, for now I'm just going to remove that segment of the sentence. If one of you would like to add it back, just make sure you have a source supporting it or that you include an in-text attribution.
   3. Beginning in 2010, Daniela was kept under an extralegal house arrest verging on solitary confinement .... This, at first blush, seems like a reasonable description, but it's again using terms of art that aren't in the sources. The sentence is cited to a Vice article that doesn't use the term "extralegal," "house arrest", "arrest", or "solitary confinement".
   4. DOS slaves were groomed for sex with Raniere and forced to adhere to extremely restrictive diets to satisfy Raniere's preference for "exceptionally thin" women—again, sourcing for groomed is unfortunately spotty.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Unfortunately, there are a few copyvio/plagiarism concerns that need to be addressed. I'm not going to quick fail, but these issues are potentially fatal to the nomination. Some of these concerns are worrisome for two reasons: one, they're plagiarism, and, two, they're plagiarism of primary sources. Whenever possible, I suggest paraphrasing secondary sources.

   The DOS creation section has sentences that are copied from (or far too similar to) the DOJ source. (When new DOS slaves were recruited, they were explicitly told that the organization was women-only, and that the organization would empower them and eradicate weaknesses that the NXIVM curriculum taught were common in women., for example, is copied from here, and the paragraph before that also takes a bit too much from the same link).

   Also compare "DOS slaves were seriously sleep-deprived from forced participation in "readiness drills", which required them to respond to their masters any time, day or night" with "DOS slaves were seriously sleep-deprived from participating in “readiness” drills, which required them to respond to their masters any time day or night". (too similar).

   In general, I think there's a small issue with over-quotation. Why is the line about the GPA quoted from courthousenews, for example? Obviously, the bigger issue is that there are portions of the article that aren't in quotation marks, but try to work on cutting back on the quoted portions—brief quotations can and should be used to illustrate, but, most often, we should be paraphrasing.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   Small issue: Could the National Health Network section be expanded at all? Some other detail about what it was or what its state was at the time it failed, perhaps? It was alive for five years, so I imagine there are some more details out there. And frankly, I'm not sure In the mid-1990s, Raniere and Natalie operated a health-products store. should be in that section at all (keep in mind the top-level section is "Multi-level marketing career"—is there an allegation that the health-products store was a MLM?), so, as of now, I think that's really just a two-sentence section.

   Related to the above issue, I'm moderately concerned that the article over-focuses on Raniere's relationships. Compare the brief treatment given to National Health Network with the paragraph dedicated to Raniere's relationship with Christine Marie Melanakos. Genuinely, I'm not sure the Melanakos story in there at all. She's not mentioned anywhere else in the article, and that paragraph has nothing to do with the section that it's in (NXIVM: Executive Success Programs). Same goes for the paragraph on the end of Raniere's relationship with Natalie. I'm not saying that paragraph is irrelevant—obviously it speaks to his treatment of women—but perhaps it, the Melanakos story, and the death of Hutchinson (the 2002 event mentioned in the early adulthood section) all belong together in a section? (Note: I saw that these claims were made in a separate section—sexual abuse and relationships, but since there was already a sexual abuse section, I moved them there. The only non-sexual-abuse discussion was of Melankos, so I think it's fair to say that quotation should be removed from the article.)

   On articles such as this, I, for better or worse, tend to keep testimony about events confined to a Trial section, so that I can detail what the disputes concerning that testimony were. Here, while Raniere's defense rested without presenting evidence (not unusual), we don't get any sense as to what the defense's general arguments were, though we hear what prosecutors alleged over and over again. I don't think you have to add excerpts from cross examinations throughout the article or anything, but a sentence-or-two summary of the defense's position in the trial section is probably needed.

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A few of the sourcing concerns are also NPOV concerns.

   I'm a little worried about the "homicide speculation" section. It seems that's mostly based on just the documentary, but there are a few claims made in Wikipedia's voice that probably shouldn't be (i.e. the "untimely deaths" line).

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems to me the last edit war, largely at the behest of one editor, was in March, concerning allegations Raniere had made in a lawsuit. Stable since then.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   Photos are admittedly my weakness here. I suspect the mug shot is fair use, but I would not that there are a few issues with the file's description (File:US v. Raniere GovtExhibit GX46.JPG). For one, describing the EDNY as the "author" makes little sense to me, unless "author" is akin to publisher. Surely the author was either the prosecutors who introduced the exhibit or a specific incarceration facility, no? For two, the link to the original source no longer works. This is a mugshot by a federal institution, so, ultimately, I do think the public-domain tag is correct.

