Jump to content

Talk:Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Repetition in introduction

The term "guilty to" is repeated in the intro, as the page is locked I can't corrected so I thought I would post here to alert someone who can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.41.184 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Pleading guilty to charges" is acceptable usage - one is found guilty "of" charges by a jury but pleas are "to" charges. BencherliteTalk 11:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone is convicted of pedophilia...

...is it really a BLP offense to say that he was convicted of pedophilia? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedophilia is a term used by psychiatrists. When he's convicted, it will be for a criminal offence like sexual assault. You can't be "convicted of pedophilia". We are an encyclopedia, and need to use correct terminology rather than that used by the tabloids. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Further to this I've removed the "...and convicted paedophile". The lead sufficiently describes Watkins' involvement in this sort of activity so I don't think the former wording (per Ghmyrtle's rationale) would be appropriate. matt (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, so far he hasn't actually been convited of anything, he's admitted his guilt, the court case is on going. Яehevkor ✉ 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Conviction

An editor is removing categories from this article, saying that he is "not convinced" that Watkins has been convicted of the offences which he recently admitted in court. This is ludicrous. The judge has said he will be sentenced in 18 December. We don't (yet) sentence people, in the UK, without them first being convicted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Pleading guilty to an offence is tantamount to being convicted of it. Arguing otherwise would require the creation of a whole new set of categories based on a pretty meaningless distinction. Robofish (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
"An editor" has a name. I suppose you're right though. Although none of the sources I have read have specifically stated he had been convicted. Яehevkor ✉ 21:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Introduction 'is a...'

I just changed this from is to was and thought I should mention it here encase it was not supposed to be changed to that (Totally forgot about the talk page, sorry.) He is no longer an active singer so should it not be changed to was? at least until he is out of Prison (Assuming he's going to prison). Laim 23:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaimWMcKenzie (talk • contribs)

See thread above. I've changed the wording - "was" in the opening sentence is usually used for dead people. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Just saw that you had edited it. Will make sure to read the talk page in future before editing. Laim 23:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaimWMcKenzie (talk • contribs)
...and make sure you sign your messages with four of the wiggly things..~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

{{Requested move/dated}}

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets vocalist) → Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) – Title was decided on per Talk:Ian_Watkins_(Lostprophets)/Archive_1#Requested_move_.28November.29 Jax 0677 (talk) 08:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. For background, the article name was changed from Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) to Ian Watkins (Lostprophets vocalist), without any prior discussion, in this edit a few hours ago. It needs to be changed back by an admin. But, it occurs to me whether ".... (Lostprophets singer)" - rather than "...(Lostprophets)" - might be better... ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted the undiscussed article move. Next time use {{db-move}} to reverse page moves. Woody (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

"Paedophile" in lead sentence

I just removed the addition of "is a Welsh paedophile" from the lead paragraph. Despite him being guilty of such offenses, I really don't feel it is encyclopaedic or NPOV to make that kind of frank description in such a frank manner in wikipedia, it gives the impression he is only notable for such an offence and his career was secondary. The lead already explains that he was found guilty of such crimes. TF92 (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Generally on Wikipedia news stories like this wouldn't be guaranteed to be considered notable (as a single event) - the fact he was famous for being a musician before is what makes it inherently notable. He's achieved prominence as a musician first, the other thing second. The article should reflect that. Яehevkor ✉ 10:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I was interested that Watkins is described primarily as a musician, and came to the talk page to find out what was being said (as someone who isn't a Wikipedia contributor apart from the odd grammar fix) The point above is interesting -- that to do otherwise "gives the impression he is only notable for such an offence and his career was secondary". But actually, do you think this is possibly the case? It is clear to me that now more people know him as a sex offender now than ever did know of him as a musician (myself included). This is different to, say, Gary Glitter, who had considerably more fame as a musician. Quotes like "potentially the most dangerous sex offender ever" from the news articles (attributed to the police, the force -- not the band) are of greater historical significance; he is noted as "potentially the most" rather than one of many singers in many bands. Mark 22:34, 20 December 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:92E0:0:219:D2FF:FE6C:A482 (talk)

"Former" rock musician?

