Talk:Steven van de Velde

RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence
Should the article include the words "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence ?  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 07:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it is not his primary claim to notability - he is a sportsman first and foremost. Plus the conviction was a decade ago, when he was just 19 43.224.7.192 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He is actually known for his crime conviction. There is no notable tournament he has won. In fact, this very article was created only after he was convicted of the crime. Also, conviction being a decade ago doesn't mean that it is any less notable. Also, WP:SPA  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 08:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Dutch article lists him as winning the Dutch national volleyball tournament numerous years. The fact that this article was created after the conviction can be explained by the anglophone audience being more interested in that than his volleyball career. Glennznl (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Dutch national beach volleyball tour is not a notable tournament in the beach volleyball world. Notable tournaments are international ones and looks like he didn't get further than quarterfinals there in the last few years. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides this, his primary notability as a volleyball player can easily be proved, because we don't write Wikipedia articles about any child rapist that hits the news. He is notable for being a professional volleyball player, who also raped a child. --Glennznl (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the Anglo world he is famous for being a dutch athlete that raped a child yet only one part of that gets mentioned in the first sentence or the lead? AstraIgnea (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not really Glennznl, he wasn't known as a volleyball player before he raped the child, especially not on the beach volleyball world tour. There were many other better Dutch players at the time. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comparing the media coverage his name received before and after the discussions of the child rape, yes, you can say it is a notable part of his fame.
 * There are thousands of volleyball athletes at his level that do not have the same notoriety or coverage as he does- simply because they didn’t rape 12 year olds and he did. Pretending like it’s not a leading factor to a huge amount of people searching him up is being intentionally ignorant at best. 172.112.2.61 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also thousands of people who have had sex with minors and haven't had articles. His notability is a mix of both being a premiere athlete and his conviction. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, neither of you can ever demonstrate that your speculation here is correct (that is, neither of you can step into the counterfactual universes where he was not known to have assaulted that girl or not known as an athlete in order to see how much coverage he would have gotten). Which is just one of many reasons why our policies expressly divert us around making such assessments and towards simply assessing what the sources do say in these actual, existing circumstances, in the aggregate (that is, we assess the due weight).  Mind you, I'd guess you're probably right that the combination of his relatively minor athletic profile and the notoriety from his crimes probably do amount to more than the sum of their parts in the resulting notability.  However, I would rather tend to think that this is all the more reason to mention both in the lead sentence though (I'm not sure which option you were advocating for in your response to the IP). SnowRise let's rap 17:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a part of his main identity. 50.27.41.37 (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Added a hidden note to the page indicating that it should be discussed here before adding "child rapist" to the lead.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? The editor that requested this simply questioned it being in the first sentence, not in the lead. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC without (so far as I can tell) trying anything shown at WP:RFCBEFORE, let alone exhausting those suggestions? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Right? Also, all mention of him being a criminal has been removed from the first paragraph and moved to the bottom of the page now. And the post is locked! Is this a PR cleanup? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CatalanSpaniard I opened this Rfc not because I am his PR person or something. In fact, I am actually in the support of the inclusion because I think he IS notable for being a child rapist. I requested the protection because some Single-purpose accounts were removing the rape part and calling it consensual sex. So, in order to stop those IPs I requested that the article be protected.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rape of a 12 year old is never consensual. You do right to question this — Iadmc  ♫ talk  14:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Redrose64 I did WP:IAR because I knew that including those words would be controversial and users would each other back and forth as you can see still happening on the page. So, I decided to open the Rfc so I can be decided once and for all what will go in the first sentence.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you couldn't have had discussion on this talk page in the normal way. WP:RFC is an instrument of last resort, used when all other methods have failed. Have you left any notes at the talk pages of WikiProjects (there are six shown in the box at the top), or at WP:BLPN? Templates such as and  are available for this. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The rush to RFC is why we are now faced with a binary choice of two bad options, rather than having a discussion to figure out better possibilities than this obsession with a succession of nouns in every lead sentence of a BLP. If this is honestly an argument about whether to replace a period with a conjuction, then this is a stupid discussion. – notwally (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE says the first sentence should include the main reason the person is notable. It appears the main reason this person is notable is for being a beach volleyball player. I would have to see a lot more evidence to suggest he's more notable for the conviction. The conviction can be mentioned in the lead of course, but it doesn't belong in the first sentence. Nemov (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it make any destinctions between language? Because in the Anglo world he is more notable for his conviction but I get the impression that is not the case in the Netherlands. In the UK for example he is only mentioned in mainstream media for his original crime and now that they are being critical of him competing in this years olympics. The fact that in English he has only received media coverage for his crime suggests that the crime should probably go in his first line. AstraIgnea (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * AstraIgnea, is correct. We're the English Wikipedia, not the Wikipedia that only looks at English sources. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dutch media reports on this a lot too. Looking at the edit history, the page had something like this on it since like 2016: "Steven van de Velde (born 8 August 1994, in The Hague) is a Dutch beach volleyball player and convicted rapist." — why is it being removed now? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is a criminal. The rape is what he's known for in professional and amateur beach volleyball circles for the last 10 years. Also, most media about him has been on this, not about his volleyball career. Every other athlete and convicted rapist has this mentioned in their first line: (1) "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is an American convicted serial rapist and a former football safety who played in the National Football League (NFL) for 14 seasons." (2) "Dana William Stubblefield (born November 14, 1970) is an American former professional football player and convicted sex offender." (3) "Gary Thomas Brabham (born 29 March 1961) is a former professional racing driver and a convicted child sex offender from Australia." (4) "Felipe Javier Vázquez (né Rivero, born July 5, 1991) is a Venezuelan convicted sex offender and former professional baseball pitcher." Even robbers and other criminals have it mentioned: (5) "Clifford Etienne (born March 9, 1970) is an American former professional boxer and convicted robber, who is currently serving a 105-year prison sentence without the possibility of parole." (6) "Sergio Armando Mitre (born February 16, 1981) is a Mexican-American convicted felon and former professional baseball pitcher." At the very least it should be in the second sentence. Now someone has removed it and moved it to the bottom of the page. Looks like whitewashing or some PR work. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * CatalanSpaniard, we're not on Facebook here. Please keep your accusations to yourself. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked at the edit history and this page was largely unchanged for years. It had that he's a rapist in the first line, and further details. Someone removed all of it and moved it to the bottom of the page. They're not accusations, they're facts. CatalanSpaniard (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * context: https://old.reddit.com/r/TwoXChromosomes/comments/1dovnqu/dutch_volleyball_player_jailed_for_raping_british/ 46.253.187.227 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, or alternatively just regular old "convicted sex offender" per similar example on Scott Ritter. Given more than half of this article is dedicated to the subject's child sex crimes and he seems to be more notable for it than he is for playing volleyball, it would not be UNDUE to have it in the lead sentence in the slightest. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just for context, look at the WP:RSP coverage of Van De Velde.
 * BBC: Convicted rapist (their other article on him is about the same)
 * The Telegraph: Dutch volleyball player who raped 12-year-old
 * The Times: Child rapist
 * The Australian: Rapist of girl, and a similar op-ed on it.
