Talk:Victor Salva

Just learned about this guy

I've been a fan of Powder for forever, and Jeepers Creepers was pretty great too. This guy's made some great films, personally I'm wondering how malicious what he's accused of really was. He shouldn't have broken the law, but how bad was it? Tyciol 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How bad was it?! He sexually molested a 12-year old boy. A boy that had been one of his employees on a film. He video taped it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.94.41 (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Molested" - the sexual equivalent of "terrorist" and "illegal alien". Let's get a bit more specific: He gave a young teen (math shows 13, not 12, but either way,) a blow job. What a TERRIBLE frightening event! (Most of us are praying/dreaming for one about that age.) But "molested" is so much more dramatic and implies tremendous violence. Give it a rest already. Was it prudent? Nope. But it IS human, and relatively harmless.

Let's have another look at this situation. A relatively untalented teen actor makes allegation. The man confesses, does a prison sentence, and then returns to work, making a wonderful film called Powder... but the teen not-quite-star, who hasn't done much since, decides to dredge it all up again, to ruin both the man and the film that he and a major studio worked and invested in. Why would he do that? Flailing lack of career? Even further revenge? Just how much and how long should Salva be made to pay (beyond what the courts felt was fair) for giving one lousy blowjob? Salva has made some very good films. Rites of Passage is just about the only film I've seen that doesn't cater to gay stereotypes and allows the gay son to demonstrate integrity from beginning to end. Meanwhile, the "poor victim" has contributed next to nothing in comparison, except to try to milk a blow job for all he can get out of it, and then some. I'm not even going to get into the history and why and how of Salva's interest in younger males, except to point out that he, too, may have been a "victim." So let's put the cross back down and leave off the stakes through the heart, accept that the courts (and thereby society) say that Salva has already long since paid his debt to society, and get a little more real, okay? I'm NOT condoning, just putting this "issue" in fair perspective. --JT 18:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

...you can't be serious. I'm glad you think performung underage oral sex is harmless.--CyberGhostface 18:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm all for letting Salva make his films (I myself liked the original Jeepers Creepers) and be treated like a human being, because he did pay his debt to society. But your 'fair' perspective is totally warped, and frankly, disturbs me quite a bit.--CyberGhostface 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Be "disturbed" all you want. I take exception to your statement "I'm glad you think performing (sic) underage oral sex is harmless." You really need to read better. I clearly stated I don't condone the act, but raise issue with the word choice and hoopla. To the point, what I wrote above was RELATIVELY harmless.

It's still just a blowjob. YOUR perspective is a bit warped in my mind, and all too Judeo-Christian Victorian. Consider this: Just 100 years ago, a young man of 15-16 would be married and perhaps have a child on the way. Do you recall being 12 or older? I don't know your gender, but uhm... "molested" is still a loaded word choice. If it had been a nonconsentual anal entry, or even an oral entry, I might be a bit more tolerant of use of such a term, but we're not talking about something physically painful or intrusive. If this were two adults, you'd be acknowledging that Salva was the passive party in the act. That just doesn't qualify for the connotations of Molested in my book. Then again, I'm not homophobic, and try to put the actual events into a realistic perspective, rather than falling for word choices that sensationalize and imply a violence that wasn't there. If that's disturbing to you, that's your issue. You've agreed that the man should be allowed to continue to work, so why would you condone comments that are obviously intended to damage the man's ability to do so?

I don't condone trying to stop the guy from making a film, but I'm sure as hell not trying to excuse an act of pedophilia by using society's standards from a century ago. If a forty year old man has sex with a nine year old girl, even if she says yes and its not by force, its still illegal. Saying that giving head to an underage boy is harmless, that the perpetrator is an innocent victim, and that boy is trying to milk his trauma to ruin Salva's life is far from a realistic perspective.--CyberGhostface 19:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you'd avoid the editorial liberties you've been taking in summarizing my statements. I never said that Salva was "an innocent victim," just as I never said that performing "underage" oral sex is "harmless." It's clear that you're emotionally involved in the issue, but please try to separate that from your writings, especially when the liberties you take misrepresent me and my statements. Please just quote me, if you feel you must do so to make your argument, rather than paraphrasing. Thanks.--JT 19:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, fine. Here are your direct quotes. "...it IS human, and relatively harmless." (What's harmless?) "I'm not even going to get into the history and why and how of Salva's interest in younger males, except to point out that he, too, may have been a "victim." (I admit that I may have interpreted this one wrong. Do you mean to say that he was molested himself?)--CyberGhostface 19:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

