Talk:Sam Altman

Sister's tweets

Several tweets in which his sister, Annie Altman, accuses him of molesting her when she was four years old:

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1459696376133001218

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1459696444802142213

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1459696500540248068

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1568689744951005185

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1603857979408728064

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1635704398939832321

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1661087295657869312

- https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/1708193951319306299

Alluded to in this article, but not explicitly stated:

- https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/sam-altman-artificial-intelligence-openai-profile.html

"As Annie tells her life story, she felt special and loved when, as a child, Sam read her bedtime stories. Now those memories feel like abuse."

Is there anything that could be added from these sources that won't breach the BLP policy? 2A00:23EE:19D8:4A3:E923:6ECE:A7E8:1017 (talk) 01:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No. We are currently using the NYMag ref for other content. I'm not seeing any obvious usage for it regarding the relationship between the siblings. The tweets should not be used per WP:RSPTWITTER. --Hipal (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Those allegations would be a BLP minefield even if there was any kind of corroboration. Please see my next section. Sandizer (talk) 03:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue is generally considered to be reliable and reports on the allegations in depth here; Slate also mentions them. Fences&Windows 17:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

with writing like this, you can't say that the mary sue is neutral or reliable: He writes about bending the world to one’s singular will as a virtue. As a start-up hack. While much journalism around Altman adds to his budding mythos, one voice has been contributing a different sort of story for years. Artem.G (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Artem.G, you misunderstand NPOV. Sources don't need to be neutral; our summarisation of them should be. Fences&Windows 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand what NPOV is, I just think that your definition of "generally reliable" is incorrect here. Artem.G (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial for the consensus on The Mary Sue, and see WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Fences&Windows 20:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The Mary Sue article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and cannot be used to establish assertions of fact. This does not satisfy the WP:PUBLICFIGURE standard for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not the author's "opinion" that Altman's sister accused him as sexual assault. For God's sake. -- Rei (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's be abundantly clear about what WP:BLP says: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". Slate is a reliable secondary source. And yes, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial, so is The Mary Sue. This is not the venue to re-litigate this. -- Rei (talk) 09:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of if there is enough coverage for inclusion, your wording presents the allegations as facts, such as starting when she was four years old. Which is not acceptable for inclusion.

Also for your edit warring, blp says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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 (for stating these as facts) —Panamitsu (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

First, let's be clear: your edit warring. You're the one who made five reversions without taking part in talk and without making any changes to the text.

Secondly: I don't appreciate the straw man. The text was, I quote: In 2021, writing on Twitter (now X), Altman's sister Annie accused him of repeatedly sexually abusing her as a child, starting when she was four years old. You transforming that into claims that the edit was a statement of fact, and not an accusation, in order to then attack what it didn't say, is not well taken.

Thirdly: Nothing is unsourced, and nothing is poorly sourced. There are three WP-acceptable secondary sources linked )want even more? Name your number.) So your claims that this is your reason to violate WP:BLP's mandates simply does not hold up (again: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources") -- Rei (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: This IP appears to be the same of Rei. Both users have recently edited the induced demand article. I advise that these two users are treated as the same person. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that I wasn't logged in. I've corrected the sigs so that there's no confusion. -- Rei (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if everything in the Mary Sue is opinion or it only this one. But I agree that this is clearly an opinion piece. And as Morbidthoughts said, opinion pieces cannot be used to establish statements of fact and there is nothing in RSP that can change that. In fact the RSP entry specifically notes this "Opinions should be attributed." 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea if everything in the Mary Sue is opinion or it only this one - you don't get to re-litigate that here. WP has already decided on this issue. You need to re-challenge that decision elsewhere. Not in this article.

But I agree that this is clearly an opinion piece. - (A) It's a WP:V source backing up primary sources, which is exactly what Wikipedia requires. (B) Opinions are NOT prohibited by WP:BLP regardless, they just have to be sourced. And (C) it was one of three different WP:V sources. Exactly how many is enough for you before you insist on violating WP:BLP's requirements? (to reiterate: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources") -- Rei (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you read WP:RSOPINION? Opinions pieces may be reliable for somethings, but they are not reliable for statements of fact. So perhaps the Mary Sue's opinion that this was unfairly ignored by the world's media is an opinion that can be included, if we needed opinions on the matter. But we don't since we lack sufficient sourcing to establish the fact that these accusations are out there.

