Wikipedia talk:Crime labels/Archive 1

Archive 1

editors who may be interested

Hey, Isaidnoway, your comments at SBF made me think you might have feedback on this, which I wrote in response to the current discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sam_Bankman-Fried_and_"fraudster". You, I believe correctly, were pointing out at the SBF discussion that felon is also a label. This is something I've been thinking about for a bit, really not sure how this should be handled, but the two discussions (and the various arguments at them) kind of focused some of my thinking on the relevant policy, and I just sort of dashed this off as a draft. I'd love feedback, editing, whatever. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, I don't know how specific you want to get in the 'suggested alternatives' section, but another frequent labeling issue I see is with BLPs convicted of sex offenses. Editors are keen to use labels like pedophile, rapist or child molester etc., rather than convicted of [...]. Another, sometimes, contentious issue, you might want to address, is immediately following a BLPs conviction for whatever crime, editors spring into action and insert a crime label into the lead sentence, insisting the BLP is now notable for that and it must remain in the first sentence. I've seen a lot of edit warring and RfCs over that issue.

Maybe you could include a suggestion/advice that if their edit is reverted, for either a crime label or lead sentence label addition, they should start a discussion on the talk page, rather than edit warring their preferred version. Another ugly issue you may want to consider addressing is when an editor starts ascribing motives for another editor's argument for inclusion/exclusion of disputed content like crime labels. I've seen some pretty uncivil comments like - "why are you defending this POS", or in the opposite direction, "why are you trying to destroy this BLPs reputation". Anyway, those issues are what immediately came to mind.

And on a side note, off topic, did you know we had this article - List of fraudsters. SBF is listed there, so is Elizabeth Holmes, and if you scroll down to the T section, wow, you'll find Donald Trump. I find it a little perplexing that editors don't want to use that label 'fraudster' in their respective BLP articles, but it's okay to label them as such in that article? Seems like a weird disconnect to me. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes...labels in Lists are a real problem. Mass inappropriate labeling. I was going to suggest a section in this essay highlighting the potential problems with labels in lists. One could also perhaps include, for "reference", links to some of the RfC's or other discussions that document, perhaps, how this Essay came to be. Bdushaw (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bdushaw, I was definitely thinking links to discussions were worth including.

@Isaidnoway, ugh on List of fraudsters. And yes on sex offenses, and yes on the immediate addition after a conviction. That was exactly the reaction after Martha Stewart's conviction for insider trading.

Please both of you (or anyone) feel free to edit the essay. I moved it to main space quickly because I really do want others to edit. Valereee (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Developments

I've tried to develop the essay a bit. Feel free to revert/correct/etc. I am not sure what BLPS means? (Biography of Living Persons?) Bdushaw (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've continued to poke at the article, develop and clean up. Feel free to modify. I contemplate adding a new section on how the situation changes when the person is no longer alive. Those changes may illustrate better the points we are trying to make. The Bonny and Clyde article may be an example. After they died in a hail of gunfire, the nature of their lives became fixed and established - thus the case for labels "bank robbers", "criminals" or "murderers" became stronger; that's how they led their lives. Elizabeth Holmes (and similar) still have the lengthy remainder of their lives - how is it that Wikipedia can stick a criminal label on them? If a label is liable to change over time, why use it? Some uncertain thoughts. Bdushaw (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources and labels

I'm pretty hesitant about saying that if sources are using the label, then it is OK. This after the exhaustive discussion in the Elizabeth Holmes page. Curiously, there were many sources that used the label "fraudster", but of the "mainstream", most reliable sources, and straight news reporting articles, the label was rarely used. IMO the criteria of being convicted of a crime entitles the use of what ever label is fairly flimsy justification. Endless arguments about this, however. Holmes was convicted, but to then label her a "fraudster" for all time didn't fly. This will be a delicate issue to describe. A label is saying that someone IS something, WAS something, and always WILL BE something. The label is stating the very essence of who they were, are, and will be forever. Bad form for Wikipedia to be making such statements about people if not REALLY true. (In all this, I am not in an argumentative mood...do what you think is best) Bdushaw (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC) For example, I would say that a criminal-type label should not be used at all, unless the article in its entirely establishes a long-term history and pattern of such criminality. e.g., Bonny and Clyde were bank robbers. B. Madoff was a fraudster. Bdushaw (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I've seen some editors using MOS:LABEL as a semi-justification in their arguments against inclusion of a crime label. But it also states: Value-laden labels – [...] – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. So keeping that in mind, if a crime label is widely used by reliable sources, then it becomes a significant viewpoint per WP:NPOV, and in my view, would be a valid argument for inclusion. TBH, I think it is probably best if we just leave it on a case-by-case basis, for any affected article, and let consensus play out, like we always have. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

And I do think that if a crime label is widely used by the best-quality sources, it probably should be included in the lead. And yes, I also think there's an argument for case-by-case, but the problem we have is that lower-visibility articles are getting stuff inserted. Even Caroline Ellison, which is currently getting over 2K views per day, calls her a felon in the lead sentence, added a couple weeks ago here. Valereee (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Archetype and Epilogue

I've added these two new sections and other smaller edits. I am just trying things out to see how they work or not. Feel free to slash/burn/revert as seems appropriate. ("Epilogue" was prompted by the discussion just above.) Bdushaw (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede or Lead?

BTW, some time ago, I noticed that some people used "lede" and others used "lead"...I did some research and determined that "lead" was the correct: "A "lede" is the introductory paragraph of a news story, while a "lead" is the main idea or point of the story." So I use lead. In any case, the article should be consistent, which I think it is, so far. Bdushaw (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

And for the real authority on the topic: Lead paragraph. Bdushaw (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This spelling is a tell when someone is probably British, or former British colony like India. -- GreenC 04:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on which is used, agree it needs to be consistent in a given text. Valereee (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The difficult issue

Being a veteran now of several extensive discussions, I can report that the discussions seem to break down into two sides, one that understands and appreciates the nuances of the issues (2/3), and another that will persistently declare "Why not call them what they are: murderers, bank robbers, and con men?" (1/3) It is easy to write this essay for the former, but making a convincing case opposing the latter view seems more to the point of this essay. Perhaps we could develop a more effective approach for the latter type of editor - a new section directly taking on the issue, perhaps with the title "Why not call them what they are: murderers, bank robbers, and con men?" ? I've mostly been at a loss, eventually. Bdushaw (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that does seem to be the issue: "But it's the truth!" Like you I'm at a bit of a loss. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

If you think this essay is going to persuade the "latter view", I've got a herd of cats for you to corral. As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline that forbids "calling them what they are", as long as it is widely reported by reliable sources and is a significant viewpoint. In fact, we have several articles that already take this approach, and there is consensus for that approach in those articles. Wikipedia has never been a one-size-fits-all, and it shouldn't be, in my view. Diversity in opinions amongst our editors is our strength, not our weakness. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd agree it's not likely to be persuasive to those who are of that opinion, and I also agree that diversity of opinions is absolutely a strength rather than a weakness. The point of an essay is more to focus thinking. Someone totally could write an essay on "The importance of calling a fraudster a fraudster". Valereee (talk) 12:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It currently says "But it's the truth" is not a policy-based argument. We only report on what other reliable sources are saying." Though, we can easily find sources that use fraudster etc.. if I was a pro-label editor, I would point to this statement as a reason for including the label. Missing are the arguments about how Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it doesn't have the same leeway to publish opinionated statements as sources can since they don't operate under Wikipedia BLP rules, that because something was published is not reason enough to include it. These ideas are already in the essay, I think, but not coherently together. -- GreenC 02:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

There is merit in this concern, IMO. One thing is clear, is that the various points and objections are fairly slippery and often not obvious to people. The arguments in the essay have to be clear and too the point, stark even. (Things cannot be muddled and verbose?) On many points the objection is that using a label is just not and encyclopedic approach. There is room for another editor to go through the essay and try to clean things up. Likely not me; a set of fresh eyes would be useful. Bdushaw (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd love to see some more tweaking from fresh eyes. For me a point comes at which everything just sort of blurs together and I'm useless as a copyeditor until I've taken a significant break from reading a text. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"It is true" section

I rewrote this section with help from Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!" ie. WP:NOTTRUTH which is basically the same thing on a more generic level. -- GreenC 22:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we've gotten away from the concept of labelling here, though. The support for the labels is often that the conviction is indeed both

1. verifiable in top-level RS and
2. no one reasonable is questioning whether it's true.

We absolutely should report the conviction. But should we label the person? This essay is arguing that we should not unless RS are widely using the label. Valereee (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The nonconcerns section got restored and is problematic.

Here it says:

"But it's the truth" is not a policy-based argument. We only report on what other reliable sources are saying. We do not publish original thought.

Wait, what? Many sources use Fraudster, and your saying only report what reliable sources say? Ok, here are the sources.

It says:

How much the person deserves to be labelled due to the egregiousness of their actions is not a policy-based argument.

Wikipedia is consensus-based, and consensus determines things, as this essay has rightly pointed out elsewhere. If there is consensus for the label, we can use it. That's the policy-based argument. If enough people think they deserve the label, and can get consensus for it. It is misleading the reader to suggest they cant give their opinion about it in a consensus discussion.

It says:

Citing the bare definition of the label as anyone "convicted of the label crime" is not a valid argument for the use of the label.

Really? It's not an invalid argument. It might not be the strongest compared to some others, but citing dictionary definitions has long been used in arguments on Wikipedia. We need to use words correctly. A reader can't take seriously that it is totally "invalid". The question is how much weight to give it compared to other arguments.

-- GreenC 18:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As you know, GreenC, I've spent far too much time in the trenches of argument...my enthusiasm for continuing is nearly non-existent! I was not entirely happy with your recent revisions, though; but not against them either. I reply here mostly to address this final point concerning definitions. It may be that short paragraph needs a clarification, but I believe it is correct. The thing is, the definition is not reflexive (mathematics, reflexive: If a=b, then b=a). If "fraudster"="someone convicted of a fraud" does not logically mean "therefore I can employ "fraudster" to label this person with that identity. The key phrase is "use of the label". Besides, there are many other definitions of "fraudster", e.g., "someone engaging in fraud as an occupation", etc.; getting back to the point that a label is vague or misleading; with a label everyone is operating with different definitions. And with that...this camel's back is broken! Bdushaw (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

GC, I think you're making objections to certain passages, so I'll respond that way.

• Wait, what? Many sources use Fraudster, and your saying only report what reliable sources say? Ok, here are the sources.

Yes, if multiple high-quality reliable sources are calling the person a fraudster, then it's definitely arguable we should use fraudster.

• Wikipedia is consensus-based, and consensus determines things, as this essay has rightly pointed out elsewhere. If there is consensus for the label, we can use it. That's the policy-based argument. If enough people think they deserve the label, and can get consensus for it. It is misleading the reader to suggest they cant give their opinion about it in a consensus discussion.

Yes, we're consensus-based, but that doesn't mean the argument for using it despite it not being used in RS is policy-based, and any closer should be considering that argument as not based on policy. It doesn't mean those arguments will necessarily be discounted, but the closer should consider that as a factor.

• Really? It's not an invalid argument. It might not be the strongest compared to some others, but citing dictionary definitions has long been used in arguments on Wikipedia. We need to use words correctly. A reader can't take seriously that it is totally "invalid". The question is how much weight to give it compared to other arguments.

It's not inaccurate, but without support in RS, the argument isn't policy-based, and as you say that should be weighed. I'll change that from "not a valid" to "not a policy-based argument". Valereee (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Underlying or hidden motivations

I have half a mind to include a mention that it may be that sexism or racism are motivations behind some of the disputes. Crimes provoke an emotional response anyways, and I have a suspicion that sexism or racism provides added motivation. I was puzzled by the vehemence of some of the discussion with the Elizabeth Holmes case, until it occurred to me that the sadly-inherent internet sexism may be a contributing element. There may be a similar response with R. Kelly, but I don't know. Anyways, I suspect these suspicions may sometimes be an element to disputes, but they don't seem substantive enough at this point to include anything on it. I thought it worth a note here, however. Bdushaw (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we'd probably need to find an RS that is saying so, and even then we'd need to be careful, like, "Be aware there is sometimes unconscious bias operating when labelling women and people of color." Valereee (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that race can sometimes provide a motivation in the opposite direction, too -- where because someone is a minority, Wikipedians do not want to appear to be "piling on" with factual notations of a party's criminal record. An example here shows that Arbery had a sufficiently- (though maybe not well-) documented criminal arrest record, but relatively quickly Wikipedia's prevailing house style ruled that this can never be mentioned, even with proper citations, in the article about Arbery's murder. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you've got that exactly backwards. But even if we'd mentioned this irrelevant bit of negative biographical detail in the article about the man's murder, we certainly would never label someone who'd been arrested once for some minor offense "a criminal", no matter what their race or gender, if that's what you're getting at. If you find an article calling someone who was once arrested by the school cops for bringing a gun to a basketball game, and the article is labelling that person "a criminal", please fix that immediately. Valereee (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussions

Wow, Bdushaw, great work digging up past discussions! Thank you for doing that work, all of those are so worth including here. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thx! In past discussions people would link to even earlier discussions, so I just had to follow them back. What's perhaps not so remarkable is the universal negative response to the use of labels. Still, I am somewhat overwhelmed, contemplating all these vast, ongoing, repetitive arguments over exactly the same issue...I am sure the list is just the tip of the iceberg. What a waste of editor manpower. Perhaps the essay will start to minimize the fighting. There were other links to issues not so clearly resolved ("white nationalist"), though perhaps not crime labels. I included everything I found...I promise I didn't pick and choose! ( :) ) I am winding down with the essay, though I was perhaps contemplating a new small section on recommending steps for resolving label issues (discussion, appeal to guidance, post to BLPR, start an RfC?) Looking at all this past discussion, I am, alas, annoyed again that my previous attempt to develop guidance on the BLP Talk page went nowhere - I suppose at any given time interval on a Talk page, the newer people are unaware of the history of an issue. Hopefully, this essay will help. Bdushaw (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Also...the essay hasn't dealt with the issue of labels in lists, e.g., List of fraudsters, and the like. A contagion. Bdushaw (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm wondering if List of fraudsters should be maybe moved to List of people convicted of fraud. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It will be difficult because the new name is much longer. OTOH very few of them use fraudster in the lead section. Another option is List of financial criminals is more encompassing. -- GreenC 04:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure "financial criminals" is much better. It's still a negative label, just in more encyclopedic language. I guess I'd argue that this is a struggle between precise and concise, and that for a BLP we'd favor precise. Note that I have no intention of opening a move discussion at that list, it sounds like a bag of worms. Valereee (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

'Financial criminal' appears to be less contentious thus less disruptive. That's the main concern IMO, moving on from these debates, which are not a good use of our time and energy. Like infobox wars, or accessdate/access-date wars, they are bad for the project, not because we are bad people or the subject isn't worthwhile, but they are natural traps which can ensnare us into whirlpools occasionally. -- GreenC 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. It's still labelling BLPs, and I don't think discussing what is and isn't okay in a BLP is a waste of time in the way that formatting issues like infoboxes are. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I also would disagree. The user GreenC was recently seen editing about a BLP being found "guilty" in a civil suit, where one is found "liable". I'm concerned that the user has a penchant for labeling human beings as criminals before all else, but I got a talking to by the Wikipedia community for even expressing concern about this. I'm sure GreenC means well, but his fervor for labeling people who have done wrong at some point in life borders on overzealous. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Swiss Mister in NY, no idea what you're talking about, but if you arrived here to make some point about past interactions you've had with GreenC or to somehow relitigate those interactions here or potstir, don't. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Having scanned through many of the lengthy (excessively lengthy) discussions on the use of labels, it seemed to me that the essay was hitting on many of the common arguments that I encountered. There is room for someone to make a more thorough review, however; perhaps there are aspects I missed. Two facets that remain fuzzy to me (that is, I am not sure how to shape an argument about them) are to better explain what a label actually means, and how the notability of a subject relates to the use of a label. One will often see an exchange like: "We should not use that crime label." with the reply: "Why not! It is what the subject is notable for." This is an example of a discussion that has already run off the rails. The replier has missed the point that the label could be improper, while (implicitly) arguing that because the subject is notable for the crime, the best way to state that is by the label. Insofar as this essay is concerned, there is still likely room to better explain what a label is and why its use is often a bad idea (though there is an element of obtuseness here...). I did what I could; perhaps others have ideas for how to clarify the point. And the issue of a subject being notable for a crime as it relates to use of a label perhaps requires a discussion - see Discussion of Klete Keller and the label "convicted felon"; an Olympic medalist, and now a convicted Jan 6 insurrectionist (not to use labels or anything). Bdushaw (talk) 11:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

A tricky topic - how to combine regular notability with crime notability

(Clearly still tapering off of this essay...) One tricky, unresolved issue is how to treat cases where the subject has great notability for something, and then also has great notability for crimes. The issue came up in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive349#Klete_Keller, but I see it also in Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly. Perhaps best demonstrated by the present lead sentence in the R.Kelly article: "Robert Sylvester Kelly (born January 8, 1967) is an American singer, songwriter, record producer and convicted child sex offender." The last item is jarring, to say the least. In this case, I don't really object to the label itself (although "convicted" seems to always sound redundant), since Kelly had his ongoing pattern, similar to Weinstein. But the writing of the sentence seems just bad - jarring. There seems to be this insistence on including the label in the first sentence.

I don't have an answer to the issue, but I found the solution in the Polanski article to be perhaps best - no mention of the crime in the first paragraph of the lead, which focuses on him as a director, but the 2nd paragraph describing the crime. This solution after the usual endless argument on the Talk page. There is perhaps room in this essay for a section discussing this perplexing point; I don't really know what to say about it yet.

