Talk:R. Kelly sexual abuse cases

Images

I have uploaded a FREE TO SHARE image of R Kelly arriving at court in 2008 as a lede image and placed the 2003 mugshot in the appropriate section. The caption was "understood" as a mugshots can only be taken after someone's arrest. Maineartists (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Adeletron 3030 It bothers me when editors slapped a template without "using their words". The criteria for upload is 2.5 so tell us all here why this is not acceptable? Maineartists (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Maineartists I’ll repeat what i left in your user talk page on Commons:

• You can see in the photo description on Flickr that the image rights belong to AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast, not WBEZ. The Associated Press doesn’t release images under Creative Commons licenses. This is a case of license laundering, when Flickr users, intentionally or inadvertently, release copyrighted content under “some rights reserved” license without the copyright holders' consent.
• The license WBEZ chose, {{Cc-by-nc}} is too restrictive for Commons (you can click on the license and see), because it doesn’t allow commercial use. Even if WBEZ could re-license an AP photo, it would need a license that’s less restrictive. Images on Commons need to be not only free to share, but free to reuse for any purpose.

Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030 Fine. Then find an appropriate image for the lede. The mugshot is not allowable for the lede section. Since you know so much about WP images etc, you should know: "mugshots" do not apply to lede or infobox BLP subject representation. This has been going on with this BLP long enough. Either find an appropriate image or remove the mugshot. Maineartists (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Well okay then. 👋 Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 02:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We actually have policy language about mugshots in WP:BLP, which can be found through the handy shortcut WP:MUGSHOT. The relevant policy language is This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking photograph can imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime, a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the photograph to the specific incident or crime in question must be cited. We would never include the mugshot of a living person who was arrested and not charged. We would never include the mugshot of a living person who was charged and later acquitted. We would never include the mugshot of a living person who was charged but the court proceedings are pending. In this case, the person was arrested, charged and convicted of multiple sex abuse felonies in two trials, and is serving a 31 year prison sentence. Accordingly, there is no policy based reason to exclude public domain mugshots from this or other R. Kelly articles. I express no opinion about whether or not it is productive to include this specific photo in this specific article. But the notion that its use is somehow forbidden by policy in this specific case is incorrect. Cullen328 (talk) 09:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Title

Do you think that we could change the article title to something a lot more simple like the ones for Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby? R. Kelly didn’t just abuse minors so I feel like something like "R. Kelly sexual abuse cases" or "R. Kelly sexual misconduct cases" would work much better than what we have now Andyandress (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That would work better yeah. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I also agree with the title change as now by review, I see it's more than underage. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)