lol. if anyone is 'emotionally invested' in the issue, it's JT. yet another wikipedo editor trying to defend a convicted child molester. don't waste your time on him. if anyone cared what pedophiles had to say, he wouldn't need to use Wikipedia to defend anyone. but nobody cares what pedophiles think. that's why JT has to write paragraph after paragraph accusing others of things they aren't doing while defending the guy who was convicted of child molestation with irrefutable evidence. 'not wanting misinformation to spread' is a red herring. he just wanted to defend this child molester. remember, he thinks all 12 year olds want blowjobs, his own words. notice how he accused you of misquoting him yet ignored the first one completely that proved him lying then applied his dime store psychology to a guy he doesn't know..166.147.99.137 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems so. He presents plenty of symptoms, even within his body of work, to suggest that he was... and this sort of thing tends to be passed down. --JT 19:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention he was in a position of power over a child. Clearly the situation was damaging enough to the victim that he felt the need to go public, which I'm sure is no easy thing to do in this type of situation, in order to bring attention to the issue. I can't see how this was a publicity stunt on his part. Also, it should be noted the integrity of Disney for hiring a pedophile. Pretty sick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.221.230 (talk) 08:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify one thing -- Salva filmed himself giving and receiving at least "one" blowjob, so "If it had been a nonconsentual anal entry, or even an oral entry, I might be a bit more tolerant of use of such a term", there you go. You're wrong. And you look stupid, because this was publicly known at the time of your initial complaints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Mexican ancestry?

Is he of Mexican Descent? Nicholas20177 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything?--Jorm (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia and is completly relevant since it is information on his ethnic background and part of his biography. Lots of people on Wikipedia have thier ethnic backgrounds mentioned since you don't know. Nicholas20177 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This probably belongs under a new subheading, which I have just added. Nicholas20177 apparently has an interest in adding ancestry/ethnic background information to WP biographies. He has pointed out to me (on his Talk page) that Salva is listed in Category:American people of Mexican descent. However, it seems we don't have a reliable source for that, which is problematical. Muzilon (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No i didn't. You misunderstood. He isn't listed under Mexican people of American descent, that's incorrect of you, what i said was that on his main Wiki page (at the bottom) it says: 'American People Of Mexican Descent'. So that along with the fact that due to his apperance and surname, it is likely he is Mexican. Nicholas20177 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

He should be removed from the category, barring a source, and I'll do that now.--Jorm (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nicholas20177 also mentioned that Salva has (or used to have) a blog, which could perhaps be added to External links. However, I can't find it online, maybe he took it down. Muzilon (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

He was never listed. Nicholas20177 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would really like to find out his Blog. I have also searched and cannot find it anywhere. I thought it might be his IMDB page but there isn't a blog section so it isn't on that site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas20177 (talk • contribs) date (UTC)

Nicholas20177, please remember to sign your comments here with four tildes (~~~~), and please indent your replies using colons (::) so it is easy to follow the thread. (See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines.) Now, there is a Wikipedia Category called Category:American people of Mexican descent, and Salva was previously listed in it. That is why the Category box at the bottom of his biography here formerly stated that he was an American of Mexican descent. However, we do not currently have a WP:RELIABLE source for the speculation that Salva is Mexican – which is why Jorm just removed Salva's name from that Category. I hope that makes some sense. Muzilon (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have signed every single comment with four tildes so not sure why you have asked me to do so? Where do i put the colons (::) for each reply as i an unsure? The category where Salva was listed in must have been deleted a while ago but for some reason no one deleted the info from his main wiki page. Glad i have contributed to that being corrected. Hopefully someone will find the source so it can be put back up. Nicholas20177 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You omitted to sign your above comment about Salva's blog. (I fixed that using the WP:UNSIGNED template.) You can read about how to indent Talk page replies at WP:THREAD. Muzilon (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

New Photo?

It seems as though the standard is to use a photo that is related to what the person is most known for, or at least not related to their most controversial actions, when I look at Polanksi, Cosby, and Weinstein. I'm not experienced on WIkipedia, but from what I've seen, the standard of using the mugshot seems to apply to those who are most notorious for the criminal acts they committed, as opposed to Salva, who is known first for being a director, and only gained notoriety for his crimes. This case seems unique in using a mugshot of Salva as opposed to those others that I mentioned. The lead seems to address the controversy well enough that a different photo probably ought to be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.201.80 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The mugshot photo of Salva was removed in 2019 by Marchjuly following this discussion on the BLP noticeboard. However, I see Sdillonripley has just re-added it. Muzilon (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Victim's Name

I have removed the victim's name from the article's prose. There is absolutely no reason why we need to include it, and the victim themselves enjoys the protections of BLP. Please do not attempt to re-insert it. --Jorm (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

It would seem that the victim has been very open about his identity and has not sought name suppression. See also Clownhouse. Muzilon (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

And yet, it's not necessary. WP:LPNAME, WP:VICTIM, WP:AVOIDVICTIM.--Jorm (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't improve the article. If people really want to find the victim's identity, they can follow the sources. -Jordgette [talk] 00:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Endless edit warring in lead

Consensus time – should the opening sentence say Salva is a "filmmaker and convicted sex offender" (cf. Bill Cosby), or should it just give his "occupation" as filmmaker, and let the second paragraph do the talking about his criminal conviction? (cf. Roman Polanski) —Muzilon (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

After watching this go back and forth a few times, I'd vote against it. Bill Cosby's career has been redefined by his crimes (like OJ). I'd say the same thing about Weinstein. Not sure Salva rises to that standard. -Jordgette [talk] 23:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be there, but I also think that this is what he's best known for.--Jorm (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He is a convicted sex offender, a pederast, this should be part of the opening sentence as it is one of his occupations. He used his occupation as a film maker to assault the child, thus one occupation (film making) enabled his other occupation (pederast). Also it is weasel words to say "a 12 year old actor", it was a child. It is very disappointing to see wikipedia obfuscating the truth of this person. I get that people like his films but that has no relevance to the fact that he is a convicted sex offender of children. TJK 2A02:C7F:A8A7:BE00:1C29:3B74:D488:DC40 (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to deny his status as a convicted sex offender; the question is how significant that is relative to everything else he is known for. Salva's reputation, as far as I'm aware, hinges on his film work first. Wikipedia is not here to try and change the perception of him, but to provide information about him in order of significance in the eyes of the public and the media. Has his conviction come to dominate his public image? Doesn't seem like it, in which case the information about his conviction should stay in the second paragraph. --Seeyoshirun (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Very common in other biographies of living persons. natemup (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree with the others that it should say say Salva is a "filmmaker and convicted sex offender" And it should say a child not 12 year old actor. Saying it's not "signifigant" is offensive. He was convicted of the abuse of one child and had pornography of many many more but regardless of course it is significant and I have included many resources showing that it is in fact part of the public discourse on the director. Frances Ford Copola and others trivialised the abuse and black balled the victim as an actor. why would Wikipedia trivialise it as well in 2022? As is shown in the source 1 that I linked and And more as well as things like the fact that the movie Clown House was full of crotch shots, shirtless teens Anyway the media and the true crime community has started to make the public more aware of his conviction. And it appears that has had significant consequences for the director in 2022 as I will show with sources. House Tules (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)HouseTules and news articles are starting to take interest along with fact checking articles and posts on social media imploring people not to waste money on Jeepers Creepers three when it was made by a child molestor. He was accused of including jokes about child molestation in some of his films and in Jeepers Creepers 3 included a line defending the fact a step father had sexually abused a main character In 2017 it started to become more of a problem for Salva with the #MeToo movement making what is obviously bad finally be publically declared bad. It appears that because of the backlash it was decided that they announce that Victor Salva would not be involved OR profiting from the 2022 Jeepers Creepers 4 despite having written the script. There was an outcry after Salva put a quote defending child sexual abuse in Jeepers Creeps 3 which some call a pedophile joke although I personally see it more as a trivilisation and defense of quote....but anyway because of that incident the studio took pains to assure the public that Salva would not be profiting from Jeepers Creepers 4 I will leave this here and let others decide what should be put in the article but as you can see there is signifigant media attention regarding the conviction to this day and has had a signifigant impact in 2017 and 2022. House Tules (talk) 11:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)HouseTules

References

Stretching out information.

El cid, el campeador, you are unnecessarily stretching out information in the lede. Salva was convicted of sexually abusing the 12-year-old actor who starred in his film. There is no benefit to calling the victim "a 12-year-old boy, a child actor who appeared in Salva's debut film" - the spacing out of information makes it awkwardly written. That same information is expressed in less words and to the point by the prior reversion. Furthermore, it is not accurate to call Clownhouse his "debut film" because he made short films first. It is his feature debut, not his overall debut. Bluerules (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you've gone and broken WP:3RR, which is a bright line rule, regardless of whether you think you are right or not. Ultimately I do think it's concerning that you are so set on protecting this article's status quo. I always find it concerning when an editor makes wholesale reverts of significant good faith edits on the basis that everything was better before. Is it nostalgia? I would recommend, next time, just changing what you have issues with. I really do think that the article's language is particularly soft regarding Salva's pedophiliac conduct. But, have it your way. Cheers ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Your edits were reverted in their entirety because they had the same issue. In the body of the article, you also stretched out information involving his victim. While in good faith, it is not beneficial to make the article less readable. It seems to me that your intent is to have the victim explicitly referred to as a "boy". If the victim is already identified as being 12 at the time, then the reader will recognize that Salva sexually abused a child. Bluerules (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Bluerules. The language is more encyclopedic and tighter as it was originally. Arguably, the new edits make the lede more emotionally charged or salacious; whether or not that it the intent, it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -Jordgette [talk] 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

"Salva's filmmaking career has been controversial due to his 1988 conviction for sexually abusing a 12-year-old actor who starred in his feature film debut Clownhouse (1989), along with possessing child pornography." is a good sentence to you guys? It's not, it's overly wordy, with many of the words imparting little actual meaning. Not to mention saying that his career is controversial because he raped a 12 year old seems to be downplaying the actual events. And in the next sentence his admitted rape is called a "controversy". If anything, the language now downplays the reality - stating the facts is not "salacious" and I certainly resent the implication. It's hard for me to imagine how not only one, but two, people think this language sounds better. But apparently there is a long watchlist of editors with a great deal of interest in how (if at all) the rape is depicted in this article. Anyway, good tidings. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that language sounds better; I think that language sucks. But we can't be edit warring about it. I think that short, declarative sentences that don't delve into fanciful massaging or original research is the direction to go. "In 1988, Salva was convicted of sexually abusing a minor and possession of child pornography." That's it. We don't need further details about Clownhouse, etc. There's sufficient detail in the later sections. If no one objects, I'll make that change.--Jorm (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that language. And add that, without admitting fault (as is the norm), I do apologize for edit-warring. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the sentence could be trimmed by removing the part about "along with possessing child pornography", but it is still a good sentence. It's to the point and informative. Wikipedia is not about "meaning", it is about stating the facts. The fact is that Salva sexually abused a 12-year-old actor in his film and that's conveyed to the reader. Any emotional response to that information is on the part of the reader, not Wikipedia. And the ongoing controversy with Salva is his career. The controversy is not the sexual abuse, but the fact that he has continued to have films made. There is no reality being downplayed. Salva sexually abused a child actor in his film, was convicted, and has continued to make films amid controversy. That's all established to the reader. Bluerules (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason I include the bit about child pornography is that it's one of the atoms that form the compound that is his conviction; to leave it out would be us deciding that one atom is of greater weight than another, and I do not personally wish to place the sins of "child rape" and "child pornography" on the scales to see which is heavier.

