Jump to content

Talk:Steven van de Velde

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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

[edit]
WEAK CONSENSUS AGAINST
There is a clear consensus that words noting the subject was convicted of having sex with a minor should appear in the lead, but the question is whether it should appear in the first sentence. There is broad agreement that we should follow the sources, but whether one considers only English-language sources or all sources changes the outcome of that. Looking shallowly at only the bolded words there is no consensus either way, but when considering the substance of all the on-topic comments an weighing them through the lens of our policies and guidelines, I find the arguments against including it in the first sentence slightly stronger (especially considering all sources rather than just anglophone ones) and when that is combined with the requirements of our BLP policy and convention that when all other factors are even we err on the side of being less negative towards BLP subjects, I arrive at the conclusion that there is a weak consensus against inclusion in the first sentence. While the question asked about a specific phrase, all sides of the discussion focused on inclusion or exclusion of the information not the specific words used, so the consensus applies to the information not the wording.
I note that at the current time, the subject's conviction begins the second sentence of the article. While that was mentioned below it did not attract sufficient comment for the to be a consensus regarding it, so this discussion explicitly offers no guidance about whether the community feels that is either appropriate or inappropriate - only that it should appear somewhere in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

  • No, it is not his primary claim to notability - he is a sportsman first and foremost. Plus the conviction was a decade ago, when he was just 19 43.224.7.192 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is actually known for his crime conviction. There is no notable tournament he has won. In fact, this very article was created only after he was convicted of the crime. Also, conviction being a decade ago doesn't mean that it is any less notable. Also, WP:SPA PrinceofPunjabTALK 08:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Dutch article lists him as winning the Dutch national volleyball tournament numerous years. The fact that this article was created after the conviction can be explained by the anglophone audience being more interested in that than his volleyball career. Glennznl (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Dutch national beach volleyball tour is not a notable tournament in the beach volleyball world. Notable tournaments are international ones and looks like he didn't get further than quarterfinals there in the last few years. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Besides this, his primary notability as a volleyball player can easily be proved, because we don't write Wikipedia articles about any child rapist that hits the news. He is notable for being a professional volleyball player, who also raped a child. --Glennznl (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing the media coverage his name received before and after the discussions of the child rape, yes, you can say it is a notable part of his fame.
    There are thousands of volleyball athletes at his level that do not have the same notoriety or coverage as he does- simply because they didn’t rape 12 year olds and he did. Pretending like it’s not a leading factor to a huge amount of people searching him up is being intentionally ignorant at best. 172.112.2.61 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also thousands of people who have had sex with minors and haven't had articles. His notability is a mix of both being a premiere athlete and his conviction. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, neither of you can ever demonstrate that your speculation here is correct (that is, neither of you can step into the counterfactual universes where he was not known to have assaulted that girl or not known as an athlete in order to see how much coverage he would have gotten). Which is just one of many reasons why our policies expressly divert us around making such assessments and towards simply assessing what the sources do say in these actual, existing circumstances, in the aggregate (that is, we assess the due weight).
    Mind you, I'd guess you're probably right that the combination of his relatively minor athletic profile and the notoriety from his crimes probably do amount to more than the sum of their parts in the resulting notability. However, I would rather tend to think that this is all the more reason to mention both in the lead sentence though (I'm not sure which option you were advocating for in your response to the IP). SnowRise let's rap 17:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is a part of his main identity. 50.27.41.37 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a hidden note to the page indicating that it should be discussed here before adding "child rapist" to the lead. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? The editor that requested this simply questioned it being in the first sentence, not in the lead. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PrinceofPunjab: Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC without (so far as I can tell) trying anything shown at WP:RFCBEFORE, let alone exhausting those suggestions? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Redrose64 I did WP:IAR because I knew that including those words would be controversial and users would each other back and forth as you can see still happening on the page. So, I decided to open the Rfc so I can be decided once and for all what will go in the first sentence. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why you couldn't have had discussion on this talk page in the normal way. WP:RFC is an instrument of last resort, used when all other methods have failed. Have you left any notes at the talk pages of WikiProjects (there are six shown in the box at the top), or at WP:BLPN? Templates such as {{fyi}} and {{subst:please see}} are available for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The rush to RFC is why we are now faced with a binary choice of two bad options, rather than having a discussion to figure out better possibilities than this obsession with a succession of nouns in every lead sentence of a BLP. If this is honestly an argument about whether to replace a period with a conjuction, then this is a stupid discussion. – notwally (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says the first sentence should include the main reason the person is notable. It appears the main reason this person is notable is for being a beach volleyball player. I would have to see a lot more evidence to suggest he's more notable for the conviction. The conviction can be mentioned in the lead of course, but it doesn't belong in the first sentence. Nemov (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it make any destinctions between language? Because in the Anglo world he is more notable for his conviction but I get the impression that is not the case in the Netherlands. In the UK for example he is only mentioned in mainstream media for his original crime and now that they are being critical of him competing in this years olympics. The fact that in English he has only received media coverage for his crime suggests that the crime should probably go in his first line. AstraIgnea (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, he is a criminal. The rape is what he's known for in professional and amateur beach volleyball circles for the last 10 years. Also, most media about him has been on this, not about his volleyball career. Every other athlete and convicted rapist has this mentioned in their first line: (1) "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is an American convicted serial rapist and a former football safety who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 14 seasons." (2) "Dana William Stubblefield (born November 14, 1970) is an American former professional football player and convicted sex offender." (3) "Gary Thomas Brabham (born 29 March 1961) is a former professional racing driver and a convicted child sex offender from Australia." (4) "Felipe Javier Vázquez (né Rivero, born July 5, 1991) is a Venezuelan convicted sex offender and former professional baseball pitcher." Even robbers and other criminals have it mentioned: (5) "Clifford Etienne (born March 9, 1970) is an American former professional boxer and convicted robber, who is currently serving a 105-year prison sentence without the possibility of parole." (6) "Sergio Armando Mitre (born February 16, 1981) is a Mexican-American convicted felon and former professional baseball pitcher." At the very least it should be in the second sentence. Now someone has removed it and moved it to the bottom of the page. Looks like whitewashing or some PR work. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • context: https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1dovnqu/dutch_volleyball_player_jailed_for_raping_british/ 46.253.187.227 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, or alternatively just regular old "convicted sex offender" per similar example on Scott Ritter. Given more than half of this article is dedicated to the subject's child sex crimes and he seems to be more notable for it than he is for playing volleyball, it would not be UNDUE to have it in the lead sentence in the slightest. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for context, look at the WP:RSP coverage of Van De Velde.
BBC: Convicted rapist (their other article on him is about the same)
The Telegraph: Dutch volleyball player who raped 12-year-old
The Times: Child rapist
The Australian: Rapist of girl, and a similar op-ed on it.