   I believe all the other photographs have either been confirmed to be acceptable, were uploaded by their authors, or were exhibits in the case. My only concern is the final category. Per Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States: Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. Now, some of those photographs/files were created by the attorney's office (like the mugshot or File:US v. Raniere Prosecution exhibit - Diagram of DOS 'first-line slaves'.png). My only real concern was the DOS brand—but the courthouse news website says that the photograph was received "via" the USAO, so I think that one is also safe.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

A few long thoughts on specific passages

1. "Multiple accusers identified Raniere as a prolific sexual abuser of women and girls since the 1980s" has a few issues—both stylistically and sourcing wise. First, I think the sentence would generally read better if it didn't use the noun "accusers" to describe its subject. (Since "identified ... as" is really just a synonym for "accused ... of", the sentence is really just "Multiple accusers accused ....") Second, the sentence is supported by a Times-Union article, which, notably, doesn't use the label "prolific". I realize that it's not just victims accusing Raniere—as to the accusation of child sexual abuse, the Times-Union said it spoke to the victims and their families, but I still think, given who dominates the group of "accusers", it'd be better to just re-focus the sentence on the victims. I'm going to try "Multiple women have said they were sexually abused by Raniere, including three who have reported being underage at the time of the abuse." (I realize that you lose the 80s/90s component there, but, in fairness, the Times Union piece only associates the 80s/90s time frame with Raniere's child sexual abuse—not his general abuse.) Obviously feel free to amend or correct that as you see fit.
2. Nitpicking because it's the lead: "In 2018, offenses related to a secret society"—what's meant by offenses here? Criminal offenses? I think that's a bit too broad—might as well be more detailed; after all, it wasn't tax offenses that lead to the investigation and arrest. I'm going to substitute with reports of abuse, but obviously if something else is more appropriate, feel free to change it!

--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Wow!! Thanks for all the excellent feedback, I'll start working on it! Feoffer (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You and @Rootone: are doing a great job!

Just as a heads up, I'm sorry to report that I'm about to make an unexpected trip out of town, so I may not be able to start the review up again until Monday—if I had been able to predict this trip, I would have just pushed through and finish on Friday. I'll do my absolute best to finish the first round of comments on Monday Tuesday. Sorry for the delay!--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

^ Forgot about the long weekend. I'll see if I can finish up when I get back in tonight, but more likely I'll finish up tomorrow AM. Sorry about that! Seriously everyone's been doing a great job; I appreciate how responsive you all have been.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

May 30 Update

@Feoffer and Rootone: I once again want to commend both of you for the work you've done so far—particularly as to the plagiarism issue, you two did a fantastic job.

I've now updated the review. Where you see a green "+", I've determined that the article passes that criterium. A brownish-red "-" indicates that I currently find the article does not pass the associated criterium. And a yellow ellipsis indicates I have not yet analyzed that criterium.--Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely, thank you for all the incredible feedback. I think issues discussed in 2b and 2c have been fixed, see what ya think. Feoffer (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Yup, you addressed everything I listed there, though I did add one item each to those sections. But I think we're nearing the end here! I did check off the NPOV category based on your edits. I think the major items left open are (1) an insufficiently referenced "groomed" (I only harp on this because we're in BLP territory); (2) some unreferenced "charged acts"; (3) the lack of explanation of the defense's position at the trial. I also have to check all the images, but that shouldn't take long—will probably be the last thing I do.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

okay! 1) The first instance of "groomed" is attributed to trial witness, the second instance has been cut. 2)added links to all charges (also linking to indictment). 3) Added opening and closing statements from defense to Trial section Feoffer (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking great! I did make my first revert here (reverting this edit—I think your version of the article was superior both for its explicit attribution and on WP:V grounds. I also made a few grammar corrections. If the article is stable, I'll finish up the review tomorrow. (I'd encourage @Rootone to join this discussion rather than just edit the article if he/she would like to discuss the merits of the changes!)`--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If you think the previous version is better, ok, fine, I accept your decision. However, I had to remove some info as it's not entirely accurate. And also made some minor edits. Good day. Rootone (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks perfect to me!--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Re-read through/Final decision

So, overall, with all the work you all put in, I think this article passes the GA criteria—though maybe by the skin of its teeth. You've both done a ton of work, and you should be proud. I'm particularly impressed with how quickly the plagiarism issues were addressed. I do have some lingering concerns—including the primary source reliance (esp. re: prosecution documents, which really shouldn't be used for any purpose other than saying what prosecutors said) and some potential over reliance on the Frank Report. I must admit, part of me wonders if the article would have been better served had I failed it, worked with you as I had, and then had the article go through a renomination process. But I don't think any of my concerns with the article in its current form are strong enough to say that the GA criteria aren't met. I hope you both continue to work on the article—particularly with an eye towards WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV—and maybe consider a WP:FA nom, which will provide much more tailored and higher-level feedback.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the stuff you saw! The plagiarism and lack of Defense statements were particularly big oversights. Feoffer (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Still to do

• Buttress prosecution docs
• Whenever possible, replace Parlato with mainstream RSes.

Feoffer (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rootone:, I'm a little flummoxed by how difficult it was to source the individual charges to mainstream secondary sources. Do you have any ideas? Feoffer (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)