# Talk:Keith Raniere

File:ForbesMagazine October2003 FrontCover KeithRaniere.png has been removed by a single user saying: "simple 'mentions' do not come close to meeting NFCC#8 requirements". 
A close reading of the article should demonstrate the presence of an entire section dedicated to the 2003 publication of this cover image and its accompanying text.    The inclusion of this cover image significantly increases readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.     It should be restored.   Feoffer (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You'll have to work hard to get that done, but you have a point.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
And indeed, deleted per [1]. Feoffer (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Request guidance:   would the article benefit from the inclusion of images of the deceased? i.e. gina and kristin Feoffer (talk) 11:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Some parts of this article seem to me to contain material that is inadequately sourced and/or is not relevant or noteworthy enough for inclusion. The following two paragraphs, I believe, are the two that are least worthy of inclusion. I deleted them, but they were restored by Feoffer, who disagrees with me on this point.

From the late 1960s to the early 1970s, Raniere attended a Waldorf school,  before leaving for a public junior high school. One classmate recalled an incident in which she had unwittingly shared "compromising" information about one of her sisters in front of a 9- or 10-year-old Raniere. According to her recollection, Raniere had told her: "You know, it’s like I have this little bottle of poison I can hold over your head ... I just don’t think your parents or your sister would be very happy if I told them." She claims Raniere "would call me sometimes and say, 'Little bottles, little bottles'". On another occasion, a third-grade Raniere told a special needs classmate "You’re one of the stupidest people I’ve ever met. You’re so stupid nobody wants to be your friend".
Is the Epoch Times a reliable source? Wikipedia says it's dubious; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Also, the material seems a bit trivial.

Eight years later, it would be revealed Sara Bronfman had a 2009 sexual relationship with Lama Tenzin Dhonden, the Dalai Lama's gatekeeper who arranged the appearance.  Amid accusations of corruption, Dhonden was replaced.
Unless there is something showing that Raniere ordered or encouraged Bronfman to get involved with Dhonden to help curry favor with the Dalai Lama, I don't see what these two sentences have to do with Raniere. 
Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Lama Dhonden's dismissal for corruption following the violation of the celibacy vow is clearly relevant to the Dalai Lama's collaboration with the now-convicted head of a sex trafficking and extortion racket.   Similarly, the childhood extortion claim would seem to be relevant.  But you make a good point on that calling a peer "stupid" does seem trivial; its been removed.    Feoffer (talk)
This article cites Frank Parlato (https://frankreport.com/) as a source on a number of points.  This site also posts QAnon theories (https://frankreport.com/2019/08/22/more-than-just-pedophilia-insights-into-epsteins-island-temple-and-its-purported-use-for-satanic-worship/)  Should this source be trusted?

