Talk:Scott Ritter

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Manuductive (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

Suggest removal of legal information from the infobox, as it gives undue emphasis to sensitive details without context. This approach is consistent with other biographical infoboxes, like those of Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, and Paris Hilton, which mention convictions in the body of the article instead. Manuductive (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The people above are notable mostly for other things, not as sex offenders. But Scott Ritter is mostly known for two things: (a) as a former WMD inspector who became a Putin's apologist and promoted misinformation, and (b) indeed a convicted sex offender. Therefore, no, this should stay in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Being notable for a crime occurs when the crime itself has some kind of historical importance, like in the case of John Wilkes Booth or Al Capone. Ritter's legal issues, on the other hand, are statistically not very unusual (there are more than 10,000 sexual crime convictions per year in the U.S.) and therefore not notable at all, except as they pertain to an already otherwise notable person. Ritter's notability comes from his bold and controversial dissent 23 years ago challenging Dick Cheney's lies about Saddam having WMD at a time when most Americans were supportive of a very dumb and catastrophic war. Also, WP:BLP recommends we do not label people as "sex offenders", but that we describe the legal issues neutrally so as to be respectful, sensitive to the living person, and give the reader context. Apparently we have a nearly unanimous consensus here in support of the policy, so please respect that in your talk page comments as well. Manuductive (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the conviction had no historical significance. It only had huge significance for the subject of this page and his biography. No, we do not have a consensus to remove it from the infobox. The RfC was about the exact phrasing in the lead, which is something different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the consensus that we aren’t going to violate BLP regarding “labeling a living person as a convicted etc.” but rather describe the legal issues themselves.

And that’s right, the legal issues warrant inclusion in the article, but not the sidebar because they are not the reason for his notability. The convictions are only notable because he was an already notable person when he was convicted, just like Mike Tyson’s et al. Manuductive (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Same would be the case even for Jeffrey Epstein: he was notable before being accused and convicted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a different case. There appears to have been a lot of discussion about it on the talk page, as you can see in the archive, and seems to be a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that doesn't override our policies on BLPs or MOS guidelines. Arguments like this are simply just a case of WP:OTHERCONTENT that don't justify inclusion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 15:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Epstein is mostly notable for his legal issues/conduct. Epstein was only marginally notable for being a financier. But then when his conduct came out, that is when he really became famous. Which stands to reason, since his criminal conduct was almost unprecedented. Manuductive (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are making this too complex. This is very simple. We have a parameter in the infobox named "criminal_penalty". If a person had such penalty and it was widely reported, then we simply place such info. End of story. I am doing some database work right now. You have a parameter/field. You have the content. Just fill it in. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not the standard. Template:infobox person says "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject" -- nothing about "widely reported". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we exclude criminal issues from the infobox unless they're central to the person's notability, which is not the case for Ritter. It's really insensitive to the living person and doesn't follow the principle of due weight if we amplify information that reflects poorly on them when it's not significant for understanding why the person is somebody that people care about. I already cited similar examples (like Mike Tyson--we care about him for his boxing career, not for his crimes). You tested the limits of this principle by offering the example of Jeffrey Epstein, which I then refuted. Epstein's crimes were so massive that they actually do constitute the reason for his notability. Your claim that you are "just doing some database work" by reverting this edit is without merit, but this comment seems to imply that you accept our consensus on this talk page that Ritter's legal issues are not the basis for his notability. Your edit summary says you reverted per BRD, but this is not how BRD works. You ignored my point for over 24 hours--you don't get to then reappear and revert me without providing a legitimate reason. It is well established that Ritter is notable for his professional activities and not his legal issues. Please address the discussion in good faith or revert your edit. Manuductive (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the instruction does say: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". And this is exactly such info: he is widely known as a sexual offender , along with other things, and this was widely published. This page currently belongs to categories "American prisoners and detainees" and "American people convicted of child sexual abuse". Same should be in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The statement you quoted is explicitly designed to exclude information like this from the infobox. His legal issues were reported on, but only because he was already notable. The article you cited clearly describes the basis for his notability, which is that he is "A former United Nations weapons inspector". His legal issues are mentioned only because they pertain to an already notable person. This is exactly the case for Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, and Paris Hilton, who are notable for various reasons other than their legal issues, and we do not give undue weight or emphasis to the details of their legal issues by including them in the infobox. Their legal issues were reported in the media, perhaps even extensively, precisely because the persons were already notable for other reasons, not vice versa. Consider whether these legal issues would have been reported on at all if the person were not already notable. We do not include this information in the infobox because it would appear to be intended to besmirch his character by drawing undue attention to derogatory information, not to provide essential context about the person's notability, which is prohibited per BLP guidelines. Contrast that with people who are actually famous for their legal issues, e.g., Al Capone, Jeffrey Epstein, Pablo Escobar, John Wilkes Booth. Then, putting legal info in the infobox is clearly allowed, because it gives the essential and notable information about why the person is considered important enough to warrant having their own bio. Also, for the second time, do not use that label (he is widely known as a ****** ********), per BLP (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crime_labels#Additional_policy_concerns). We have a clear consensus against using that label, per BLP guidelines. I urge you to strike that part of your comment. Manuductive (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

These example are not so much relevant. He is not even remotely as notable as Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, and Paris Hilton. He is barely passing (although clearly passing) our notability guidelines. And that is one of three things he is known for: an inspector, an offender and a propagandist. But whatever. I already stated my opinion and explained it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"Per BLP" there is nothing wrong with saying that Scott Ritter is a sexual offender, sex criminal, etc. You're misunderstanding something crucial about WP:BLP. Those are neutral expressions, its not like anyone is calling him a "pervert" or "internet kiddie diddler" or "pedophile" even though you could support that from RS they're value laden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

So now your argument is that the labels you are trying to apply to the subject are OK because they do not have a negative connotation. Are you friggin serious? Get out of here with that nonsense. You clearly haven't read any of the policies. Manuductive (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I never said that they lacked a negative connotation, just that they are not value laden in the same way as those other terms. If you think you can suggest a version of "sex offender" which has a positive connotation go ahead and try. IMO thats a neutral description, its an accurate description and is as least value laden as possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous argument. Also, it is not relevant. Please don't write anything else about this. Your comments have no value whatsoever to this conversation. Did you not read WP:BLPCRIMINAL or do you just not have the competence to understand it? I think it may very well be the latter based on your utterly absurd assertion that the label you propose is "not value laden". Manuductive (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Nothing is entirely unladen. The burden is on you to provide an equivalent expression which is less value laden if you believe that one exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wow, you are just pulling shit out of your ass. Anyways, the way we handle this is by not applying any label (as said many times before). We describe the offense and we say that the person was convicted of whatever offense. Then we let the reader decide what they want to make of it, instead of trying to brand a living person as being a particular thing. Manuductive (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

These were criminal offenses of a sexual nature. I would note that "offense/offender" and "convicted/convict" come with a lot of values attached if you're avoiding that sort of thing in the absolute. I don't think its possible to describe child sex crimes in a way which doesn't include some sort of value judgement just given all thats wrapped up in that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

When I say describe the offenses, I mean we describe the actual conduct that the person performed. For example, "Timothy McVeigh loaded a truck full of fertilizer and parked it in the parking garage underneath the OC federal building." We get as specific as possible. Manuductive (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not a quote from the lead of Timothy McVeigh and is more specific than anything in that lead. Not thats its relevent as McVeigh is dead and so isn't covered by BLP. The idea that we get as specific as possible in the lead just doesn't hold up, the lead is for summary not specifics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

As User:Manuductive already stated, this proves the opposite of what you're saying. Essential or notable doesn't just mean "stuff that was reported on someone" or "anything already in the article". It's not independently notable and it's clearly not the main reason he has an article, therefore it shouldn't go in the infobox. I also take issue with your re-addition of the information into the infobox, saying "we do not have consensus" and that it should be made into an RfC.

Why? I don't see this no consensus or consensus against in the discussion. If anything, I see there is consensus to remove it, and one person arguing it should stay in, using policies and arguments that support removal. To me this just seems like a WP:1AM, and prolonging this discussion and even trying to say we need an RfC to remove it, when there's already clear consensus one way, only serves to keep the content that shouldn't be in the infobox even longer for no good reason. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 17:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I only suggest to follow the instruction in the infobox. It says "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". Is it an "essential" information about the person or rather for his biography? I believe that the answer is obviously "yes": that was widely reported, hugely affected his career, and he spent several years in a prison. Is not it something "essential"? My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates) The restrictions for these infoboxes are related to information "that is relevant to the person's notability". We cannot put derogatory information in the infobox unless that information is the reason for him being notable. I have repeated this several times and it is almost getting to the point of WP:DTS.

As we have said before, Ritter's legal issues are not the reason for him being a notable person. He is notable because of his professional activities. Just like the legal issues of the other persons I named, they are not to be included in the infobox because they are not the reason for them being notable even though they may have been extensively reported on in the media. The media reported on these legal issues because Ritter was already notable. If he had not been notable, the issues probably would not have been reported on at all.

Contrast that with persons whose legal issues are related to their notability (e.g., John Wilkes Booth). It is the total opposite. If the person had not had the legal issues, then they would not have been notable.

The reason we do not give such elevated prominence to a person's legal issues unless they are essential for understanding why the person is notable is because it would look like we are trying to make the person look bad, which makes Wikipedia look bad because it turns us into a hack-job tabloid.

We must be careful to adhere to a neutral point of view, not overemphasizing details, especially derogatory details that would themselves be non-notable, that do not bear directly on a balanced, unbiased understanding of the subject and his public role. If a person's public role is their criminal conduct (e.g., Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazynski), then that is when we do put that in the infobox. It's essential for understanding why we even care about the person at all.

Wikipedia is not the place to carry out our politically-motivated animosity towards a particular individual. "...an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all."WP:BLPCOI

Then that is where we differ. I don't think it's essential information because it is not the primary cause of his notability. That is in part what the RfC that started this was about — is it notable enough to include in the lede? Yes, but is it the primary reason he's notable? No, so we don't include it in the first sentence per MOS:LEDESENTENCE. I feel like that's enough context and information to infer that we shouldn't therefore put it in the infobox.