 * Given the sheer amount of coverage for him being a child rapist outweighs his volleyball career significantly, not including this in the sentence is a poor idea in my eyes. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 19:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Ser!, two things. First of all this is something that is hitting the news all over the world, and it's juicy. Second, re: the content of the article, that's just poor article writing--he's a five-time national champion, which is not reflected in our argument. I'm not going to argue the conviction shouldn't be in the lead; I think I'm fine with this version. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I take your point on the latter, though I could find very little coverage outside of just WP:MILL mentions of him in the context of the Dutch national team to indicate notability - it feels like even in a case of poor article writing there's still sod-all with which to actually write an article, meaning the amount of focus in the article atm on the whole sex abuser thing makes sense. No objections to the current version, I've just seen enough cases of not particularly notable sex offenders/felons having it alongside their original reason for notability in the lede, and as much as I'm aware WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it just felt strange to me that this would be an outlier.... ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Drmies, your claims of his achievements are not reflected in the article, feel free to add them. The first line used to reflect the content of the article. He's globally and locally known for the rape since 2016 when it first made headlines. He's more well known for this than winning the Dutch volleyball tour a few times. Beach volleyball isn't big in Holland, but indoor volleyball is 3rd. If you're arguing to not include it here, are you also raising this on the pages of other convicted felons? CatalanSpaniard (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. He is much more notable as a child rapist than a volleyball player. CatalanSpaniard and ser! has elaborated. Pauline Muley (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Wikipedia is not censored, so a balanced and neutral article should contain notable information about his criminal convictions, as they are on the public record just as his sporting achievements are. Since the lead should follow the body of an article, it should also contain a summary of what criminal offence(s) he has been convicted of. The term "convicted child sex offender" would appear to convey that, although that is not the only way the information could be phrased. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This RFC is about the first sentence of the lead. This information would still be in the lead. So WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:BALANCE, or WP:NPOV isn't relevant to the discussion of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Nemov (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. I second ser!’s argument regarding the WP:RSP coverage on the subject. The vast majority of English-speaking news articles reporting on his to date biggest and most notable achievement as an athlete mention his past crime in their headlines with most of them directly using the ‘rapist’ descriptor. This descriptor has been part of the lead sentence for five years. Why change it now that there is even more press coverage on it? quidama talk 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes Unfortunately that is what he is known for. Otherwise we have to delete the article which wouldn't be a bad idea. We don't have an article for every sex offender as we are not a repository of information on such things.— Iadmc  ♫ talk  13:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes As I said above, He is actually known for his crime conviction. This very article only exist because of his crime conviction.  PrinceofPunjab  TALK 14:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No Put what he was convicted of (e.g., "who was convicted of four counts of rape against a child in 2016"). I don't know what some editors' obsession with nouns is, but this is just poor writing. The sex offender register part does not seem necessary in the lead; that seems better addressed in the body. The conviction is noteworthy, not all the details of the sentence. – notwally (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No. - To do so is just bad writing. It simply reads as immature and unprofessional that way, and is that what anybody really wants? For a more detailed explanation, see my comment at WP:BLPN. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Describing an accurate summary of what someone is famous for as "bad writing" – and suggesting that defining a criminal as a criminal is "immature" because they also do sport – is a real choice, regardless of sources etc. That is, there isn't an actual argument - whether theoretical or policy-based - in Zaereth's comment except the apparent idea that it wouldn't be very nice to do that. Kingsif (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , considering Zaereth never suggested anything about it "wouldn't be very nice", I genuinely hope you aren't suggesting he thinks Hitler is some person we should be "nice" to as well, but rather you simply failed to actually read his comment at BLPN before leaving your asinine response above. – notwally (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, I did read his entire comment at BLPN, it's basically just restating "immature" and "bad writing" in various different ways before, as you say, comparing the situation to Hitler. Apologies if it's not clear but, no, I don't know whether Zaereth is suggesting he thinks Hitler is some person we should be "nice" to, I couldn't tell, because (I do think it was clear) as I said, there isn't an argument made in either location except for arbitrarily saying (repeatedly, in different ways) that it would be bad writing or childish to call a criminal a criminal.
 * And we can ignore your provocative violation of WP:NPA for now, but calling a well-articulated response to a non-argument "asinine" just to defend your mate isn't gonna fly if you try it again.
 * More relevantly, that's the second time Hitler has been invoked in trying to scrape together why we can't call a spade a spade. Generally, it's a discussion-ender. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe me, simply check some reliable sources on the matter. See for example: On writing well: The classical guide to writing non-fiction by William Zinsser, Stein on writing by Sol Stein, Understanding journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Reading and writing: Nonfiction genres by Kathleen Buss and Lee Karnowski, to name but a few. There are plenty of sources on good writing practices. It's not that it wouldn't be nice, but would come off like it was written by a 6th grader and not by a professional writer, which for an encyclopedia looks silly. Seriously, why would anyone want their writing to look ridiculous. If you think it doesn't, the only one you'd be fooling is yourself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for something of an expansion, but I don't believe that merely saying "Steven van de Velde is a Dutch convicted rapist and volleyball player" inherently sounds childish – of course, I would agree that it flows better with the criminal status going first, and that putting that after the sporty thing would sound like shoehorning, but that's a question of phrasing, not content. While I haven't got the books you suggest to hand, I could direct you to a number of Wikipedia articles that are crime bios for examples of this first sentence being widely accepted on Wikipedia. IMO a more relevant part of the question (of what belongs in the first sentence) is whether it's a sports bio or crime bio, rather than basing what belongs in the first sentence on how good the proposed phrasing of said sentence sounds. Kingsif (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But your missing the point entirely. The first sentence is not the most important sentence. It's not where the main point of the article should be. People don't remember the first sentence, because that is simply how are brains are hardwired. The most important sentence --in the entire article-- is the last sentence of the first paragraph. That is the one people will remember and is where the point of the article should be. I know it's counterintuitive, which is why I call it flat-Earth thinking, but writers figured this out going back to ancient Greece. If his sex offense is what you think is the most important aspect of his notability, then you should want it to be in the thesis sentence, not the topic sentence, because that's where it will stand out best and stick in the reader's mind. Putting it in the topic sentence only hurts that goal, not help it. I hope that makes sense. Zaereth (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We are writing an encyclopedia, not a persuasive piece of non-fiction, so I would probably advise against arguments for information placement that centre on "where it will stand out best".
 * The question is, what belongs in the first sentence. Not if you think information that belongs there should go somewhere else in order to influence a reader. And while there is no strict requirement to include everything at MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, "the most important aspect of his notability" is usually going to belong in the first sentence (basically verbatim as #5). Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - I didn't think I would agree, I thought I would be arguing that GNG here is sports, but then I year-restricted my web searches and noticed that there was no coverage of him for sport prior to 2014, and every source after that (including in Dutch and German) leads with the fact he is a rapist. So that is patently what he is famous for: being a criminal who decides to put himself in the public eye for playing sport at a high level. Policy-wise, WP:CRIMINAL is met quite easily (perp #2 is basically just sustained coverage), while WP:NSPORT is not (and likely wouldn't be unless he won an Olympic medal). Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment This RFC is not only unnecessary, it's never going to reach consensus because the proposal is too vague and doesn't address the core issue. I highly recommend it be closed and editors start proposing rewriting the first lead paragraph and trying to find consensus first. If there are disagreements on 2 or 3 different variations and a consensus can't be reached, only then should an RFC be opened. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No The proposed RFC is too vague and doesn't suggest any tangible improvements to the writing style or prose (which as it stands, is awful at the moment). Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No, nor should any biogs unless it is the person's sole claim to notability and involved more offences than could readily be summarised. Otherwise, if the crime is worth mentioning, it's worth summarising. "Convicted child sex offender" is simply more interested in condemning than informing. If we give the context, readers are free to judge for themselves how serious/unforgivable the matter is for them and how they should react to the offender now being 'rehabilitated'. Attempts to 'weigh' the relative coverage of his 'criminal' and sports coverage are largely fruitless. We don't ordinarily write articles about people having sexual relations with a single child in a single incident when barely adult themselves. He is clearly notable as a sporting prospect who did just that and was caught and (rightly) punished. The two components are inseperable in the coverage of him. Clearly the offence for which he was convicted should be summarised and included in the lead. Endorse Kcmastrpc's point about the vagueness of the RfC. Pincrete (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You make a good point when you say Attempts to 'weigh' the relative coverage of his 'criminal' and sports coverage are largely fruitless. - so it is surprising that since you believe both elements are intertwined reasons for his notability (which I'd agree with: the world at large wouldn't care about his sports career if he wasn't a criminal, nor would they know about his crimes if he wasn't putting himself in the spotlight with sports), you then don't think that both elements should be mentioned in the first sentence. Take this reply as mostly just agreement with that quoted sentence, that's why I reply. Kingsif (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes - but also no, the fact that he i a convicted criminal, as well as the nature of the crimes, should be part of the page as he is MORE known for these convictions than he is for his career in sports. However the way it is worded now i clumsy and needs to be adjusted. EllLinnea (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Really trying to understand why some editors here seem so upset about showing this information first, even though that's literally what he is and also what's he's most known for. Rockethanabi (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No per Zaereth's argument on bad writing. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Pincrete never said not to mention his conviction. They opposed this RfC to put "convicted child sex offender" in the first sentence: "Otherwise, if the crime is worth mentioning, it's worth summarising." Kingsif, this is the second time you seem to be misrepresenting an editor expressing this opinion. – notwally (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notwally, I never said I thought Pincrete "said not to mention his conviction" — see my last sentence for my explicit mention of their views on only the lead's first sentence. If you are able to quote Pincrete's reply, I am sure you are able to have actually read mine, so it is only you who is misrepresenting anything here. Notwally, this is the second time that you have decided to preemptively respond to me replying to users who are not yourself, when my responses have not misrepresented and have indeed been productive discussion. You are bludgeoning and clearly have some unknown issue with me, so I request you do not interact with me if you are able to help yourself. Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How can accuse another editor of bludgeoning when you've commented more on this RFC? Nemov (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aren't you that guy's WP:SOCK? But any experienced editor knows the difference between actual discussion, and targeted replying to wear down or annoy people. That's how. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reply is further evidence that even experienced editors sometimes lack basic self awareness. I would remind you to WP:AGF, to stop making baseless accusations, and step away from the horse. Nemov (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. I would say this comment applies to yourself and/or Notwally, rather than myself. There is a sockpuppet investigation right now, no? And I have no stick, I have simply been contributing to discussion - not harassing one user for no apparent reason like you two are. Look at yourself in the mirror before ganging up and poking at random users unprovoked again. And if it wasn't clear, do not interact. Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your contributions thus far represent ~25% of the discussion based on response volume. Just a friendly reminder that WP:BLUDGEON is real and you may want to consider actually dropping the stick. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the only STICK as I see it is Notwally/Nemov not having a problem with the multiple discussion threads spun out from votes higher up in this RfC, only when I decided to have discussions. However, I've collapsed this off topic section that the pair of them started, so no worries. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Edits like this are going land you at WP:ANI. Nemov (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For anyone reading: that diff is me telling him to leave me alone. Wow. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Kingsif, my primary objection is to the offered text, placement is secondary and largely stylistic. Though I don't see why we would deviate from normal practice by first introducing basic biog facts such as nationality, profession etc, before other 'notabilities'. So the net outcome would be to give a fuller account, later in the lead. Terms like "convicted child sex offender", "convicted felon" "convicted war criminal" are inherently uninformative IMO. All sex offenders may have commited serious offences to 'earn' the term, but using it tells me nothing about whether the person has a lifetime of such offences, such as Jeffrey Epstein, or something a great deal less serious in terms of the number or how 'entrenched' their behaviour was. Nor any of the other details by which we habitually judge such crimes, Victim age? Age-difference? Role of the perpetrator (teacher? priest? carer? relative?), Frequency of behaviour? Kind or degree of coercion? Ditto 'felon', it tells me very little except that the person was caught and found guilty, but of what? We all understand that a 'politician' is someone who is ordinarily involved in politics, a 'baker' is someone who bakes and sells bread. Usually the noun is sufficient to establish a broad area of professional activity. These 'criminal' labels simply imply that the person habitually performs whatever despicable act that they were tried for, in the same way that a 'baker' habitually bakes bread. While I'm personally happy to read of a former US president being labelled a 'convicted felon', it would be a great deal more informative to summarise what the man was convicted of doing. I'm free then to form my own judgements based on info provided by WP. These 'labels' do more to condemn than to inform IMO though many seem happy to endorse that as an objective. Pincrete (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I would still prioritise the notability element (and I feel phrasing is important in making sure it doesn't "condemn", as you put it), you make a good point re. frequency of participation - happy you got to express it. As for your objection being to the phrasing, rather than placement, my understanding is this RfC is asking if it should be mentioned in the first sentence, not how it should be written, which can be improved later. Kingsif (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, based on the RFC at -  editors here should be wary of coming to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that contradicts the discussion there. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 16:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I have read all of that discussion, could you possibly summarise here what you believe the key conclusions are. Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) That is, the discussion there doesn't seem to have a conclusion as I see it, and while the opinions are valuable to note, the general attitude seems to be that it should be handled on a case-by-case basis: i.e. LOCALCONSENSUS is actually what that discussion advocates for. Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * That is a useful discussion to provide. Less useful is for Kingsif to respond to the majority of "no" votes since joining this conversation. – notwally (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have been repeatedly asked to leave me alone and should. The least useful contributions in this discussion are your attempts to hound a guy just trying to prompt discussion out of "go read something elsewhere" comments. Those are the comments I've been replying to. Kingsif (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , you don't get to determine how talk page discussions take place on articles, and I am allowed to comment on your harassment of other editors. Considering you are the one making baseless sockpuppetry accusations above, you need to stop with your actual personal attacks. – notwally (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have only just been made aware of this comment. Your accusations are uncivil, so I will respond. I repeatedly told you that I was just starting discussions, and while you may see it differently, I would hope you would AGF on my explanation. Replying to users asking for them to elaborate on their reasonings, which generally gives them more space to express themselves and facilitates discussion, is not harassment. You allege I have made baseless accusations. This is the "base" of my  mere mention, not accusation. I have acknowledged it wasn't very wise to mention, but it wasn't baseless - which I presume you know about since it's at your talkpage. So you're knowingly lying to paint me negatively, which is what you also did in your first reply to me, for no reason I know. Let's put it simply, and put it to bed. You have had an unpleasant attitude to me responding to other users from the very first time I did it, so at that point you cannot have had any concerns about a pattern or anything, you were just rude. I do get to request that users do not constantly reply to me with slander when I'm not even engaging with them - that is harassment on your part, and is not actual article discussion. Just leave me alone, mate. Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As for the validity of this RfC in general, I agree it is rushed and did not seek to actually gain any kind of discussion or consensus before coming to RfC, and as such we are left with the discussion now, which asks a question I believe already to be answered, on an article that seems entirely predicated on disparaging its subject. If it was not nearly a week into the discussion, I would be in favor of retracting this RfC entirely and attempt WP:RFCBEFORE, but as it stands I must disagree with the addition to the article lede. SmittenGalaxy &#124;  talk!  01:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, what's wrong with keeping mention of it in the second sentence? I don't see how changing its position that slightly will make a meaningful difference in improving article quality. RFZYN SPY  talk 19:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment — As of July 1, 2024, there are 511 words of "readable prose size", with approximately 80% of those words related to the rape conviction. Seems like to me that the only reason this article primarily exists is to disparage its subject. If that is indeed the aim of this article, then it shouldn't even exist. As for the first sentence, No it shouldn't be included there, as there is absolutely no way with the majority of the article dedicated to the conviction, our readers won't be able to understand that he is a convicted rapist, without it being said in the first sentence. Isaidnoway (talk)</b> 10:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No per this previous RfC on the same matter. Additionally, the page itself does not appear to be encyclopedic, and reads like a reporting of a crime and not an article in an encyclopedia. As another editor has pointed out, this article was created after his conviction. It is outside the scope of this RfC, but it leads me to believe the article is not created for a purpose other than to disparage the subject. I would not go as far to say it's WP:ATTACK, but the Child rape section takes up the majority of the article prose.