Given the sheer amount of coverage for him being a child rapist outweighs his volleyball career significantly, not including this in the sentence is a poor idea in my eyes. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ser!, two things. First of all this is something that is hitting the news all over the world, and it's juicy. Second, re: the content of the article, that's just poor article writing--he's a five-time national champion, which is not reflected in our argument. I'm not going to argue the conviction shouldn't be in the lead; I think I'm fine with this version. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point on the latter, though I could find very little coverage outside of just WP:MILL mentions of him in the context of the Dutch national team to indicate notability - it feels like even in a case of poor article writing there's still sod-all with which to actually write an article, meaning the amount of focus in the article atm on the whole sex abuser thing makes sense. No objections to the current version, I've just seen enough cases of not particularly notable sex offenders/felons having it alongside their original reason for notability in the lede, and as much as I'm aware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it just felt strange to me that this would be an outlier.... ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, your claims of his achievements are not reflected in the article, feel free to add them. The first line used to reflect the content of the article. He's globally and locally known for the rape since 2016 when it first made headlines. He's more well known for this than winning the Dutch volleyball tour a few times. Beach volleyball isn't big in Holland, but indoor volleyball is 3rd. If you're arguing to not include it here, are you also raising this on the pages of other convicted felons? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I second ser!’s argument regarding the WP:RSP coverage on the subject. The vast majority of English-speaking news articles reporting on his to date biggest and most notable achievement as an athlete mention his past crime in their headlines with most of them directly using the ‘rapist’ descriptor. This descriptor has been part of the lead sentence for five years. Why change it now that there is even more press coverage on it? quidama talk 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Unfortunately that is what he is known for. Otherwise we have to delete the article which wouldn't be a bad idea. We don't have an article for every sex offender as we are not a repository of information on such things.— Iadmc♫talk  13:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes As I said above, He is actually known for his crime conviction. This very article only exist because of his crime conviction. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Put what he was convicted of (e.g., "who was convicted of four counts of rape against a child in 2016"). I don't know what some editors' obsession with nouns is, but this is just poor writing. The sex offender register part does not seem necessary in the lead; that seems better addressed in the body. The conviction is noteworthy, not all the details of the sentence. – notwally (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. - To do so is just bad writing. It simply reads as immature and unprofessional that way, and is that what anybody really wants? For a more detailed explanation, see my comment at WP:BLPN#RFC regarding MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE at Steven van de Velde. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Describing an accurate summary of what someone is famous for as "bad writing" – and suggesting that defining a criminal as a criminal is "immature" because they also do sport – is a real choice, regardless of sources etc. That is, there isn't an actual argument - whether theoretical or policy-based - in Zaereth's comment except the apparent idea that it wouldn't be very nice to do that. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, considering Zaereth never suggested anything about it "wouldn't be very nice", I genuinely hope you aren't suggesting he thinks Hitler is some person we should be "nice" to as well, but rather you simply failed to actually read his comment at BLPN before leaving your asinine response above. – notwally (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did read his entire comment at BLPN, it's basically just restating "immature" and "bad writing" in various different ways before, as you say, comparing the situation to Hitler. Apologies if it's not clear but, no, I don't know whether Zaereth is suggesting he thinks Hitler is some person we should be "nice" to, I couldn't tell, because (I do think it was clear) as I said, there isn't an argument made in either location except for arbitrarily saying (repeatedly, in different ways) that it would be bad writing or childish to call a criminal a criminal.
And we can ignore your provocative violation of WP:NPA for now, but calling a well-articulated response to a non-argument "asinine" just to defend your mate isn't gonna fly if you try it again.
More relevantly, that's the second time Hitler has been invoked in trying to scrape together why we can't call a spade a spade. Generally, it's a discussion-ender. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe me, simply check some reliable sources on the matter. See for example: On writing well: The classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinsser, Stein on writing by Sol Stein, Understanding journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Reading and writing: Nonfiction genres by Kathleen Buss and Lee Karnowski, to name but a few. There are plenty of sources on good writing practices. It's not that it wouldn't be nice, but would come off like it was written by a 6th grader and not by a professional writer, which for an encyclopedia looks silly. Seriously, why would anyone want their writing to look ridiculous. If you think it doesn't, the only one you'd be fooling is yourself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for something of an expansion, but I don't believe that merely saying "Steven van de Velde is a Dutch convicted rapist and volleyball player" inherently sounds childish – of course, I would agree that it flows better with the criminal status going first, and that putting that after the sporty thing would sound like shoehorning, but that's a question of phrasing, not content. While I haven't got the books you suggest to hand, I could direct you to a number of Wikipedia articles that are crime bios for examples of this first sentence being widely accepted on Wikipedia. IMO a more relevant part of the question (of what belongs in the first sentence) is whether it's a sports bio or crime bio, rather than basing what belongs in the first sentence on how good the proposed phrasing of said sentence sounds. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your missing the point entirely. The first sentence is not the most important sentence. It's not where the main point of the article should be. People don't remember the first sentence, because that is simply how are brains are hardwired. The most important sentence --in the entire article-- is the last sentence of the first paragraph. That is the one people will remember and is where the point of the article should be. I know it's counterintuitive, which is why I call it flat-Earth thinking, but writers figured this out going back to ancient Greece. If his sex offense is what you think is the most important aspect of his notability, then you should want it to be in the thesis sentence, not the topic sentence, because that's where it will stand out best and stick in the reader's mind. Putting it in the topic sentence only hurts that goal, not help it. I hope that makes sense. Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are writing an encyclopedia, not a persuasive piece of non-fiction, so I would probably advise against arguments for information placement that centre on "where it will stand out best".
The question is, what belongs in the first sentence. Not if you think information that belongs there should go somewhere else in order to influence a reader. And while there is no strict requirement to include everything at MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, "the most important aspect of his notability" is usually going to belong in the first sentence (basically verbatim as #5). Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I didn't think I would agree, I thought I would be arguing that GNG here is sports, but then I year-restricted my web searches and noticed that there was no coverage of him for sport prior to 2014, and every source after that (including in Dutch and German) leads with the fact he is a rapist. So that is patently what he is famous for: being a criminal who decides to put himself in the public eye for playing sport at a high level. Policy-wise, WP:CRIMINAL is met quite easily (perp #2 is basically just sustained coverage), while WP:NSPORT is not (and likely wouldn't be unless he won an Olympic medal). Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This RFC is not only unnecessary, it's never going to reach consensus because the proposal is too vague and doesn't address the core issue. I highly recommend it be closed and editors start proposing rewriting the first lead paragraph and trying to find consensus first. If there are disagreements on 2 or 3 different variations and a consensus can't be reached, only then should an RFC be opened. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor should any biogs unless it is the person's sole claim to notability and involved more offences than could readily be summarised. Otherwise, if the crime is worth mentioning, it's worth summarising. "Convicted child sex offender" is simply more interested in condemning than informing. If we give the context, readers are free to judge for themselves how serious/unforgivable the matter is for them and how they should react to the offender now being 'rehabilitated'. Attempts to 'weigh' the relative coverage of his 'criminal' and sports coverage are largely fruitless. We don't ordinarily write articles about people having sexual relations with a single child in a single incident when barely adult themselves. He is clearly notable as a sporting prospect who did just that and was caught and (rightly) punished. The two components are inseperable in the coverage of him. Clearly the offence for which he was convicted should be summarised and included in the lead. Endorse Kcmastrpc's point about the vagueness of the RfC. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point when you say Attempts to 'weigh' the relative coverage of his 'criminal' and sports coverage are largely fruitless. - so it is surprising that since you believe both elements are intertwined reasons for his notability (which I'd agree with: the world at large wouldn't care about his sports career if he wasn't a criminal, nor would they know about his crimes if he wasn't putting himself in the spotlight with sports), you then don't think that both elements should be mentioned in the first sentence. Take this reply as mostly just agreement with that quoted sentence, that's why I reply. Kingsif (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - but also no, the fact that he i a convicted criminal, as well as the nature of the crimes, should be part of the page as he is MORE known for these convictions than he is for his career in sports. However the way it is worded now i clumsy and needs to be adjusted. EllLinnea (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Really trying to understand why some editors here seem so upset about showing this information first, even though that's literally what he is and also what's he's most known for. Rockethanabi (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No per Zaereth's argument on bad writing. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFTOPIC
Pincrete never said not to mention his conviction. They opposed this RfC to put "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence: "Otherwise, if the crime is worth mentioning, it's worth summarising." Kingsif, this is the second time you seem to be misrepresenting an editor expressing this opinion. – notwally (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notwally, I never said I thought Pincrete "said not to mention his conviction" — see my last sentence for my explicit mention of their views on only the lead's first sentence. If you are able to quote Pincrete's reply, I am sure you are able to have actually read mine, so it is only you who is misrepresenting anything here. Notwally, this is the second time that you have decided to preemptively respond to me replying to users who are not yourself, when my responses have not misrepresented and have indeed been productive discussion. You are bludgeoning and clearly have some unknown issue with me, so I request you do not interact with me if you are able to help yourself. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can accuse another editor of bludgeoning when you've commented more on this RFC? Nemov (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you that guy's WP:SOCK? But any experienced editor knows the difference between actual discussion, and targeted replying to wear down or annoy people. That's how. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is further evidence that even experienced editors sometimes lack basic self awareness. I would remind you to WP:AGF, to stop making baseless accusations, and step away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. I would say this comment applies to yourself and/or Notwally, rather than myself. There is a sockpuppet investigation right now, no? And I have no stick, I have simply been contributing to discussion - not harassing one user for no apparent reason like you two are. Look at yourself in the mirror before ganging up and poking at random users unprovoked again. And if it wasn't clear, do not interact. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your contributions thus far represent ~25% of the discussion based on response volume. Just a friendly reminder that WP:BLUDGEON is real and you may want to consider actually dropping the stick. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, the only STICK as I see it is Notwally/Nemov not having a problem with the multiple discussion threads spun out from votes higher up in this RfC, only when I decided to have discussions. However, I've collapsed this off topic section that the pair of them started, so no worries. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this[1] are going land you at WP:ANI. Nemov (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone reading: that diff is me telling him to leave me alone. Wow. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, my primary objection is to the offered text, placement is secondary and largely stylistic. Though I don't see why we would deviate from normal practice by first introducing basic biog facts such as nationality, profession etc, before other 'notabilities'. So the net outcome would be to give a fuller account, later in the lead. Terms like "convicted child sex offender", "convicted felon" "convicted war criminal" are inherently uninformative IMO. All sex offenders may have commited serious offences to 'earn' the term, but using it tells me nothing about whether the person has a lifetime of such offences, such as Jeffrey Epstein, or something a great deal less serious in terms of the number or how 'entrenched' their behaviour was. Nor any of the other details by which we habitually judge such crimes, Victim age? Age-difference? Role of the perpetrator (teacher? priest? carer? relative?), Frequency of behaviour? Kind or degree of coercion? Ditto 'felon', it tells me very little except that the person was caught and found guilty, but of what? We all understand that a 'politician' is someone who is ordinarily involved in politics, a 'baker' is someone who bakes and sells bread. Usually the noun is sufficient to establish a broad area of professional activity. These 'criminal' labels simply imply that the person habitually performs whatever despicable act that they were tried for, in the same way that a 'baker' habitually bakes bread. While I'm personally happy to read of a former US president being labelled a 'convicted felon', it would be a great deal more informative to summarise what the man was convicted of doing. I'm free then to form my own judgements based on info provided by WP. These 'labels' do more to condemn than to inform IMO though many seem happy to endorse that as an objective. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would still prioritise the notability element (and I feel phrasing is important in making sure it doesn't "condemn", as you put it), you make a good point re. frequency of participation - happy you got to express it. As for your objection being to the phrasing, rather than placement, my understanding is this RfC is asking if it should be mentioned in the first sentence, not how it should be written, which can be improved later. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFTOPIC
  • That is a useful discussion to provide. Less useful is for Kingsif to respond to the majority of "no" votes since joining this conversation. – notwally (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been repeatedly asked to leave me alone and should. The least useful contributions in this discussion are your attempts to hound a guy just trying to prompt discussion out of "go read something elsewhere" comments. Those are the comments I've been replying to. Kingsif (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kingsif, you don't get to determine how talk page discussions take place on articles, and I am allowed to comment on your harassment of other editors. Considering you are the one making baseless sockpuppetry accusations above, you need to stop with your actual personal attacks. – notwally (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have only just been made aware of this comment. Your accusations are uncivil, so I will respond. I repeatedly told you that I was just starting discussions, and while you may see it differently, I would hope you would AGF on my explanation. Replying to users asking for them to elaborate on their reasonings, which generally gives them more space to express themselves and facilitates discussion, is not harassment.
    You allege I have made baseless accusations. This is the "base" of my mere mention, not accusation. I have acknowledged it wasn't very wise to mention, but it wasn't baseless - which I presume you know about since it's at your talkpage. So you're knowingly lying to paint me negatively, which is what you also did in your first reply to me, for no reason I know.
    Let's put it simply, and put it to bed. You have had an unpleasant attitude to me responding to other users from the very first time I did it, so at that point you cannot have had any concerns about a pattern or anything, you were just rude. I do get to request that users do not constantly reply to me with slander when I'm not even engaging with them - that is harassment on your part, and is not actual article discussion. Just leave me alone, mate. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what's wrong with keeping mention of it in the second sentence? I don't see how changing its position that slightly will make a meaningful difference in improving article quality. RFZYNSPY talk 19:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — As of July 1, 2024, there are 511 words of "readable prose size", with approximately 80% of those words related to the rape conviction. Seems like to me that the only reason this article primarily exists is to disparage its subject. If that is indeed the aim of this article, then it shouldn't even exist. As for the first sentence, No it shouldn't be included there, as there is absolutely no way with the majority of the article dedicated to the conviction, our readers won't be able to understand that he is a convicted rapist, without it being said in the first sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per this previous RfC on the same matter. Additionally, the page itself does not appear to be encyclopedic, and reads like a reporting of a crime and not an article in an encyclopedia. As another editor has pointed out, this article was created after his conviction. It is outside the scope of this RfC, but it leads me to believe the article is not created for a purpose other than to disparage the subject. I would not go as far to say it's WP:ATTACK, but the Child rape section takes up the majority of the article prose.
    As for the validity of this RfC in general, I agree it is rushed and did not seek to actually gain any kind of discussion or consensus before coming to RfC, and as such we are left with the discussion now, which asks a question I believe already to be answered, on an article that seems entirely predicated on disparaging its subject. If it was not nearly a week into the discussion, I would be in favor of retracting this RfC entirely and attempt WP:RFCBEFORE, but as it stands I must disagree with the addition to the article lede. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Per overwhelming weight of WP:RS always describing him this way. He is notable for being the dutch volleyball player who was convicted for raping a child. I went down pages and pages of google hits and not one mentioned him in any context without first stating that he is a child rapist. Not once. Hundreds of hits, hundreds of articles, none of them fail to put this information front and center. Wikipedia follows what the sources say and what the sources do. This should be uncontroversial. Fieari (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: His main coverage in English-language WP:RS is primarly related to the combination of his conviction and being allowed to compete in the Olympics. His sporting abilities are given much lesser weight in these sources. — The Anome (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as a personal label - I would describe him as someone "who raped a girl when he was 19". Senorangel (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Girl" should already imply the victim was a minor. 19 makes it clear at what age he committed the crime. But if there are strong reasons, I would not be opposed to including her age explicitly or replacing his age with the year the rape took place. Senorangel (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hear out your argument for "someone who raped a child" instead of "child rapist", but any inclusion of his age will IMHO always come across as trying to qualify it (whatever the reason you have for including it) and likely prompt people editing to add further qualifiers (i.e. the thought that 'if we have one extra detail in the opening description, why not have [this other one that I think is more relevant]) - like her age, or the number of counts, or whatever. I do not think either option needs any qualifiers to be understood. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was assuming people in the future may want to know more precisely when during his life this happened. His age can also show whether he was no longer a minor, depending on the country's laws. Senorangel (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, OFFTOPIC