You're welcome to seek clarification at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN if you continue to believe that this The Mary Sue piece can be used for statements of fact. RSN is afterall where RSPS is established so if you're definitely right you should have no problems establishing that.

And as far I can tell, no one has suggest it's okay for BLPs to be temporarily unbalanced. However it is true that when there is dispute whether including something is a BLP violation, exclusion until there is consensus is what BLP policy requires. And several other editors have said they find this to be a BLP violation, because there is insufficient sourcing for inclusion at the moment.

If you feel the article is "unbalanced" that's because that's what the sources are like. Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're not allowed to try and to try and correct problems in the world by ignoring our sourcing and other policies and guidelines just because we don't think sources are doing the right thing.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

First off, re: Have you read WP:RSOPINION - Yes, and I question whether you have, because it specifically says, and I quote, "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion. Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format. The edit credits the criticism of hagiography of Altman and omission of his sister from earlier reporting to The Mary Sue, as per the guidelines.

Secondly, the article isn't an opinion piece on the subject at hand. It is factual reporting. The article includes criticism of hagiography, but this only represents a couple paragraphs of a long article, most of which is direct straightforward reporting, from a WP:V source.

Third, let's stop pretending like this is the only secondary source. There were three sources in the edit, and scroll down to "This isn't fringe news" for more - and there's plenty more than that.

Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, we're not allowed to try and to try and correct problems in the world - I would appreciate it if you would immediately cut it with the WP:AGF violations, thanks. And while you're at it, you can also cut out the "I've been here longer than you" tone, when you started editing in 2012 and I started in 2003.

I'm here because there's extensive coverage of this news, and the current hagiography omits it, violating WP:NPOV and, yes, violating WP:BLP. I'm not out here lobbing accusations that people reverting it are "Altman stans", and I'd appreciate it if you stop doing the inverse. I have no dog in this game. I however started encountering this news all over the place, and frankly found it shocking that this article included none of it, but goes on end about about any praise he's ever gotten and trivia about where he has a vacation home or who he dated a decade ago. You really think that's more relevant than his sister lobbying sexual assault allegations at him? Really? -- Rei (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rei, we should include the SA allegations by his sister. It’s been reported as fact (the allegations, not the actions) Bluedoor17 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's break down the entire WP:BLP article.

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. - Check. Indeed, it's careful to use the original language ("sexual abuse") rather than "rape", credit everything to those making the claims, and make no assertions of their truth.

Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects - Check

, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.' - Check. Ironically, something you're criticizing.

Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. - Check

Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources - Check

Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. - Check

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources - You seek to remove criticism and only include praise, this violating BLP.

so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone - Check

Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints - You seek to give *zero* space to criticism.

the views of small minorities should not be included at all - Nobody would consider "sexual assault is bad" to be the view of a small minority

Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral - Check

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content. - Not even remotely

The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. - The article is currently entirely laudatory, and thus, imbalanced, thus *requiring* inclusion of existing criticism being discussed in secondary sources.

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. - There is nothing "unfair" about bringing up news coverage of your sister accusing you of sexually assaulting her.

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone - Not even remotely

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source - As discussed previously..

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source - Bingo.

Never use self-published sources - We have verifiable secondary sources.

Using the subject as a self-published source - N/A

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. - As covered previously, check.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced - N/A

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. - N/A. Very much not noteworthy "for only one or two events"

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. You seek to violate "Neutral".

This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. - Again, N/A

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. - Let me repeat that: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article

Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. - Exactly.

People who are relatively unknown - N/A

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources - With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. ... -- N/A

Subjects notable only for one event - N/A

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. - No presumption of guilt is made.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. - N/A

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. -- Not low-profile, N/A.

Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. - Which you seek to prevent.

Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. - N/A

BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. - Noted.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. - Meets the sourcing policy.

Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements.. - N/A

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. - N/A

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its verifiable reliable sources. - N/A

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light) - N/A.

Recently dead or probably dead - N/A

This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons -- N/A

.... everything else is either "N/A" or "Check". So, to sum up: BLP not only allows, but requires, inclusion of this content. -- Rei (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you should ever touch BLPs every again until you better understand WP:BLP. Anyone who says something as flawed as "BLP not only allows, but requires, inclusion of this content" does not belong anywhere near BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Any more things you want to argue against without actually making an actual argument against them? If you have an issue with the text of WP:BLP, take it up over at WP:BLP, not here. I can only comment on what WP:BLP actually says. Not what you wish it said. To repeat: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. BLP strongly condemns imbalance and omission. It is not, according to BLP, "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape"; balance is mandated. "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources").

You seem to be of the mistaken belief that WP:BLP means "you can't write anything negative about living persons". It says precisely the opposite: that balance is required, and that allegations belong in the article if they are noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Nobody will ever call a sexual assault allegation "not noteworthy" or "not relevant", and we have three WP:V secondary sources (I'd be glad to get more if that's insufficient for you). And meanwhile, the current article reads like an ad, as has been noted elsewhere in this talk section - not even remotely "balanced", as BLP requires.

If you want to change WP:BLP into a policy that says "you can't say anything negative about living persons", you'll need to take that up on WP:BLP and get it changed - not this article. -- Rei (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that Altman has significant coverage. He is one of the most talked about people in the media right now. Mainstream media (BBC, Forbes, CNBC, etc) are not mentioning these allegations at all. There must be a reason why, as it would be an absolute gold mine for them. While there is coverage of the allegations, there is so little of it that it would be undue for inclusion. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Scroll down to the post starting "This isn't fringe news". Wikipedia's standard is not, never has been, and never will be, "Whether my favourite news sites specifically covered it." -- Rei (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No what I want is for BLP to be properly respected. I've been dealing with these sort if issues of BLPN for years, and we never allow coverage of allegations when they lack sufficient sourcing per WP:UNDUE etc. Any editor who ever approaches BLP in the manner that allegation must be included, and when they can only find one or two mentions in opinions pieces and poor quality sources when there are probably over 20 better quality sources covering that person in sigificant in just the past week, should not be editing BLPs, period. Frankly I would never use the word "must" when referring to the inclusion of information (as opposed to sources) in articles, even when I strongly believe the information needs to be there e.g. widely covered response to some allegations since it's just unhelpful to talk in that way. Edit: Just for further clarification, as The Mary Sue notes, even the recent indepth New York Magazine profile on Sam which did interview his sister and mentioned some of her comments chose not to explicitly mention the sexual assault allegations for whatever reason. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Annie Altman is NOT a WP:BLP violation

It meets all of the criteria for inclusion. By contrast, omission of this info and leaving the article like an ad (an already existing complaint about this article, as per other comments on this talk page) violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. -- Rei (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rei Have a look on the "Sister's tweets" discussion. It mentions policy regarding that Twitter is not a reliable source for such controversial matter. This is probably why mainstream media has not covered the tweets. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Twitter is not the source. We have secondary sources now. Mainstream sources *have* covered it. I'd be glad to remove the Twitter *links* if that's your demand, but they're not the *source*. -- Rei (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Slate added as an additional source. Now two reliable resources are cited (and yes, The Mary Sue is a reliable source according to Wikipedia and may be cited.) -- Rei (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this can and should be included, but not like this. This issues obviously has serious WP:BLP implications and its worth handling carefully. This must be rewritten to closely match what reliable sources say directly, without editorializing or vagueness. The tweets are a WP:PRIMARY source and should be summarized and contextualized by a reliable secondary source. Just mentioning the existence of such a source is insufficient.

Likewise, saying this "has been more recently criticized" is not going to work. What do reliable sources say about these tweets? The way to avoid BLP issues is to include context from reliable sources. Any opinion or subjective analysis (such as criticism) must also be contextualized and attributed. Use reliable sources to explain who criticized what, and why it matters. Grayfell (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose inclusion if the only sources we have are The Mary Sue and Slate. There is substantial coverage on Altman, so it's WP:undue to include something with so little coverage. In fact ironically The Mary Sue makes this point for us, for whatever reason this is something which has been largely ignored by most sources. (I'm not convinced their reasoning for why is correct, but that's neither here nor there although it is worth remembering that this affects two (well or more depending on what we include) living persons.) Also is there some reason we're discussing this in two sections? It should me merged with the section above. Nil Einne (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The recent edit-warring made a bit of a mess of the talk page, and I responded where I thought it would be seen. Upon consideration, I think you're correct and I was wrong. It may be possible to include this, but only with much better sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not complaining about others responding in this thread, but I don't understand why the OP who joined Wikipedia before me (before I even started editing I think), started a thread at the top of the page ignoring the existing discussion until later. IMO it should be merged at least as a subthread of the other. I'd sometimes do this myself but I'm a bit reluctant to when I've so harshly criticised the OP's taken on this. Nil Einne (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I missed the Times Now ref until now since it wasn't mentioned here. However I don't think it adds anything frankly I'm not sure we should use it at all. From what I recall and read, Times Now is one of those extremely pro-Modi/BJP channels known for their anchors yelling at everyone who disagrees and calling them traitors, terrorists etc. (This was a particularly funny incident of theirs [1]. Not mentioned in that ref but it's made even funnier by the fact that the anchor either didn't know or care that the person they were trying to yell at given their associations probably mostly agreed with them regarding US foreign policy.) While this is an area we shouldn't expect such extreme bias to be a problem, I'd always be wary of any media with such a poor track record although I don't know if their Times News Now section is better. Checking WP:RSN discussions isn't positive of them either. It seems they have been known for pushing the love iihad conspiracy theory and perhaps far more concerning when it comes to BLP, Sushant Singh Rajput death conspiracies. (Although my understanding is it's hardly uncommon pushers of love jihad will falsely accuse random specific individuals too, so maybe both are just as bad from a BLP standpoint.) I've looked and there might be one or two other sources but the coverage doesn't see to have changed much. Nil Einne (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That's three WP:V sources. How many do you need? Just tell me, and I'll include that many.

Furthermore, this article is already facing allegations of coming across as an ad, so if you want to talk WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, this article is a huge violation in exactly the opposite direction.

In short, I'll be glad to add more sources if that's the issue. Just let me know. -- Rei (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a very serious accusation, so caution is appropriate and this lengthy discussion is warranted. Certainly tweets and unverified accusations are not to be included, but if there are credible and legitimate RS news sources that have covered the issue, then that coverage can be included, if not stated as fact and if appropriate denials (if there are any) are also included. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, they're only included because, according to WP:BLP, "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source".

This isn't fringe news; it's all over the place. Business sites like VentureBeat are talking about it. AI news sites like GenerativeAI.pub. Celebrity gossip sites like Genius. It's being talked about on news sites in France[2], Indonesia[3], Turkey[4], India[5], Mexico[6], Thailand[7], Taiwan[8][9], Nigeria[10], Ghana[11], you name it. It's international news. It belongs here. Wikipedia is not a hagiography site. Nobody is talking about "how long Altman has been a vegetarian" or "whether he owns a vacation home in Napa". -- Rei (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure all that actually supports inclusion... I actually get the opposite impression. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS discussion

As per User:Nil Einne's advice, I raised this on WP:RSN here to get independent third-party feedback. The conclusions seem to be:

1) Given the numerous WP:RS sources with regards to the event itself, RS is established.

2) However, WP:DUE must be established in talk.

3) The Mary Sue article shouldn't be used for the event itself, but is fine for describing providing criticism of the initial lack of media coverage, so long as it is attributed to its source.

