Talk:Nicki Clyne

Untitled

Yeah, we're going to have to have a citation to support the bit about her liking Harmony Korine movies. Frankly, I don't think anyone likes Harmony Korine movies except Harmony Korine, the person they are evidently made for...

Role in BSG

"Nicki Clyne is a Canadian actress currently starring as Specialist Cally (Henderson) Tyrol on the Sci Fi Channel television program Battlestar Galactica." -- Not anymore.

File:Nickiclyne.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Nickiclyne.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:NickiClyne.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NickiClyne.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nicki Clyne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010083910/http://www.galactica.com/main/content/view/134/1/ to http://www.galactica.com/main/content/view/134/1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alleged Marriage

Per WP:BLP, I have removed information alleging that Clyne is married to Allison Mack from both women's pages. This extraordinary claim can be traced to a single anonymous source cited in an Artvoice article. The Toronto Sun has also picked up the story, but the article still relies upon the anonymous source in the Artvoice article. Until there is better sourcing for this claim, I think it should be removed.

References

Uncle Dick (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Same claims reemerged with no more substantial sourcing. Deleted per BLP. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a source that cites a statement from "Pretrial Services Officer Ramon Moore of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York": https://intomore.com/impact/Smallville-Actress-Arrested-For-Sex-Trafficking-Married-Female-Cult-Leader-Court-Documents-Confirm/e9607408ad0d4665 --ThRow (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's just rereporting the same ArtVoice allegations. I looked on PACER, the transcript is unavailable. If reliable sources report that Clyne married Mack, we can include that, and if reliable sources report that unreliable sources report that Clyne married Mack we could perhaps report that unreliable sources report that Clyne married Mack. Things are coming to light and that's fine. But we should wait and see how things shake out. It's a BLP. There's no rush.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Appears Fox ran with the story, with a named source http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/05/02/tv-stars-allison-mack-and-nicki-clyne-married-on-orders-from-cult-leader-keith-raniere-source-says.html Not saying I trust Fox news to report facts, but they're not exactly fringe. Also, google 'Allison Mack Spouse', they seem pretty sure at this point too. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/smallville-star-allison-mack-arrested-over-sex-cult-nxivm/news-story/bccee6e8140fc735222204d649bc617c Appears it came out in court as well according to this one. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

It's striking that although the tabloids and their ilk keep regurgitating that "it came out in court" (as if saying it made it so), none of them have actually reported what was said in court. Proceedings are transcribed; they were transcribed in this case; PACER even gives you the phone number of the transcription service used in the proceedings where this was supposedly revealed. The availability of the transcript combined with the lack of any actual use of it by any source (let alone a reliable one) tells me that this is just an echo-chamber: One source states that it happened and everyone else just keeps repeating it without checking. And that's precisely why WP:RS says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but quite aside from the fact that it's Fox (not a reliable source), look who their named source is: It's Frank Parlato, a high-profile, tireless, and pugilistic Nxivm critic (his blog is already linked in the article, for better or worse). He's a former Nxivm employee who has "spent years fighting to expose Keith Raniere" and who's the source for a *lot* of this material, either directly or as the "first whisper in the echo-chamber" by way of his blog or posts on the ArtVoice blog. Personally, I credit Parlato's testimony. But for purposes of the encyclopedia, the difference between a whistleblower's inside knowledge and a disgruntled ex-employee's axe to grind can often be seen only in hindsight, once all the facts have been reliably ascertained.

I also find it striking that after more than a week after Mack's arraignment and bail, there is *very* little reporting on these stories from reliable sources. It's *still* all just rumor, innuendo, echo-chamber, and tabloid nonsense; even the New York Times (which has run stories about this exact subject before) has thought discretion the better part of valor. That suggests to me that we're just seeing an echo-chamber; clickbait not reporting. If reliable sources are still waiting to see what shakes out, we probably should, too.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The blog Artvoice has posted what it is reporting as a transcript from the bail hearing. I am skeptical that this counts as a reliable source and have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Artvoice.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