  • Apparently any answer other than "yes" means that Kingsif will insinuate you are trying to benefit child predators. – notwally (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My replies to people contribute to discussion, and do not do what you suggest - either in intention or result. If you would like to contribute to discussion instead of stalking my (and only my) comments to cast aspersions, you are welcome to do so. But you haven't been productive at all and at this point have a clearly disruptive single-minded purpose. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your replies are far more bad faith insinuations and bludgeoning rather than contributing to any meaningful discussion. Considering you still haven't striken your baseless accusations of sock puppetry, you probably should actually read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm responding to your actual words on this discussion thread. – notwally (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally: My replies aren't bad faith or containing insinuations, or bludgeoning (content-wise). I encourage you to look at them with a more open mind, because I think after admittedly a dubious first comment of mine, you made a bad faith assumption and are seeing everything I do through that lens. I'd hope after seeing it result in a pleasant discussion, you would revert to AGF'ing me. But let's try and reach that now. To take this latest one (because I can see it in the edit window) as an example, a user has proposed a certain wording. We'll ignore the fact a different user also responded before me with an opinion on it, and you haven't taken issue with them. I replied with an opinion about the phrasing suggestion, an opinion based in editing practice. Not personal views of mine, not assumptions of the personal views of the other user. I mentioned what kind of phrasing I think is necessary, how phrasing might appear to readers, and how inclusion might encourage editing that could become disruptive. All of these things are valid, article-content-based opinions, as part of legitimate discussion on improving article content. It is all written as having an opinion on a content phrasing suggestion, and makes no insinuations about the user who proposed the wording. My edits have been congenial to coming to consensus and solutions for article content.
    As for the mention of the SPI notice at your talkpage - look, my base was that. I assume you're not a sock if you're not banned, and I apologise both for bringing up something irrelevant, and perpetuating what was presumably a false report. I'll strike my comment and apologise if I can find it. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and bluntly, it's not even a close call. Mind you, as others have noted above, it's not going to make or break the article whether this aspect of the subject's notability is mentioned in the first or the second sentence of the lead. But it's also an easy read from policy and the sources: virtually every source cited in this article mentions the conviction and reputation relating to the assault of the child. In fact, most of them mention it directly or obliquely in their titles. It is clearly an inseparable element of the coverage of his sports career, if not also independently the single biggest element of his notability. Even as he is on the verge of making his highest-level appearances of his career to date, the narrative in the sources is almost entirely about the controversy regarding the appropriateness of his selection for said events, given the nature of his crimes. SnowRise let's rap 05:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, the question asked in this RFC is not about whether the lead sentence should mention the conviction, it's about whether the specific wording "convicted child sex offender" should be used. Unless I'm drastically mistaken, none of the article's (English-language) references even contain the words "sex offender", so including that in the article would flagrantly violate MOS:ROLEBIO. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither WP:ROLEBIO nor any other related policy requires 100% parity down to the syllable with descriptions employed by reliable sources: there need merely be a reasonable level of fidelity between the descriptions deployed in the sources as a whole and how we frame the notability here. In those terms, "sex offender" couldn't be more accurate. That said, if you'd prefer "convicted child rapist" (the actual words numerous of the sources use, some with varying order and syntax), I don't think you're going to get a whole lot pushback. The point is, his crimes are clearly the first most prominent part of his notability, and even his second most important (being an athlete with Olympic ambitions) is basically never discussed in any secondary source used herein without direct reference to the first. So, again (and quibbles about the precise wording not withstanding), not even remotely a close call in my opinion. SnowRise let's rap 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Cheap. Rather, explain in detail further in the lede than shoehorning it as an "occupation". Curbon7 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, Curbon, that's a bit of a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting that the subject's crimes be presented as his "occupation". But they are, from any reasonable read of the sources employed in this article, the main source of his notability, and inseparable from virtually all coverage of his athletic career and future prospects. Thus we show focus in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, and per MOS:LEADREL. Nor is discussing the crimes of biographical subjects who were athletes in the lead sentence exactly without precedent here. Here's just a short list of articles where a professional athlete (and in most cases, it is someone with a much more notable career than this subject) has had their crimes mentioned in the lead sentence, either beside or in place of their role as an sportsperson:
Mel Hall, Chad Curtis, Mark Rogowski, Chris Dawson, Gary Brabham, Randall Woodfield, Darren Sharper, Felipe Vázquez, Thomas Payne, Dana Stubblefield, Scott Tucker, Lee Murray, Oscar Pistorius, Ralph Schwamb, Martin Bergen, Warrington Phillip, Marc Cécillon, Robert Rozier, Bruno Fernandes, Clifford Etienne, Gavin Grant, Evangelos Goussis, Rae Carruth, Eric Naposki, Bertil Fox, Sergio Mitre, Jonathan Koppenhaver, and Anthony Smith. And I did not attempt to make this list exhaustive by any means; there must be many others.
Note that arguably every person in that list could probably be said to have played at a higher level in their sport than van de Velde has in his to date, and some of them have professional profiles that can only be described as 1000x more prominent in their sports than this subject, even being charitable to this subject. And yet, we still mention their crimes in the lead sentence in addition to (or in place of) their "occupation". Being a professional athlete (or a professional anything) is not such an exceptional distinction that you can't be remembered more for your crimes if they rise to a certain level of notoriety. And when sources reflect that balance in their coverage, we are obligated by one of our pillar policies to shape our content accordingly. SnowRise let's rap 01:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, and anyways I disagree with several of those listed there too. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me when established precedence disgrees with me. 2600:381:CB60:24A1:3D60:8398:9B2E:FB4 (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the specific wording should be included in the lead, alongside his sporting career, his renown is also largely attributed to him being a convicted child rapist and criminal which warrants this, and the level of attention only because of this that is now focused on him, that incredibly he is still allowed to compete, due to the decision of the country's Olympic body AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. While his volleyball career and conviction alone are both mostly unremarkable, it’s the combination of these and reaction that has resulted in the majority of coverage and noteworthiness.
The fact that this article was changed and locked recently to bury the lede despite this obvious fact and precedence is concerning. A16X (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently reads "Steven van de Velde (born 8 August 1994) is a Dutch beach volleyball player. He was convicted of child rape in 2016." If you think that a period rather than an "and" is somehow "burying the lede", then that says a lot about how misguided some of these votes are and the weight they should be given when this RfC is closed. – notwally (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t disagree, but in the most congenial way because I don’t want to break our editing truce, I am sure it is possible to criticise this one user’s argument without using it to say that other !votes are misguided and implying they should be ignored. I’m not going to insist, but can I recommend striking that last clause or similar? Kingsif (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it should be listed first since it predated his professional beach volleyball career. Tslvrmn (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The vast majority of the coverage on this person that I am able to discover appears to include reference to his child sex abuse. MOS:FIRST states that [f]or topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence. I would conjecture that he's notable for two things: his child sex crimes and his Olympics run. And while MOS:FIRST states that we should not overload the first sentence with descriptors, a sentence like Steven van de Velde (born 8 August 1994) is a Dutch beach volleyball player and a convicted child sex offender (or even Steven van de Velde (born 8 August 1994) is a convicted child sex offender and a Dutch beach volleyball player) captures the individual's notability well and avoids overloading with details.
    As the child sex offenses are so key to his notability, and we can include it without making it overcluttered or overloaded with information, I do think that we should include it in the first sentence. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per Kingsif. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thryduulf, I've rarely ever done this, and I hope you'll take this in stride, but this was a bad close, and I think you should consider re-examining your analysis. 18 editors !voted for inclusion, while 9 opposed, so a conclusion of "weak consensus to exclude" is extremely dubious, in my view. Further, the editors supporting inclusion tended to predicate their position in deeper arguments that more regularly cited to the relevant policies, at least in my read.

Mind you, I for one have no intention of asking for closure review, purely because (as I noted in my own !vote) whether or not the detail of the rape is included in the first or second sentence is not going to make or break the article, and so I would consider it a questionable use of community attention to have a second discussion of such length (which the AN discussion would almost certainly amount to). On the other hand, consensus here was absolutely clear, and I don't think it's even a remotely close call under existing policy and community consensus on such matters, so to say nothing and let the close stand was also not something I felt entirely comfortable with. Be aware that I'm not going to pressure if you don't feel amendment is the correct course, but I think you might want to consider the possibility that you didn't reflect community will very well on this one. SnowRise let's rap 04:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Snow Rise:. I've read the discussion and I stand by my close. The number of editors on either side is not relevant it's the strength of the arguments that matter. I explained in the close why I weighted the arguments the way I did and I don't agree I got that wrong - particularly we do not exclude non-English sources from consideration simply because they are not in English. The consensus is certainly a very long way from the strongest I've ever seen, but it does exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I also feel that you have called consensus based on strength of arguments wrong. As I read it, most of the !votes against rely on the same ‘main claim of notability’ argument without acknowledging that NSPORT probably isn’t met to start with. However, given the RfC was a strange choice to ask for discussion, and that further discussions have basically superseded this RfC on the matter of handling how the rapes are covered in the lead, the outcome here doesn’t really matter, so I didn’t think it worth challenging. Kingsif (talk) 11:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, well again, I don't see that a review would pass a cost-benefit evaluation, so this is the end of the line for my objections, but I will say that I couldn't disagree with you more. First off, I think "The number of editors on either side is not relevant" is a massive and problematic misstatement of policy and community consensus on such matters. The relative strength of the support from the local community is not by any means "irrelevant". It's simply not dispositive in and of itself, but every closer should pay substantial attention to it-- especially when the ratio is 2:1 and several dozen community members participated.
    But let's put that to the side for the moment and focus on "it's the strength of the arguments that matter.", because I do substantially agree this is where the rubber hits the road. If for no other reason, then because there's WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and then broader community consensus as codified in WP:PAGs and other means by which community conclusions are promulgated. the "strength of the arguments" still has to be based in some form of community consensus, not just the closer's idosyncratic take on what would be the "good" outcome: that's the difference between a proper close summarizing community evaluation of the issue and a WP:SUPERVOTE.
    And bluntly, the majority also blew the "exclude" position out of the water in that respect. The latter didn't cite one policy/condified point of community consensus in the entire discussion, except for MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and WP:ROLEBIO (both of which I think very clearly militiate in favour of inclusion, from any plain reading of what they say); most of the arguments for exclusion were WP:IDONTLIKEIT-adjacent arguments which amounted to "People should be described by their occupation first, without reference to other forms of notability."--a position which is clearly inconsistent with the numerous policies, guidleines, and style pages cited by the majority-consensus: WP:WEIGHT, MOS:LEADREL, WP:BALANCE, WP:NOTCENSORED, as well as MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and WP:ROLEBIO.
    I'm sorry, but I just don't see the kind of massive misreading of established community consensus that would justify a closer flipping the script on what the involved local editors responding to the RfC decided. Quite the contrary. I do feel you tossed out the consensus for personal analysis, consciously or not. That said, I've said my piece: if you aren't convinced, that is that. The article won't suffer much whichever the outcome. But I do think it's a bad precedent, and I do worry it will be cited in the future as a consensus that wasn't actually reached: if you'll forgive my blunt phrasing. SnowRise let's rap 08:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just create a new RfC. This was a poor one to begin with and presented us with having to either choose awkward wording or vote against it. Very few people are opposing any mention of his offending against a child from being included in the lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I think another RfC would be excessive. The current balance of the lead may or may not be ideal (and does not reflect the consensus result here, imo), but it's still reasonable, and pulling in potentially dozens of editors for a second discussion would not, in my opinion, constitute a good use of limited community resources/editor time. I simply had some misgivings about the close not actually reflecting consensus and wanted to suggest to Thryduulf that a second pass/ammended close was probably appropriate. Insofar as they disagree, further debate is not worth the time, imo. SnowRise let's rap 22:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to hastent to add, since this little after-the-fact side discussion is a little longer than I intended it to be, that this was a very nuanced issue and that I think that Thryduulf's close made a sincere effor to reflect that. I would not want my having voiced my reservations here to be interpreted as my suggesting that they were actively trying to disregard the outcome. This would not have been an easy discussion to summarize for any veteran closer.
    In fact, I probably would not have said anything, but for my concern (as someone who particpates in a lot of talk space RfCs and sees a lot of cross-reference to other discussions) that we could see other people operating on BLPs refer back to this discussion as evidence that when a person has media/entertainment/sports notability, any crimes they have committed should be considered ancillary information and kept out of the lead sentence as a general rule. This is not the first time I have seen that argument advanced, and it does not, in my opinion, accord with actual policy on such matters. But I don't want my having taken a stand on this narrow issue to suggest that I see bad faith in Thryduulf's approach. On the contrary, my experience of them is that they are a very principled contributor. SnowRise let's rap 23:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

[edit]

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

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

"Statutory Rape" Language

[edit]

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

Although 'statutory rape' may well be accurate technically (ie sex with someone deemed legally unable to consent due to their age), English law does not have such a concept. I believe it used to be called 'sex with a minor' for anyone under 16, but now with anyone under 13, it is simply called 'rape'. With anyone 13-16 it is now called "sexual activity with a child' and is treated as being slightly less serious. I only say this as a sentence like "pleaded guilty to three counts of statutory rape" is simply meaningless in terms of UK law, you can't plead guilty in the UK to a crime which doesn't exist in English law!Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note discussion below may be related. Kingsif (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fornication?

[edit]

The article says his conviction was downgraded to fornication in the Netherlands. Is this a mistranslation because I don't see the word in the machine translation of the source. Does the country that is the byword for sexual freedom and personal liberties jail people for sex out of marriage like Iran? And was that really what the judge as the only thing wrong with a 19 year old and a 12 year old, just like an Afghan tribal judge punishing a rape victim? Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fornication does appear in the source [2]:
"In 2016, Van de Velde was convicted in England of having sex with an underage girl, which is rape under English law and fornication under Dutch law. Statutory rape is defined in England as unforced sexual activity where one of the individuals is younger than the age required to consent to the behaviour." (emphasis added)
This [3] source seems to mention the actual dutch wording is "ontucht"
Here is a dutch source describing what "ontucht" means in legalese [4]
Google translate turns ontucht into fornication. Dutch wikipedia links to sexual abuse for ontucht. Perhaps we can add (ontucht) to the text with a wiktionary link to ontucht to clear thing up?
Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 12:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your second part - though you may have gathered this from how the source described English law being quoted above - apparently Dutch law does not consider sex with a minor as rape, but “fornication”, if they apparently consented. At the Olympics article, we already have it mentioned that the Dutch team support him and have been critical of English media outrage. I see there’s now a section in this article about the Olympics, so perhaps adding that his selection was controversial and briefly the different takes would contextualise it. Kingsif (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest instead of linking to the nonexistent article "fornication (Dutch law)" that we instead link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#The_Netherlands.
Article 245 "ontucht met een minderjarige onder de 16 jaar" (A person who, out of wedlock, with a person who has reached the age of twelve but has not reached sixteen years, performs indecent acts comprising or including sexual penetration of the body) is, I believe, the "ontucht" in question. Mosi Nuru (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does a source (presumably a Dutch one, maybe the NOS one above) say that Article 245 is what he was charged with in the Netherlands? We probably couldn't fairly link to it if the connection is just based on OR because "ontucht" appears. Based on your quote, "ontucht" means "indecent acts", which may appear in other laws on sex (the legalese link above discusses Article 246, for example).
However, the red link should go, especially because it doesn't seem clear if there would be a Dutch law version of fornication to have an article about. We have wikt:ontucht#Dutch at Wiktionary, which might be a solution unless/until there's a source giving the Dutch conviction specifically. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though let's be careful to disentangle each element here (though I unfortunately also have to note some additional wrinkles that further complicate the editorial analysis). So, first off, let's clarify (and I think most here already understood this principle, but let's be clear for the record): typically it really would not matter what the "equivalent" crime is in Dutch law (or better said, the crime perceived to be equivalent, insofar as there is basically never 100% parity in statutes/codes), since the crime took place in (and was adjudicated by the criminal trial system of) the UK. The only reason there is some cause for describing two Dutch crimes here is that we have a source that says that the sentencing was in some way reworked to "conform to Dutch law" (paraphrasing our content) in some way.
But that's where things get a bit confusing, because typically treaties which regulate prisoner exchange for the purposes of allowing citizens to be jailed in their own country for crimes committed abroad do not allow that kind of discretion for the sovereign state whose laws were violated and which entered judgment. More typical is that the states exchange their people but give full fidelity to the terms of the judgments. And exercise ameliorating effects upon the sentencing mostly only through control of the parole system. And the situation is further confused by the fact that, even if the Dutch courts were adjusting the sentencing goal posts post-judgment and looking to Dutch law, it doesn't make much sense to choose a crime which has different elements for conviction (especially if it is the more severe crime).
I mean maybe the implication is that, in making this conversion, the court is actually looking to choose a sexual crime of similar severity based upon the time sentenced, just to keep the crime reflected in the record consistent with the penalty. But that would be even weirder and less likely still. All of which is to say, I'm not sure about this statement: the source may be inaccurately or imprecisely reflecting what the Dutch courts are doing in this instance, and/or the translation may not be ideal. And I'm not suggesting that any of the info that I've shared above should be used as cause to change the content (that would be essentially OR). I'm just getting at what we don't know yet that we need to know to resolve this issue. I actually have a bit of experience working with Dutch sources, so when I can find the time in the next day or two, I will A) look at the source currently used and see if our content aligns well with what it says, B) look for additional sources to clarify the role the Dutch court had in interpreting and/or adjusting the judgment or sentencing, if necessary, and C) see if I can decode the elements of the criminal charges referenced, just or provide us a little more context to be a little more confident of whatever we eventually decide.
In the meantime, I agree the redlink serves no purpose. But I also don't think a wiktionary link serves much more purpose. My suggestion would be to leave the term unlinked. A quick comment with passing reference to the crime of ontucht (and it's possible translations) should suffice for now. SnowRise let's rap 13:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't intended to specify what wording should be used in the article but to help assist the wording in the English WP article (along with reliable sources).
Ontucht (originally and unqualified) does mean fornication, so the (word for word) translation of ontucht as fornication is correct, but this interpretation is inaccurate - the Dutch legal meaning is not the same as the general meaning of fornication in English (i.e. generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other as per the WP fornication article). Note that in differing contexts, ontucht can mean adultery, lechery, prostitution, and many other things with sexual connotations.
In the WP article, ontucht is being used as standalone terminology here, but ontucht is never used unqualified in Dutch law. In the different legal articles that have used the term 'ontucht', the broad meaning of ontucht can be 'lewd acts' and/or 'sexual acts' or 'sexual abuse' or 'rape' depending on qualification in differing contexts/scenarios (see below).
A much better and more reputable academic summary of the various Dutch articles of law, many including 'ontucht' in Dutch, is provided in Table 1 of the following paper from the University of Nottingham based on the legal and institutional responses to the online sexual exploitation of children under Dutch law. Note that, although the term 'ontucht' is used in Dutch, none of the English summaries include 'fornication'.
Wikipedia (in Dutch) has an explanation of the use of 'ontucht' in the context of the article 'sexual abuse' (Seksueel misbruik) that may be useful.
Another academic source (in Dutch) that might be useful is the Amo Institute of Sciences Dutch Law Encyclopedic Dictionary (Amo juridischwoordenboek) with their entry of 'ontucht' in context at ontucht - JuridischWoordenboek.nl - Dutch Law Encyclopedic Dictionary - Amo Institute of Sciences. The entries for
Here ontucht met een minderjarige is translated (by source) to 'fornication with a minor', but the interpretation in Dutch (along with translation) is as follows:
Dutch:
strafrecht - seksuele handelingen (seksueel binnendringen van het lichaam) of seksueel getinte handelingen (zoals verleiding) plegen met een minderjarige. ~ is een als misdrijf gekwalificeerd delict.
English:
Criminal law - committing sexual acts (sexual penetration of the body) or sexual acts (such as seduction) with a minor. ~ is an offence classified as a criminal offence.
Machine translation of legal language, as it stands in written law, is often very poor. Even when speaking your native tongue or language of fluency, the language used in articles and statutes is often archaic (sometimes even incomprehensible) to a person without legal training. This is the case in Dutch law pertaining to the articles using the term 'ontucht'. In context 'ontucht' as in 'ontucht met een minderjarige' means 'sex with someone who is underage' that in legalese most closely approximates to 'statutory rape'. In modern (non-legal) Dutch 'verkrachting van een minderjarige' would be more commonly used ('verkrachting' meaning rape), and 'verkrachting van een minderjarige' meaning 'child rape' or 'rape of a child'.
