Talk:R. Kelly

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A.dewan95. Peer reviewers: Drealynne, Danielsoldan4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with mother

The article previously stated that Kelly was close with his mother, although there was no cited source. This USA Today article points towards caution for editors when using Kelly's autobiography as a source of information, especially with regards to the relationship he had with his mother. Cedar777 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Timelines

Useful links to timelines:

• ABC https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/timeline-kellys-life-career-64286041

• Chicago Tribune https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-viz-r-kelly-timeline-htmlstory.html

• AP News https://apnews.com/article/r-kelly-entertainment-arts-and-entertainment-trials-new-york-c549cadbc4df9c2b96b5107ef207883e

There may be others . . . Cedar777 (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Photos in early life section

The two photos in the early life section are from formative places (backed by reliable sources) about R. Kelly within that section. 1. Article states Kelly lived at Ida B. Wells housing, during the 1970s. First photo from Commons is of children playing in 1970s outside Ida B. Wells housing. 2. Article states Kelly began busking in the El subway stations after dropping out of high school. It says “ He regularly busked at the "L" stop on the Red Line's Jackson station in the Loop.” The second photo is of the red line Jackson station.

The photos provide relevant images regarding Kelly’s early life and should stay in the article. If anything, the article could use more images in the other sections for Kelly’s career and I support editors adding relevant photos to those sections rather than deleting content from Early life. Cedar777 (talk) 12:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022

explain what r kelly did in better detail 73.159.74.235 (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2022 (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. Cannolis (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Troubling use of the word "Women."

I just noticed that at many points in the article, it says that kelly abused "young women." This is an error, as he abused underaged girls. This type of mistake negatively affects the article ,because it gives the false impression that the people who were abused were adults. specifically, I noticed this in the subsection "Allegations of music industry complicity."

```` Queazyeditor.

Technically, he abused both young women and underage girls per age of consent laws. Of the women who came forward in the WP article, over half were underage per Illinois or in their state of residence (FL) at the time they were involved with Kelly. The phrase young women and underage girls is the most accurate and the article has now been modified in the suggested section. I agree that it is problematic to oversimplify and lump them all into the young women category. Cedar777 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Many of the people in this Surviving R. Kelly stuff were overage. Whoever posted that about it being 'girls' doesn't know what they are talking about and that is the problem with this page. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Alter?

Hi, in the "Industry Boycott ..." section there is a sentence beginning " On the alter, various people /.../ have all apologized...". What is this alter? T 46.212.185.190 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of former

Unless and until the best quality reliable sources start referring to Kelly as a former singer, the article should simply describe him as a singer/songwriter/sex trafficker/sex offender. These things are not mutually exclusive. If someone stops sex trafficking because they are sent to prison, Wikipedia does not generally refer to them as a “former” sex trafficker, likewise if one is notable as a singer. Cedar777 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

Note the difference protégé (masculine) and protégée (female) where the former has been incorrectly applied. The grammar in the following quoted sentence is incorrect. "In 1994, he illegally married his underage protégé Aaliyah". Protégée is feminine and therefore correct in describing his relation ship with Aaliyah. Protégé is masculine and grammatically incorrect. "In 1994, he illegally married his underage protégée Aaliyah," is the correct usage. 86.167.183.239 (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Protégé is also gender neutral in English. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

wrong information in lead

The phrase in the last paragraph of the lead stating that his sentencing is scheduled for June 29th is in the wrong place.

That was for his first trial. It's placement in the lead implies that the date refers to his second trial. 102.39.44.21 (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

American serial sex offender, singer, songwriter, and record producer. 203.91.238.140 (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor. In popular culture today, he is most notable for the first thing on that list. Also, it pertains more to his current status as he no longer is a singer. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

IQ of 79

Reuters reports Kelly has an IQ of 79. This seems like important information to contextualize the man and his behaviour. 203.171.37.213 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Reuters quotes Kelly's lawyer, who is not a certified IQ tester. The lawyer may have a motive for underestimating Kelly's IQ. In any case, it's not reliable enough. Binksternet (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Because of his demonstrated music and entrepreneurial skill, his intelligence level is most likely significantly higher than 79. The main problem is that he is nearly illiterate, which means he will score very low on most IQ tests. Some specialized IQ tests allow assessment without reading, but I have not heard about R. Kelly taking such a test. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image

We need a new infobox image for this article. I think the mugshot is a good one to use. 89.243.125.209 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

There are so many other people on wikipedia who have spent time in jail, for whatever the crime may be, who do not have their mugshot as the main photo. That fact that it's here just says a lot about the bandwagoning. Have it below, not as the main picture to be consistent. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

This is inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles and offers no explanation for the change. It's unjustified. Ted Bundy doesn't have a mugshot, and photos should not be used to enact revenge. They are meant to convey accurate information, and this looks like a bizarre joke. Averykins (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Images:

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)"

== Proposing image removal ==

Per the Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons policy, images should not present people in a false or disparaging light, especially police mugshots used out of context.

