RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence[edit]

Should the article include the words "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence ? PrinceofPunjabTALK 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for context, look at the WP:RSP coverage of Van De Velde.
BBC: Convicted rapist (their other article on him is about the same)
The Telegraph: Dutch volleyball player who raped 12-year-old
The Times: Child rapist
The Australian: Rapist of girl, and a similar op-ed on it.
Given the sheer amount of coverage for him being a child rapist outweighs his volleyball career significantly, not including this in the sentence is a poor idea in my eyes. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ser!, two things. First of all this is something that is hitting the news all over the world, and it's juicy. Second, re: the content of the article, that's just poor article writing--he's a five-time national champion, which is not reflected in our argument. I'm not going to argue the conviction shouldn't be in the lead; I think I'm fine with this version. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point on the latter, though I could find very little coverage outside of just WP:MILL mentions of him in the context of the Dutch national team to indicate notability - it feels like even in a case of poor article writing there's still sod-all with which to actually write an article, meaning the amount of focus in the article atm on the whole sex abuser thing makes sense. No objections to the current version, I've just seen enough cases of not particularly notable sex offenders/felons having it alongside their original reason for notability in the lede, and as much as I'm aware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it just felt strange to me that this would be an outlier.... ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, your claims of his achievements are not reflected in the article, feel free to add them. The first line used to reflect the content of the article. He's globally and locally known for the rape since 2016 when it first made headlines. He's more well known for this than winning the Dutch volleyball tour a few times. Beach volleyball isn't big in Holland, but indoor volleyball is 3rd. If you're arguing to not include it here, are you also raising this on the pages of other convicted felons? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I second ser!’s argument regarding the WP:RSP coverage on the subject. The vast majority of English-speaking news articles reporting on his to date biggest and most notable achievement as an athlete mention his past crime in their headlines with most of them directly using the ‘rapist’ descriptor. This descriptor has been part of the lead sentence for five years. Why change it now that there is even more press coverage on it? quidama talk 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Unfortunately that is what he is known for. Otherwise we have to delete the article which wouldn't be a bad idea. We don't have an article for every sex offender as we are not a repository of information on such things.— Iadmc♫talk  13:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes As I said above, He is actually known for his crime conviction. This very article only exist because of his crime conviction. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Put what he was convicted of (e.g., "who was convicted of four counts of rape against a child in 2016"). I don't know what some editors' obsession with nouns is, but this is just poor writing. The sex offender register part does not seem necessary in the lead; that seems better addressed in the body. The conviction is noteworthy, not all the details of the sentence. – notwally (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. - To do so is just bad writing. It simply reads as immature and unprofessional that way, and is that what anybody really wants? For a more detailed explanation, see my comment at WP:BLPN#RFC regarding MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE at Steven van de Velde. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing an accurate summary of what someone is famous for as "bad writing" – and suggesting that defining a criminal as a criminal is "immature" because they also do sport – is a real choice, regardless of sources etc. That is, there isn't an actual argument - whether theoretical or policy-based - in Zaereth's comment except the apparent idea that it wouldn't be very nice to do that. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, considering Zaereth never suggested anything about it "wouldn't be very nice", I genuinely hope you aren't suggesting he thinks Hitler is some person we should be "nice" to as well, but rather you simply failed to actually read his comment at BLPN before leaving your asinine response above. – notwally (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did read his entire comment at BLPN, it's basically just restating "immature" and "bad writing" in various different ways before, as you say, comparing the situation to Hitler. Apologies if it's not clear but, no, I don't know whether Zaereth is suggesting he thinks Hitler is some person we should be "nice" to, I couldn't tell, because (I do think it was clear) as I said, there isn't an argument made in either location except for arbitrarily saying (repeatedly, in different ways) that it would be bad writing or childish to call a criminal a criminal.
And we can ignore your provocative violation of WP:NPA for now, but calling a well-articulated response to a non-argument "asinine" just to defend your mate isn't gonna fly if you try it again.
More relevantly, that's the second time Hitler has been invoked in trying to scrape together why we can't call a spade a spade. Generally, it's a discussion-ender. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me, simply check some reliable sources on the matter. See for example: On writing well: The classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinsser, Stein on writing by Sol Stein, Understanding journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Reading and writing: Nonfiction genres by Kathleen Buss and Lee Karnowski, to name but a few. There are plenty of sources on good writing practices. It's not that it wouldn't be nice, but would come off like it was written by a 6th grader and not by a professional writer, which for an encyclopedia looks silly. Seriously, why would anyone want their writing to look ridiculous. If you think it doesn't, the only one you'd be fooling is yourself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for something of an expansion, but I don't believe that merely saying "Steven van de Velde is a Dutch convicted rapist and volleyball player" inherently sounds childish – of course, I would agree that it flows better with the criminal status going first, and that putting that after the sporty thing would sound like shoehorning, but that's a question of phrasing, not content. While I haven't got the books you suggest to hand, I could direct you to a number of Wikipedia articles that are crime bios for examples of this first sentence being widely accepted on Wikipedia. IMO a more relevant part of the question (of what belongs in the first sentence) is whether it's a sports bio or crime bio, rather than basing what belongs in the first sentence on how good the proposed phrasing of said sentence sounds. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your missing the point entirely. The first sentence is not the most important sentence. It's not where the main point of the article should be. People don't remember the first sentence, because that is simply how are brains are hardwired. The most important sentence --in the entire article-- is the last sentence of the first paragraph. That is the one people will remember and is where the point of the article should be. I know it's counterintuitive, which is why I call it flat-Earth thinking, but writers figured this out going back to ancient Greece. If his sex offense is what you think is the most important aspect of his notability, then you should want it to be in the thesis sentence, not the topic sentence, because that's where it will stand out best and stick in the reader's mind. Putting it in the topic sentence only hurts that goal, not help it. I hope that makes sense. Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing an encyclopedia, not a persuasive piece of non-fiction, so I would probably advise against arguments for information placement that centre on "where it will stand out best".
The question is, what belongs in the first sentence. Not if you think information that belongs there should go somewhere else in order to influence a reader. And while there is no strict requirement to include everything at MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, "the most important aspect of his notability" is usually going to belong in the first sentence (basically verbatim as #5). Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I didn't think I would agree, I thought I would be arguing that GNG here is sports, but then I year-restricted my web searches and noticed that there was no coverage of him for sport prior to 2014, and every source after that (including in Dutch and German) leads with the fact he is a rapist. So that is patently what he is famous for: being a criminal who decides to put himself in the public eye for playing sport at a high level. Policy-wise, WP:CRIMINAL is met quite easily (perp #2 is basically just sustained coverage), while WP:NSPORT is not (and likely wouldn't be unless he won an Olympic medal). Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor should any biogs unless it is the person's sole claim to notability and involved more offences than could readily be summarised. Otherwise, if the crime is worth mentioning, it's worth summarising. "Convicted child sex offender" is simply more interested in condemning than informing. If we give the context, readers are free to judge for themselves how serious/unforgivable the matter is for them and how they should react to the offender now being 'rehabilitated'. Attempts to 'weigh' the relative coverage of his 'criminal' and sports coverage are largely fruitless. We don't ordinarily write articles about people having sexual relations with a single child in a single incident when barely adult themselves. He is clearly notable as a sporting prospect who did just that and was caught and (rightly) punished. The two components are inseperable in the coverage of him. Clearly the offence for which he was convicted should be summarised and included in the lead. Endorse Kcmastrpc's point about the vagueness of the RfC. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point when you say Attempts to 'weigh' the relative coverage of his 'criminal' and sports coverage are largely fruitless. - so it is surprising that since you believe both elements are intertwined reasons for his notability (which I'd agree with: the world at large wouldn't care about his sports career if he wasn't a criminal, nor would they know about his crimes if he wasn't putting himself in the spotlight with sports), you then don't think that both elements should be mentioned in the first sentence. Take this reply as mostly just agreement with that quoted sentence, that's why I reply. Kingsif (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but also no, the fact that he i a convicted criminal, as well as the nature of the crimes, should be part of the page as he is MORE known for these convictions than he is for his career in sports. However the way it is worded now i clumsy and needs to be adjusted. EllLinnea (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Really trying to understand why some editors here seem so upset about showing this information first, even though that's literally what he is and also what's he's most known for. Rockethanabi (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per Zaereth's argument on bad writing. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFTOPIC
Pincrete never said not to mention his conviction. They opposed this RfC to put "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence: "Otherwise, if the crime is worth mentioning, it's worth summarising." Kingsif, this is the second time you seem to be misrepresenting an editor expressing this opinion. – notwally (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notwally, I never said I thought Pincrete "said not to mention his conviction" — see my last sentence for my explicit mention of their views on only the lead's first sentence. If you are able to quote Pincrete's reply, I am sure you are able to have actually read mine, so it is only you who is misrepresenting anything here. Notwally, this is the second time that you have decided to preemptively respond to me replying to users who are not yourself, when my responses have not misrepresented and have indeed been productive discussion. You are bludgeoning and clearly have some unknown issue with me, so I request you do not interact with me if you are able to help yourself. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can accuse another editor of bludgeoning when you've commented more on this RFC? Nemov (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you that guy's WP:SOCK? But any experienced editor knows the difference between actual discussion, and targeted replying to wear down or annoy people. That's how. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is further evidence that even experienced editors sometimes lack basic self awareness. I would remind you to WP:AGF, to stop making baseless accusations, and step away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. I would say this comment applies to yourself and/or Notwally, rather than myself. There is a sockpuppet investigation right now, no? And I have no stick, I have simply been contributing to discussion - not harassing one user for no apparent reason like you two are. Look at yourself in the mirror before ganging up and poking at random users unprovoked again. And if it wasn't clear, do not interact. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions thus far represent ~25% of the discussion based on response volume. Just a friendly reminder that WP:BLUDGEON is real and you may want to consider actually dropping the stick. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, the only STICK as I see it is Notwally/Nemov not having a problem with the multiple discussion threads spun out from votes higher up in this RfC, only when I decided to have discussions. However, I've collapsed this off topic section that the pair of them started, so no worries. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this[1] are going land you at WP:ANI. Nemov (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone reading: that diff is me telling him to leave me alone. Wow. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, my primary objection is to the offered text, placement is secondary and largely stylistic. Though I don't see why we would deviate from normal practice by first introducing basic biog facts such as nationality, profession etc, before other 'notabilities'. So the net outcome would be to give a fuller account, later in the lead. Terms like "convicted child sex offender", "convicted felon" "convicted war criminal" are inherently uninformative IMO. All sex offenders may have commited serious offences to 'earn' the term, but using it tells me nothing about whether the person has a lifetime of such offences, such as Jeffrey Epstein, or something a great deal less serious in terms of the number or how 'entrenched' their behaviour was. Nor any of the other details by which we habitually judge such crimes, Victim age? Age-difference? Role of the perpetrator (teacher? priest? carer? relative?), Frequency of behaviour? Kind or degree of coercion? Ditto 'felon', it tells me very little except that the person was caught and found guilty, but of what? We all understand that a 'politician' is someone who is ordinarily involved in politics, a 'baker' is someone who bakes and sells bread. Usually the noun is sufficient to establish a broad area of professional activity. These 'criminal' labels simply imply that the person habitually performs whatever despicable act that they were tried for, in the same way that a 'baker' habitually bakes bread. While I'm personally happy to read of a former US president being labelled a 'convicted felon', it would be a great deal more informative to summarise what the man was convicted of doing. I'm free then to form my own judgements based on info provided by WP. These 'labels' do more to condemn than to inform IMO though many seem happy to endorse that as an objective. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would still prioritise the notability element (and I feel phrasing is important in making sure it doesn't "condemn", as you put it), you make a good point re. frequency of participation - happy you got to express it. As for your objection being to the phrasing, rather than placement, my understanding is this RfC is asking if it should be mentioned in the first sentence, not how it should be written, which can be improved later. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFTOPIC
  • That is a useful discussion to provide. Less useful is for Kingsif to respond to the majority of "no" votes since joining this conversation. – notwally (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been repeatedly asked to leave me alone and should. The least useful contributions in this discussion are your attempts to hound a guy just trying to prompt discussion out of "go read something elsewhere" comments. Those are the comments I've been replying to. Kingsif (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, you don't get to determine how talk page discussions take place on articles, and I am allowed to comment on your harassment of other editors. Considering you are the one making baseless sockpuppetry accusations above, you need to stop with your actual personal attacks. – notwally (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only just been made aware of this comment. Your accusations are uncivil, so I will respond. I repeatedly told you that I was just starting discussions, and while you may see it differently, I would hope you would AGF on my explanation. Replying to users asking for them to elaborate on their reasonings, which generally gives them more space to express themselves and facilitates discussion, is not harassment.
    You allege I have made baseless accusations. This is the "base" of my mere mention, not accusation. I have acknowledged it wasn't very wise to mention, but it wasn't baseless - which I presume you know about since it's at your talkpage. So you're knowingly lying to paint me negatively, which is what you also did in your first reply to me, for no reason I know.
    Let's put it simply, and put it to bed. You have had an unpleasant attitude to me responding to other users from the very first time I did it, so at that point you cannot have had any concerns about a pattern or anything, you were just rude. I do get to request that users do not constantly reply to me with slander when I'm not even engaging with them - that is harassment on your part, and is not actual article discussion. Just leave me alone, mate. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, OFFTOPIC
  • Apparently any answer other than "yes" means that Kingsif will insinuate you are trying to benefit child predators. – notwally (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My replies to people contribute to discussion, and do not do what you suggest - either in intention or result. If you would like to contribute to discussion instead of stalking my (and only my) comments to cast aspersions, you are welcome to do so. But you haven't been productive at all and at this point have a clearly disruptive single-minded purpose. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your replies are far more bad faith insinuations and bludgeoning rather than contributing to any meaningful discussion. Considering you still haven't striken your baseless accusations of sock puppetry, you probably should actually read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm responding to your actual words on this discussion thread. – notwally (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally: My replies aren't bad faith or containing insinuations, or bludgeoning (content-wise). I encourage you to look at them with a more open mind, because I think after admittedly a dubious first comment of mine, you made a bad faith assumption and are seeing everything I do through that lens. I'd hope after seeing it result in a pleasant discussion, you would revert to AGF'ing me. But let's try and reach that now. To take this latest one (because I can see it in the edit window) as an example, a user has proposed a certain wording. We'll ignore the fact a different user also responded before me with an opinion on it, and you haven't taken issue with them. I replied with an opinion about the phrasing suggestion, an opinion based in editing practice. Not personal views of mine, not assumptions of the personal views of the other user. I mentioned what kind of phrasing I think is necessary, how phrasing might appear to readers, and how inclusion might encourage editing that could become disruptive. All of these things are valid, article-content-based opinions, as part of legitimate discussion on improving article content. It is all written as having an opinion on a content phrasing suggestion, and makes no insinuations about the user who proposed the wording. My edits have been congenial to coming to consensus and solutions for article content.
    As for the mention of the SPI notice at your talkpage - look, my base was that. I assume you're not a sock if you're not banned, and I apologise both for bringing up something irrelevant, and perpetuating what was presumably a false report. I'll strike my comment and apologise if I can find it. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and bluntly, it's not even a close call. Mind you, as others have noted above, it's not going to make or break the article whether this aspect of the subject's notability is mentioned in the first or the second sentence of the lead. But it's also an easy read from policy and the sources: virtually every source cited in this article mentions the conviction and reputation relating to the assault of the child. In fact, most of them mention it directly or obliquely in their titles. It is clearly an inseparable element of the coverage of his sports career, if not also independently the single biggest element of his notability. Even as he is on the verge of making his highest-level appearances of his career to date, the narrative in the sources is almost entirely about the controversy regarding the appropriateness of his selection for said events, given the nature of his crimes. SnowRise let's rap 05:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024[edit]

Steven van de Velde is a convicted rapist. 50.101.88.106 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. See above discussion. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 18:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Statutory Rape" Language[edit]

@Matza Pizza: I reverted your edit because it uses softer language that isn't reflected in any reliable source that I've been able to find. We should not say "committed statutory rape against" when all the coverage of the crime uses language like "during that evening he gave her alcohol before raping her." (Bucks Herald) ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although 'statutory rape' may well be accurate technically (ie sex with someone deemed legally unable to consent due to their age), English law does not have such a concept. I believe it used to be called 'sex with a minor' for anyone under 16, but now with anyone under 13, it is simply called 'rape'. With anyone 13-16 it is now called "sexual activity with a child' and is treated as being slightly less serious. I only say this as a sentence like "pleaded guilty to three counts of statutory rape" is simply meaningless in terms of UK law, you can't plead guilty in the UK to a crime which doesn't exist in English law!Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories