Talk:Danny Masterson

Request for comment on use of "rapist", "sex offender" or "convicted" in lead paragraph and short description

Situation: The subject of this BLP, Danny Masterson, was convicted of rape several months ago, and sentenced just yesterday. Numerous editors have added "rapist" or "sex offender" or "convicted" to the first sentence of the lead paragraph and the short description, and other editors have removed those labels. The article has been rapidly fluctuating back and forth, and an earlier discussion on the talk page hasn't resolved the issue.

Question: Should any of the above terms be included, or not-included, in the lead paragraph, lead sentence, and/or the short description? Clarification: The question is referring to the use of the labels themselves, not referring to sentences describing the concept.

Relevant guidelines: WP:Manual of Style/Lead section, especially the sections Opening paragraph, First sentence, Biographies, and Biographies' first sentence.

09:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose any of those in the lead sentence. Support describing the conviction and sentence later the lead paragraph/section (as it is now). The lead sentence should briefly describe a subject's original reason for notability and general arc of their life/career. It's not the place to describe their infamy, unless that's overwhelmingly the thing they were always known for (e.g., John Dillinger, whose criminal career is noted in the lead sentence, but not his charges, convictions, or prison time). Vadder (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead sentence, Support elsewhere in the lead. Vadder said what I was thinking. DonIago (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose lead sentence. Support lead paragraph. Soft Support short description. Per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE #5, the lead sentence should mention The main reason the person is notable, which in this case is his acting career: his article existed prior to any rape allegations being made public. The widespread sustained coverage of the rape allegations and convictions in multiple RS warrants emphasis in the first paragraph per MOS:LEADREL. WP:SHORTDES says, short descriptions are meant to distinguish an article from similarly-named articles in search results and should not attempt to [...] summarize the lead. Overall, I would read this guidance as saying it is not neccessary to append language such as "and convicted rapist", but not strictly prohibited either. I think the notoriety he's gained from his crimes warrants mention in the short description as I suggested, but only just. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  Modification: Now that I better understand the question of this RfC, I lean toward language such as "Masterson was convicted of rape" over describing (labeling) him as a "rapist". This is mainly a personal preference against applying negative identifiers to people when alternatives aren't overly unwieldy or euphemistic. Also, even though Masterson has been convicted, there is always the possibility of a false conviction, no matter how slim, whereas we're dead sure of the conviction. (That all said, my !vote here is guided far more by personal preference on labeling over what I see as a vanishingly small chance that he is innocent.)

  My previous opinions on where to include such language in the article still hold: no mention in the lead sentence, the second sentence of the first paragraph in the lead section maintaining the status-quo of this version, and soft support for changing the short description to something along the lines of, "American actor (born 1976), convicted of rape". Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose in lead sentence. Support Oppose in lead. Oppose in short description. The notoriety from the legal issues simply does not rise to the level to make this a defining characteristic. We have lengthy articles about other celebrities' legal issues without listing the legal issues as defining characteristics of the individuals, even in cases where the celebs are now probably better known for their legal issues than for anything else. Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, Bill Cosby sexual assault cases and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case are three examples. Meters (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Changed to "oppose in lead" since it has been clarified that we are considering the use of the term "convicted rapist" or similar. Yes the lead should mention the conviction in the lead, but we should not label him as a "felon" or "convicted rapist" or the like. just say that he was convicted and avoid the labels. Meters (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support In lead sentence. He is now more known for his crimes than he ever was as an actor. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Citation needed. DonIago (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Every news organization is reporting on his prison sentence. He never got this much publicity for his acting career. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because his current legal issues are receiving more news coverage doesn't mean that's what he's now more known for. DonIago (talk) 16:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We're a year in and, as he hasn't been able to continue his acting career, his personal exploits have certainly eclipsed any of his acting accomplishments. I totally support adding "convicted rapist" to the lead sentence and can't fathom why it's not already there. Nostaljack (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the media coverage now lists him as a convicted rapist (such as [1]https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/linkin-park-emily-armstrong-danny-masterson-scientology-1235096707/ and [2] i think we should add it to the lead sentence. Only reason why it hasn't is because some of the editors on here are afraid of $cientology or are themselves $cientologists. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose "any of those in the lead sentence. Support describing the conviction and sentence later the lead paragraph/section (as it is now)." per Vadder and others. The reason for his notability remains him having been a performer convicted of this crime. Most rapists get little media coverage and don't have WP articles - Masterson almost certainly has both because of his 'fall from grace'. The chronological is more informative. Pincrete (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the lede sentence, and further explanation later in the lede. I’m on mobile right now so can’t really confirm until I’m back at my computer, but I feel like sex crimes (and in fact felonies in general) almost always end up in the lede sentence? Will check for examples later, and retract if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe I am. Cpotisch (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lede sentence, support later in the introduction.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose adding them to the lead, lead sentence, and short description; support putting them elsewhere in the lead. Some1 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  You oppose adding it to the lead but support putting it in the lead? XeCyranium (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose lead sentence. Support lead paragraph. Oppose short description. His notability is as an actor, without which there would not be an article about him.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose lead sentence. This current version[3] is fine. It explains who the person is, why there originally notable, and then explains the rape and conviction. Nemov (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - 50% of the lead is already about him being a rapist, that should be enough --FMSky (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose lead sentence for now. Support status quo for lead section If and when Masterson exhausts his appeals and right of writs of habeas corpus, then I think we can add that into the lead sentence. TruthByAnonymousConsensus (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• OPPOSE using such label-words in any of the lead sentence, lead paragraphs, or short description. Support keeping content about the conviction in the lead section without using the label-words. My position is reflected in the wiki guidelines:

• MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE: The first sentence should usually state ... 4. One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
• WP:CONTENTIOUS: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. ... Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies.

These labels are not widely used in RS at this time. (Same goes for the use of the word "former" in front of "actor".) Grorp (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be in the first sentence, but what is subjective or contentious about him being a "convicted rapist?" That's not a matter of opinion. Nemov (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I echo Nemov's comment. @Grorp, how is this statement subjective or contentious? glman (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing whatsoever contentious about this. The statement that Danny Masterson is a convicted rapist is unequivocally a statement of fact. It is not a "value-laden label" like those other, different words to which Grorp refers. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nemov, Glman, and Cambial Yellowing: I never used the terms "subjective" or "contentious", it is Wikipedia guidelines that does so. In the above example, the word "contentious" wikilinks to the policy with header "Contentious labels", whose first sentence starts "Value-laden labels", which wikilinks to the Wikipedia article Loaded language. I have no objections to including prose style content about the accusations, charges, case, trials, conviction or sentencing. My objection is to the "value-laden labels" such as "is a rapist" or "is a sex offender" or "is a convicted rapist" or "is a convicted sex offender" (at the top of the article). Though those labels might well be truthful, it is against Wikipedia guidelines to use such labels unless and until such time as reliable sources start using these terms, and use them sufficiently often enough to overcome WP:UNDUE (and potentially WP:SYNTH and WP:OR). So if you are still confused as to why such labels might possibly be unacceptable, please read Loaded language as well as the other Wikipedia guideline pages. (The same argument holds for the use of "former" as in "former actor".) Grorp (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Grorp: — Contentious labels talks about "value-laden labels" that may express a contentious opinion. If someone if convicted of rape, they are by definition - a convicted rapist, that is not an opinion, that is a fact, and it is supported by multiple reliable sources - convicted rapist (NBC News), convicted rapist Danny Masterson (Los Angeles Times), convicted rapist (Intelligencer), convicted rapist (The Independent), convicted rapist Danny Masterson (ABC News), convicted rapist Danny Masterson (Vulture), convicted rapist Danny Masterson (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). Plus dozens of other reliable sources that explicitly state he was convicted of rape, and they are not expressing an opinion, they are reporting the facts of his case. Whether or not it should be in the lead sentence will be decided by this RfC. But calling Masterson a convicted rapist is not contentious, a value-laden label, or loaded language. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I note that all of those articles were published after this RfC started, so maybe the [language] tide is turning in RS, in which case thankfully there is an RfC process. Perhaps people might have left my vote alone had I simply answered "I find it distasteful to use such labels". Still do. I feel using such labels is borne of reactive emotions from recent events, or a media practice towards sensationalism (which drives attention and profits), not logic-based editor judgment. I think using such identifying labels in Wikipedia BLPs should be reserved for those who are well-known because of their crimes—Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer come to mind; nobodies who probably wouldn't have gotten a Wikipedia article except they were notorious for their crimes. The label is contentious; as witness the votes in this RfC. It is loaded language. To say "someone has been convicted of crimeX" is completely different than saying "someone is a convicted crimeXer"; one labels the person's actions, the other labels the person. Those who have asserted it is neither contentious nor loaded have basically been saying "I want to", and have failed to refer to any Wikipedia guidelines that suggest we should use such labels (because there aren't any). That devalues their vote. The RfC results will govern. Grorp (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Like I said, it is not loaded language or contentious to label Masterson a convicted rapist, when it is verified. Reliable sources clearly and directly state he has been convicted of rape. We follow reliable sources, and they say he is a convicted rapist. And it does not devalue an editor's !vote when they are following policy and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a good point and I'm conflicted 50/50 on this. We should be extra careful about contentious labels in a BLP, but it is also true that Danny Masterson was convicted of rape, making this an objective fact not a subjective opinion. But even a minor change in the language like "Convicted of rape" or "convicted of multiple rapes" seems more neutral than "convicted rapist." I like the idea of Wikipedia being as neutral as possible even for those convicted of heinous crimes. Does it make any sense or am I over-thinking this? CranberryMuffin (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC) strike comment by CU-blocked sock

