Talk:Danny Masterson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former Actor in the Lead

Masterson is no longer an active actor and will spend 30 to life in prison. R. Kelly on his page is put as a former singer and songwriter, and why shouldn’t Masterson. Former actor for Masterson was put down by someone until someone changed it. That is your opinion. I feel strongly that Former Actor should be put in the lead because he will spend 30 years to life in prison. Beatlemania2002 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL issue. Youre currently making an assumption that he will spend the rest of his life in prison and won't act again. Is it likely? Sure, but we don't operate on likelihoods. We operate on fact and reliability . If you can find an RS that calls him a former actor, you can source the word former to the source itself. Otherwise it's debatably defamation DarmaniLink (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I understand the concern about WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL, and I appreciate that you don’t disagree with the likelihood of Masterson spending the rest of his life in prison or no longer being an active actor. That said, I still believe that “former actor” is a reflection of reality. We’re not talking about speculation here, we’re talking about someone convicted and sentenced 30 years behind bars, with no realistic path back to acting. Other articles, like R. Kelly’s, have made similar updates, and there’s been no issue there. I understand the need for reliable sources, and if one explicitly uses the word “former”, I’ll be more than happy to add it. But I also think we should avoid policy being used to shut down thoughtful edits that clearly reflect current circumstances. Thank you, Beatlemania2002 75.68.188.253 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Correctly then, we would refer to him as a likely former actor, which at that point we might as well drop the word itself as it becomes journalism rather than encyclopedic. Genuinely thanks for attempting to improve the project, however, lawyers are snakes, and writing something that technically isn't true on a living person (or entity even, in the case of businesses) can lead to BLP issues and open the foundation to being sued in the case of negative unsourced information. Had it been anything other than BLP, I would have absolutely agreed with your edit and left it alone. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
@DarmaniLink
This doesn't explain why other articles like R. Kelly's are different, specifically your highlighting of BLP as a reason. BLP applies to both articles equally, so a change is justified, be it here or on R. Kelly's page. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS DarmaniLink (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah that doesnt fly either, stop citing WP that doesnt exist. This is about two former entertainers, incarcerated for sex crimes. They may be different people (or "other stuff") but the argument that their professions be categorized the same due to the similarities isn't something that makes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a justified response here, especially since you decided not to elaborate whatsoever on why you cited it incorrectly. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
Greta Garbo retired from acting in the 1940s and died in 1990. We don't call Greta Garbo a former actor, even though she spent half her life in voluntary retirement, and is now permanently dead, which makes her return to acting even less likely than Masterson. Another example is Bridget Fonda, whom we describe in the first sentence "is an American actress", even though the lead paragraph ends with "Fonda retired from acting in 2002". The word "former" doesn't belong here, or at the Garbo article or the Fonda article (and probably not at R. Kelly either, but I haven't read the sources), unless maybe if the consensus of sources ... meaning way more than one source ... is to use it. Vadder (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
This is the argument being made. The talk page for R. Kelly has had no response in 48 hours about the matter. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
This has been discussed on this talk page before. Do we have multiple reliable sources calling him a "former" actor? And yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is germane. Each article has its own consensus regarding content. Otherwise editors at that article could point to this one as justification for removing the former in that article. Meters (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
I've already disputed the points you've made, as you weren't the first to make them. Barring a legitimate response, I suggest changing this as WP:Silence and consensus supercedes the nonsense rebuttals presented. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
That's rich... you come back after more than three weeks and claim that WP:Silence supports you making the change. Again, this has already been discussed. There's no consensus for your change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 06:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Yet to see a valid reason why this individual is being treated differently than other incarcerated entertainers. Your personal opinion on my citing of WP:Nothing is not necessary and only leads to the assumption that you're letting your own personal bias interfere in the proposed change to the article. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
Again Again, this has already been discussed. There's no consensus for your change. Meters (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
There's no consensus against it, either, as the points brought against the change have been properly disputed. You can't assume "no concensus" when only you and I are the only people discussing it,and ignore the lack of response to the proposed change on other pages. 216.121.182.128 (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
We're not the only editors who have commented in this thread, and this thread is not the first time this has been discussed. You want to make a change, so it is up to you to get consensus to make that change. Meters (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Convicted rapist or convicted of raping

Question should the lead paragraph of the article say that Masterson:

  • is a convicted rapist
  • was convicted of rape

Background A previous RfC intended to address this specific question instead became more focused on positioning in the introduction. That RfC was never formally closed. There was a fairly clear consensus against mention in the first sentence, but that first paragraph inclusion was appropriate.

On review, contrary to my comment in a recent edit no clear consensus emerged on this question. Since then, there has been a slow-moving edit war, in which I am now a participant. I hope that reopening the question with clearer specifics will remedy the problem, and further hope opening another RfC is unnecessary. Xan747 (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I think "convicted of rape" is probably the better wording in the sense of being more objective and sounding less like Wikipedia is adopting a POV on the subject. I suppose the other side of it is that, if there's "convicted rapists", are there also "unconvicted rapists"? Would we ever call someone a rapist who hadn't been convicted of rape? DonIago (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear. There are subjects who are notable only for being criminals; it's generally pretty sensible to refer to them primarily by the criminal behavior they're known for (serial killer, burglar, etc.). There are others who were famous before being convicted of serious, career-ending crimes. Masterson was primarily famous for being an actor. He is now equally notable for his criminal convictions as well, but they aren't who he is. He should be described as an actor. A sentence or two later in the same paragraph should then say he is a convicted rapist and is presently incarcerated with the expectation that he will serve a lengthy sentence. The reader can very easily draw their own conclusions from that (e.g., he's unlikely to act again). That's how it reads now, and it should remain that way. I don't believe the mugshot should be the first image, either. WP Ludicer (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Concur with both of you. Until there is other feedback, I think any changes to "convicted rapist" language in the lede or body be reverted to "convicted of rape" language with a pointer to this topic in the edit summary. I'll slap a no-archive template on it as well, unless someone agrees it is inappropriate to do so. Xan747 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Meh. If someone knows a way to "pin" this conversation to the top of the page as a "perennial question", but leaves the conversation open should others want to wait in, I would support doing that. Xan747 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Infobox image

Image A: Masterson's 2023 booking photo (current infobox image)
Image B: Masterson in 2007 (currently in article body)
Image C: Previous infobox image (not currently in article)


Which image should we use for the infobox? If B, should we put A in the article body, or remove it entirely? If C, do we keep B and A, etc. Xan747 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

My preference would be to replace A with C and leave B where it is, in a section discussing his career from that period. Meters (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Infobox image)

Infobox: C. It is a better composition than B, especially for a lede image.
I'm ok to leave B in place, ok to lose it.
WP:MUG does not say "no mugshots at all," but the general guidance on images in that section begins Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. As Masterson has been convicted of particularly heinous crimes, his mugshot is certainly not painting him in a false light. But neither is Wikipedia a pillory, which is why I think it should not be the lede image. I think a compromise solution is to put it in the Criminal charges and trial section where it is most contextual and would be a good fit for the layout. Xan747 (talk) 02:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Meters I went ahead and restored C to the infobox and left B where it is as per our mutual agreement. I moved the A to the Criminal charges and trial section. If that is not satisfactory to you, let's discuss. Xan747 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing: The reasoning in your revert edit summary is well enough, but it doesn't trump talk page consensus. There are other concerns afoot. Please consider restoring my edit and engaging here as I requested in my own edit summary. Xan747 (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Two people commenting ≠ consensus. The most recent and representative image, like the one that has been in the infobox for a long time, is the appropriate one. Cambial — foliar❧ 04:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
One person is definitely not a consensus. Xan747 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Another editor added it to the page four months ago, a change I agree with, and it's remained as status quo since that time. The image is not used out of context. It readily and appropriately indicates the current cirumstances of the article subject. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
@Cambial Yellowing I don't contest that it is in context or the most recently available image. Those are both good points. That another editor than you added the image lends some weight toward your preferred version. However, yet another editor removed it from the infobox in favor of image C in this diff, which you also reverted. (A curiosity here is that the editor who uploaded the mugshot to commons only has two edits to this article, neither of which added the mugshot to it.)
Back to the present, there was deliberation here prior to making what was sure to be a controversial change, which was then very transparently implemented by me. Your unilateral revert of that without first discussing it with two opposing editors is against guidance regarding collaborative editing, and I again ask you to self-revert. Xan747 (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I opened a Teahouse discussion asking whether this issue might warrant an RfC, and if so, other considerations. Xan747 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

A Teahouse volunteer directed me to ask for help at a relevant WikiProject talk page, which I have done here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Danny_Masterson_infobox_image Xan747 (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