We could try more collective language ("He was convicted of several child-related sexual offenses") but that feels like it obscures over enlightens. Jorm (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any further trimming that could be done, especially when removing prior reference to his victim would eliminate the significance of the Powder boycott. We have the key facts in the second paragraph - Salva differs from other cases where the sex offense conviction didn't halt his career. Bluerules (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made a change to the lede, "In 1988, Salva was convicted of sexually abusing a minor and possession of child pornography." Hopefully this will satisfy everyone. I am happy to massage further.--Jorm (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, it's too brief and randomly placed. It's also missing necessary context, e.g. the fact that Salva's career continued afterwards amid controversy from the conviction. I know further details are in the body, but the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body. We don't have a full summary of Salva's conviction/controversy with one sentence. Bluerules (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jorm: at first you said: "Per talk, but open to changes." but after my changes, you reverted them and told me: "Please join the discussion on the talk page, where we have achieved a rough consensus of the wording! We will not be edit-warring any more."
I don't know and unsure that was it a lie and then an unfriendly revert or not?!
I agree to Bluerules, your edit just removed necessary info, it was better before.--FMM-1992 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You literally put in the exact language that was considered to be too bloviating as well as managing to delete several comments in the code that are important. Perhaps I was unclear. I am open to changes, but not a return to the overly-detailed text. The details are in the body. We don't need to know the name of the movie, the gender of the child, or even the age! Jorm (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The details being in the body is irrelevant because the lede is supposed to summarize the body. We don't have a summary right now - we have isolated information that feels randomly inserted into the article. There's no context, no elaboration. There needs to be information about the controversy over his career continuing after the conviction and the protests against his films. Other editors support further information, so let's make the second paragraph an actual paragraph instead of an isolated sentence. Bluerules (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"Summarize", not "repeat." Jorm (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Which is what the previous second paragraph did. It took the information from the body and summarized it. Right now, the second "paragraph" isn't even a paragraph. Bluerules (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

“American film director”… and convicted sex offender?

Do we or do we not include that in his description? Does it violate any rules? For example, Peter Scully has in his description a mention of his crime. How come it’s not in Salva’s as well? Androvax (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the only thing Peter Scully is known for. -Jordgette [talk] 21:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is currently no consensus on whether to include either of the photos, and as such, per WP:BLP, neither should be included.

In this discussion,

• 9 editors supported including one of the photos in the infobox
• 4 editors opposed
• 3 editors opposed including a photo in the infobox, but explicitly proposed including one further down in the article
• 1 editor was undecided on the infobox, but explicitly supported including one further down in the article

This makes it a 9–7 split on including the photo in the infobox, which I do not deem sufficient for a consensus. In addition I explicitly gave less weight to !votes arguing that a problematic photo is better than none, or that the conviction is essential to the subject's notability; both points were convincingly rebuked with basis in policy and fact. I was also influenced by RS issues with the given photos raised by Rutebega. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Should one of these mugshots be included in the infobox? (these are the only pictures available of him) 07:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

• 
• 

• Support: Saliva is a convicted sex offender and also described as such in reliable sources https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-10-25-me-60848-story.html Being a child molester is one of the things he is most known for --FMSky (talk) 07:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support File:Victor Salva.jpg since it's the clearer one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festucalex (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support, particularly since these are the only pictures of him. --I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 13:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per all the above. Agree that File:Victor Salva.jpg is the clearer choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Gives undue weight to his conviction. Salva is notable per WP:FILM, not under WP:PERPETRATOR. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  not really undue weight. he's only known for two things, directing Jeepers Creepers and being a sex offender--FMSky (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  It is completely undue weight. He is primarily prominent for being a director. Being a sex offender should be noted, but it's not why he has an article. Bluerules (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - The second picture (Victor Salva.jpg) is a clear picture, and if you didn't tell me it was a mugshot I wouldn't think it was one. Given lack of other pictures, this seems more than fine, and is useful for illustrating who the subject of the article is. I disagree with Voorts above, I don't think that this lends any weight to his conviction at all given that I don't think the picture looks like a mugshot at all, it just looks like a portrait. The smile, in particular, is unusual for a mugshot. The first image, (Victor Ronald Salva.jpg) is definitely perp-like in nature. I wouldn't mind seeing it included in the section expressly about his conviction, but it should stay out of the lead. (I also wouldn't mind if that image was simply not included in the article.) Fieari (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think it very much looks like a mugshot. Most people don't get their portrait taken at low res in front of a white wall. In any event, lots of people smile in their mugshots. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, well, I guess our opinions differ here, fair enough. I will add that even if it does look like a mugshot, I still support its use here due to lacking any other options. Fieari (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