People cited this https://frankreport.com/2018/05/03/what-really-happened-at-allison-macks-arraignment-when-she-was-first-denied-bail/ in their article here: http://people.com/crime/smallvilles-allison-mack-married-battlestar-galacticas-nicki-clyne-in-2017-prosecutors/. At this point, even if it is simply an echo chamber, its a NOTABLE echo chamber being discussed in first-tier publishers. I'd be editing if it weren't protected.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Frank Palato's blog is, well, a blog—and WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to … blogs…—as sources of material about a living person…. And People Magazine is a gutter celebrity-gossip rag; see WP:QUESTIONABLE. Avoiding gossip bootstrapping itself into an article by creating an echo-chamber in which the original unexamined gossip is repeated often enough that it starts to be taken as established is one of the reasons why WP:RS exists. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I find your characterization of People as a 'gutter celebrity-gossip rag' somewhat questionable in and of itself. People is known for trying to double-check their gossip and not going too far with salacious gossip because their primary use in media is for celebrities to give promotional 'exclusives'; they don't want to alienate those celebrities and lose their only source of credibility. Also, gossip magazines are potentially reliable when it comes to their specialty: who's doing what with who, when they're famous. Also, I am not saying that any additions to the article shouldn't lead with 'alleged'- such as 'Alleged Marriage and Involvement with NXIVM' for example.216.67.18.238 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Other people have already had this discussion. People is considered generally a reliable source in it's specialty(famous people), BLP or otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_157#RfC:_Is_People_magazine_a_reliable_source_for_BLPs? While this is somewhat contentious of an issue (at least to the admin who locked the article), it has other sources as the RfC recommends, and there is no reporting out there saying they AREN'T married, which one would assume someone would jump on, as People's serious mistakes are widely reported (the photo incident discussed at the RfC for example).Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if I agreed that People Magazine were reliable (I don't), even if we were bound by that discussion from 2013 (stipulated for sake of argument), the outcome of that discussion was that while "People magazine can be a reliable source in BLPs ... the magazine should not be used for contentious claims" (emphasis added), which is dispositive (and disabling) here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Specifically, it said that for contentious claims, another source should be used in addition to People. Not that People can't be used.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions on the source notwithstanding, the statements have been sourced. I feel your burden of proof is unreasonable because: you appear to think only 3 or 4 reliable sources exist. As there are a number of sources sited here and at least some of them ARE considered RS. This is starting to look like an edit war.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Re edit war, see WP:NOT3RR ("The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: Removing [BLP] violations ... that contain unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material") and WP:BLPRS (affirmatively requiring removal of such material, immediately, without discussion). Re "a number of sources sited [sic.] here," if ever n*(UnreliableSources)=ReliableEnough, it's for much higher values of n than we have here, and not in a BLP context. Re burden of proof, the "burden of proof" is WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Many sources meet that standard, but the fact that an editor really wants to insert into an article an allegation that none of that myriad have chosen to cover is not a reason to base claims on sources that do cover it but don't meet the standard. We're not talking about "oh, it's in the Chicago Tribune, but is that good enough, shouldn't we wait for the Washington Post." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR doesn't exempt consensus, nor is it a complete shield from edit warring. Multiple people are editing in this sourced info, and you've been the only one reverting for a few days now. I am here attempting to provide sources that are generally considered reliable (personal opinion about Fox News aside; multiple RfCs have determined that despite both of our views it's a RS, including one snow withdrawal recently). I have found more publications on the topic from further independent sources that quote a court official directly. https://www.advocate.com/crime/2018/5/08/smallvilles-allison-mack-exploited-marriage-equality-enslave-actress-nicki-clyne https://intomore.com/impact/Smallville-Actress-Arrested-For-Sex-Trafficking-Married-Female-Cult-Leader-Court-Documents-Confirm/e9607408ad0d4665 Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLP insists that “We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.” Well, there’s not likely anything I could say to better situate “The Advocate” blog in the non-reliable/low-quality - reliable/high-quality matrix than to quote its own sidebar. At time of writing, the story you linked is number three in their “MOST POPULAR ON ADVOCATE” sidebar—pipped to the post by “Photography: 87 Photos of Contemporary Men, Classically Nude” and “Sex: 25 Tips for Your First Fist.” One literally couldn’t make this stuff up. And the other link, I can’t even parse what their about us page is trying to say, but Newsweek it ain’t. You seem to be digging for sourcing for this, and all you keep turning up is a bricolage of garbage sources; at some point, the complete absence of coverage in reliable sources tells us that this is a story that shouldn’t be in WP. If and when it receives coverage in sources that pass muster under WP:RS (and, yes, there are folks who think Fox News passes muster, but there are also folks who think jet aircraft are a conspiracy), then there can be a discussion abut inclusion (subject to WP:BLPSTYLE). But unless or until, WP:BLPRS explicitly requires reversion on sight.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Your opinions on what an RS differ widely from the consensus determined by the other editors at multiple RfCs. Despite your assertion to the opposite, fox and people are both RS. The fact that none of your preferred RS have covered it may have more to do with the same partisanship issues you cite for Fox News. Nobody has come out to deny the marriage and its been in the news cycle enough for that to have happened at this point. No sources whatsoever have actually contested the marriage. Its scandalous-a marriage to avoid deportation is certainly that, but at this juncture it isn't controversial.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