[r as pinged] @Grorp: You claim you never used the terms "subjective" or "contentious", yet the word "contentious" does appear in your comment – twice – albeit in quotes from the manual of style – and you claim it applies to the term "convicted rapist".

You fail to understand what the term "value-laden" in "value-laden label" means. The terms listed as examples involve value judgment. They apply a relative standard, and thus different terms might be applied to an individual by different parties depending on their position on the factors involved ("one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", etc). This is not the case for the term "convicted rapist". You imply that "convicted rapist" is a "label-word" – you don't define this, but one presumes you mean it to be roughly interchangeable with "value-laden label". That Masterson is a convicted rapist is a fact established by his conviction under the California Penal Code. The appeal process means he might no longer be a convicted rapist in the future, but there is nothing contentious about the statement that, at present, Masterson is – factually – a convicted rapist. This is what @Nemov, Glman, and Isaidnoway: allude to above.

It is worth making the observation that despite an apparent consensus not to include this in the first sentence, literally no-one agrees with the notion this is contentious – no other !votes refer to it, and at least five editors explicitly disagree with your POV.

Suggesting the use of the term "convicted rapist" to describe the rapist Danny Masterson is somehow contentious, is in my view a little insulting to those who were raped by the convicted rapist Danny Masterson. Continuing to double down on the notion this is contentious undermines your !vote, revealing as it does a fundamental misunderstanding of the style guidelines you cite – wrongly – to try to buttress your argument. Reference to the policies WP:SYNTH and WP:OR similarly detract from your argument, given they have literally no relevance whatsoever here. There are salient issues to consider around whether the reliable sources consistently use the term "rapist". Its increasing use to characterise Masterson in reporting on the sentencing, and on secondary issues connected to the case – before and after the 8th September – suggest it will likely become the widespread norm. The notion that there is something contentious about characterising Masterson as a convicted rapist who raped people is not one of those salient issues. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yawn. Another round of nitpicking and twisting my words, and assuming hidden meanings where there are none. I have nothing but contempt for Masterson, sympathy for his victims, and pride at Judge Olmedo's work. However, I also have principles and standards as an editor, and about language. And I don't care if any of you agrees with me or not. WP:DROPTHESTICK. Grorp (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You pinged me Grorp, thus I responded. If you feel your words are so important that people should read them but not respond to your failure to understand the policies you cite, this may not be the website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support My interpretation of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE is that including the words "convicted rapist" will help to: "provide context, establish notability." For people that did not watch That '70s Show (myself included), the rape conviction and subsequent news coverage was the first introduction to Masterson. Despite what Xan747 said about the article having "existed prior to any rape allegations," his convictions are now just as relevant to his notability as his former acting career. --Tbrowne03 (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Adjunct discussion