All things being equal, "Recent images are preferred", as Cambial Yellowing wrote in their edit summary, but all things are not equal here. I don't think it is appropriate to use a booking mugshot as the infobox image of someone when there is another good choice, particularly when they were notable before the crime. Meters (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I checked a couple of other articles to see what we've done in similar cases of celebs currently in prison for sexual crimes:
  • R. Kelly: We're using a 2017 image of him File:R._Kelly_in_2017.png in the infobox even though we have a free use mugshot available on commons. No mugshot is used in the article at all.
  • Josh Duggar:We're using 2007 image of him File:Joshua_Duggar_2007_cropped_and_retouched.jpg. I don't believe we have a mugshot on commons, but Washington state mug shots are available online, so we could probably find something we could use if we wanted. Meters (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Image C should be used for the infobox. The mugshot should go to the relevant section. Meters is correct – things aren't equal. While a mugshot of a person who has been convicted of serious crimes doesn't present a false impression, it's far from a reasonably neutral one when used as the first image for someone who is not notable only for being a criminal. The lead looks good otherwise. WP Ludicer (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing: Is this enough recent consensus for you to self-revert, or shall we seek additional input? If the latter, how do you suggest doing that? Xan747 (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Requesting additional eyes @Vadder, Doniago, Meters, Death Editor 2, Jaydoggmarco, Nostaljack, Pincrete, Cpotisch, Ortizesp, Some1, XeCyranium, Loriendrew, Nemov, FMSky, TruthByAnonymousConsensus, Grorp, Glman, Cambial Yellowing, Isaidnoway, CranberryMuffin, Tbrowne03, Nø, Senorangel, Curbon7, DrewieStewie, Chillowack, TarnishedPath, Thryduulf, Last1in, Pistongrinder, Fred Zepelin, and DominionSeraph: I'm reaching out to you because of your participation in this never-closed RfC which touches on some similar themes being raised here. Thanks in advance. Xan747 (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Option C Like it or not, this person is notable for being an actor. While he will likely spend the rest of his life in prison, his notability is still primarily based on his acting career. Images in biographies should represent the subject in a way consistent with their notability. A recent mugshot does not reflect his acting career and provides little encyclopedic value. Option C is therefore the better choice. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C per Nemov and Meters. The mugshot would be appropriate in the criminal charges and trial section, where it is contextually relevant, but not for the lead image. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C For infobox, strongly not "A". As mentioned, primary rolebio is actor.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:18, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A - I think notability has shifted here. Vast majority of the (well-sourced) article now reflects that his criminal record is extensive and notable. glman (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
    That’s a good argument for summarizing the article, not for changing the lead image. A recent conviction, even if it has received heavy coverage, doesn’t erase or outweigh 30 years of the subject’s biography. Wikipedia should reflect the entirety of a person’s notability, not just the most recent headlines. Nemov (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A (responding to ping) - WP:MUG states Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. The usage of the mugshoot is clearly not out of context given that the subject has been convicted of two counts of rape. TarnishedPathtalk 21:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C is by far the best in terms of quality, option A has a dull and dark sheen to it. We should always use the best quality image for the infobox. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C Thanks for the ping. Prefer Option C for infobox image. The mugshot belongs in the body of the article in the relevant section. Some1 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C is the best infobox image. Put image A somewhere in the body. Image B is too old and not relevant enough.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Option C for the same aforementioned reasons. It’s the best image and he’s known primarily for his career, not his crimes. Include the mugshot in the body. Cpotisch (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C (responding to ping). Per Nemov. Also, regarding WP:MUG, please note that it states "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." A mugshot for a person convicted of crime is not false, but it is disparaging, and to be avoided in the infobox when a good non-mugshot is available. Use the mugshot in the body where his criminal history is discussed. Vadder (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C for the infobox, for the reasons mentioned by others: he's an actor who committed a crime, not a criminal first and foremost. Option A should remain where it currently is, in the "Criminal charges and trial" section. I don't have an opinion about Option B except that it shouldn't be the infobox image. Thanks and happy editing.Chillowack (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C His arrest and conviction seem notable only because he was a reasonably famous actor. If he was a nobody would anybody be talking about a conviction on two 20 year old he-said-she-said rape accusations after a mistrial where three "she said's" were deemed unreliable? Unless someone was pursuing the "probably wrongfully convicted" angle or the "Scientology" one there doesn't seem anything particularly salacious about this to warrant much media coverage. So his notability still remains due to his being an actor, not a convict. DominionSeraph (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Note for the record: Some1 has implemented Option C for the infobox, with the mugshot going to the criminal history section, citing opinions expressed above. This is not any sort of closure of the topic: this wasn't an RfC, so others are still encouraged to weigh in. Xan747 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Until there's a consensus for a change, C should remain since it is the status quo. Nemov (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Seems like an overwhelming lean toward option C so far. If for some Sisyphean reason, the winds change to A, then you can change it back. There is no need to wait longer to see "if" some other outcome happens. In addition, I would like to comment on Cambial's argument that the mugshot was there for four months and they agreed with the placement of it — note that the user who put the mugshot in the infobox was only ever active for a few months, and 147 of their 267 edits (55%) have been reverted. Just sayin'.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I never did figure out who first inserted the mugshot. I only know it wasn't the editor who put it on commons, which I think is interesting. Xan747 (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I t was added by user:Kline1992 on April 18 , removed by user:Toshibafansandmore on April 23 , and restored by user:Cambial Yellowing a few minutes later . Meters (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Very interesting. Kline1992 is more or less a SPA, over half of whose edits seem to have been adding
Category:The Joe Rogan Experience guests, most of which seem to have been reverted. It's neither here nor there at this point, but thanks for digging that out. Xan747 (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know why the mugshot was moved to the top page. It made more sense in the Criminal Charges section. Toshibafansandmore (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I think option B finely encapsulates ALSO the rape conviction with that revealing female body behind him, as his chosen promo accoutrement.
OK, it is also the most flattering pic and he has not looked like that in 2 decades. So not 100% sure. Annabelleigh (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2026

Please change "One plaintiff...also alleged that Scientology members: chased her as she drove her car..." to remove the colon, which is unnecessary here. Wolf Spitzer (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI