Talk:Danny Masterson

"Convicted rapist" in first sentence?

For any celebrity convicted of a crime, Wikipedia is always quick to be edited so this is the first sentence in the person's bio. Seems kind of vindictive and against overall neutrality, no? The crime is also usually not the reason the person is famous, so I've always found it amateur for an encyclopedia to draw attention to this in the fist sentence. 216.205.235.186 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

See the page for R. Kelly page for example. It should absolutely be mentioned. conman33 (. . .talk) 23:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, that page just got updated to remove that mention from the lead sentence. I have doubts that it's due weight to mention it in the first sentence as well, though I have no issues with it being brought up in the lead. DonIago (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That was me. Xan747 (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Conman33, there is a large difference between mentioning something, and presenting it as defining characteristic of someone. No-one is suggesting that the rape conviction not be mentioned. The issue is whether it should be brought up in the first line. Masterson was notable enough for an article many years before the rape issue was raised. I agree that it is not appropriate to mention in the first sentence. The conviction is prominently discussed in the article, and in user:Xan747's version of the lead, so we're not hiding it or downplaying it. Meters (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the clean way to link a diff, but I did some cleanup on the lead section, and moved the felony conviction details to the final sentence of the first paragraph. Let's see how long the revert takes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Masterson&diff=prev&oldid=1157953715 Xan747 (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: The easiest way is to put square brackets around the diff's URL, like this [http://website.com/something.html] and it will translate into a citation-like number, like this: [1] . Grorp (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

thx Xan747 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If R. Kelly's page can mention it then so can Danny's. Otherwise it sounds like a racist double standard to me.Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What matters is the consensus on this page, not what has been done on one particular other page. Meters (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think @Jaydoggmarco has a point here but I agree with @Meters: the place to argue for changing the R. Kelly article is on the R. Kelly talk page. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 19:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein's page says "convicted sex offender." Weinstein was convicted of rape. Can we agree on using that phrase? Aresef (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No. There is a large difference between Harvey Weinstein and this bio. Weinstein is very much noted because of the allegations and his conviction. That contributed significantly to the MeToo movement and we even have the Weinstein effect. Masterson not so much. Meters (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This same discussion has been going on over at Roman Polanski, with the examples of Weinstein and Epstein given in argument for including "convicted rapist" in the lede sentence. I agree that Masterson's case certainly doesn't rise to the level of those latter two. Polanski is arguably more notorious for his crime than Masterson, but IMO still not enough to warrant lede sentence labeling as a convicted sex offender. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Defending the title of a convicted rapist. What a strange hill to want to die on. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The defense is of Wikipedia standards. Grorp (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

When you seek to add labels such as "actor" or "rapist", wiki guidelines suggest you use words which describe what the person is known for. Masterson has been known as an "actor" for decades, yet only recently by certain celeb-watchers and scientology-watchers as a "rapist". Call him "actor", but using "rapist" doesn't fit with Wikipedia guidelines. See also WP:UNDUE. The lead paragraph is half about the rape conviction anyway, so using the word "rapist" is unnecessary and too POV-pushing. Grorp (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What "POV" is the word "rapist" pushing? glman (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

"Rapist" doesn't mean "serial rapist". And if we're talking that the first line should mention what he's known for, well, lately he's known for being charged and now convicted for rape.Gonzalo84 (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Glman: Excuse me for not also linking to WP:POVPUSH for your edification. I fixed it for future readers. Grorp (talk) 21:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, again though, I fail to see the connection. What POV is the inclusion of "rapist" or "sex offender" pushing? glman (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That entire thought process essentially prevents how people change over time.

Id easily argue it’s much more prominent that he’s a convicted fellon than an actor now. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that it seems likely his case will be appealed, why the rush? There is WP:NODEADLINE; we can always update the text if/when further appeals are less likely. DonIago (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The sentencing for this mans crimes have made international news, he is NOW known for the crimes he's committed, I don't see why his bio should be treated any differently than other celebrities guilty of similar crimes. We can't have one rule for some and another rule for others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timaisey (talk • contribs) 08:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The efforts to minimize and downplay his crimes on here disgusts me. It makes me wonder if there are editors on here who are $cientologists or are afraid of Scientology. He deserves to be listed on here as an convicted rapist and former actor. The lack of respect for women and victims of violent sexual crimes is appalling and makes me ashamed to be on this site. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no attempt to "minimize and downplay his crimes". They are prominently featured in the article, and in the lead. No-one is suggesting that they should be removed. We are simply trying to reach a consensus as to whether he should be described as a "rapist" in the first sentence of the lead. You know this because you have commented in the RFC. Meters (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely curious. Is English your first language? The way you write really seems to suggest it isn’t. You seem to be completely unaware of civility and manners in just about every comment you write. It would also explain why you seem to have a hard time understanding that Danny Masterson is known as rapist above all else, especially this past year. He’s been in the media headlines for almost a full year now due to his actions. Trying to prevent it from the first line is absurd.

While we’re at it, we should be changing it to “former actor.” Because he definitely isn’t getting any gigs in prison. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Implying that someone lacks civility or manners because English may not be their native tongue is the very definition of incivility. You should strike that comment and apologize. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hard agree. This has gotten a lot of publicity and in a matter of weeks he will be more famous for the rapes than acting. At the very least we should change "actor" to "former actor". Gay.cat.dad (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Which is worse: rape or not talking about rape? To downplay his status as a convicted rapist, in light of the fact that he will never be out of jail to act on tv again, would be to deny reality. He was an actor. He is not a professional actor anymore because he will be in jail for the next 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:A48F:300:114:B93F:52AE:C40F (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence should say he’s a convicted rapist. Otherwise, delete this website if you can’t do it right 2601:5CC:C580:28E0:6DCA:13EB:76D1:2259 (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The main issue is there exists years-long precedent on dozensof several Wikipedia articles mentioning something as significant as conviction for sexual offense or rape in the lead sentence. Whether it's Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Jace Alexander, Austin Jones, Chris Ortloff, Patrick Naughton, Chris Denning, S. Curtis Johnson, Sterling Van Wagenen, Roy Estrada, South Park Mexican, Aaron von Ehlinger, Kellen Winslow II, Mel Hall, Chad Curtis, Milton Orkopoulos, Scott Freeman, Cameron Thor, Brian Phelps, Byrd Dickens, Robert Krampf, Gene Gregorits, Stan Romanek, Felipe Vázquez, Jan Joosten, Jerry Harris, John Zeretzke, Jon Herb, Peter Wilby, Gabriele Paolini, Dana Stubblefield, Tripp Eisen, André Boisclair, Patrick Rock, Benjamin Levin, Mike Folmer, Karl Sabbagh, Imran Ahmad Khan, James Wallace, Jean Bégin, Stephen Bear, Harry Cook, C. T. R. Hayward, Rick Crawford, Harold LeBel, Charlie Elphicke, Graham James, Norman Freeman, Alex Hepburn, Nazir Ahmed, Dewan Chand, Aaron Summers, and George Nader.

This is why Meters' arguments in opposition of mentioning Masterson's conviction for rape in the lead sentence fall apart. In one instance, Meters argues that "Masterson was notable enough for an article many years before the rape issue was raised." However, Harvey Weinstein was even more notable, as he led a decorated career in film production. Bill Cosby was commonly called "America's Dad". And there are dozens of other people who aren't nearly as famous as Weinstein yet still have articles that literally start with the fact they were convicted for sex offenses or rape. So, mere notability shouldn't deter editors from mentioning a conviction in something as awful as rape.

Meters also argues that "Weinstein is very much noted because of the allegations and his conviction. That contributed significantly to the MeToo movement and we even have the Weinstein effect. Masterson not so much." Yet, Masterson was one of the first figures to be prosecuted because of this effect. He was fired from Netflix after the accusations. And he is part of the Church of Scientology, infamous for claims of sexual and psychological abuse.

Meters even opposes mentioning anything about something as important as convictions in sexual crimes in the lead paragraph. To defend this, Meters claims the following:

"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."

However, this is inaccurate on multiple levels. First, Meters attempts to distinguish between the celebrities' articles and articles about their legal cases. However, taking a look at Bill Cosby's article, one can see that the lead sentence ends with that he's a vacated rapist. Roman Polanski's article mentions in the second paragraph that he plead guilty for "unlawful sex with a minor". And for O.J. Simpson's article, the third paragraph mentions his murder trial, despite a lack of criminal conviction.

Elsewhere, Meters writes: "just say that he was convicted and avoid the labels". This is a slippery slope. Why do we have to omit what the celebrity was convicted for? If this is the standard we're setting for Wikipedia, then we should only mention Martha Stewarts was convicted without saying she was convicted for insider trading. Let's leave the bribery explanation out of why Ehud Olmert was convicted in 2014. This isn't right, is it?

I propose getting rid of all mentions of convictions from the introduction. The experience of which celebrity's article needs to have these convictions mentioned is so subjective, that I see it difficult if not impossible to reach a consensus on a set of qualifying criteria. Mike Tyson was convicted of rape, yet he remains a popular figure, he's denied the accusations vigorously, and the rape trial occupies an insignificant portion of his Wikipedia article.

tl;dr I oppose mention of all convictions from the intro, and I support retroactive deletions of such convictions from the other 50 articles that do mention it in the lead line, since there's little agreement on why we should do it for some but not others. FlantasyFlan (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Regardless of how one feels about this case, Masterson's attorneys have stated that they are appealing his conviction. I'm firmly of the belief that nobody's lead should mention their criminal status until they have exhausted any and all avenues for legal redress. Furthermore, I think there's a strong argument to be made that nobody's lead should mention their criminal status unless they came to prominence for criminal activity. There's no reason for a lead to mention, say, Harvey Weinstein's criminal history while omitting Tim Allen's or Snoop Dogg's. If you want to argue that only individuals who are currently incarcerated should have their criminal histories listed, then fine. But if that's the case, then Masterson's lead shouldn't mention his criminal history until his sentence actually begins. TheClubSilencio (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sentencing

Danny Masterson was sentenced to life in prison with eligibility for parole after 30 years, NOT 30 years to life. Source: YouTube Growing Up in Scientology Aaron Smith-Levin 47.54.142.36 (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. AP News writes his sentence is 30 years to life, with eligibility for parole after 25 and a half years. NPR says the same thing. (https://apnews.com/article/danny-masterson-sentencing-rape-trial-fd7a10eda44d0e3ddde582d4c7053eb6, https://www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1198160934/actor-danny-masterson-sentenced-to-30-years-to-life-in-prison-for-rape).Jaguarnik (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. After this thread's OP comment was posted, I clarified it on the main page using a reference from the California Department of Corrections website. AP News doesn't explain how they came up with 25.5 years and it doesn't make any sense. Anyway, at least I attempted to explain what "30 years to life" generally means. Maybe needs tweaking, but I would consider this thread (an edit request) resolved. Grorp (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying. I found a Deadline article which gives me a hint where AP News got the 25.5 years from. 85% of 30 years is 25.5. Deadline mentions: "eligibility for parole 85% of the way through his sentence". However, that might be true if the sentence was "30 years", but it isn't. It's life with possibility of parole at 30 years. Completely different. I think some of the news agencies got sloppy. Grorp (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

Danny Masterson is a convicted rapist 2001:569:F800:1A00:21D9:5ACD:7EB1:2E41 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an existing discussion #"Convicted rapist" in first sentence? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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[1] 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)

[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)

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)

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 and final 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)

“Former Actor”

Hello. I added “former actor” earlier to the first sentence, but it got reverted by User:Doniago because he hasn’t formally announced a retirement from acting. I don’t find that necessary. He’s going to be imprisoned for a long time (if not the rest of his life), so how is he going to have another acting role realistically? Isn’t this WP:COMMONSENSE that he will never have a role and that his career is effectively over? That makes him by default a former actor and it’s no longer in his control at this point. This is not OR, it’s common sense given his sentencing. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

As it's been indicated that Masterson's lawyers intend to appeal the case, at this time there's no proof that he will be imprisoned for long enough that he couldn't return to acting in the future. We can always add "former" if/when there are no longer any questions surrounding how long he will be in prison. DonIago (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this issue. Masterson lost his last known role on The Ranch in 2018 because of the allegations, was subsequently dropped from his talent agency, and hasn't acted in anything since. That's 5 years ago. At this stage, maybe his career is over. Even if a petition to appeal was decided in his favor, it would take years for an appeal to take place. Grorp (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) (Edited to clarify 'what' would take years.) Grorp (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE and WP:RECENTISM would seem applicable here; there's no reason why we have to rush to declare him a "former" actor. Robert Downey Jr. was imprisoned on more than one occasion, but I think we could all agree that his career ultimately recovered. Yes, very different circumstances here, but my point is just that I don't think we should rush to declare Masterson's career over before he's even had one appeal and AFAIK no sources have declared his career over. DonIago (talk) 06:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Difference is Downey Jr. wasn't doing life in prison for rape. This is completely different. Plus any appeal of his is likely to be denied. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this feels like it in actuality is “former” and the burden of proof lies on proving that his career isn’t over after all. Due to the 5 years since his last role and the subsequent lengthy prison sentence, it feels right now like it’s “former” until proven otherwise, which would be by a successful appeal, followed by finding Hollywood representation that would take him in, and finally landing a role. Its former unless all those conditions are somehow met, which as it currently stands is doubtful. DrewieStewie (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

A plumber in prison is still a plumber - an imprisoned politician is still a politician - and an actor or musician who hasn't worked for 5 years or more years is often still described as an actor/musician. Being described by your profession (and main claim to notability), doesn't always mean you have made money from it recently. When most sources are using 'former' will be soon enough for us to do so IMO. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Pincrete.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