This dated 2003 mugshot of R. Kelly fails to meet policy guidelines. There is no cited source connecting it to specific charges or convictions as implied. Singling out this image also represents inconsistent standards for biography articles on living subjects.

Therefore, I propose removing the mugshot, as it violates policies:

• Against information disparaging the reputations of living people.
• Requiring attribution for images suggesting guilt.
• Calling for equal, non-selective illustration across articles.

I suggest either eliminating the image entirely pending a neutral replacement, or substituting a public domain photograph not linked to allegations. This would bring the article into line with site standards.

The proposed reason for including this image is insufficient: "[it] is a good one to use"-Anonymous User

It's important to edit these type of articles in good faith and that extra care is execised to ensure bias does not inform the content. Averykins (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is sex offender mentioned first?

Why does the article begin with listing 'sex offender' off the bat? The articles on Bill Cosby and Jimmy Saville mention their other 'occupations' first... it's just a bit weird 2A02:A03F:E0F8:1400:CD0D:CF90:BD59:952B (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, this should not be the case. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 07:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The same issue is coming up on the Danny Masterson article now that he's been convicted on two of three felony rape charges, and this article was being used as evidence that the lede sentence should mention same. I have therefore changed this article so that Kelly's convictions aren't mentioned until the last sentence of the first paragraph. Xan747 (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: i replied to your other comment under the pedophile topic.. hopefully your edit is allowed to stand, but i wouldnt be the least bit suprised if somebody reverts it in hopes of doing their daily good deed or gaining a few ersatz righteousness points.

Snarevox (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Bill Cosby was not convicted. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Misc. things I'd like to bring up

A number of things I'd like to bring up, mostly things that only came out after trial/sentencing:

1. Kelly did not just target girls. At least two young men were recruited into sex acts. So in describing his whole criminal career (not specific to any one victim), it's necessary to use gender-neutral language.
2. The abuse was not just sexual, but involved repeated acts of violence, threats of violence, and psychological torture. It's why calling Kelly "a sex offender" isn't sufficient to deal with the enormity of what he committed.
3. I think it's also important to point out: the top charge against Kelly in Eastern District was rackteering, which encompasses almost all of the criminal acts. .

Finally, in dealing with the perpetual "should we list him being an artist before listing him as a criminal of some kind?" –I've come to the position that they can't be separated. His fame was part and parcel of how he recruited victims and kept them in line. So one (musical career) has to be treated as leading into the other (criminal acts). Evackost (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Evackost Your attempt to "tighten up" the introductory sentence in fact made it longer. The lede regarding notability should be brief therefore "convicted on sex crimes" (or some variation) is sufficient and accurate. For specifics of those sex crimes, the article body and subsections exist. No other article lede pertaining to notable roles is as drawn out as this. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I used "tighten up" and not "shorten" because this is not about the length of the sentence but its consistency/accuracy. And I want to speak to that.

Here was my writing: "who was found guilty in 2021 of recruiting his young fans for acts of sexual exploitation and physical abuse."

I used "recruiting his young fans" because It is a reference to an actual federal offense he was convicted of ("Enticement" under the Mann Act), and it's the essential part of it the crime (if there is no enticement, the rest of the case doesn't happen).

Here's what's there now: "who was found guilty in 2021 on charges of physical and sexual abuse of minors."

The problem of what's there now is that it's simply wrong about the 2021 conviction. In brief:

• It's wrong about the victims. Not all of the victims were minors when Kelly victimized them. Age was only essential to one Mann Act count.
• It's misleading about the crimes on the verdict sheet. The convictions were for Mann Act (enticement, coercion, and transportation) and RICO (the repeated law breaking). State level sex crimes had to be proven for both as predicate offenses, but they were not the federal charge that was put before the jury.
• Finally, it may be TMI for the intro, but it has to be said here: the state-level predicate sex crime Kelly was proven to have committed was having unprotected sex with his victims without disclosing to them his STD infection.

Evackost (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The lede sentence is for readers to ascertain the unadorned, most basic facts about a subject. These are the facts repeatedly described by the best quality RS. If the subject has been tried by multiple courts, multiple years, and is still facing additional charges, Wikipedia editors need to keep the content more broad to avoid editorializing. Please review the guidelines at MOS:LEAD. Also the paragraph structuring of the lede is problematic as there should be a maximum of 3-4 paragraphs. For the specific guidelines for length: MOS:LEADLENGTH. I agree with ChicagoWikiEditor's statement that the lede "should be brief therefore "convicted on sex crimes" (or some variation) is sufficient and accurate." The article on Jeffrey Epstein has an unadorned first sentence and a concise and to the point three paragraph lede section - this despite the fact that the Epstein biography has 266,000 bytes and Kelly's biography has 211,000 bytes. - If anything, the lede section for this subject could use further summarization, i.e. more trimming off of excessive details, of the article overall. Cedar777 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with some of this, but it's missing the point.