What "partisanship" angle exists on this? And if "partisanship" is the problem—if most reliable sources lean Democrat and there's some kind of partisan reason why they aren't covering this—then why's there no coverage in other GOP-leaning sources, reliable or otherwise? It's tough to see how this could be about partisanship; it looks more like it's about how high-quality, reliable sources act versus how garbage sources act. Garbage sources are content to chase clicks and SEO by publishing lazy regurgitations of the echo-chamber; high-quality, reliable sources (the sources that BLP says we should be using) don't. Thus, in the absence of any new, verifiable, relevant information, we would expect precisely the landscape we see: coverage in garbage sources, no coverage in high-quality, reliable sources. Poorly-sourced, contentious material—say, for example, attempts to link a BLP to the indicted leaders of cult based on celebrity-gossip rags—doesn't belong in a BLP, Wikipedia policy is explicit about that. And I don't know of any BLP exception that says "but it's okay if celebrity gossip rags have reported it and the subject hasn't 'come out to deny' it."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, see the RfC for Fox News here. It was somewhat contentious, closed, and reopened because the OP didn't get the answer they wanted. Generally it boiled down to, 'yep Fox is no worse than NBC or CNN.' You can read that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Request_for_Comment_on_Fox_News_Channel So, two sources generally considered reliable have noted Nicki Clyne is married to Alison Mack and involved in NXIVM. Please cease your reversions as there is no consensus for them.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 01:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS says that "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you're saying that Fox News—which has since 2016 descended into the agitprop wing of the Trump cabal—is a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, I don't know what to tell you.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Another source: E! Online at https://www.eonline.com/news/932909/allison-mack-married-actress-nicki-clyne-prior-to-sex-trafficking-arrest . Note the part, "... federal prosecutors said in court documents obtained by E! News." This is their own reporting from primary sources, not repeating Artvoice. Vadder (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Another gutter tabloid celebrity gossip rag. Hardly the New York Times—not even the New York Post! It's striking that two weeks after the fact, no "reliable, third-party, published source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) has touched this, even in articles reporting on the legal proceedings against Mack and Raniere. Striking, and significant. The elephant in the room here is that Raniere and Mack will go on trial in a few months (October), and prosecutors tell us to expect more indictments, soon. It seems very likely that if Clyne’s involved in a way that obliges inclusion here, that's going to shake out in reliable sources (as opposed to celebrity gossip rags) in the next few months, so what’s the rush? What matters is that what's in the article is right, not that it's up to the minute, especially in the BLP context. And if it doesn’t? If reliable sources continue to make no mention of any alleged connection?? Well, then that also tells us something, n’est ce pas? Every day that this sordid business doesn’t make the New York Times further convinces me that attempts to tie Clyne to it don’t belong in this article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that People (magazine) is a "gutter tabloid". In the world of celebrity journalism, it's a reliable source. You said, "...not even the New York Post!" Here's a New York Post story that reports that Clyne is Mack's wife: https://nypost.com/2018/05/01/alleged-victims-ask-judge-to-keep-accused-sex-cult-leader-behind-bars/ I agree with you that the sourcing we have now is a bit shaky on connecting Clyne to the crimes charged against others (not Clyne) by the US Government, but we now have sourcing connecting Clyne to her wife, Allison Mack, that is quite good enough for that uncontroversial fact. (The controversy would come in if we included the allegation that the marriage is for immigration purposes, which again, our reliable sources do not report, just Artvoice and sources that are echoing Artvoice, so we should not include that.) The consensus here is clearly that the bare fact of the marriage is sufficiently sourced and that the particular sources that report it are reliable. At this point, you are editing against consensus. Vadder (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"In the world of celebrity journalism" it might be as good as it gets, but that's like saying that "in the world of kooky, conspiracy nonsense, Infowars is as good as it gets." It may or may not be true, but it's moot when the issue is whether it can be used for sourcing in a BLP. And to be clear, I didn't say "it's not even the New York Post" to imply that the Post is an acceptable source, but to say "this is gutter trash even compared to our usual referent for gutter trash." And it's contentious (that's the word WP:BLP uses) to connect a BLP to someone who's been indicted under both WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. When this gets reported in a high-quality reliable source (again, that's what BLP demands), which it will if it's true, or if BLP gets amended to lower the bar for sourcing, then the equation changes.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

As Nicki Clyne and Allison Mack are celebrities, it seems that People would be RS regarding them. I concur with Vadder's assessment.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cult allegations

We should be cognizant of WP:BLP. Salacious gossip circulating in blogs and supermarket tabloids don't belong in BLPs. The apparent arrest of the main players in the alleged drama suggests that if there *is* any substance to the allegations, they will be covered in reliable sources in due course. (cf. WP:DEADLINE.) Unless or until that happens, it's gossip and it doesn't belong in a BLP.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. And since this comment was posted, there are a decent number of publications that have called NXIVM a "sex cult", or mentioned that others have. So, "alleged sex cult" seems to be a pretty accurate description. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Employment with "The Knife Media"

Nicki Clyne's LinkedIn profile states she is employed at The Knife Media: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicki-clyne/ And until recently (April 18th 2018) she was also listed on the company website as a Producer: https://web.archive.org/web/20180418105658/https://www.theknifemedia.com/our-team/ ThRow (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sexual Misconduct Allegations

The sexual misconduct allegations category doesn't seem to fit this current version of the page. While I'm aware of the questions surrounding Allison Mack, this page makes no references. I recommend removing the category for the time being. San Diablo (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. —173.56.25.136 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"is" vs. "was" a member of NXIVM

Should text that suggests Clyne is a member of NXIVM be changed to was a member. The main article for NXIVM suggests that it no longer exists. --76.14.39.120 (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting question, which made me check out the NXIVM article. I'm not sure it should be written there in the past tense. It seems to me that the article conflates NXIVM the cult with NXIVM the company; while the latter is dissolved, I'm not sure the former is over. After all, the NXIVM article has a section for continued activities since Raniere's imprisonment. Grandpallama (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Contentious claims Lindsay

As the only real link to Lindsay is he was on a panel with Clyne, and he might consider her a friend, the claim he is a hypocrite is baseless. Lindsay is not linked to any activity of NXIVM or its cult leader. As per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources "There is no consensus regarding the general reliability of The Daily Dot, though it is considered fine for citing non-contentious claims of fact", I'm removing the contentious claims. Kameejl ^(Talk) 07:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Her Twitter activity and association with a the “contrarian” corner of online political discourse is the most salient aspect of her public persona in the aftermath of Raniere’s conviction. It’s how she remains in the public eye and it’s due to her friendship with Lindsay that she remains a frequent subject of discussion. With that said editors should take care to check their own political biases. Joeletaylor (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: Clyne and Lindsay have been photographed together on three separate occasions that I’m aware of and Lindsay has recently affirmed his friendship with her in public. Joeletaylor (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Changed her mind on NXIVM?

I saw on her twitter something from last year about "leaving Keith Raniere". Anyone interested to update on this? Korok222 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)