While he is in all likelihood a “former actor”, I definitely agree with Pincrete that under typical WP style, we usually don’t add the word former to the lede. The career is more listed as a “claim to fame” then a descriptor of current activities. Cpotisch (talk) 12:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Our sources aren't calling him a "former actor", so that's really the end of it. We can stop right there. I found a small number of news articles that call him that, out of many thousands that have been published. None of them were top-tier sources. The rest call him an actor. a I even found a source from June (Yahoo News republishing Huffpost), after his conviction, that calls Masterson's wife a former actor, but calls Masterson an actor (not former). All of this is us wanting to classify him based on our knowledge and opinions, and that's fine, but it's not how this is supposed to work. He's established as an actor, so he's an actor. That will change when our sources change what they call him, or else it never will. Vadder (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with others, it is too soon to say former actor, we follow the sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. He's notable for his profession as an actor. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide what to call him. Meters (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, too soon, and RSes aren't using the word "former". The wiki guidelines in play are mentioned in my earlier edit on the RfC (other topic; same reasoning). Grorp (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Acting usually does not come with a clear end date. Senorangel (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It does when you're in prison for 30 years. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It says his lawyer plans to appeal. Senorangel (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There are theater programs in prisons. This is just one of many articles readily a available online: The Power of a Theater Performance in Prison. Cullen328 (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2023

The very first line. It’s time to add/change it to “American convicted felon and actor.” He’s been convicted. It’s official. No reason this change hasn’t been made already. Blockheadwriter007 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is already under discussion. Meters (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Stowing removed citations

Though these citations recently removed from the lead paragraph may have seemed excessive, I'm stowing them here just in case. I cut from this list the one which was actually used elsewhere in the article. Grorp (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

First line rewrite suggestion Daniel Peter Masterson (born March 13, 1976)[2] is a convicted rapist and American former actor. 2600:6C4A:7A7F:F2C0:5130:50EC:DF5D:B1DE (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This is already under discussion. Meters (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Actor and convicted rapist

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) 20:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an open RfC you may wish to add this comment. Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 20:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Xan747; how do I do that? (I could edit the source for this entire talk page, but clearly, there should be an other way - I just don't see it.) Nø (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@Nø, editing page source is one way. The other is to comment at the RfC as normal, then blank this section (with an edit summary explaining why). Xan747 ✈️ 🧑‍✈️ 21:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Ian Watkins also has his title listed as a convicted sex offender PontiacAurora (talk) 03:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Scientology involvement in editing.

I wonder how many editors on here who oppose listing him as a convicted felon are scientologists? It's obvious that you are all are trying to cover for him. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and strike your comment. DonIago (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Those guidelines all either use the term "routinely" or require the target be a specific individual. The guidelines also are for articles, I'm unaware of them applying to discourse on a Talk page.

I'm not sure I agree with their implication regarding Scientologists conspiring to perhaps obfuscate a bit, but it's also true that many of articles on convicts, whether former celebrities or not, refer to them as such. It is also not unreasonable to wonder, editor-to-editor, whether an organization known to use coordinated action in meat space might do likewise in a public forum such as Wikipedia.

At the end of the day though there's not much point, since all the editing in the world can't really downplay his crimes and conviction. I don't think there need be concern of coordinated editing of his article simply because it will have no upside and plenty of risk of exposure. Plus, one thing Scientology doesn't appear to do is act hastily or foolishly; Wikipedia has logs and any coordinated action would serve to help draw a clear line in the upcoming civil suits. Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course our guidelines on how editors should treat each other apply to talk pages. That's actually where most of them come up most often. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Omission of mention of the parties in the trial being Scientologists at the time of the crime

The article omits one of the key issues brought up during the criminal trial which was that Danny Masterson and his victims were (at the time of each crime) both members of the Church of Scientology which—as a high control group more interested in its own public PR—ensured through pressure and punishment that each woman didn't report the crime to the police. It was a key aspect of the case: Why did each victim take so long to come forward? Why is Scientology involved in a civil suit? Why would Scientology harass the victims?

Those who followed the case already know these points, but after the most recent removal and edit summary "remove reference to rape victims' former religion, because it's weird to present it in the lede at all, let alone without any preceding reference to Masterson's religion" I looked back through the article and it does not include this important aspect in the article. Just search for the character string "scientol" and you'll see.

The defense's surprise framing of 'the delay in reporting to law enforcement' as 'evidence of invention by the victims', was one of the reasons the first trial ended in a hung jury, and so became a central part of the prosecution's case in the second trial and the bringing in of an expert witness to explain Scientology policy and procedures in such cases. This is well covered in RSes. Maybe we should include some of this aspect in this article. Grorp (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware of the surprise framing as evidence of invention. It absolutely warrants coverage in the article; possibly with a brief reference in lead when it eventually gets expanded. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)