The nub is this: there's been a long back and forth of edits of the intro. References to Kelly's crimes keep getting removed from the opening sentence, paragraph and lede. Several times, the characterization of the crimes is changed to non-specific "sex crimes"(both disrespectful to Kelly's victims, and also wrong about the nature of federal law). But mainly, the problem seem to have is with mentioning that Kelly is a criminal at all, even though he is convicted.

At this point, I am content with at least bothering to name the exact statutes (RICO and Mann Act) that Kelly was actually convicted for violating in the most bloodless manner possible. There's a degree to which it whitewashes the activities that Kelly did while offering no more "neutrality," but whatever.

But in closing: if anyone wants to be serious about reducing bloat, then let me ask why simple sentences that try to sum up 25 years of crimes are being targeted, while whole paragraphs devoted to puffing up Kelly's achievements hoard space. Do we really need to know every nickname of Robert Sylvester Kelly, complete with citations? Do we need to keep in references to a house album Kelly never actually made before he went to prison? Evackost (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022

Opening statements in the current trial began on August 17, 2022. Stanhin (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Stanhin, done. PrisonerB (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

R Kelly was convicted on six charges in second trial, not three

Please include this in the article.[1]2601:447:4000:220:FCB7:74EF:F8CD:DF20 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022

Kelly was found guilty on three of thirteen charges of production of child pornography, but was acquitted of trial fixing related to his 2008 state child pornography trial.

The claim he only convicted on three charges is inaccurate. He has been convicted on six charges. Please include this in the article.

Kelly was found guilty on six of thirteen charges of production of child pornography, but was acquitted of trial fixing related to his 2008 state child pornography trial. 2601:447:4000:220:FCB7:74EF:F8CD:DF20 (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Since I made the request, I have noticed the article has been changed to include the three other charges he was convicted of. Request is now likely irrelevant.2601:447:4000:220:FCB7:74EF:F8CD:DF20 (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this, as it seems to be addressed per the requestor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

References

....

Instead of saying is a singer song writer can you say "was" and not "is" because he's no longer producing new music. 2A02:C7C:2CBC:9900:88B2:1AFE:6474:C44D (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

He is still living therefore "is" not "was". He is not a "former" singer unless a reliable source can corroborate his resignation as one. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 05:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Has Kelly actually been found guilty or convicted of kidnapping?

Kelly Infobox person includes Conviction(s) kidnapping also article is included in Category: American people convicted of kidnapping

I found where his indictment in the New York case includes kidnapping, but no guilty verdict. Additionally, the Illinois case references don't seem to include kidnapping among the charges. Crazyloop NY (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is an issue of RICO and multiple indictments.

Kelly was initially charged as a racketeer for a pattern of offenses that included violating the Illinois state law on kidnapping as a predicate. But it was not a standalone charge.

By the time of the final indictment used to try Kelly, kidnapping was removed as a predicate.

(This is why I argue that it's important to note that Kelly is not just a sex offender, but a racketeer –i.e., someone who ran an enterprise based on criminal activity). Evackost (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

All of this is to say: I removed "kidnapping" in the infobox because it's inaccurate.

It remains in the text because it's an accurate description of the first indictment. Evackost (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Evackost That makes sense. It's also listed in the Categories at bottom of page: American people convicted of kidnapping Crazyloop NY (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Referring to him as a pedophile

The courts have found him guilty, now it is too bold to refer to him as a pedophile or is that bold and/or POV? What are your thoughts? 05:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is no longer whether there is proof; it is that the list of victims and crimes are both lengthy and varied. Kelly was shown to have victimized both children and adults, and both males and females, and in crimes that didn't just involve sex.

IMHO, pedophilia is part of the criminal behavior, but care should be taken not to mislead readers that it was the sum total. Evackost (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So is that a yes or no? Lmharding (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Are several high quality reliable sources referring to him as a pedophile? I haven’t seen it but if you have sources Lmharding, please provide them. Wikipedia needs to stick to the language used by reliable sources. Cedar777 (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources can be found. This is just from the first page of the results I found. Lmharding (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lmharding The only reference to the word pedophile I seen in any of the listed sources was "He first faced allegations of sleeping with underage girls in the 1990s. His pedophilic relationship and marriage to Aaliyah — who died tragically in a 2001 plane crash". I'm going to vote no on this. Moreover did R Kelly become notable for being a singer or a pedophile? ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

“You [R Kelly] were a 31-year-old pedophile ready to ruin another young lady’s life,” Stephanie said.- Daily News "People told him [R Kelly]. People tried to warn him. People tried to help him," she added. "He didn't care [...] He was selfish. He was greedy. He was a pedophile [...] And he never, not once, wanted to get help,"- CBS News. You missed those. There is sufficient quotes.Lmharding (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

MOS:ROLEBIO, he's not widely known as a pedophile. He is notable for his music. Also, just by using common sense you'd know that this isn't a descriptor that should be used immediately in the opening sentence --FMSky (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

He is widely known as a pedophile, but it can seem unencyclopedic to include that phrasing rather than just describing the events. I would support something like "described as a pedophile." Chamaemelum (talk) 01:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

References

i know it wont matter to the editors who run wikipedia, and i know the whole world hates r. kelly, but to be fair, i feel like he was known for his genre defining musical contributions for a much longer time in his life than he was for his legal problems. that being said, the opening to this article sounds terribly biased, as his problems are more or less the main focus.. along with the use of his mugshot when there are surely many other choices that would be objectively "better". the article immediately gives off an impression of heavy bias. i just think about how most other articles about people who are known for more than just their crimes, usually seem to have most of that information relegated to like a legal troubles or controversies section, and if their troubles are mentioned in the lead, its a bit further down into it and doesnt immediately appear in the reader's face in the opening paragraph. to me, with the way the opening reads and the use of the mugshot, it just really feels like this article is mainly here to showcase his legal issues. and im prettysure that isnt why wikipedia exists. i know most opinions dont matter here and any attempt at correcting anything will just be reverted, but one look at the article and it just feels wrong to me. im not at all saying the information is wrong or doesnt belong, i just feel as though it could have been presented more fairly. Snarevox (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You may like this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R._Kelly&diff=prev&oldid=1157958393

We'll see if it holds ... Xan747 (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747: thanks for the heads up, i would have fixed this a few months ago if it werent for my concern that some overzealous editor would get excited and object or just revert it, either silently or otherwise. you might want to keep an eye on it in case anybody decides they want to try to bully you about it.

Snarevox (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Snarevox: It was reverted for WP:LEAD, I presume because removing so much summary of his criminal history caused the lead section to be out of compliance with, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." However, I would maintain that prior to my edit, the lead section gave WP:UNDUE weight to his criminal history at the expense of summarizing his early life and music career. I believe that is also the substance of your expressed concerns. Therefore in my latest major diff [2], I expanded the lead section to include those other details of his life while slightly reducing the amount of detail about his criminal history. (I cited WP:BALANCE in the edit, which is the wrong policy.) Hopefully my edit is more compliant with policy and standard practice, won't be reverted, and will alleviate your, my and others' concerns that Kelly's article was more negative than other major entertainers with similarly severe felony convictions, e.g. O.J. Simpson, Bill Cosby, and -- most currently topical -- Danny Masterson. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi FMSky, I see that you have reverted all of my edits to the introductory section. I would appreciate it if you could explain your objections to including three concise paragraphs about his family of origin and childhood, and one paragraph about his marriage and divorce. Perhaps we can find a way to include some of that biographical information that you would find acceptable. Thanks! Xan747 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Because the lead should focus on the stuff he is primarily notable for (music and sex offenses) and not highlight his entire background, basketball career and info on whose wedding he sang --FMSky (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The criminal parts can still be trimmed a bit though imo --FMSky (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: Thanks for responding.

I'm def ok with nuking the single sentence about basketball and funeral singing. Losing the stuff about singing in church and high school talent show is also fine with me, and we don't need to talk about his birthplace either.

I thought preserving the entire criminal summary by moving it to the body of the article was a nice lead in to that section, while preserving previous editors' good work on it. I'd be happy paring the criminal summary down to a single paragraph in the intro, five or six sentences could do it.

However, I feel strongly that including some detail about him being sexually abused as a child adds important context to his criminal acts as an adult. Two, maybe three, sentences would satisfy me.

We could lose the bit about his childhood girlfriend drowning, but I think the trauma of that must've been significant and worth a single sentence in the lead. Xan747 (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the part about his childhood is that it is not something that is widely discussed so i dont know if it is lead-worthy 17:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC) FMSky (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Certainly not as widely as the pee jokes on late night that dominate my memories. I'm not ready to abandon this request quite yet, but I want to do some reading and thinking before making additional arguments. Cheers. Xan747 (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@Xan747:it looks like you guys might eventually be able to reach some sort of compromise, which is refreshing and good to see.. maybe shoot me a reply or whatever once a final copy is agreed upon, id be interested to give it a read. thx. Snarevox (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Racketeering is the most severe charge for which Kelly was sentenced

Making the case for keeping mention of racketeering in the lead para, I would like to note that the racketeering conviction is the charge for which Kelly was most severely punished (so far). The PACER entry for the the judgement:

The defendant is sentence [sic] to

• Three hundred and sixty (360)months on count 1. [Racketeering]
• Ten (10) years on counts 2,6, and 8. [Mann Act transportation counts]
• Twenty (20)years on counts 3,4,5,7, and 9. [Mann Act coercion and enticement counts]

That is here:

• https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/15909617/united-states-v-kelly/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc#entry-319

Evackost (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semantics of intro

Instead of "[R. Kelly is a] criminal convicted as a racketeer and sex offender", we could make it "[R. Kelly is a] convicted racketeer and sex offender"?

That Coptic Guy 17:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

The sentence "A September 2022 date will consider the question of restitution." doesn't make sense. Dates don't consider anything and this sentence is written in future tense but the date is in the past. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sentence is in the "Sentencing" sub-section of "Trial in the Eastern District of New York (2021)" section --76.14.122.5 (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have updated info with source. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"I Admit It"

Regarding the situation regarding "I Admit It", R. Kelly's new album might just be a bootleg, per this Variety article: [3] XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not 'might' be a bootleg. It 'is' a bootleg. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Rkellytrappedinthecloset2007.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox Photo

I think his 2019 mugshot is a perfect candidate for an infobox photo Andyandress (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

a letter to the editor(s)..

i left the following as a comment in this talk topic, but i decided to also post it here as the start of a standalone new topic, i guess in hopes that it might be seen by more people, because i feel as though the current state of this article could use a bit of modification:

i know it wont matter to the editors who run wikipedia, and i know the whole world hates r. kelly, but to be fair, i feel like he was known for his genre defining musical contributions for a much longer time in his life than he was for his legal troubles.

that being said, the opening to this article sounds terribly biased, as his legal problems are more or less the main focus.. along with the use of an old mugshot for the main image when there are surely other choices that would be objectively "better".

the article immediately gives off an impression of heavy bias. other articles about people who are known for more than just their crimes usually seem to have most of that information relegated to a legal troubles or controversies section, and if their crimes are mentioned in the lead, theyre usually a bit further down into it and they dont immediately assault the reader in the opening paragraph.

to me, with the way this opening reads and the use of the mugshot, it just really feels like this article is one sided and mainly here to showcase his legal issues, and im prettysure that isnt why wikipedia exists.

i know most opinions really dont matter here and any attempt at correcting anything will most likely just get reverted, but the way this article it written just feels wrong to me. im not at all saying the information is wrong or doesnt belong, i just feel as though certain steps could have been taken to present everything more fairly.

i feel like anyone who reads the article will probably be able to see where im coming from rather easily.

if you decide to respond to this post, please ping me or whatever so i get notified.

thanks either way. Snarevox (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

100% StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia also isn’t here to wrong great rights because somebody likes his music. R.kelly is a convicted sex offender and 90% of the news about him in the past several years has been about the allegations against him, not his long-moribund music career. His last album was in 2016, for crying out loud. Dronebogus (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

And what about the last 26 years since he first came out in 1990? He ran a genre for crying out loud. And R. Kelly is still talked about a lot for his music in particular circles. Just because it's not in the mainstream media you view and subscribe to doesn't mean anything. By your logic, Michael Jackson's page should be all about his death because that's what has been talked about most with him since he died. Let's just forget about the previous 50 years where he was the most well known person on Earth for his music. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You have made five edits to Wikipedia, four of which are pushing a POV on this page. On top of that you have never provided a source to back up these POV claims. I’m not sure why anyone should listen to you. Dronebogus (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't appreciate your attitude. Why are you being a rude ....? I can't say what I want to say or my 'single purpose account' that you claim I have, will be banned. But trust me, you wouldn't talk to me like that in real life. And what claims exactly need backing up? That he ran the R&B game? You obviously know nothing about music, yet you are here arguing me about the extend to which R. Kelly had an impact on it??? Really? So, I'm not sure why anyone should listen to you. It's funny how you haven't mentioned the thing I mentioned about MJ that destroys your argument. You haven't provided a source that all people talk about when it comes to Kelly are the criminal charges either. You're a hypocrite and think you know it all because you post those links. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have to provide a source because it’s all over the article and your argument is completely baseless since the article extensively discusses Kelly’s musical influence. Dronebogus (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

To answer the original question: no, we don’t have any other freely licensed images of Kelly besides the mugshots, unless you have some you’d like to add. Dronebogus (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There was one before the mugshot was added, was there not? StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It was deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Haha! How convenient. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Controversy" does not accurately describe being a convicted child sex offender and sex trafficker. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Semantics. Amazing contribution... StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 01:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The lead section of an article is meant to summarize the most significant aspects of the subject's life and career. R. Kelly, while a previously influential musician, has in recent years become most known for his legal troubles and criminal convictions, which are serious and significant aspects of his life and, as such, should be included in the lead. Yes, Jackson had his share of legal controversies; however, he was acquitted on the charges brought against him, whereas R. Kelly has been convicted on multiple counts. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat it again for you. The most significant aspects of his life are the decades that he ran the R&B genre and his influence to music. There are countless other people on wikipedia who have criminal charges against them who DO NOT have their mugshot as their image or it mentioned so prominently. You are all just bangwagonners, hypocrites and incredibly inconsistent. StreetsDisciple23x (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph of the lead and its jarring (unencyclopedic) use of "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence. Some of us have been contemplating the issue of labels in lead paragraphs of BLPs, and have put together this essay: Wikipedia:Crime labels. I write to note that a very similar battle in phrasing has gone on for ages in the article for Roman Polanski. They may have resolved their issue (or hammered together something tolerable, maybe) by devoting the entire second paragraph of the lead to Polanski's rape charge and legal problems. This approach seems to me to be a better solution than employing "convicted child sex offender", among the other music-related labels, in the first lead sentence. That is, drop this label, move the present last paragraph of the lead to the 2nd paragraph, and rewrite that paragraph to be more representative of a lead paragraph (it presently reads to me more as a narrative than a proper representation of facts, most important to least) in a lead). I disagree with the use of the label, but agree that the abusive behavior trumps any musical accomplishments. Bdushaw (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Another point that seems relevant that was made elsewhere Klete Keller is that most often a person is notable before the crime, and the crime is therefore that much notable. Without Kelly's prior notability in music, the sex abuse crimes, horrible as they are, would not as notable. This to make the case to (1) state the music notability first, followed by (2) the sex crimes. The case of Harvey Weinstein may be relevant, since in both cases the criminal activity seems to have been lengthy and ongoing (justifying the use of a label). Bdushaw (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2023

Remove the marriage to Aaliyah so there is only one to Andrea MistressEm (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• R. Kelly 2002 Mugshot.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

awards

list of awards and achievements. please include them 41.222.181.56 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Discography

Why the list of his albums is not shown on the page? Salami Bowling Strikes (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Salami Bowling Strikes – because R. Kelly discography exists for this purpose. -- dsprc <sup>[talk]</sup> 09:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

ok (?) also Michael Jackson albums discography exists, but the "Discography" section with all his albums is still shown on his main page. I don't get the point of your statement Salami Bowling Strikes (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Salami Bowling Strikes – it was clearly explained a detailed discography is lacking from this article likely because it has been split off into its own (there is a {{main}} hatnote below §Musical career header linking to that). Evidently, contributors to this particular article do not deem it necessary to have one. If you disagree, you've 3 courses of action: deal with it, and do nothing; be bold and do it yourself; or engage in a lengthy, drawn out discussion to gain consensus on inclusion of this material.

Regarding Michael Jackson: Generally, just because other shit exists on the wiki, those local decisions typically have little bearing upon actions taken elsewhere. Happy Trails! -- dsprc <sup>[talk]</sup> 03:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image 2

Per various discussions at WP, I am moving the "mugshot" image of subject to the more appropriate section that it accompanies: Child sexual abuse and court cases. To place such an image in the infobox is too specific for representation of the subject for a non-specific description. I have placed a {{Photo requested}} at the top of this Talk Page requesting a neutral free-image of the BLP. If any editor of this page finds and uploads an image that fulfills those requirements for the infobox image, the template can be removed. This is in keeping with articles at WP similar to O. J. Simpson that has a NPOV non-specific image for the infobox and specific images for appropriate accompanying sections throughout the article. Including the "mug shot" in the Legal history section. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There are now 2 mugshot photos of Kelly on Wikimedia Commons. The one you moved out of the infobox, and R. Kelly 2002 Mugshot.jpg, which is a mugshot from a year earlier. If there are 2 mugshots of Kelly, and one of them isn’t seeing use on his article, then why not put the 2002 one into his infobox? Roasted (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has been not to put a "mugshot" in the infobox for a BLP. This is a "non-specifc" and not originally notable for inclusion. A different mugshot is still a mugshot. The mugshot in the article accommodates the appropriate content. In additional, this is undue weight to a particular subtopic in the article. Find an image representative of the subject in keeping with MOS:IMAGELEAD. Just because two mugshots have been uploaded to WikiCommons, doesn't mean they need to be used. "...then why not put the 2002 one into his infobox?" This is not a valid argument. Find a more neutral, representative image of Kelley and upload it to WikiCommons. Otherwise, per MOS: "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic." Maineartists (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

This is inconsistent. On other pages, like XXXTentacion, and YNW Melly, their mugshot is used in the infobox instead of it being placed into the corresponding part of their articles. Is this just an issue that needs fixing, or is there no consensis?