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Grorp (talk) 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC) @Grorp: Don't ping people with a lengthy post if you don't expect a response. Pinging and then immediately deciding others ought to "drop the stick", alongside the phrase "I don't care if any of you agrees" strongly indicate you are unwilling to listen or get the point. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) I posted my vote and reasoning, several asked questions (including you), I pinged everyone to alert to a joint answer. That should have been the end. The pinging wasn't an invitation for you to get confrontational because you don't like my viewpoint. You used phrases such as "you fail to understand", "you imply", "literally no-one agrees", "fundamental misunderstanding", "you cite – wrongly", "literally no relevance whatsoever", "your failure to understand", and you also called me insulting. None of that is constructive or assuming good faith. It is WP:BATTLEGROUND. You get a vote; I get a vote. Not sure why it's so important to you that I change my vote to match yours. Agreement between participants is not necessary in an RfC. Grorp (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC) You claim "that should have been the end", which implies you think no-one should respond. That's not how the talk page works. I did not ask a question. The claim that literally no-one has agreed with your idea, that the claim that the article subject is a convicted rapist is a subjective one, is a statement of fact: nothing to do with assuming good faith. It's not clear why you think it's important to [me] that you change your vote to match mine – I've not !voted. You make the accusation that I became "confrontational" in bothering to respond to your comment full of bolded admonishments that if the three editors who disagree with you "are still confused" they must "read Loaded language as well as the other Wikipedia guideline pages"; your response – "Yawn"..."And I don't care if any of you agrees with me or not." I'll not reply to your accusation, out of politeness. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support I think the opposition to mention that he is a "convicted rapist" in the first sentence is absurd. The sources that describe him as an "actor" only are, by and large, dated before the conviction, so they are not really decisive on this question. As a matter of decency, the crime simply must be mentioned in the first sentence, and there is no lack of sources for the fact. (Whether he is described as an "actor" or a "former actor" is less important to me; on the balance, I'd go with "actor" till sufficient recent sources clearly and explicitly state that his career is over.) Nø (talk)
• Support in the lead paragraph and sentence. Oppose in the short description. The conviction is now as notable as other elements of his life. But his acting career spanned a longer period of time compared to his crime. Senorangel (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, support, oppose makes the most sense to me, considering the similar recent RfC on Roman Polanski. This is a significant factor in his life and warrants a mention in the lede paragraph, but is not so defining à la Harvey Weinstein to be an "occupation" in the first sentence. Curbon7 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (to follow up my support above). I see some oppose because they think "convicted rapist" is contentious or value-laden. How that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nø (talk • contribs) 07:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support He has been convicted, and precedent from Weinstein, Epstein, R. Kelly, etc justifies this. Unless his conviction is somehow quashed, it should be up there as a statement of fact. DrewieStewie (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead sentence, Support elsewhere in the lead.Chillowack (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BLPPUBLIC and MOS:LEADBIO. It should be described in the lede that he has been convicted of raping two women. WP:RS are available to use in this regard and Wikipedia policy is clear that we should not whitewash this given that it's extremely relevant to his life and works. TarnishedPath^talk 06:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in the first sentence, support later in the lead section. His acting is the primary reason he is notable, his conviction is not as significant as that (despite the WP:RECENCY bias) so would be UNDUE in the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose the terms throughout the article per MOS:LABEL and WP:WTW. The terms have zero encylcopaedic value and do nothing other then add an editor's value-judgement. State the facts, starting with the reason for his notability (acting) per WP:LEADBIO. Later in the lede, detail his crimes using factual, nonemotional language and let the reader make appropriate value judgements. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose in the lead sentence for now, maybe revisiting the issue at a later date. It's adequately covered in the lead as is. Furthermore, MOS:LABEL does not apply as it is not a subjective opinion being expressed by reliable sources, or editors, it is a widely reported fact that he is a convicted rapist, so no objection to using that fact in the rest of the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  There are reasons that LABEL applies here. Yes, it is widely reported that he was convicted of rape, and some (even a wide subset) of those sources use the value-laden term, rapist. However, the majority of major news sources are careful to use neutral terms, and so should we when using wikivoice. Judgmental and emotional terms may be accurate but still be unencyclopaedic because of the emotional freight they carry. Loaded language, referenced in the paragraph immediately preceding the LABEL section, explains it best. Whenever we can use terms that do not trigger a visceral, emotional response in the reader, we should do so. That is the fundamental drive in LABEL as well as the WP:WTW guideline of which it is a section. In fact, it is the reason that guideline exists: to show that some words can pass muster under WP:OR and WP:SYNTH because they appear directly in a reliable source, and yet they are still unencyclopaedic. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  It’s not “value-laden”. There’s no value judgement to be made. Masterson is not merely a person who engaged in sexual misconduct to some, and only a convicted rapist to others. It doesn’t depend on one’s point of view or opinion. That Masterson is a convicted rapist is simply a fact established by the Californian criminal justice system. “Value-laden” is for terms based in opinion that involve value judgements. That’s no the case here, as Isaidnoway correctly points out. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, LABEL does not apply here at all, and that guideline exists for subjective opinions expressed about a person, not a statement of fact. If someone is convicted of rape, they are a convicted rapist. Period. It is not a value-laden term, it is not loaded language, it is not emotional, it is not unencyclopedic. Our readers are not stupid, and they certainly aren't so emotionally fragile that a statement of fact will invoke a visceral emotional response. All the major news sources, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, all use convicted rapist. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose the use of labels. MOS:BLPLEAD clarifies how to solve this problem: "Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." Since the lead already goes into the clinical descriptions of his sentencing, labeling him as a rapist is unnecessary for a BLP, where we should always take great care to be impartial. Pistongrinder (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  Referring to the fact the article subject is a convicted rapist is writing clinically, reporting as it does an established and well-documented fact. Nothing in the manual of style indicates we cannot state this fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

  The lead already says Masterson was convicted of raping two women, so he has already been labeled as a convicted rapist, the question this RfC asks is if that fact should be in the first sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support in first paragraph of lead; Oppose in short description. That Masterson is a convicted rapist is an unambiguous, well-documented fact. No serious person can suggest it is open to question. The question of whether the fact he is a convicted rapist is a source of his notability is a little more complicated. Had he not been a TV celebrity would the rape trial have achieved the level of coverage - any coverage? Statistically unlikely. At the same time, many of those who read headline news about Masterson’s crimes have never heard of That 70’s Show, nor any of the mediocre roles the subject also filled. So he has achieved a new notability, or notoriety.

Nothing in the policies and guidelines prevents or discourages editors from using factual descriptions of the subject. The word rapist or convicted rapist can therefore be used throughout the article wherever it is appropriate. Given the level of mainstream news coverage and the obvious impact recent events will have on the subject’s life, it would be inappropriate not to describe the subject’s criminality in the first paragraph of the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support based on precedent from Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, R. Kelly. If it's good enough for those articles, it's good enough for Danny Masterson. I don't see the difference. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the fact that the majority of convicted rapists do not even have an Wikipedia article, this supports that the fact itself isn't particularly notable. This desire for it to be in the lede here comes across as a virtue-signaling witch hunt wanting to throw negative labels at a famous person because his fame ensures them the safety of a mob and the visibility of their virtue signaling. Are any Wikipedians visiting prisons to document individual cases of prison rape? Is anyone combing through African legal records to ensure that every African convicted of rape has an article? No, because you just don't care about virtue signaling into the void. Olufemi Olaleye was convicted of rape in Lagos, Nigeria? Nobody cares because nobody's heard of him and so flinging shit at him wouldn't stroke their ego. Reminder that while the report of court decision may be factual, the decision itself is subjective and open to error. To highlight this separation and avoid inserting the editor's bias to target the individual, I believe that all mentions of convictions should really mention the jurisdiction, as they were factually only found guilty in that jurisdiction. Note the difference: "Olufemi Olaleye, the convicted rapist." vs. "Olufemi Olaleye, who was convicted of two counts of rape by the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court for Ikeja Lagos Nigeria." One is morally judgmental shit-flinging targeting the individual, the other is simply stating facts.DominionSeraph (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment: Previous discussions on this page have raised Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein as examples of articles that include "sex offender" in both the lead sentence and short description. These are not comparable to Masterson. Epstein is primarily notable for being a sex offender, and the lead and short descriptions both correctly mention that before his profession as a financier. Weinstein was initially known for being a film producer, but the sustained serial nature of his abuse all but eclipsed his prominent career; his lead and short description rank his profession over abuses, which I think is appropriate. R. Kelly has also been mentioned above as an argument for including sex allegations in the lead sentence and short description. On this I also disagree: Kelly is primarily notable for his music and it is his article that should be changed from its current form, not this one to conform to his. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Question: Most of the opposes here are without anything resembling a valid argument, and I share the suspicion raised in another talk post that organized trolling is taking place. That aside, it seams to me a few opposers raise one valid argument: Masterson may still appeal the verdict. Isn't that a valid argument - not against mentioning that he is a convicted rapist (objective fact), but against insisting it goes in the first sentence (which is the same as saying it is among the very most important biographical facts about this individual)? Is there a deadline before which he has to file an appeal - and if so, should we wait for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nø (talk • contribs) 15:44, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I, for one, am not trolling. I've opposed the first-sentence "...and convicted _____" on other BLP articles well before this became an issue here. I've never opposed discussing a subject's criminal activities and convictions anywhere else in the lead section, and I don't here. I don't think it matters whether Masterson still has appeals pending or has exhausted them unsuccessfully. It will be bad to put it in the first sentence then like it would be now. But if anyone is only opposing based on the pendency of an appeal, I think they should switch over to support (the opposite of my position) without delay, because that is the bad argument. The hypothetical possibility of a conviction being modified or reversed in the future has nothing to do with the desirability of what we put in the article today. He is legally guilty right now. That status will probably never change, but it may change next year after an appeal, or it may be changed 100 years from now when neither Masterson nor you nor I are still around to hear about it. The possibility of it changing in the future isn't the problem. The problem is putting this kind of stuff in the first sentence where it does not belong. Vadder (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the relevance of a possible appeal depends on the time frame. In my country, I think the convict would have two weeks to appeal; after that, reopening the case would require substantial new information, or something like that. Waiting those two weeks before considerig it an established encyclopaedic fact wuold make sense. The theoretical possibility that new evidence at some unspecified time in the future might lead to a reopening of the case would not justify waiting; we certainly agree on that.