You can see the origins and where 'ontucht' meaning 'fornication' is archaic in most non-legal contexts, because both the Dutch and English implied 'outside of wedlock' originally, from the days sexual acts outside of wedlock were frowned upon/criminalised.
Note, the use of 'ontucht' as terminology in Dutch law has updated recently, in certain articles/situation, removing the term from use with (since 1st July 2024) the Sexual Offences Act (Wet seksuele misdrijven). 'Ontucht' is no longer in the codes but is included in the explanatory memorandum (de MvT nog wel).
It's my understanding that it is Artikel 247 Sr that applied to Van der Velde. It's completely logical, in this domain, but I'm sure I've seen this mentioned in Dutch and can't for the life of me remember where.:
Artikel 247 Sr Dutch:
"Hij die met iemand van wie hij weet dat hij in staat van bewusteloosheid, verminderd bewustzijn of lichamelijk onmacht verkeert, dan wel aan een zodanige gebrekkige ontwikkeling of ziekelijke stoornis van zijn geestvermogens lijdt dat hij niet of onvolkomen in staat is zijn wil daaromtrent te bepalen of kenbaar te maken of daartegen weerstand te bieden of met iemand beneden de leeftijd van zestien jaren buiten echt ontuchtige handelingen pleegt of laatstgemelde tot het plegen of dulden van zodanige handelingen buiten echt met een derde verleidt, wordt gestraft met een gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste zes jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie."
English (remember what I said about archaic/incomprehensibility outside of legal backgrounds):
"He who, with someone with whom he knows to be in a state of unconsciousness, reduced consciousness or physical impotence, or suffers from such a defective development or morbid disorder of his mental faculties that he is unable or imperfectly able to determine or express his will in this regard or to resist it or to deal with someone under the age of sixteen commits lewd acts for years or entices the latter to commit or tolerate such acts out of wedlock with a third party, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six years or a fine of the fourth category."
Using the definition given in the University of Nottingham paper, Article 247 is summarised as the following:
'Section 247 makes it a crime to engage in sexual acts with a person who is unconscious, incapacitated, mentally ill, under 16 years old, or unable to resist.'
I hope this helps (somewhat). Montezuma69 (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find the source to say Article 247 is what he was charged with, that would be helpful. Otherwise, it's personal research and to use any sources unrelated to the case at hand to try and describe it would be WP:SYNTH. However, your comment further gives me the impression that it's not appropriate to use "ontucht" as a standalone phrase in the article. It may be necessary to rephrase for accuracy. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My post was not meant to suggest Art. 247 Sr. (or any Artikel) should be used, not without proper evidence - it was more to help with the various meanings of ontucht, in different contexts, and the way these Dutch laws are written (along with their archaic style and language) and translation of a single word out of context, especially when machine translated. None of the possible Artikel under Dutch law using 'ontucht' mean 'fornication' in the general English sense, yet ontucht is only every used to describe sexual crimes, indecent assault and sexual abuse of some sort.
I think you may have trouble finding a Dutch media article that specifies the exact law/article involved or a more specific crime, especially as all articles seem to be written post-release, and with Dutch law having a greater amount privacy granted to someone who has served their sentence.
I have sent an email to a sexual abuse expert within the Dutch legal system, and explained the difficulty (and how jarring 'fornication' is here), and should I get a response, I will share it here. Montezuma69 (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This talkpage is WP:NOTAFORUM to simply discuss context of Dutch law; if not discussing relevant sources that can be used to edit and improve the article (and personal correspondence with an unrelated expert is not permissible), it's something that does not belong here. Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The answer unsurprisingly is no, rather one is getting reminded that just like for "jailed", the question of what constitutes rape is one of definition. Hence usually culture/geography, there are perhaps but certainly have been peoples in the world without a perfectly comparable concept to begin with. That doesn't hold for the (modern) Dutch of course, in any case I agree that literally translating a term like that at best adds a dash of comedy utterly inappropriate for the occasion, and/or only manages to confuse people, as we see. Instead do as she did, use the actual Dutch term in cursive and explain without getting lost in details. It really isn't so difficult after all, clearly not enough so as to justify a wall of text like this. -199.116.118.197 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should be quite explicit in describing the acts. The charge was rape in the U.K., and he was convicted of it. We should say something in the lead that describes this, and also states what happens succinctly, as done here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just by translating a single word back to Dutch could've saved me a thousand words - I wish I thought of that :-) It was a hilariously bad translation, that I've since seen dubious quality press include (?copy) into their pieces and it seems just as bad.
Should a clarification be required, I suggest the following, with possible citations/sources. If people feel this, or a reworking of this, is useful for inclusion, please feel free to add it. Perhaps it works as a footnote?
Suggestion as clarification/definition: Under Dutch law, ontucht (literally translated as fornication) is understood to mean crimes involving sexual misconduct against a minor or sexual acts that violate socio-ethical norms.
Possible citations:
Source 1: A (translated) definition from the Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel Geweld tegen Kinderen (National Rapporteur on Human Trafficking and Sexual Violence against Children) in the Netherlands, established under Dutch law to report directly to the govt., gives the meaning of ontucht as follows:
"Fornication [ontucht] is all forms of sexual violence against children that involve physical sexual contact between the perpetrator and the victim. Sex with children under the age of sixteen is punishable. According to criminal law, it does not have to be proven that the minor victim was forced into sexual contact. Nor does it have to be proven that the defendant knew that the victim was a minor."
Source 2, from the Guardian: ‘Under Dutch law, his crime was deemed to be the lesser offence of ontucht, sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms.’
Nb. This is an ‘opinion’ piece in the Guardian. I have seen ‘lesser’ used a lot in English language media, but this may debatable/ best avoided, noting that ‘ontucht’ when qualified as ‘ontucht met een minderjarige’ means statutory rape, which would have been close to the identical charge/crime to that under English law.
Unfortunately, via private correspondence (the expert mentioned in the NYTimes article and the Guardian about vd Velde), I wasn't pointed to a good, citeable explanation, but I was given a strong, simple definition (IMO) that works with the citations (above):
"Ontucht is understood as “sexual misconduct with a minor or committing a sexual act that violates the socio-ethical norm.”
Other advice given about usage: ‘Ontucht’ is widely understood in Dutch to have a legal meaning in the context of crime, which is separate to its general meaning (which is similar to the general English meaning and hence mistranslation). Unspecified, it is generalist term, applying to one of several laws, describing a category of misconduct/sexual acts, rather than a specific charge – it cannot be elaborated on further here without more information. “Violating the socio-ethical norm” is used a concept within many Dutch laws and is written into the wording of crimes involving ‘ontucht’ (although 'ontucht' has been dropped when all of these laws were updated recently'. ‘Ontucht’ can and is applied to other situations of sexual misconduct, e.g. bestiality; however, such cases are rare - in practice and common usage, ontucht almost always refers to ‘sexual misconduct with a minor’.
Advice on clarifying/specifying the exact charge or context of ontucht: Should someone wish clarify the specific context/charge via court rulings, they are published on https://rechtspraak.nl/ , but I was warned that it was not made available, and that appears to be the situation. Warning: rulings are pseudo-anonymized – defendant names removed. Cases are frequently not made public by courts. Searchable only with knowledge of the case number, or day/time/court of hearing, and still cannot be verified by defendant name. The media have more access to records, but details and the ability to publish specific details are frequently prevented or abbreviated - as seen, all Dutch media pieces refer to it only as ‘ontucht’). It seems highly unlikely you will find a Dutch news source that elaborates further. Montezuma69 (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to use that sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms phrasing per sources that are about this case. If we get confirmation that ontucht met een minderjarige was the charge (as you say, we don't have it), then "with a minor" could be added. I'd suggest just adding "defined as sexual acts that violate social-ethical norms" (plus source) after the word ontucht in the article. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Novem Linguae who recently added fornication back into the article again. [5] I assume you were trying to deal with the clarification needed tag that I added? I appreciate the intent. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I wasn't aware of this talk page section. I just saw a foreign word and translated it for clarity. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Currently, the opening paragraph states "while van de Velde was 19, he had sexual intercourse with a 12 year-old girl after he gave her alcohol." This is factual. But the phrase "gave her alcohol" hyperlinks to the article "date rape drug."