@Roasted It is not "inconsistent". They should not be there either. XXXTentacion was "an American rapper and singer-songwriter" and YNW Melly is known as an "American rapper and singer from Gifford, Florida". XXXTentacion does not even have any mention of "criminal conviction" in their infobox and a mugshot should not be placed there. Regardless, per WP policy: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots). The fact that recognized convicted career criminals here at WP do not have mugshots as their infobox image, but "rappers" seem to attract such images, only goes to prove that it is the type of visiting editors that seem to sensationalize the image. This is not a reason for inclusion. There are other images on Wiki Commons of both rappers that can be uploaded. Maineartists (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, your example of O. J. Simpson doesn’t apply to this situation. Simpson has many images of him besides of his mugshots. Kelly only has 2 mugshots of him, and one of them aren’t even being used on his article. Roasted (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

??? There are thousands and thousands of images on Wikicommons. Many of those images are not being used. BLP and deceased subjects have multiple images uploaded; that doesn't mean all of them are used on their article page (nor should they be). They can be used on several different, completely separate pages. The fact that O.J. Simpson has multiple images on his pages is because editors have uploaded images of him. Unfortunately, there only seems to be 2 mugshots of R. Kelly uploaded. That does not in any way warrant use of both of them in an article; especially in the infobox. Just because an image is on WikiCommons, doesn't mean it needs to be used. Are you actually saying if there were 12 mugshot photos of R. Kelly that they should all be used in his article simply because they exist? Once again, find a more representing image of R. Kelly that is in keeping with an Infobox image for a BLP - American singer, songwriter, record producer. I have placed a request tag on this Talk Page for a better image. As for the other articles, they are low on images to begin with, and mugshots are public domain. Editors get lazy and do not try and find appropriate images for BLPs. YNW Melly's mugshot should accompany: 2019–present: Possession of marijuana and double homicide section. Maineartists (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Could you please cite the "various discussions" you're referring to? Thanks. -- Tamzin<sup>[cetacean needed]</sup> (they|xe) 06:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin For starters, please refer to the discussion above dated 2022: [4]. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the wording consistent with Ian Watkins?

From both pages:

Ian David Karslake Watkins (born 30 July 1977) is a Welsh convicted child sex offender and former musician.

Robert Sylvester Kelly (born January 8, 1967) is an American singer, songwriter, record producer and convicted child sex offender.

Shouldn't the order be consistent in both cases? Why are the crimes emphasized on Ian Watkin's case but not here? I'm asking this on both talk pages, why does R. Kelly get a different treatment on wikipedia? Koczwy (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very new to this editing game (nay, editing in a meaningful way) but I *think* the rule of thumb is to put profession(s) first because criminal status is not an occupation. I agree it should be consistent though. It should be "musician, offender" for Watkins in the same order as Kelly's. Shamus248 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Koczwy I agree. Both pages and BLPs are exactly the same. There is no difference between Kelly and Watkins. Sex-offender is a "non-specific". Plain and simple. Watkins and Kelly originally had an article created here at WP for their notability in the music industry; not because of their current crimes. No matter what editors (on the Watkins Talk Page) says about "Other Content". (I have written there, too) Maineartists (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If a mugshot is the only image we can find, it should be used

I see nothing wrong with using a mugshot of someone alive if we are unable to attain any other image of a person. Kingturtle = (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Again, R. Kelly is one of the most highly recognized, commercialized and publicized musicians in his field and has been since 1989. A simple "R Kelly image" Google search renders over 350 million hits. The fact that this page is edited by those who continually upload images that are not in the public domain (which are then deleted at Wiki Commons) or only use the mugshot due to a "I think his 2019 mugshot is a perfect candidate for an infobox photo", is not a good enough reason. His "crime" image should be accompanied in the section within the article per MS WP policy. There are literally thousands of images that can be accessed on the internet of R Kelly i.e. dreamstime stock photo images, deposit royalty free photo images, etc. Even taking a snapshot of the Gayle King interview from YouTube is allowed when uploaded to Wiki Commons correctly. There actually was an approved image of Kelly that is on Wiki Commons now (see below), but was replaced with the mugshot. This proves that there are images out there to be uploaded to WP, but there will always be editors visiting this page that will seek to sensationalize and glamourize the incarceration of R Kelly by continually placing the mugshot in the infobox; which his criminal status is not contained with "years active" but is a non-specific. Please refer to the discussion above dated 2022: [5]. It was decided: not to include the mugshot as the infobox image per WP policy guidelines. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Unless there's a clear rationale for incorporating a relevant, high-quality, and unbiased image, it's preferable not to include one. Such additions could be perceived as sensational or biased, undermining the credibility and objectivity of the article. It's evident that these edits are part of a broader trend of "shock edits," necessitating increased scrutiny and oversight. Averykins (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

R. Kelly in 2017

Ensuring Consistency in Presenting Information on Living Persons

I have observed inconsistencies in the presentation of information across different Wikipedia pages for living individuals, particularly when comparing this page to those of Jimmy Savile and O.J. Simpson. While all three individuals have faced significant legal charges and convictions that have shaped their public perception and legacy, the manner in which this information is conveyed varies significantly across their respective pages. This inconsistency could potentially lead to biased interpretations by readers. As stewards of factual and neutral content, Wikipedia should strive for consistency in presenting such sensitive information, especially when it pertains to living persons.

To address this, I propose a thorough review of these pages to ensure adherence to Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) guidelines. Here are some specific recommendations:

• Standardized Presentation: We should maintain a consistent standard for presenting legal charges and convictions across all relevant articles. This includes avoiding the use of mugshots as primary photos and instead opting for more neutral images.
• Balanced Approach: While it is essential to include relevant legal details, we should exercise care in presenting them. The details of legal cases are often more widely known than an individual’s career achievements. Editors proposing changes should provide justifications, and any alterations made solely for emotional satisfaction or vigilante justice should be treated as vandalism.
• Compassion and Sensitivity: We must recognize that criminal details, convictions, or witness testimonies can be distressing, especially in cases related to sexual abuse. Our responsibility is to inform without causing harm to victims or perpetuating sensationalism.
• NPOV (Neutral Point of View): The document should be reviewed to ensure neutrality. Additionally, we should compare it with articles on other well-known celebrities to avoid any appearance of disparate impact due to editorial leniency.
• Reader Experience: Readers should be allowed to navigate the article at their discretion. Avoiding edits made purely for shock value or sensationalism ensures that readers encounter shocking or graphic details on their own terms.

In summary, let us uphold Wikipedia’s commitment to accuracy, neutrality, and fairness by maintaining a consistent and respectful approach when presenting information about living persons. Averykins (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Added 2003 mugshot to thumb gallery, Review

My recent edit (here), I have added the 2003 mugshot of that monster on the thumb gallery next to the 2002 one. Review and respond if you think it was okay or not. I don't think I did a good job on this. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

One mugshot for this section is sufficient. Two is excessive and unnecessary. It needs to be removed. Maineartists (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The edits without justification need to stop. This is vandalism. We shouldn't have editors referring to a human being as a "monster."Averykins (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Averykins: My apologies. It was never any intention to vandalize nor justify what I edited by calling names on people. I was just angry about the certain person. I should be better as a user here on WP. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 02:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Mugshot images

The only entries that seem to be happening at this article is the ongoing addition of mugshots by unregistered and even registered editors. It is now becoming not only WP:DISRUPTIVE but almost WP:VANDAL considering the amount of consensus and discussion here at the Talk Page. I vote we request a semi-protection for the page since there is no significant contributing editing going on presently. Maineartists (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Its not vandalism to depict a criminal as a criminal. Two pictures isnt excessive at all --FMSky (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It becomes vandalism when WP:CONS is reached both in the history of reverted edits on the article page and Talk Page discussions that continually state otherwise to not include a mugshot in the infobox per WP policy and to only have one image to support the specified article content. Multiple images depicting the same content is the very definition of "excessive". Please supply WP policy and guidelines to support your personal beliefs. Maineartists (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Split?

The current prose contains over 10k words, and per WP:SPLITSIZE that means the contents should probably be split. I propose splitting the "Child sexual abuse and court cases" section to another article, similar to the vein of Bill Cosby sexual assault cases, because that section covers about half the article (4672 words) right now. Spinixster (chat!) 03:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Spinixster: I contend to it. Yes, I do agree that the entire section on the R. Kelly article is definitely a candidate for a separate page. As much as it is serious, it is more knowledgeable to make it into a split. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 03:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is notable as a stand-alone subject and has enough - if not more - present day coverage on the BLP (and will) for the foreseeable future. Maineartists (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I made a draft already - right here. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 17:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: In keeping with Bill Cosby sexual assault cases as a model WP article on this subject for BLPs, please let's not carry the on-going argument already discussed here regarding the infamous mugshot. It has already reached consensus that mugshots are not in keeping with WP policy and certainly not for infobox image use. At the very least, use public domain images that include the BLP and his legal team or (inside / outside) court appearances. Thank you. Maineartists (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I have uploaded a FREE TO SHARE image of R Kelly arriving at court in 2008 and placed it as the lede image and relocated the 2003 mugshot in the appropriate section. The caption was "understood" as mugshots can only be taken after someone's arrest, the BLP is noted and "circa" is not applicable. Maineartists (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Appreciate it. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 06:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I support the split. The child abuse section takes about 47% of the article's length. It's not the only thing R. Kelly is known for. JIP | Talk 01:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Support splitting, the child sexual abuse cases are a huge, notable topic in their own right. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Support split. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Support. The timeline of the topic/cases is so extensive that it warrants its own page. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 04:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Support split. Frankoceanreal (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Image options

• 
  2017 (A), current
• 
  2017 (B)
• 
  2017 (C)
• 
  2011 (D)

Took two screenshots from the same video (A) came from. My preference is (C), where though it's lower resolution his face is less obscured, but (B) would also be an improvement on the low angle of (A). The video seems to be credibly licensed. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

B seems like the best option due to looking more professional with a plain background and better lighting of the subject’s face Dronebogus (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I support B as well. It's a clearer image compared to A, while C doesn't focus much on the subject. Spinixster (chat!) 14:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

B is better, less distracting background, better framing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)