I went ahead and removed the information from it again. If you have any issue with that, you're welcome to open an RfC yourself to include it once this one has concluded — since there's a pretty close overlap in topics, it would be best to wait until this one has closed per #Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page on WP:RFC. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Principles clearly supports your decision:

"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached" Manuductive (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, we have 2:1 "consensus" here, and it is not based on the strength of the argument, just on the "head count". Now, you say this page can negatively affect his life. No, it can not. This was published everywhere. We only summarize what RS say on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The fact that something "was published everywhere" over a decade back does not make it an appropriate default, and can do damage by giving it more focus that it's due. The criminal is not the primary driver of his notability; while it deserves coverage in the article, it does not rise to the level of infobox inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

As about WP:BRD, this content was in the infobox already 2 years ago . This is not a new material. There was previously a de facto consensus to keep. You need WP:Consensus to remove. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Consensus isn't achieved through voting or headcounts, it's based on arguments rooted in policy. And the policy cited doesn't support your point of view. Additionally, "no consensus because it's been here for a long time" ≠ consensus to include. You link WP:CONSENSUS as an argument against removal, but had you read that, you'd see An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement. It was disputed — through removal — so there is consensus against its inclusion in the infobox. Doubly so because of this very discussion on the talk page. Additionally, there is WP:Silence and consensus that further explains this. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 03:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I still do not see any clearly documented WP:Consensus to remove the long-standing info from the infobox and the categories, but I leave this to others to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Then please read WP:CONTENTAGE. While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, a good-faith challenge by an editor nullifies that default assumption. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• It doesn't make sense to remove these things from the infobox and the categories when they're given an entire paragraph in the lead; clearly the outcome of the RFC above implies that it's going to get coverage elsewhere in the article suitable for something given that degree of weight in the lead. We could hold a second RFC if you somehow disagree but it seems like it would be pointlessly duplicative - something that has a whole paragraph in the lead clearly passes the WP:BLP thresholds to be mentioned as categories and in the infobox, which would generally represent a lower threshold than an entire paragraph in a three-paragraph lead. --Aquillion (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think I agree. WP:BLPCAT says, "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability". While the conviction is a noteworthy thing about Ritter, it is not why he is notable. – notwally (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Again, this seems like it's just rehashing the central point of the RFC above. If an entire paragraph of someone's lead is devoted to something, then it's obviously central to their notability. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

"An entire paragraph", per RFC, is a single sentence. And BLP intros are full of things that are not key to a person's notability, but which are significant enough in their life that there is article content that should be summed up. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't... Per RfC it is "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online activity with a police officer posing as a 15 year-old girl (or some variation thereof)." there is nothing in the RfC that weds us to that specific language. Doesn't really matter how long it is though, anything which is due for the lead is due for categories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

The presence in the intro is not "proof" that a sentence is part of the subject's notability. Manuductive (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Who are you quoting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

If an entire paragraph of someone's lead is devoted to something, then it's obviously central to their notability. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This is false. Manuductive (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm asking who the "proof" quote is from. Who are you refuting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you got me! What a clever argument! I don't have time to give you a basic education on logic.
Also, anything which is due for the lead is due for categories. This is absolutely false. Stop inventing policies. You are causing a big waste of timme. I would say go and read the policy about BLP templates before you comment again, but this has already been suggested to you and you still seem to not comprehend or care. Manuductive (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood what you meant, but that doesn't give you license to attack me. I must have missed "policy about BLP templates" but I will always do the reading, can you relink? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIMINAL. Please stop writing on this topic. You are wasting so much time and your position is totally incorrect. Manuductive (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you're confusing categories and templates, I don't believe that any templates have been challenged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Bro, you clearly haven't read the policy. Please just stop. WP:BLPCAT Manuductive (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPCRIMINAL are the same link, what navigation template is at issue here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the same link. Read it. If you understand it or not, doesn't matter. Just click the X in the upper-right hand corner of your browser and go do something else with your life. Manuductive (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've read it again, I know that it applies to navigation templates... But the only navigation template on the page is Iran–United States relations and I don't see any other having been removed recently. It's also upper left on my browser, always important to remember that not everyone share's your perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you blind?

These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation.

Manuductive (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not blind I'm just a little lost here, I think we're talking past each other somehow. What navigation template's inclusion are you challenging if not Iran–United States relations? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Categories and infobox related to criminality. This is the same as not putting labels. Do you understand what a label is? We don't call somebody a "bank robber" if they just robbed a bank once. They have to have that as their occupation. The criminal conduct in the case of our subject was not notable for BLP purposes. Manuductive (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok so you are confusing categories and navigation templates... This has nothing to do with navigation templates... and we've just wasted a bunch of time. Ritter didn't do it just once... Its not notable but it does contribute to the subject's notability... Anything which receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources is relevant and contributes to the subject's notability. We also don't practice first past the post, we consider the subject's current notability not the subject's notability at any point in the past. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've searched the Pennsylvania and National sex offender registry, and he's not listed now. What gives? Also, the direct link should be listed in his article. ~2026-75960-9 (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)