In my view, this is inappropriate. Media discussion of van de Velde has focused on the statutory nature of the crime, not on a suggestion that he "incapacitate[d] another person and render[ed] that person vulnerable to sexual assault," which is Wikipedia's description of a date rape drug. There are obvious reasons to suspect that the alcohol might have served such a function here, but unless this conclusion has been drawn by some off-Wikipedia source that we can site, I don't think we should draw that conclusion ourselves.

I recommend that we remove the hyperlink, or in the alternative link to the more neutral article alcohol and sex. Mosi Nuru (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Red-tailed hawk, who added the link here [6]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, he raped a twelve year old. Even if she wasn't twelve, people that have consumed alcohol cannot legally consent [7]. I think the link as-is makes sense and provides the most context to readers. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyways, he raped a twelve year old." Yes, that's not in dispute.
"Even if she wasn't twelve, people that have consumed alcohol cannot legally consent." That is not what your link says. Your link says an "intoxicated person cannot give consent." Your link even makes reference to being "sober enough" to give consent. I have seen no reference to how much alcohol he gave the girl, whether or not she was "intoxicated," etc.
Again, it's not implausible that she was intoxicated here, but I would like to see some reference to an off-Wikipedia source that alcohol was actually used as a date rape drug in this case, rather than drawing the conclusion ourselves on the reasoning that "alcohol + statutory rape = automatic date rape drug." Mosi Nuru (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that consuming alcohol made you intoxicated. Our article on alcohol intoxication makes it sound like a relatively little amount makes you intoxicated. It sounds like what you wish for is a source that explicitly states she was drunk?
I still don't think the link is inappropriate: Date rape drug#Alcohol gives the reader context about alcohol and rape. The girl was raped and she was given alcohol. To me, that's good enough to justify linking to the article. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It sounds like what you wish for is a source that explicitly states she was drunk?" Yes, that would satisfy me. Or a source (ideally a court proceeding) describing his use of alcohol as a date rape drug. Or at least some information about how much alcohol she consumed. Basically, some sign that anyone other than a Wikipedia editor has made the conclusion that alcohol was used as a date rape drug in this case. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into seeing whether such sourcing exists, but I disagree with you that it's required in this instance. As I said before The girl was raped and she was given alcohol. To me, that's good enough to justify linking to the article. If he hadn't been charged with rape, a link to alcohol and sex would be more appropriate. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The girl was raped and she was given alcohol. To me, that's good enough to justify linking to the article"--OK, I get that that's your reasoning, but my whole point is that I strongly disagree (as I said, I think the reasoning "alcohol + statutory rape = automatic date rape drug" is specious). I'm not sure there's much point in going back and forth on this, I'd rather let other editors weigh in. Mosi Nuru (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK to change the redirect to Alcohol and sexual assault, which points to the relevant section of the Alcohol and sex. Honestly, we probably need a concrete article on this, and the content being forked between a few articles isn't optimal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems unlikely that this fact was brought up in the trial if not to argue that was his intention, the source doesn't mention any ruling on that, just that he gave her alcohol. So it's effectively OR to make the (albeit logical) connection ourselves, and the link shouldn't be there. Really, no link is necessary. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's OR. We're not explicitly stating in the article "alcohol was used as a date rape drug". We're linking to an article that discusses use of alcohol before a victim is raped, which is what happened here. I think the context makes sense for people like me who do not drink and are only vaguely aware of its effects on the human body. Hence some of my confusion earlier about what it means to be intoxicated. I was under the impression that it was a way clearer line both legally and socially: if you're drinking, you are impaired (even if you are not drunk) and that you can only be sober if your BAC is 0. Seems like the lines are a bit more blurry on the when, even across jurisdictions. [8] Anyways, I still think it's logical to link it. It's not the biggest deal in the world if not but it's useful context for readers. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with the target being changed to Alcohol and sexual assault now that's been given as an option because the victim was raped (I didn't realize it was a section in alcohol and sex and this makes more sense than just linking to the whole article). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've since made the lead of the article more clear on that [9]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2024

[edit]

Change the wording “had sexual intercourse with a 12 year old” to “raped a 12 year old”

You cannot have sexual intercourse with a 12 year old. A 12 year old cannot consent. It is rape. He was convicted of rape. Claiming they had intercourse is akin to claiming it was consenting which cannot be true. 2601:1C1:4001:5D90:F868:92C7:70D6:191E (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EthanRossie2000: Is there a reason that you prefer to use "sexual intercourse" here? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the editor in question but the sentence as it currently stands is repetitive and chronologically backwards: "He was convicted of child rape in 2016; in 2014, while van de Velde was 19, he raped a 12 year-old girl after he gave her alcohol."
My suggested phrasing: "In 2014, when van de Velde was 19, he provided alcohol to and had sexual intercourse with a 12 year-old girl; he pled guilty to three counts of rape against a child in 2016, and was sentenced to four years in jail by a British court."
Add source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-35861441 Mosi Nuru (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "sex" sounded too tame (for lack of a better term) for what had actually occured, despite intercourse meaning the same thing, but didn't want to outright change it to rape without a consensus, although I am in complete favour of that change, if it were to happen. EthanRossie2000 16:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
didn't want to outright change it to rape without a consensus - his conviction is three counts of rape (and aggravated based on his victim's age, at that), it is not something that needs discussion to include. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind going forward with other similar edits. I just know how finicky other editors can be on this matter. Something like this shouldn't need a consensus at all. EthanRossie2000 10:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Immers

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Immers. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source text integrity

[edit]

@Kingsif: I disagree with the edit you made here [10] It is important to keep the sources different because they all reported what happened differently. Conbining it all together like that is somewhat WP:SYNTHy.

  • The Independent source says "Unlike his fellow competitors, there were no cheers when Van de Velde was introduced to the crowd with some boos again clearly audible" but also says that Immers was cheered. [11]
  • The BBC source reports that Van de Velde was booed but he also received some applause [12]
  • The Global News source makes it clear that everyone booed Van de Velde except for some Dutch fans. [13]

Therefore, I strongly disagree with changing the phrasing that makes it clear that different news outlets reported this differently to: Various news outlets reported on Van de Velde being booed when his name was announced, as well as during the match, while noting that Immers was cheered and some fans applauded for Van de Velde. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinstated the previous wording because I think it's very important that synthesis is not introduced. If an uninvolved editor disagrees with this, feel free to revert me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I changed my mind. [14] It's typically best to err on the side of caution and talk things through first. I suppose I was more "jump the gun" because this article has way more visibility than a normal article would. People are constantly reading it and text source integrity is more crucial with that kind of prominence. Anyways, if my text is reinstated, the Independent source should probably be looked at more closely. I added "booed by all" in a subsequent edit but that isn't quite right either. It seems like what the source is stating between those two paragraphs is that Van de Velde only received audible applause when he was present beside Immers. When he was just by himself, there were only boos. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Details about the crime

[edit]

Noting here that I reverted Jontel for removing a substantial amount of content here. Their cited rationale was WP:AVOIDVICTIM but I disagree with its relevance here. People are free to discuss whether or not they think this content should be removed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conviction was for the sexual act per se, due to the age of the victim, not for the circumstances. The details are therefore not required for notability. There are a number of indications in WP:BLP that an individual's privacy should not be unnecessarily weakened. Examples: WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. Here, I am thinking of the privacy of the victim, even if she is not named. Jontel (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steven van de Velde isn't simply in the news because of the crime he committed though, these details contribute greatly to the amount of public outrage surrounding his participation in the Olympics. I think removing these details is essentially whitewashing and that while you removed them in good faith, that rationale does not apply here. This doesn't impact the victim's privacy, she's anonymous. We're not saying 'oh he went to this hotel' or 'this is the exact location she was raped'. Details on crimes usually include relevant content about what took place. It isn't simply about a conviction. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the one sentence about the victim self-harming because it is the only content here I can see this being applicable to. [15] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was more concerned about the material on the victim's actions after the crime than on the crime's circumstances. Thanks. Jontel (talk) 08:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_van_de_Velde&oldid=1243886321"