In the Early Life section, Gina's death is worded as "died by suicide in 2002", shouldn't it be, "she committed suicide in 2002"? This grammar/terminology sounds weird.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.84.19 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC) 
 Done  That was awkward, thank you for pointing it out. Feoffer (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a stylistic question I wanted to ask about. I want to see where folks who know about Wikipedia and are good at editing are at. I agree that it is absolutely factual that he has been convicted of felonies. At the same time, I don't know that this is meaningful. I want to be unbiased and I think there is a bit of bias in starting the article that way. I know that this is a sensitive subject and it is also in the news. People feel strongly about it too. However, I think that leading with felon isn't particularly meaningful. It's more meaningful to discuss his work with NXIUM and the way that it broke the law. Being a felon tells us that a court agreed, but it doesn't change the fact about what the consensus is about what he has done. Perhaps he is pedantic. But Keith Raniere is notable because first of all his abuse and second of all through NXIUM. Not all cult leaders are felons because of it. This might be pedantic if so no worries. I apologize. Hockeydogpizzapup (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This guy is a holocaust denier, and yet his mother was Jewish, and almost all the girls he groomed are Jewish. I don't know if this is pertinent to understanding this psycho, but it's definitely relevant and of note. As an ethnic and religious Jewish student I find this to be the most notable thing about him, preying on our women amidst his self loathing. Might be mummy issues. But it's definitely worth including in his early life to help fulfil a fuller picture. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What are your sources where any of this can be verified? These are a lot of unsupported claims right now. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Another IP editor (24.250.190.130) has been repeatedly inserting the words "rape" and "sexual assault" into the passage about Raniere's alleged sexual relationship with an underage girl. That is not supported by the cited source, which says that there was an alleged sexual relationship, not that there was alleged rape. Although it is possible that Raniere would have been found guilty of statutory rape in that situation if he were accused, the fact is that he wasn't accused, and even if he were, rape and statutory rape are not the same thing. We should be careful with the language we use. It's not our job as editors to express our disapproval of Raniere's actions or to alter the information in the cited sources. If the source article doesn't say "rape," then we shouldn't say "rape."
Moreover, the editor's position is self-contradictory: The editor claims that sex and rape are equivalent when one person is underage, yet the editor insists that the word "rape" must be used instead of "sex" in that context. If the two words are equivalent in that context, why not use the latter, which is noncontroversial and better matches the language in the source material? 23.242.198.189 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
agreed that non-US readers may find the term a bit 'strong' for what may have been consensual, but it is the normal legal term for the offence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#New_York
duncanrmi (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
No, it is not the normal term. You're confusing rape with "statutory rape." Not the same thing. In fact, in some jurisdictions, if two underage teenagers have sex they can both be charged with statutory rape--that doesn't mean they are rapists (see the wiki article on statutory rape). If the source article doesn't say "rape," then it's not appropriate to say it in this article. You shouldn't have such a problem being faithful to the source material. In this case, saying they had sex and that she was 15 gives the reader all the information they need. Moreover, it's not our job as wiki editors to make a legal judgment about an offense the person was never convicted of or even charged with. 23.242.195.76 (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Why the hell does he have a "title" when it's most certainly selfmade? Makes it seem like this wikipedia page is made by fanboys of this disgusting being 80.220.67.219 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
:The indictment against him lists him as "Keith Raniere, also known as 'The Vanguard'." The prosecutors who got him put away for life were not, last I checked, in his fanclub. Evackost (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Disregard. Evackost (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to continue this longer than it has to, but across several NXIVM-related pages Rootone has reverted edits that were made in good faith and were properly cited. The crux of Rootone's argument is that it is somehow necessary to call NXIVM, and my edits to keep to neutral POV --specifically going into why NXIVM might be called a cult, or going into the actual criminal offenses Raniere took part in-- is being attacked in a bad faith manner. 
This is totally against multiple policies (WP:NPOV, WP:ASSERT, and WP:CITE), but more importantly it's disrespectful of the audience. 
Visit any number of pages devoted to groups commonly called cults (Branch Davidians, Landmark Forum, Scientology, etc.), and this approach didn't fly there, and it shouldn't fly here either. Evackost (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Disregard. Evackost (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to continue this longer than it has to either and I don't wish to edit warring with you. All my edit are all in good faith too. I just don't agree with you edits. My arguments still stands.  NXIVM is a cult, this is a actual fact, reported by all media outlets. To say otherwise is just outright wrong and dishonest. Rootone (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
::The problem is not whether NXIVM fits one definition of a cult or another. It is that "cult" (as such) has no objective definition at all –ask an evangelical whether Mormons are a cult, for example, and you're going down a very ugly path. 
So the only way it can be reported is as a particularly widespread opinion (where the holder of the opinion is probably more important than the opinion itself). Even then it's ancillary to the objective facts that a) it was a business, b) by its own definition, it was involved in multi-level marketing (which has its own issues) and c) it operated as a racketeering enterprise.  Evackost (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Disregard. Evackost (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


### Ongoing concerns about Evackost's recent contributions
I've reverted some of Evackost's bold changes.   They've asked for a detailed rationale, so I'll provide one here.  

"Monogram" is not standard language in this case, RSes refer it to a brand of his initials.
"given inconsistent explanations" about the meaning of the brand is not found in RSes who report that the "four elements" explanation was a lie.
Pacer and Raniere's filings are not reliable secondary source. Per NOTNEWS, we don't need to alert readers to every picayune dispute between Raniere and Bureau of Prison.
Assassination claims are utterly unacceptable BLP vio, one that could cause Raniere's death I might add.  DO NOT reintroduce.
Feoffer (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
:Thank you for actually articulating WTF you are engaging in edit war behavior, because I can easily tell you that you are wrong.
Keith Raniere literally calls it "monogram" in the text you have repeatedly reverted, and strangely enough it remains there.
Please RTFA in this case, the New York Times article that is cited in the text you have repeatedly reverted:
The scene in Salzman’s home was intense but mostly cheery. Yet last October, The New York Times published an article reporting alarming practices by Nxivm. The article explained that some female members of the group, who called themselves “masters,” had initiated other women, calling themselves “slaves,” into a ritual of sisterhood at homes in and around Clifton Park, near Albany. First, they stripped naked. One by one, they lay on a massage table while a female osteopath, also a Nxivm member, used a cauterizing pen to brand the flesh near their pelvic bone. She carved a symbol that some women thought represented the four elements or the seven chakras or a horizontal bar with the Greek letters “alpha” and “mu,” but if you squinted and looked again, contained within them a different talisman: a K and an R — Raniere’s initials. Not all the women were told that these initials were present in the symbol.
Pacer and Raniere's filings are not reliable secondary source *on their own*, which is why I cited multiple news articles, which you reverted without any explanation or attempt to correct.
You provoked an edit war for very stupid reasons and I am now being libelled as though I'm a member of MS-13. [redacted]  Evackost (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Because he is possibly being enlisted as a sockpuppet, I am tagging User:Shibbolethink because every issue re: the DOS Branding segment that keeps getting reverted is answered here.
I am going to replace this section because there is zero problem with it and it clarifies the bad grammar.
I will then go back and re-add the section on the lawsuit separately, incorporating User:Shibbolethink's demand to get rid of a citation of the New York Post, even if there is no acutal problem raised.  Evackost (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
just nevermind, why bother with this anymore --Evackost (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, "enlisted as a sockpuppet?" I saw this thread at WP:ANI and wanted to investigate. Imagine my surprise when I saw you had already restored your own preferred version when you did not have consensus to do so. I looked at the edits, and I believe they are not an improvement. They add a great deal of WP:UNDUE content that is, essentially, making Wikipedia a mouthpiece of Raniere. e.g. Within weeks of the dismissal, Raniere filed another suit against the Bureau of Prisons that is active as of March 2023. Raniere has used the lawsuit to file an affidavit making far-ranging claims about his imprisonment, including a claim that he is in danger of a death in custody akin to those of Whitey Bulger and Jeffrey Epstein should he be transferred to a Communications Management Unit within the federal prison system. He also says "a billionaire media mogul from Mexico" is seeking to hurt him.

Stop editing against consensus. Read WP:1AM.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not editing, period. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Evackost (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of the information added to the branding section is not entirely accurate and little misleading. The information highlighted by Evackost comes from an NYT article that was published in May 2018, before Raniere's trial and before inner circle members cooperated with the prosecutors and court testimony. The trial revealed a lot more information and details that were previously unknown. What we do know, established by both prosecutors and confirmed by multiple DOS slaves is that some of them were told the brand represents the elements and not his initials. Also, saying that women were branded with Raniere's initials is a true statement. Something that was stated by virtually everyone including the prosecutors, journalists, the media and DOS members. Rootone (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Keith Raniere/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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)

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.
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:
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.
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.
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".
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.
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): 

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).
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.
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): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)


### A few long thoughts on specific passages
"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.
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)

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)


### Keith Raniere
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending 
Multiple WP:BLPPRIMARY violations existed in the article. These violations were included in the reviewed version and thus I do not believe the review was proper or adequate and a new one should be taken to ensure no violations of the BLP policy exist in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY concerns resolved at BLPN Feoffer (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
That discussion did not agree that content only sourced to court documents such as 'A July 16, 2020, intelligence analysis memorandum from the Bureau of Prisons Counter Terrorism Unit stated that Raniere instructed Chakravorty to get more women to dance "erotically" outside the MDC. In response, authorities moved Raniere to another unit to keep the dancers out of his line of sight. A frustrated Raniere instructed his followers to help get him moved back by ingratiating themselves to prison staff, including offering coffee and donuts as they left their shifts.' should be restored, only that they could be provided as supplemental links for readers of interest. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Added a RS discussing the memo and its claims. Feoffer (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)