Watkins will be serving many years in prison, and when he gets out he will likely be a pariah— but is it necessarily fair to say he is a "former" rock musician? He hasn't actually retired yet, as far as I can tell. The most similar case I could think of was that of Gary Glitter, who is also described in Wikipedia as a "former" musician. Glitter actually announced that he was recording a new album, although it has not been released. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Guardian article cited calls him "the rock singer Ian Watkins"; I don't think there's a reason to assume he's a former musician. matt (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The wording could be changed along the lines of: "[He] achieved prominence as a Welsh rock musician...." That addresses the notability question, but avoids the question of whether he "is..." a rock singer. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
PS: I'm going to make that change - to stop any more silliness. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me! It's accurate but not assumptive. matt (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I've again reverted to the wording that he "achieved prominence as..." a musician. To say, now he is in prison, either that he "is" or "was" a musician, or even a "former musician", seems over-prescriptive and unsupported by sources - in particular, using the word "was" gives a misleading and false first impression to readers that he is dead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation mistake spotted in intro - can a registered user please change it?

It should be "29 years' imprisonment" with the apostrophe. It indicates possession of the noun (in this case, imprisonment). For the same reason one would employ an apostrophe in the phrase "one year's imprisonment". Too easy, bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.29.182 (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2013‎

Apparently so. Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved again

Again, a move without consensus, "Ian Watkins (Welsh musician)" doesn't really solve the problem because the other Ian Watkins is also Welsh and a musician. It won't stop any confusion... Яehevkor ✉ 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree and have moved the article back to its previous name. Favonian (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

– I know I've requested this be moved before, but now that he's been jailed for 29 years, he is (and probably always will be) more associated with his crimes, rather than Lostprophets. The rugby player hardly comes close in terms of notability and H is better known as H. Unreal7 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Really not sure, but I'll lend a weak support as there are few viable alternatives, there should be no prejudice for reverting if issues arise. Яehevkor ✉ 10:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Co-defendants in child abuse trial

I would just like to point out that the names were actually released by Cardiff Crown Court via the daily court lists, which was also mirrored on their Twitter feed. The gag order - which doesn't apply to Wikipedia as its servers are based in the US (see last two paragraphs of this article) - was implemented later on. So it is citable information, such one wish to include it in the article. Good day to you all (talk; previously Cijvmhwiczwsrq Jfrskgxyl Mfotfn) 01:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy extends beyond what the law requires, and is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sexual abuse

Should this section get its own article? I personally feel it has enough information to be created into one. As it doesn't only mention what Watkins committed, it also mentions related crimes. --211.254.135.16 (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point this article is not overly long. Content is not generally forked like that unless it becomes too ungainly in the parent article. Feel free to expand the content here, if it gets to be too much then it can be considered. Яehevkor ✉ 11:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Rehevkor. The only other people mentioned are people directly connected with Watkins. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Re. "paedophile": the quotes from BBC articles etc. calling him a "paedophile" and "committed paedophile" are from his ex-girlfriend and the prosecutor - The ex-girlfriend (who seems to hate him now) is definitely not a neutral source. here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/lostprophets/pages/ian-watkins.shtml we get: Prosecuting barrister Chris Clee QC told the court: "He accepts he was a determined and committed paedophile." Not clear what he means here as the word paedophile is so commonly misused. Without more context I don't think it's good as a source either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powercf (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The term paedophile is not 'misused' when applied to a person convicted of attempting to rape infant children. It was used by his own barrister. It has been used by multiple reliable sources - and accordingly, there is no reason whatsoever why it should not be used here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia clearly states what "paedophile" means. Please read the third paragraph. I don't know if he is or isn't a paedophile, but if you have a good reference please supply it. Chris Clee was not his own barrister - he was the prosecutor. If there are multiple reliable sources please supply one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powercf (talk • contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Here's two http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25108439 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10525740/Paedophile-rock-star-Ian-Watkins-jailed-for-35-years.html Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
My point is that being a paedophile is a state of mind, and the prosecutor ("He accepts he was a determined and committed paedophile.") and a policeman ("committed, organised paedophile") aren't in a position to say what he thinks, or who he's sexually attracted to. For comparison, the Jimmy Savile article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile) never directly calls him a paedophile (there's a brief discussion in that article's talk page about why not) and it's a better article for it. Starting this article with "Ian Watkins is a musician, paedophile" is bad, if you can't get an actual quote from a psychiatrist or possibly Ian Watkins himself that states that he's sexually attracted to children. It really comes across (in the first sentence!) as being a one-sided article against Watkins. I have no real interest in Watkins btw - I just stumbled across this article last night, read the first sentence and thought "that doesn't belong in Wikipedia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powercf (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Your point is irrelevant: Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of contributors. As for the article being 'one sided', the man was convicted of attempting to rape infant children - we aren't in the business of whitewashing acts of gross criminality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You haven't supplied reliable sources that he's a paedophile, and likewize I don't value your "opinion" on this. Your "business" is to have a neutral point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Where are you getting "whitewashing acts of gross criminality" from? Powercf (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The two references I supplied above are reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
We have supplied multiple sources describing him as a paedophile - which is all that is required under Wikipedia policy for our article to do the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: should he be described as a paedophile?