Incidentally, I sort of view the focus on Polanski's crime as excessive in that lead. A crime, yes, but one crime and certainly not the defining feature of Polanski's life, famous though the crime is. Paling in comparison to the ongoing horrors of Weinstein and Kelly. Bdushaw (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As another example, Martha Stewart. Obviously hugely notable before she was convicted, but her crimes were treated in RS as notable and are now part of her story and addressed in the second paragraph of the lede. In all of these cases, if the person had not been notable before the crimes, they probably wouldn't have become notable because of those crimes. For me that seems like a crucial aspect of this. These types of crimes are unfortunately committed regularly without making the person notable. At most they might get someone who was sort of on the borderline over the hump of notability. Caroline Ellison wasn't quite notable before her legal woes, but she was probably getting there. The SBF scandal was what made her notable.

There's definitely some recentism and other subjectivity here. Polanski drugged and raped a 13-yo in the 1970s and is literally still a fugitive from justice; no label, not mentioned in first paragraph. R.Kelly is a "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence. Weinstein is a "convicted sex offender" in the first sentence. Stewart, financial crimes not mentioned in the first paragraph, no label. Ellison, no label, but mentioned in first para, which is probably about right given the crimes/testimony were what put her over the hump of notability.

I feel like there's a subjective higher interest in labelling sex offenders, especially if the crimes/convictions are recent. Which gets us back to the question of whether part of the desire for using labels is because they WP:DESERVEIT. Valereee (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The Polanski article has had huge, gargantuan, decadal arguments over the lead and a crime label. I view that article's present form as the product of these exhausting efforts. I tried to form a paragraph on this issue of clashing labels; revise, revert or reformat as seems best. Bdushaw (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You may have noticed I'm there now, wondering if a mention-but-not-a-label in the lede sentence could gain consensus where a label has not. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I see you are not afraid of wandering into well-marked mine fields... Another model may be that of Harvey Weinstein that I tweeked earlier to isolate the first sentence. That is, a first sentence to list all the labels, followed by individual paragraphs on those labels. Seems to be holding so far... Bdushaw (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very afraid. :) I actually started out with an apology, and have since offered to set up a w-ping for myself for a year from now, as I very much fear experienced editors there will be rolling their eyes at me. Valereee (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I've noted that the Jeffrey Skilling article now features labels and redundancy pertaining to the discussions in this essay. In our list of References there is listed a past discussion on the label for that biography, but that discussion on (BLPN) was never closed with a conclusion. So "convicted felon" remains; to me, that label conveys no information but a name calling. I haven't the energy to pursue it, but just enough energy to suggest that if you were looking for a test of this essay, that article might be a start. If it were me, and it won't be, I'd say it just needs an RfC on the wording/label. But could this essay be persuasive so as to avoid it? (he says optimistically...) Bdushaw (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, it's as you say persuasive. It allows the arguments to be clearly and non-emotionally made. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Taken a stab at Skilling. The first sentence now still references his conviction, but doesn't use a label to do it. Valereee (talk) 13:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"convicted felon"?

It just occurred to me that the label "convicted felon" should NEVER be used. It is straight up attack wording; it is completely vague, referring to nothing, other than to act as a smear on the subject. At least "fraudster" and the like make some reference to the crime in question. No one has an occupation of "convicted felon". This is one phrasing, at least, that should be banned outright, IMO. (OK enough with this for me! Signing off with other things to do.) Bdushaw (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The WP:LEAD is meant to summarize the body of the article. The actual lead sentence or two can summarize the lead itself, when the crimes are complex and not appropriate to detail in the first sentence or two. So we lump the crimes together into a single statement "convicted felon". However, even this is problematic because has there ever been a felon who is not convicted? It belabors the point repeating information, like a lawyer pounding the table in a jury trial to sway opinion. Alternatives might include "multiple felon". The term felon is useful for expressing the severity. Felony fraud is different from fraud. To use fraudster, it would be "felonious fraudster", but I don't suggest that seriously. -- GreenC 04:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the lead should summarize the body, but isn't that a separate issue from what language it uses to do that? "X is a former stockbroker who in 2010 was convicted of multiple felonies" is just as good a summary as "X is a former stockbroker and, as of 2010, multiple felon". Valereee (talk) 10:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes you are right. -- GreenC 23:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "X is a ... convicted felon" is never appropriate, even in the Lead. Felon is too broad of a term to convey anything beyond "this person did something bad". If the conviction is important/notable, just say right out what that person was convicted of. "Beginning in 2010, X served a 20-year prison sentence for the murder of Y" is obviously notable. "In 2010, X was convicted of littering in Illinios and was fined $100" is obviously not notable enough to be mentioned in most Leads. (A third conviction of littering = class 4 felony.) ~Awilley (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)