Good faith or not; the hope with an RfC like this is that we can reach near-concensus. It's not a vote, but if a vast majority points in one direction, that is where we go. If one side represents a fringe view, but manages to get a substantial number of "votes", reaching a conclusion becomes difficult. My main point here is that arguments for "oppose" in this RfC seem absent or poor - except perhaps the one about an appeal. Nø (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Two points: First, not every RFC !vote needs to be based in established policy. Reasons given (when they are given) for an RFC !vote can be based in established policy. They can instead be based on what the policy should be (i.e., there is no established policy in this area, but we should start moving towards a better practice that might become policy in the future). They can also be based on editorial preference ... that a given way of writing this article would be be better for this article, and also not prohibited by existing policy. I think good reasons have been given that mainly fall into the later two categories. I accept that you don't think the reasons given so far are good, but that's what the RFC is for ... to determine the consensus of editors at the article about how to edit it.

Second, American law doesn't work like what you're suggesting. While there may be time limits for some kinds of appeals (which are certainly longer than a few weeks), American law is more focused on preventing cumulative appeals of the same type. For instance, American law often prohibits multiple successive appeals over the same issues of fact or law, or appealing on one kind of supposed error at trial, then appealing on a similar but distinct error after the first appeal fails. But there are some kinds of appeals that are always allowed, and can be filed any number of years after the first appeal fails. The way this often happens is a person is found guilty at trial. They appeal a few months later saying that the judge made mistakes at the trial (allowed inadmissible evidence, etc.). That appeal fails. Then, years later, another appeal is filed saying that the convicted person received ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial and the first appeal. The second appeal is basically focused on either getting a new trial, or alternatively getting the right to redo the first appeal. While there are aspects of American law that try to get a final result and bring an end to appeals, there are enough exceptions that it's not easy to say when that point has been reached. My point is there is no simple rule where we can say "Appeal time is over. This conviction is really real now." Vadder (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I recommend assuming good faith with those with whom you disagree instead of making shadowy accusations. Nemov (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment This RfC isn't worded very well. What specifically is being proposed to be inserted into the lede? TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As I understand from the clarification given after the RfC had been open a few days, the question is whether to label Masterson a "convicted rapist", "convicted felon" or the like in lieu of using language such as "he was convicted of rape". As of now the second sentence of the lead paragraph says, "Masterson was convicted of raping two women", with no mention in the short description. The RfC is a response to numerous editors appending "and convicted rapist" to the lead sentence and/or the short description, and being reverted. However, most respondents (including myself) have taken the question as where to mention the rape convictions, not how to do so. I will be modifying my response accordingly. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment There is a similar RfC currently being discussed about whether Rolf Harris should be described as a "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence of the lede of that article. I would encourage all interested editors to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 06:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Question When and how does the wikipedia community reach a conclusion on this RFC? Despite what I see as a serious lack of serious arguments on one side, there is no clear conclusion in terms of number of "votes". Do we call in assistance, or how do we proceed? Can people who are able to summon a sufficient number of "votes" to blur the picture block a change indefinitely? I know; this is not a vote, and those supporting the opposite view of mine are legitimate editors too. Still, how do we get anywhere?Nø (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If you wish you can submit a closure request at WP:CR. A closure is not a necessity when it comes to obvious consensus. When it comes to your recent edit, rightly reverted by Grorp: on the specific issue of the opening sentence the 19 !votes opposing inclusion with only 7 !votes in support indicate a clear and unambiguous consensus not to include. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my recent edit was a mistake; I'd forgotten (and failed to check) that the short description was part of this RfC. Apologies. Nø (talk) 13:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

this line in the credits does not make sense. how can you retrieve info a year before it was publicized

"Danny Masterson for Clearasil". Sitcoms Online. Archived from the original on July 16, 2011. Retrieved July 15, 2010 69.141.3.222 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source was not published on July 16, 2011, simply archived by the Wayback Machine on that date.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 13:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2024

this line in the credits does not make sense. how can you retrieve info a year before it was publicized

"Danny Masterson for Clearasil". Sitcoms Online. Archived from the original on July 16, 2011. Retrieved July 15, 2010 69.141.3.222 (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There's nothing we can do about that. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Already answered above. The commercial is from 1994. The screen capture was uploaded in 2006. Meters (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2024

Change citations for opening description (x-2-y):

X(original citations) SOURCES BASED FROM CONSUMER ENTERTAINMENT.

Y(correct citations) SOURCES BASED FROM LEGAL AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

Notes: The primary opening statement is cited incorrectly.

The 4 sources that are referenced are publications with intent on mass entertainment. All of which are for-profit and generally considered unreliable for information other than direct quotes.

To reference historical title, occupation, or legal status from such citations is unprofessional, unreliable, and possibly incorrect. This is regardless of the cited sources original sources being included. Josephmichael01 (talk) 08:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: sources from commercial companies can be reliable, see WP:RSP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that commercial sources can be reliable, in context. The fact remains, such sources are inproper in regards to the informatuon being provided if it is wished to avoid uneeded scrutiny. A court record would be the more accurate source.

WP is also quite clear in regards to how commercial sources are referenced and how the types of information from those sources may or may not be used. Specifically regarding the exact ones being cited.

I am not contesting the information. I am simply saying, that it is not being cited appropriately. Josephmichael01 (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I wish to make sure that I am being very transparent in regards to the change I requested.... The information referenced is being cited from a 3rd party... by an additional, and further removed 3rd party.

As such, and as it is, it should be in quotations to clearly denote that such information, AS IT IS STATED,... is 100% speculative and cannot be further used as a professional or factual citation other than as a continued reference to a even further removed statement.

Again, I am not arguing the data or content. These are the details that require professionals to rule out WP as a reliable source... Josephmichael01 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.The cited sources are entirely valid per WP:RS. If you would like to suggest DIFFERENT sources, it is incumbent upon you to explicitly provide them, not merely request a change in category. Further, Wikipedia has a preference for secondary sources over primary sources (see WP:PSTS), and as such, court records are actually LESS preferable than coverage in secondary media.PianoDan (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed. I stand by my suggestion, but accept whichever citation you decide to include.

And I am quite greatful for your shared information regarding Wikipedia'citation suggestions.I have reviewed them as you have suggested, and they seem.... quite ambiguous, and largely leave it up to the contributor.

I was taught to cite near-objective, peer reviewed, official documents when referencing legal status.

It seems though, that WP has concerns that contributors often begins attaching such sources and status to their own opinions, thus accidentally implying the same level of validity.

As such, I withdraw my suggested change. Josephmichael01 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)