 * Yes - Per overwhelming weight of WP:RS always describing him this way. He is notable for being the dutch volleyball player who was convicted for raping a child.  I went down pages and pages of google hits and not one mentioned him in any context without first stating that he is a child rapist.  Not once.  Hundreds of hits, hundreds of articles, none of them fail to put this information front and center.  Wikipedia follows what the sources say and what the sources do.  This should be uncontroversial.  Fieari (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: His main coverage in English-language WP:RS is primarly related to the combination of his conviction and being allowed to compete in the Olympics. His sporting abilities are given much lesser weight in these sources. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not as a personal label - I would describe him as someone "who raped a girl when he was 19". Senorangel (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you would mention his age, but miss out the crucial detail of how old she was at the time. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Girl" should already imply the victim was a minor. 19 makes it clear at what age he committed the crime. But if there are strong reasons, I would not be opposed to including her age explicitly or replacing his age with the year the rape took place. Senorangel (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would hear out your argument for "someone who raped a child" instead of "child rapist", but any inclusion of his age will IMHO always come across as trying to qualify it (whatever the reason you have for including it) and likely prompt people editing to add further qualifiers (i.e. the thought that 'if we have one extra detail in the opening description, why not have [this other one that I think is more relevant]) - like her age, or the number of counts, or whatever. I do not think either option needs any qualifiers to be understood. Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was assuming people in the future may want to know more precisely when during his life this happened. His age can also show whether he was no longer a minor, depending on the country's laws. Senorangel (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Apparently any answer other than "yes" means that Kingsif will insinuate you are trying to benefit child predators. – notwally (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My replies to people contribute to discussion, and do not do what you suggest - either in intention or result. If you would like to contribute to discussion instead of stalking my (and only my) comments to cast aspersions, you are welcome to do so. But you haven't been productive at all and at this point have a clearly disruptive single-minded purpose. Kingsif (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think your replies are far more bad faith insinuations and bludgeoning rather than contributing to any meaningful discussion. Considering you still haven't striken your baseless accusations of sock puppetry, you probably should actually read WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm responding to your actual words on this discussion thread. – notwally (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My replies aren't bad faith or containing insinuations, or bludgeoning (content-wise). I encourage you to look at them with a more open mind, because I think after admittedly a dubious first comment of mine, you made a bad faith assumption and are seeing everything I do through that lens. I'd hope after seeing it result in a pleasant discussion, you would revert to AGF'ing me. But let's try and reach that now. To take this latest one (because I can see it in the edit window) as an example, a user has proposed a certain wording. We'll ignore the fact a different user also responded before me with an opinion on it, and you haven't taken issue with them. I replied with an opinion about the phrasing suggestion, an opinion based in editing practice. Not personal views of mine, not assumptions of the personal views of the other user. I mentioned what kind of phrasing I think is necessary, how phrasing might appear to readers, and how inclusion might encourage editing that could become disruptive. All of these things are valid, article-content-based opinions, as part of legitimate discussion on improving article content. It is all written as having an opinion on a content phrasing suggestion, and makes no insinuations about the user who proposed the wording. My edits have been congenial to coming to consensus and solutions for article content. As for the mention of the SPI notice at your talkpage - look, my base was that. I assume you're not a sock if you're not banned, and I apologise both for bringing up something irrelevant, and perpetuating what was presumably a false report. I'll strike my comment and apologise if I can find it. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, and bluntly, it's not even a close call. Mind you, as others have noted above, it's not going to make or break the article whether this aspect of the subject's notability is mentioned in the first or the second sentence of the lead.  But it's also an easy read from policy and the sources: virtually every source cited in this article mentions the conviction and reputation relating to the assault of the child. In fact, most of them mention it directly or obliquely in their titles.  It is clearly an inseparable element of the coverage of his sports career, if not also independently the single biggest element of his notability.  