Talk:Victor Salva

message: Is he of Mexican Descent? Nicholas20177 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that have to do with anything?--Jorm (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This probably belongs under a new subheading, which I have just added. Nicholas20177 apparently has an interest in adding ancestry/ethnic background information to WP biographies. He has pointed out to me (on his Talk page) that Salva is listed in :Category:American people of Mexican descent. However, it seems we don't have a reliable source for that, which is problematical. Muzilon (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: He should be removed from the category, barring a source, and I'll do that now.--Jorm (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Nicholas20177 also mentioned that Salva has (or used to have) a blog, which could perhaps be added to External links. However, I can't find it online, maybe he took it down. Muzilon (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Nicholas20177, please remember to sign your comments here with four tildes (~~~~), and please indent your replies using colons (::) so it is easy to follow the thread. (See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.) Now, there is a Wikipedia Category called :Category:American people of Mexican descent, and Salva was previously listed in it. That is why the Category box at the bottom of his biography here formerly stated that he was an American of Mexican descent.  However, we do not currently have a WP:RELIABLE source for the speculation that Salva is Mexican – which is why Jorm just removed Salva's name from that Category. I hope that makes some sense. Muzilon (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

text: You omitted to sign your above comment about Salva's blog. (I fixed that using the WP:UNSIGNED template.) You can read about how to indent Talk page replies at WP:THREAD. Muzilon (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexican ancestry?

message: It seems as though the standard is to use a photo that is related to what the person is most known for, or at least not related to their most controversial actions, when I look at Polanksi, Cosby, and Weinstein. I'm not experienced on WIkipedia, but from what I've seen, the standard of using the mugshot seems to apply to those who are most notorious for the criminal acts they committed, as opposed to Salva, who is known first for being a director, and only gained notoriety for his crimes. This case seems unique in using a mugshot of Salva as opposed to those others that I mentioned. The lead seems to address the controversy well enough that a different photo probably ought to be used.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.201.80 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The mugshot photo of Salva was removed in 2019 by Marchjuly following this discussion on the BLP noticeboard. However, I see Sdillonripley has just re-added it. Muzilon (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Photo? 

message: I have removed the victim's name from the article's prose. There is absolutely no reason why we need to include it, and the victim themselves enjoys the protections of BLP. Please do not attempt to re-insert it.  --Jorm (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem that the victim has been very open about his identity and has not sought name suppression. See also Clownhouse. Muzilon (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, it's not necessary.  WP:LPNAME, WP:VICTIM, WP:AVOIDVICTIM.--Jorm (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree that it doesn't improve the article. If people really want to find the victim's identity, they can follow the sources. -Jordgette [talk] 00:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victim's Name 

message: Consensus time – should the opening sentence say Salva is a "filmmaker and convicted sex offender" (cf. Bill Cosby), or should it just give his "occupation" as filmmaker, and let the second paragraph do the talking about his criminal conviction? (cf. Roman Polanski) —Muzilon (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: After watching this go back and forth a few times, I'd vote against it. Bill Cosby's career has been redefined by his crimes (like OJ). I'd say the same thing about Weinstein. Not sure Salva rises to that standard. -Jordgette [talk] 23:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I think it should be there, but I also think that this is what he's best known for.--Jorm (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

text: He is a convicted sex offender, a pederast, this should be part of the opening sentence as it is one of his occupations. He used his occupation as a film maker to assault the child, thus one occupation (film making) enabled his other occupation (pederast). Also it is weasel words to say "a 12 year old actor", it was a child. It is very disappointing to see wikipedia obfuscating the truth of this person. I get that people like his films but that has no relevance to the fact that he is a convicted sex offender of children. TJK 2A02:C7F:A8A7:BE00:1C29:3B74:D488:DC40 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is trying to deny his status as a convicted sex offender; the question is how significant that is relative to everything else he is known for. Salva's reputation, as far as I'm aware, hinges on his film work first. Wikipedia is not here to try and change the perception of him, but to provide information about him in order of significance in the eyes of the public and the media. Has his conviction come to dominate his public image? Doesn't seem like it, in which case the information about his conviction should stay in the second paragraph. --Seeyoshirun (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes. Very common in other biographies of living persons. natemup (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endless edit warring in lead 

message: Do we or do we not include that in his description? Does it violate any rules? For example, Peter Scully has in his description a mention of his crime. How come it’s not in Salva’s as well? Androvax (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the only thing Peter Scully is known for. -Jordgette [talk] 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  “American film director”… and convicted sex offender? 

message: Should one of these mugshots be included in the infobox? (these are the only pictures available of him) 07:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." he is presented in the correct light - a criminal is being depicted as a criminal --FMSky (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it's acceptable to use Salva's mugshot for his primary photo because "a criminal is being depicted as a criminal" is like saying it's acceptable to use Mike Tyson's mugshot as his primary photo. Salva notable for his film career. He is presented in a disparaging light because he is not notable for his conviction. Bluerules (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Support: I think that if there were any other allowed pictures of him, that this would be a very different conversation. I think this should be permitted. Hazeledla (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like you sort of agree that use of a mugshot is problematic to some extent. I can't find anything in Wikipedia's policies that indicate a preference for BLPs with images over BLPs without them. Indeed, the spirit of the policies and guidelines seems to be that images should be illustrative of a topic or helpful to the reader. And, in light of WP:MUG and WP:PEREPETRATOR, I think those policies should be read as urging us to be careful when we're considering the use of mugshots. Given those considerations, if you agree that the image isn't ideal, why should the default be use whatever image is available rather than use no image at all? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: is there a particular reason why you are fighting and edit warring to protect a convicted child rapist? i honestly think its a bit disturbing --FMSky (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment isn't necessary and you would be wise to withdraw it. Please remember to assume good faith even if you disagree. Nemov (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Our disagreement is over proper application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Nobody has said or implied that what Salva did was not bad. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Nobody is protecting Salva. Articles must be as neutral as possible, regardless of what the subject has done. Bluerules (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

text: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." --this doesnt apply at all --FMSky (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It completely applies because Salva is not notable for being a sex offender. Like I said, this article exists because of his film career and thus the primary photo needs to be as neutral as possible. Bluerules (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

text: you dont see a point in having an article with an image as opposed to having an article with no image? --FMSky (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not when there are problems with NPOV and BLP. And, as already stated, not every article needs an image anyway. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment 

message: *Just a note to the closer... Some of the support comments appear to be opposed to using the mugshot in the infobox. The RfC is specifically about using the image in the infobox. I'm not sure there's a strong objection to using the image in the body of the article. Nemov (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion