Talk:R. Kelly

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Why isn't the wording consistent with Ian Watkins? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  If a mugshot is the only image we can find, it should be used 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ensuring Consistency in Presenting Information on Living Persons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Added 2003 mugshot to thumb gallery, Review 

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

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

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

text: 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)

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

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

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

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

text: Support Definitely way too long, per the suggestion on the page that articles of this length should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support split. per length and above Babysharkboss2 was here!! King Crimson 19:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Support His child abuse cases and conviction are definitely notable enough to warrant an article of their own. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

text: SUPPORT split. Regardless of our transgressions, we still remain humans, who should be allowed to be treated as such, with the retention dignity. Additionally, his crimes do not erase the work he has done and his contribution to music. These two things should be treated separately Morganenna (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: Why is Ian Watkins alone linked in the see also section? Makes little sense to include him there but also not include any other prolific offenders. Either include others, or take Watkins out.
150.143.27.147 (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I would like to provide updated information on Kelly's legal issues after having requested to overturn convictions 2A02:C7C:643F:1C00:8571:A673:7998:3084 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. User:CanonNi (talk|contribs) 11:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024 

message: 99% of searches for R. Kelly are for "R. Kelly" but the editors of this page have repeatedly removed this information from the page, as if it weren't already the title of the page.  
Removing the mentions of "R. Kelly" are pointless, and at best risk mistaken identity. People should know that this is R. Kelly. Nobody's really heard of "Robert Sylvester Kelly" and if it was TRULY "unnecessary" to include "R. Kelly" as his professional name, then it wouldn't be the name of the title.
It's an accurate statement of fact and it's how he's identified himself for his entire life. I'm quite confused by all the removals. Many edits on this page seem to be driven by spite and malice and I find it disturbing. Kelly's photograph is routinely replaced by a mugshot from 2002 with reasons such as "it seems like itd be appropriate".
The last person to erase R. Kelly from the document's reason was that "you can't have a professional name that has an initial and your last name, because that's something else - an abbreviation." This is pedantry and it's ruining the article. Can we do better please? Averykins (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeatedly removing stage name/professional name without talk or real reasons