  It's still a mugshot, which violates WP:MUG. Bluerules (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." he is presented in the correct light - a criminal is being depicted as a criminal --FMSky (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Saying it's acceptable to use Salva's mugshot for his primary photo because "a criminal is being depicted as a criminal" is like saying it's acceptable to use Mike Tyson's mugshot as his primary photo. Salva notable for his film career. He is presented in a disparaging light because he is not notable for his conviction. Bluerules (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Support: I think that if there were any other allowed pictures of him, that this would be a very different conversation. I think this should be permitted. Hazeledla (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems like you sort of agree that use of a mugshot is problematic to some extent. I can't find anything in Wikipedia's policies that indicate a preference for BLPs with images over BLPs without them. Indeed, the spirit of the policies and guidelines seems to be that images should be illustrative of a topic or helpful to the reader. And, in light of WP:MUG and WP:PEREPETRATOR, I think those policies should be read as urging us to be careful when we're considering the use of mugshots. Given those considerations, if you agree that the image isn't ideal, why should the default be use whatever image is available rather than use no image at all? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: Support for this proposal goes against WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." If Salva was primarily or only notable for being a sex offender, using a mugshot as the primary photo would be acceptable. But this article exists because of his film career and using a mugshot as his primary photo misrepresents his primary notability. Bluerules (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

is there a particular reason why you are fighting and edit warring to protect a convicted child rapist? i honestly think its a bit disturbing --FMSky (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This comment isn't necessary and you would be wise to withdraw it. Please remember to assume good faith even if you disagree. Nemov (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Our disagreement is over proper application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Nobody has said or implied that what Salva did was not bad. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is protecting Salva. Articles must be as neutral as possible, regardless of what the subject has done. Bluerules (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

"Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." --this doesnt apply at all --FMSky (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It completely applies because Salva is not notable for being a sex offender. Like I said, this article exists because of his film career and thus the primary photo needs to be as neutral as possible. Bluerules (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support - One of the opposes cited WP:MUG and I have to admit that policy isn't very clear. Silva was convicted and there doesn't appear to be another photo available. If another photo could be found I support it, but since there isn't one this should be fine. Changing to weak oppose per Rutebega well written response below. - Nemov (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

