Talk:R. Kelly

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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

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

awards

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

Discography

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

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

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

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

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

Infobox image 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tamzin For starters, please refer to the discussion above dated 2022: [1]. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the wording consistent with Ian Watkins?

From both pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Again, R. Kelly is one of the most highly recognized, commercialized and publicized musicians in his field and has been since 1989. A simple "R Kelly image" Google search renders over 350 million hits. The fact that this page is edited by those who continually upload images that are not in the public domain (which are then deleted at Wiki Commons) or only use the mugshot due to a "I think his 2019 mugshot is a perfect candidate for an infobox photo", is not a good enough reason. His "crime" image should be accompanied in the section within the article per MS WP policy. There are literally thousands of images that can be accessed on the internet of R Kelly i.e. dreamstime stock photo images, deposit royalty free photo images, etc. Even taking a snapshot of the Gayle King interview from YouTube is allowed when uploaded to Wiki Commons correctly. There actually was an approved image of Kelly that is on Wiki Commons now (see below), but was replaced with the mugshot. This proves that there are images out there to be uploaded to WP, but there will always be editors visiting this page that will seek to sensationalize and glamourize the incarceration of R Kelly by continually placing the mugshot in the infobox; which his criminal status is not contained with "years active" but is a non-specific. Please refer to the discussion above dated 2022: [2]. It was decided: not to include the mugshot as the infobox image per WP policy guidelines. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

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

R. Kelly in 2017

Ensuring Consistency in Presenting Information on Living Persons

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

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

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

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

Added 2003 mugshot to thumb gallery, Review

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

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

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

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

Mugshot images

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

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

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

Split?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus was to split the article, which I will start doing now. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Image options

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

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

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

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

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

Really not a fan of A, as it doesn't really look like him. The fourth photo is closest to how he appeared in public during his last rounds with the media. Image B is better than image A, but Image C is more accurate in representing his appearance.

We can do much better than this. Much of his promotional photos seem to be usable. Averykins (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Averykins For an image to be used on Wikipedia for a living person, it must be a free image, that anyone can reuse for any purpose. His promotional images are not free. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

See also section

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

I would like to provide updated information on Kelly's legal issues after having requested to overturn convictions 2A02:C7C:643F:1C00:8571:A673:7998:3084 (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing stage name/professional name without talk or real reasons

99% of searches for R. Kelly are for "R. Kelly" but the editors of this page have repeatedly removed this information from the page, as if it weren't already the title of the page.

Removing the mentions of "R. Kelly" are pointless, and at best risk mistaken identity. People should know that this is R. Kelly. Nobody's really heard of "Robert Sylvester Kelly" and if it was TRULY "unnecessary" to include "R. Kelly" as his professional name, then it wouldn't be the name of the title.

It's an accurate statement of fact and it's how he's identified himself for his entire life. I'm quite confused by all the removals. Many edits on this page seem to be driven by spite and malice and I find it disturbing. Kelly's photograph is routinely replaced by a mugshot from 2002 with reasons such as "it seems like itd be appropriate".

The last person to erase R. Kelly from the document's reason was that "you can't have a professional name that has an initial and your last name, because that's something else - an abbreviation." This is pedantry and it's ruining the article. Can we do better please? Averykins (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)