Even as he is on the verge of making his highest-level appearances of his career to date, the narrative in the sources is almost entirely about the controversy regarding the appropriateness of his selection for said events, given the nature of his crimes. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 05:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the question asked in this RFC is not about whether the lead sentence should mention the conviction, it's about whether the specific wording "convicted child sex offender" should be used. Unless I'm drastically mistaken, none of the article's (English-language) references even contain the words "sex offender", so including that in the article would flagrantly violate MOS:ROLEBIO. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 00:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither WP:ROLEBIO nor any other related policy requires 100% parity down to the syllable with descriptions employed by reliable sources: there need merely be a reasonable level of fidelity between the descriptions deployed in the sources as a whole and how we frame the notability here. In those terms, "sex offender" couldn't be more accurate.  That said, if you'd prefer "convicted child rapist" (the actual words numerous of the sources use, some with varying order and syntax), I don't think you're going to get a whole lot pushback.  The point is, his crimes are clearly the first most prominent part of his notability, and even his second most important (being an athlete with Olympic ambitions) is basically never discussed in any secondary source used herein without direct reference to the first.  So, again (and quibbles about the precise wording not withstanding), not even remotely a close call in my opinion. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No Cheap. Rather, explain in detail further in the lede than shoehorning it as an "occupation". Curbon7 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, Curbon, that's a bit of a strawman argument. Nobody is suggesting that the subject's crimes be presented as his "occupation".  But they are, from any reasonable read of the sources employed in this article, the main source of his notability, and inseparable from virtually all coverage of his athletic career and future prospects. Thus we show focus in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, and per MOS:LEADREL.  Nor is discussing the crimes of biographical subjects who were athletes in the lead sentence exactly without precedent here.  Here's just a short list of articles where a professional athlete (and in most cases, it is someone with a much more notable career than this subject) has had their crimes mentioned in the lead sentence, either beside or in place of their role as an sportsperson:


 * Mel Hall, Chad Curtis, Mark Rogowski, Chris Dawson, Gary Brabham, Randall Woodfield, Darren Sharper, Felipe Vázquez, Thomas Payne, Dana Stubblefield, Scott Tucker, Lee Murray, Oscar Pistorius, Ralph Schwamb, Martin Bergen, Warrington Phillip, Marc Cécillon, Robert Rozier, Bruno Fernandes, Clifford Etienne, Gavin Grant, Evangelos Goussis, Rae Carruth, Eric Naposki, Bertil Fox, Sergio Mitre, Jonathan Koppenhaver, and Anthony Smith. And I did not attempt to make this list exhaustive by any means; there must be many others.


 * Note that arguably every person in that list could probably be said to have played at a higher level in their sport than van de Velde has in his to date, and some of them have professional profiles that can only be described as 1000x more prominent in their sports than this subject, even being charitable to this subject. And yet, we still mention their crimes in the lead sentence in addition to  (or in place of) their "occupation".  Being a professional athlete (or a professional anything) is not such an exceptional distinction that you can't be remembered more for your crimes if they rise to a certain level of notoriety.  And when sources reflect that balance in their coverage, we are obligated by one of our pillar policies to shape our content accordingly. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 01:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024
Steven van de Velde is a convicted rapist. 50.101.88.106 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Not done. See above discussion.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 18:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"Statutory Rape" Language
I reverted your edit because it uses softer language that isn't reflected in any reliable source that I've been able to find. We should not say "committed statutory rape against" when all the coverage of the crime uses language like "during that evening he gave her alcohol before raping her." (Bucks Herald) ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Although 'statutory rape' may well be accurate technically (ie sex with someone deemed legally unable to consent due to their age), English law does not have such a concept. I believe it used to be called 'sex with a minor' for anyone under 16, but now with anyone under 13, it is simply called 'rape'. With anyone 13-16 it is now called "sexual activity with a child' and is treated as being slightly less serious. I only say this as a sentence like "pleaded guilty to three counts of statutory rape" is simply meaningless in terms of UK law, you can't plead guilty in the UK to a crime which doesn't exist in English law!Pincrete (talk) 09:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)