So with regards to #2: you already know my view on the topic. The article currently reads like an ad. This isn't merely my opinion, this was already an active area of discussion before this news ever became prominent. Wikipedia isn't a hagiography site. And given how this is a serious accusation, I cannot see how WP:DUE could be possibly disputed. -- Rei (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

As I mention above, I started out inclined to include this in some way, but the more I look at these sources, the less obvious it seems, and now I do not think this belongs. I do not think it would be respectful towards either sibling to mention some of the details for why I think this. Being a serious accusation is not, by itself, enough to make this due weight. We still need to use sources to decide weight. Some of the above sources, such as "generativeai.pub", "geniuscelebs.com", and others, are flatly unreliable and should not be cited for any contentious claims in a BLP article at all. (I also do not accept machine translations for sources. Especially for BLPs, I do not cite sources in languages I cannot personally read.) So for any source, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. What, exactly, are reliable sources saying about this accusation? Per Slate: "To be clear, these remain allegations, and were not mentioned by anyone (even Annie) as a cause of the firings."[12] I think there's also the issue that these accusations against Altman where mainly when he was still a child, and he is now an adult. I don't know exactly what that means here, but it means something and leaving that out would be telling an unacceptably incomplete history of events. So we would have to figure out how to include this in a way that satisfies BLP, based on the few usable sources we have. To be blunt, I do not think that is possible.

The article absolutely should be rewritten for neutrality. I do not think this is specifically related to this issue. Even before this recent debacle, there is ample reliably-sourced critical content on Altman. If better sources for his sister's allegations come along, let's discuss this again as appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The number of RS on this is IMO still way too low. Note that not all of those you mention in RSN seem to be RS, and of those which have been demonstrated, many are not great RS. This article may very well need correction, but as I've said before in relation to other things, if an article has way too much irrelevant and poorly sourced positive material, or is written in an excessive positive tone; the solution is not to add poorly sourced negative material. It's to remove the excessive positive material and re-write stuff we do include so we get the right tone. Nil Einne (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

There were around a dozen listed on RSN. Which ones are you disputing as to whether it's RS? Slate (magazine)? VentureBeat? 20 minutes (France)? Koran Jakarta? The Independent? The Thaiger? Liberty Times? ? The only one disputed there (and I agree with their point) in the list was the Yahoo News. To be clear, the number of RS required is "1".

You told me to take it to RSN to get this resolved (presumably expecting that RSN would side with you). RSN backed up that there's ample RS to support the text, and what needs to be discussed now is DUE, not RS. Don't tell me to take it to RSN, and then when RSN sides with me, say we're just going to ignore RSN.

As far as I'm concerned: if you say "take it to RSN", and RSN makes a decision: RS is decided. You can't pull a whoopsie and wish that it hadn't actually gone to RSN. As per RSN, the only thing left to decide thus is DUE. And if you're not going to make the argument "The subject's sister saying he raped her isn't worth two sentences.", then as far as I can tell, this discussion is resolved. -- Rei (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And to quickly answer "What, exactly, are reliable sources saying about this accusation?" - exactly what the text they were used to support said: that there were allegations. Not "he did it". I would strongly oppose inclusion of any statement assessing their value of truth. But the allegations are absolutely DUE - it boggles the mind to think that one could argue that sexual assault allegations from the subject's sister aren't DUE - they have RS, and BLP is explicit that BLP articles should follow NPOV, which this does not. -- Rei (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I believe at least one and maybe of the more sources you have posted above are AI translations of the Slate article. These are not reliable, and should not be cited. As mentioned above, I would hope that nobody is citing a source written in a language they cannot read. Even if these machine-translated sources were reliable, they would not be useful for demonstrating due weight since they are not separate sources. (Similar to how an article distributed by the Associated Press may be republished in hundreds of newspapers, but those would still be a single source).

I quoted the Slate article to clarify my rhetorical question. The source exists to talk about his firing, and then says almost in passing that these accusations haven't actually made any difference for that topic. To put it another way, the source emphasizes that they are just accusations and then explains that they haven't actually amounted to anything. The page on WP:BLP discusses criminal accusations multiple times. We are not obligated to include accusations, and if we do, we need to provide context, but sources do not allow us to provide this context. If the only thing we are mentioning about Annie Altman is that she has made these accusations, were are defining her by these accusations. I don't think this is appropriate based on these sources. Annie Altman has made it clear that she has no intention of involving the law (nor is it clear this would be possible considering the siblings ages at the time). Treating "Sam Altman" as an encyclopedia topic, I don't think these accusations belong yet. If this situation changes or if more sources are found which allow us to discuss it, we can reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1) Random guessing as to the editorial process of RS is not part of Wikipedia's process.

2) An article being a translation of a different article does not make something not RS, even if true.

RSN settled this. Move on to DUE.

3) The title of this article is not "The Firing Of Sam Altman". Whether something contributed to his firing is 100% irrelevant.

4) "They're just accusations". Accusations of rape. From his sister. Which is *absolutely* DUE.

5) "We are not obligated to include accusations" - you're obliged to follow NPOV instead of writing hagiography and hiding anything negative about the subject.

6) "Annie Altman has made it clear that she has no intention of involving the law " - Nor could she because of the statute of limitations. She has written repeatedly about what happenened, year after year, and she very clearly wants people to know what she says about her brother, rather than the current trend of hagiography. The vast majority of rape victims do not go to the police. Because even without a tolled statute of limitations, the odds of anything happening to the perpetrator are extremely, extremely low, while the odds of negative impacts to you are extremely high. You do not damn someone for not wanting to go to the police. Period.

I think it may be time for a RFC. What do you think? --- Rei (talk)

4) "They're just accusations". Accusations of rape. From his sister. Which is *absolutely* DUE. Accusations of rape are not prima facie WP:DUE. You don't get to wave your hands and say that just because they are rape accusations they are due: it's on you to establish that they are due. (In fact Annie Altman, as you mention upthread, does not accuse Sam Altman of rape; she accuses her brothers of various forms of abuse, including sexual abuse, but never says that any of them raped her, and none of the acts that she describes appear to legally constitute rape in the state where Altman was raised and they were presumably allegedly committed).

Having read through this discussion as a previously uninvolved party, it seems clear to me that the consensus is that inclusion of Annie Altman's accusations is not currently due; you are of course free to open an RfC if you believe that the wider community would come to a different consensus but I do not see that there's a super compelling argument here. As far as I can see the articles which discuss the allegations in depth are not very high quality (the Genius Celebs article is a particular lowlight). Maybe something very brief could be included, but the text removed from the article most recently in this diff doesn't even meet WP:V ("repeatedly" is not supported by the cited source, nor is "starting when she was four"; we need to be very careful here to rigorously stick to what the sources actually say). Even if it did we cannot cite Annie Altman's tweets for claims about Sam Altman per WP:BLPSPS, only report on what reliable sources say about them, and per WP:RSOPINION we should attribute the Mary Sue's criticism if we are going to include it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

While I would say that this is splitting hairs in talk (what she described - repeatedly, and in detail - absolutely meets the legal definition of rape, with zero ambiguity), I fully agree that the text of changes should match as precisely as possible the language of the sources, and welcome any changes in this regard. I however profoundly disagree with you about inclusion. Wikipedia does not have a "no accusations" policy. Not even remotely. The standard is that you cannot assert that accusations are proven - Wikipedia has a presumption of innocence policy. For accusations, the standard is DUE. And since we run the risk of overusing WP acronyms without mentioning what they mean: DUE means not having the majority of an article on a minority position, and not mentioning fringe topics. Nobody is proposing that the majority of this article be about the accusations - the change is just a couple sentences. And it is beyond a stretch to call accusations of sexual assault from your sister "fringe topics". -- Rei (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem like you're responding to my comments in good faith.

We don't cite multiple copies of the same source as though they were multiple sources, and an unattributed machine translation of a source is plagiarism and therefore not a reliable source and not something we should link on Wikipedia. We cannot use bad sources to imply something is due weight. Repeatedly stating this is "absolutely due" is not sufficient. Obviously, these are serious accusations that should be taken seriously. Wikipedia isn't the place to address these accusations. Of course Annie Altman is not obligated to go to the police or to go to anyone else. They are still accusations, though. Sam Altman doesn't owe Wikipedia editors any explanation either. By including these accusation in this article, we would be obligating him to answer to us. This isn't justice, this is online vigilantism.

Our goal is to summarize sources. To further illustrate the point, at least one of these sources misrepresents the accusations by falsely stating they were both teenagers at the time. That particular source was being lazy, but that's not a problem we, as editors, can fix. These sources are not treating these accusations seriously, they are treating them as gossip in a rush to cover a business story. The two or three reliable mentions are specifically contextualizing this as unsubstantiated accusations, but for us to pass-along these accusations in that same context would be inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So you agree that they are serious allegations that are widely reported by RS sources. Well, that's the standard for inclusion. You seem to be under two mistaken impressions. One, that the word "allegations" means "not appropriate on Wikipedia". This isn't how this works at all. There are entire massive articles worked on for years over allegations. What matters is whether they're noteworthy and properly attributed. And two, you seem to believe that we're supposed to be doubting the editorial policies of sources that are established as RS based on whether or not we personally like editorial choices. Again, that's not how any of this works. If an editor for a RS chooses to publish an article that's similar to that from another source, that's their editorial decision, not ours. We don't get to decide that here. And to repeat: all it takes is a single RS. RS was established here over RSN. We can discuss which of the RS links to include as references - surely we don't want to include a dozen. But that doesn't eliminate the establishment of RS. The debate is over DUE.

To repeat, these are the policies that govern allegations:

1) RS. This has been established by RSN.

2) V. Linked to RS.

3) NPOV. This article as it stands is the opposite of neutral - hagiographic even, as was already established before this topic even came up. This change moves in the direction of NPOV.

4) BLP. BLP's only comment on the topic of accusations is that the presumption of innocence must be maintained. NOT that they should be excluded.

5) DUE. The discussion topic at hand. And you yourself have now said that they are, and I quote you, "serious allegations".

Finally, I must insist on you stopping WP:AGF violations. -- Rei (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

"Serious allegations" does not mean that it could be due. It means that the matter is very serious; punishment would be high. —Panamitsu (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I think we'd all agree that this has gone on long enough, and no objection was made to bringing in outside parties, a dispute request has been filed at [[13]]. Just to notify everyone in this conversation. -- Rei (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

What's the status of this now? Can someone point me to the dispute request? Not too involved in wikipedia editing, but it is clear that given the scope of the coverage and the severity of the accusations that it is improper to not mention on his page. 47.16.29.40 (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be included at present. I don't know what you are talking about "given the scope". The allegation is only given passing mention in the Slate article and the only other source is the Mary Sue. Nothing else about it in any other reputable sources e.g., NYT Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal etc. CipherSleuth (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I suggest to replace the current content with some of what is mentioned in this Business Insider article. Alenoach (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

net worth update for 2024

Sam Altman's net worth is now $2.8 Billion in 2024 so he needs to be bumped up on the LGBTQ billionaires list accordingly 98.4.185.217 (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Section about Mr Altman's views on AI replacing people's jobs

Dear Wikipedian Elite, could I please add this section to this page, as I feel that people would be interested to read it. Thank you for spending your valuable time considering my unworthy edit to your wonderful website. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit has been disputed by Alenoach.[14] I don't believe the weight of the source supports it either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason he undid it was primarily because "The source doesn't frame it as a controversy, so Wikipedia shouldn't." I changed the section title and re-added it and there didn't seem to be any objection to it until you reverted it this morning. Today you said I needed consensus so I've opened the topic here. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with it's removal. The Business Insider piece is basically churnalism of an interview, and speculation on Altman's part. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course you agree with its removal. I've bumped into yet another AI fanboy who cannot bear their AI illuminati being criticised.

Even to the extent that allegations by his sister of INCEST didn't even make it onto the page.

This is how insane Wikipedia is. Do you think allegations about Donald Trump sexually abusing his son wouldn't make it onto Wikipedia? You people are a complete and utter joke. 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)