  As noted below, WP:IMAGERELEVANCE establishes a photo should not be added simply because there are no other photos of the subject. Using the mugshot as the primary photo presents Salva as being primarily notable for being a sex offender, which is not the case. That's why WP:MUG applies - the mugshot prioritizes his conviction over his film career, creating the "disparaging light". Bluerules (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  "the primary photo presents Salva as being primarily notable for being a sex offender" - That's because he is. I agree it doesn't belong in the infobox however it ''can'' go in the section that discusses his conviction. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  He is not. The article was created because of his film career, not because of his conviction. The conviction alone would not have warranted notability for an article. I could see one of these photos being in the section about his conviction, but as Rutebega noted, mugshots need a reliable source linking the specific photo to a specific crime. I don't think we have that with these photos - we would need the mugshot from his actual arrest. Bluerules (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as incompatible with NPOV and BLP. The guidance in WP:BLPIMAGE isn't very helpful in cases where the subject is independently notable and, separately, a convicted criminal. Instead, we can think about the problem in terms of the need to balance differing views: one perspective is Salva's career as a filmmaker, the other being his history of child molestation. Obviously the article can, should, and does reflect both of these aspects, but using a mugshot as the lead image would not. From NPOV: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery" (emphasis added). The important and sensitive role of a lead image is also reflected in the manual of style guidelines, which state "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic." For biographies of people who are primarily notable as criminals it is appropriate or even expected for a mugshot to appear in the infobox, but for celebrities convicted of serious crimes it is unusual. Compare for example, Oscar Pistorius, Harvey Weinstein, and Gary Glitter. On a more technical level, I am not completely convinced either of the images proposed above are suitable according to the requirements of WP:BLPIMAGE: when using a mugshot, "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." It's not enough to merely verify that the subject was convicted of a crime: there needs to be a reliable source linking the specific photo to a specific crime. Both file pages link government websites as the image source, but one link has a completely different image of Salva and the other is just broken. I was able to locate the latter using the wayback machine, but there are still a couple of hitches, because 1. Salva was convicted in California, not Florida, and 2. the page contains this relevant disclaimer: "CAUTION! If you reached this flyer from any site other than FDLE's Florida Sexual Offender and Predator homepage, FDLE cannot guarantee the timeliness of the information you are viewing." There is some uncertainty in my view as to whether an archive of an FDLE webpage from 2018 can be considered a reliable source connecting that mugshot to a specific crime verifiably committed by Salva. Finally, I want to point out a flaw in the rationale for using one of these photos: first, these are not the only pictures available of Salva. This source contains a non-mugshot photo, and many more can be found with a basic image search. They are not conveniently public domain as mugshots are, but wikipedia allows the limited use of non-free images following the doctrine of fair use as long as such uses meet certain criteria, which I believe would apply here. The most ambiguous requirement is the first, but I certainly believe a neutral photo of a BLP subject serves an encyclopedic purpose that a mugshot does not. Even disregarding the fair use option though, not every article needs an image, so there needs to be an argument in favor of using a mugshot beyond just the lack of free alternatives. I haven't seen many in this discussion so far. —Rutebega (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
• Is it really true that there are no other images of him? It took me five seconds to find this one. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0759207/mediaviewer/rm4046884352/?ref_=nm_ov_ph Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Qflib The issue is fair use, which as @Rutebega noted, can be invoked on English Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as I just don't see the point of including it, and there are problems with BLP and NPOV, as just stated above. Change to yes in the Career section as per User:Some1 - there is a point to including a mug shot in the Career section, since this is where the arrest is described. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC) Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

you dont see a point in having an article with an image as opposed to having an article with no image? --FMSky (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Not when there are problems with NPOV and BLP. And, as already stated, not every article needs an image anyway. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe not in the infobox, but yes in the Career section. Some1 (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a case where someone got, say, a DUI or disorderly conduct citation fifteen years ago, but has not committed any particularly noteworthy crimes. Those are cases where mugshots would be out of order. However, when a substantial part of a subject's notability is their serious criminal activity, the use of a mugshot is not unduly pejorative. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  How is the serious criminal activity "a substantial part" with this subject? The most notable things this subject did came after his serious criminal activity. Bluerules (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support second image per Seraphimblade - Image should be added to the section though, At a quick glance I would say the child sex abuse conviction is what made them notable and is why they have an article today so I would say it's very much relevant and should certainly be included in the arrest/conviction section. –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  The child sex abuse conviction is not what made him notable and why he has an article today. The films that made him most notable came after the child sex abuse conviction. Bluerules (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Bluerules here, this person was notable for being a film director before the conviction. Nemov (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  The child sex abuse conviction is what made him notable and why he has an article today. I will agree he would've had some notability due to his films but I still maintain his conviction is what truly makes him notable. –Davey2010^Talk 19:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  He was a Hollywood film director. There are plenty of people with similar convictions who don't have Wikipedia articles. If he wasn't a film director no one would know who this guy is and that's why there's an article. I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion. Nemov (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Having films with significant box office returns is what made him notable and why he has an article today. If his career stopped after conviction, I doubt he would have his own article and it would probably redirect to the Clownhouse article. However, since he directed prominent films after his conviction, an article was created due to his career. Bluerules (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Being a convicted child abuser is what made him notable and why he has an article today. You can reply and bludgeon the discussion all you like but it doesn't make that statement any less true. I suspect you'll reply again telling me he isn't, I'll let you both have the WP:LASTWORD. –Davey2010^Talk 17:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with your overall position, but I would have preferred a better explanation of your opinion, but instead you decided to respond with some WP:ASPERSIONS which is disappointing. Nemov (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. It's a bunch of baloney. Dude directed Powder and a well-known franchise of horror films. Directors of major motion pictures have their own Wikipedia articles, regardless of their past. -Jordgette [talk] 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  What's the evidence to support this? A child abuse conviction is not enough to warrant an article. Directing movies that made millions at the box office does lead to notability. Bluerules (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: At least one of the images should be added somewhere in the article, if not in the infobox then in the section that discusses the conviction. I share other editors' concerns about overemphasizing the conviction in the infobox of an article about someone who's notable for other reasons – but on the other hand, as User:Fieari says, it's not immediately obvious that the second photo is a mugshot. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:IMAGERELEVANCE - A mugshot is a mugshot, regardless of what it may look like. Bluerules (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed, hence my ambivalence about whether to use it in the infobox. But the mugshots are clearly relevant to the section about the conviction. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  As Rutebega noted, part of the problem with the photo is it's not a traditional mugshot (i.e. from when he was arrested). The photo is his sex registry file with Florida; he was convicted in California. It might not meet the criteria for a reliable source linking his photo with his crime. We would have to find the mugshot taken in California for that. Bluerules (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  The image is relevant as his fucking conviction is literally discussed in the article. Stop making up weird rules about why this picture cant be shown and read WP:CONSENSUS --FMSky (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  WP:CONSENSUS says a consensus must be "following Wikipedia policies". It has already been established using the mugshot as his primary photo is not compatible with NPOV and BLP. Using a mugshot in the body could be acceptable, but as noted above:

  "It's not enough to merely verify that the subject was convicted of a crime: there needs to be a reliable source linking the specific photo to a specific crime."

  The background of these photos (which are not arrest mugshots, but sex offender registry photos) are sketchy. It would be better to find his actual mugshot from when he was arrested and use that in the body. Bluerules (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  This will be dealt with on WP:ANI if needed, im just waiting for the RfC to expire to get the final result --FMSky (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think there's a need for ANI; @Bluerules hasn't done anything problematic other than put forward his position and civilly debate the issue in this RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  Cause there is a clear misunderstanding on the part of Bluerules about what consensus is. The RfC asks "should this image be used in the infobox" and most people are in support of that. So removing the image again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Salva&diff=prev&oldid=1154855000 or moving it to a different section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Salva&diff=next&oldid=1154855000 is clearly going AGAINST that consensus --FMSky (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  @FMSky We're all involved editors and there's an ongoing RfC; none of us are in a position to assess consensus. I reversed the most recent edit inserting the image in the section about the crime and Bluerules hasn't edit-warred or done anything unconstructive. Threatening ANI when everyone appears to be acting in good faith is not productive. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  There has not been a consensus supporting either image in the infobox. The support for using one of these image has varied between having it in the infobox or in the section about his conviction. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, a consensus must follow Wikipedia policy. The arguments for using one of these images because there are none on the page or because Salva is convicted do not follow policies. An image should not be used simply because there are no other better alternatives and if the subject is not primarily notable for his criminal activity, then the primary photo should not represent that. Bluerules (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  What's the issue? Rutebega presented the policy issues with using either of these photos very clearly and I support what he wrote. Bluerules (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

  This is a bizarre comment. ANI is used for behavioral issues with editors. This is a content dispute and I don't see anything presented here that would require a ANI. However, your comment accessing another editor of defending a child rapist is problematic. Nemov (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above. ~ HAL333 00:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Just a note to the closer... Some of the support comments appear to be opposed to using the mugshot in the infobox. The RfC is specifically about using the image in the infobox. I'm not sure there's a strong objection to using the image in the body of the article. Nemov (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
• Given that there's been no discussion for over 10 days and we're almost at the 30 day mark, I've requested an uninvolved closer at WP:CR. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (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.