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 no consensus for use of the word paedophile. The discussion is close to split. But I do find that Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality is a strong argument when dealing with WP:BLP. That he was convicted of having sex with a child is undisputed and language to this effect may be a good basis for moving forward. AlbinoFerret 18:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Should he be described as a paedophile? There's no reference that he admitted to being a paedophile. There are references that the prosecutor, his ex-girlfriend and a police detective have called him a paedophile. Powercf (talk) 22:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes: Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief - your statement is not neutral. And whether he 'admitted' it or not is entirely beside the point (though the prosecution barrister seems to suggest that he did [1])- he was convicted of the attempted rape and sexual assault of infant children, and has been described as a paedophile by multiple reliable sources, which is all that is necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No: Paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder and/or sexual preference. As such it should either be diagnosed by a physician or possibly self-identified. The term is massively misused in society and the press to mean anything from the dictionary definition to "child sex abuser" to "someone who has ever had any sort of sexual contact with someone under the age of X". It's also a good adjective instead of "monster", "evil", "fiend" etc. An encyclopedia is not a tabloid newspaper, and should not use word unless the person being described is an actual (dictionary definition) paedophile. The "best" reference I've seen (in the discussion above and the article) that he's a paedophile is from the prosecuting barrister Chris Clee, who told the court that "He accepts he was a determined and committed paedophile.". We don't know if he meant that in the dictionary sense of the word, or the usual meaning (monster, child-abuse, ${SOMETHING}). We don't know if Ian Watkins ever said himself that he was a "paedophile", and if he did say it we don't know what he meant by it (i.e. is he [primarily?] sexually attracted to children?). Given the references I know about (I didn't find a transcript from the court online) I don't believe this meets Verifiability particularly in light of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. I want to add also that it's in direct confrontation of Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Sexuality which I think should be the final word on it. Powercf (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No per User:Powercf. I suggest ... a Welsh musician and convicted child sex offender. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No -- convicted child sex offender should be used as stated above. Cheers. Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No "Convicted child sex offender" should cover it, "paedophilia" is more of a psychiatric diagnosis and we tend to avoid it.LM2000 (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - summoned by bot. He is a paedophile. I don't know what's wrong with "convicted paedophile." Additionally, he is repeatedly referred to as a paedophile in highly reliable, non-tabloid sources [2], [3], [4] The idea that one must "self-identify" as a paedophile before they can be accurately judged as such is ridiculous. Please note that Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality says nothing about including paedophilia as a sexual preference - sorry NAMBLA members. The "question" over whether he meant he was a paedophile in the clinical vs "usual" meaning (huh?) is also ridiculous. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - he matches the Oxford English dictionary definition: "A person who is sexually attracted to children"; and given the age of at least one victim, there is no room to quibble about hebephillia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No, per Stuartyeates. Wikipedia isn't in the business of diagnosing people with disorders: "convicted child sex offender" more than adequately describes Watkins. Contrary to User:Pigsonthewing, we don't know whether Watkins is sexually attracted to children, just that he has been convicted of engaging in vile acts against children. His psychiatric state isn't for us to judge. Calling someone a "paedophile" without clinical diagnosis (which is unlikely to be released in public) is more the province of tabloid newspapers than encyclopedias. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • You don't know whether he is sexually attracted to children, even though he was convicted of a string of sexual acts against children, some of which he captured on video, involving him being sexually aroused, and to which he pled guilty? Do you need to see the video yourself before you accept the man is a pedophile? What about serial killers who return to have sex with the corpses? Is it "diagnosing people" to refer to these people as necrophiliacs? —МандичкаYO 😜 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll admit that I have not spent much time looking into Watkins' acts (I have my limits and contemplating the evidence presented against Watkins isn't exactly my idea of an enjoyable time). It is neither my place to "accept" him as a paedophile or not, incidentally. The point is that it has a clinical use and a popular/pejorative use: encyclopedias probably ought to not be in the business of doling out popular/pejorative uses of the word "paedophile", and it's not really our place to determine whether he does or does not satisfy the clinical use. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Actually what is happening is Wikipedia editors are doing what they should not be doing - trying to apply their own opinions and what is essentially original research. Watkins is referred to as a pedophile by multiple highly reliable sources. All of these sources are referring to him as a pedophile per the clinical sense: one who is sexually attracted to children. It is not "our place" to accept or reject this information. Are there reliable sources anywhere that are arguing the man is not a pedophile? If that were the case, I can see why this would be up for debate. But it's not - nobody is claiming the man is not a pedophile. Additionally, before you argue that "we don't know whether Watkins is sexually attracted to children," I highly suggest you actually take a look at the facts of the case and all the activities he has been involved. If you can't be bothered to do that because it sickens you, then fine, but don't claim that there's just no way for anyone to know. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Reliable sources call him a paedophile [5], [6], [7] and Wikipedia is led by what the reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No. It's interesting that the opening sentence doesn't provide a link to our article, which opens with: "Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children, generally age 11 years or younger." Note: - a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal activity. Note: - a primary or exclusive sexual attraction. Apparently, Watkins had a girlfriend. We don't, so far as I know, have access to his psychiatric records. Of course, we know that he is a criminal, a convicted child rapist. But the fact that the media label him as a paedophile is simply journalese - "the artificial or hyperbolic, and sometimes over-abbreviated, language regarded as characteristic of the popular media." We are an encyclopedia - we should not always use the same terminology that the popular media use, even if, in many other instances, they can be regarded as reliable sources on matters of fact. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not he had a "girlfriend" is irrelevant to him being a pedo. Many pedos not only have adult significant others but actually get married, and only a small amount say they are exclusively attracted to children. [8] [9] —МандичкаYO 😜 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We are using different definitions. You use the word "pedo" as an insult - meaning someone whose actions are abhorrent. But psychiatrists use the word "pedophile" differently, as a designation of a disorder - whether they act upon it or not. The word "pedophile" means different things to different people. That, in fact, is a very good reason not to use the word lightly, and to avoid the assumption that everyone is using the same definition - which they are not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No, there are not two definitions. There is one definition - someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. I have never heard in my life the notion that "pedo" just means "someone whose actions are abhorrent." Where has it entered the lexicon to have this meaning? Who uses it this way? I've never heard anyway say, for example, "Man, those ISIS people sure are a bunch of pedophiles!" Or, "I can't believe that pedophile Michael Vick was allowed back in the NFL!" Ian Watkins is a pedophile because he is sexually attracted to children. Your claim that he's possibly not a pedophile because he had a girlfriend is simply ignorant. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand me. I did not mean that "pedo" just means "someone whose actions are abhorrent", in general - rather, that the short term "pedo" is used as a term of abuse for a particular group of people (child sex offenders) whose actions are abhorrent. The word "pedophile" is a medical term which is increasingly misused by the media to refer to a type of criminal. Whether he is a pedophile or not is a matter of medical judgement - what is much more important, much more reliably sourced, and much more worthy of mention in the opening sentence is the fact that he is a convicted sex offender. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting he be referred to in the article as a "pedo" - which is just short for/slang for pedophile. Multiple reliable (non-tabloid) sources refer to him as a pedophile. What reliable sources support your claim that the term pedophile is being "increasingly misused by the media to refer to a type of criminal" and that it is being misused to refer to Ian Watkins? How exactly is it being misused? How does it not apply to Ian Watkins? —МандичкаYO 😜 22:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - summoned by bot. Reliable sources including bbc describe him a such, though I note that he was not convicted of paedophilia, he was convicted of sex crimes against children (which makes him a paedophile). BLP's should accurately summarise the key points written by reliable sources. On what basis do we censor what a reliable source is saying? Flat Out (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No An encyclopaedia should use formal, precise and academic definitions - not imprecise colloquial language. No source seems to say that he has been diagnosed as a paedophile by any qualified health care professional, under any set of diagnostic criteria. Therefore there is no relevant reliable source. In a colloquial sense, "paedophile" might be used about anyone who can be attracted physically to prepubescent children, but this is already a fact covered by the phrase "child rapist". Why repeat it? The article on Pedophilia gives two references to the fact that the term is misused, and that researchers recommend against using it colloquially. --Reign of Toads  11:56, 10 June 2015 (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.

Which prison is Watkins currently located?

This year it was announced he would be moved to a softer jail. Was that decision reversed? Is there proof of anything? If it was reversed, could that be mentioned on the article? Teresa44 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[1]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ian Watkins (Lostprophets). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Title

I feel like this should be located at Ian Watkins (singer) or Ian Watkins (musician) or something like that, but its protected for some reasonJasper the Friendly Punk 02:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The current title isn't great. Equinox (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The current title disambiguates from Ian "H" Watkins who is also a singer/ musician. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I still think it needs to say what he is. How about Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer) (or musician) — along the lines of John Smith (English poet) versus John Smith (Canadian poet)? Equinox (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Ian Watkins an atheist?

https://vimeo.com/8057884 - He basically says there is no god in this video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.208.214 (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Watkins (Lostprophets). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Prison location incorrect

Ian has never changed from Wakefield. Not entirely sure how to prove it as he stated it in a letter, but he's been in Wakefield since he was incarcerated. 82.3.153.45 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Laim - 27012018

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2018

Small edit request: When clicking on one of the images, the name comes up as Waykins, not Watkins. 

2601:245:C500:ED60:FD40:74AB:BD3F:3FA2 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done, fixed on Commons. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) → Ian Watkins (singer) – move semi-protected article per Manual of Style. memphisto 12:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested "please revert undiscussed move" request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

Change - **He was jailed for 29 years** to **He was sentenced to 29 years** 2601:CD:C101:49E1:94F9:6DFE:CE5E:5DCE (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sakura CarteletTalk 01:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved. See general agreement below to tighten the focus of the qualifier. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ian Watkins (Lostprophets) → Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer) – I suggest moving this page to "Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer)", or "Ian Watkins (rock musician)" so that a wider variety of people know what Ian David Karslake Watkins does before they click on the page. I know that this was discussed in August 2018, but I feel that there should be a better disambiguator for this person that denotes occupation, whose function will be much better known than the band name. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Reply - Ian David Karslake Watkins and Ian "H" Watkins are both singers, so this will be similar to the "Mick Jones" case. Ian David Karslake Watkins is not a "Lostprophets". --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at it another way, you wouldn't use a band name by itself to disambiguate a song or album article without the additional qualifier. This seems no different. PC78 (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly not a Lostprophets. It has long been decided that we disambiguate sports where "player" would be needed with just the sport. This is not, however, the case with musicians or most other people. As with the case of the two drummers above, which is actually listed as an example of disambiguation at WP:NCPDAB. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the use of a name that is easy to understand. 144.85.240.106 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2022

Add the following category Category:Obscenity controversies in music DougVale2 (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Are there any sources about them or their music being controversial for being obscene? I don't believe this category deals with sexual assaults by band members. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The Blackout as associated act

Watkins is not listed as a past member of The Blackout, why is this listed as an associated act? 174.252.131.150 (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good question. They may possibly have played alongside the Lostprophets, but that isn't sufficient grounds for inclusion there - I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this but he was featured on one of the Blackout's songs "It's High Tide Baby!" UltrasonicMadness (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The Blackout are from Merthyr Tydfil- Watkins hometown. They are the same genre of music, played alongside each other on multiple occasions and Watkins appears on one of their tracks. alongside Funeral for a Friend, Kids in Glass Houses and The Automatic, The Blackout and Lost Prophets form the leaders of the rock movement that evolved out of the South Wales Valleys in the noughties. Their shared story even appears in a 2015 film— Massive.
I think they would be considered an associated act. Jo Jc JoTalk💬Edits📝 15:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Intro

Excuse me, isn't it reasonable to put singer before sex offender? I mean ok, this man did disgusting things. But, were he not the singer of Lostprophets, would Wikipedia have a page about him? I don't think so. Then I think his former job has to be mentioned first, because that's why he is famous in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.118.118 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability is not assessed chronologically; it's by degree. Looking him up online will show you that every article published since his conviction talks about his crimes. Besides, he is no longer a singer, and while normally WP:RECENTISM would apply this happened 7 years ago and it's quite clear that no RS shows any interest in his past career. We follow RS, where he is overwhelmingly noted (and thus notable) for his terrible acts. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
LOL I was going to say the same thing. Lot of hate in that first sentence. But it's a load of officious crap from Prinsgezinde! Wikipedia is all about who controls the pages. Check out the hypocrisy by viewing the articles of Jeffrey Epstein or Harvey Weinstein. I'm pretty sure the "notability" of Epstein for most people is that he was a sex offender and not that he was a billionaire and international financier. They follow a [previous role] + [sex offender] sentence structure. But according to Wikipedia, Watkins is sex offender first and foremost! 194.75.10.114 (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This man's offences overshadows by orders of magnitude his career as a musician. Had he not been a musician we would still have known about him from his conviction alone. Quadrow (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
And I think the intro sets out the facts without bias and dispassionately. It states everything quite straightforwardly without any emotive language. I'm not seeing the issue. Quadrow (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Would it be better to change it to Welsh convicted sex offender and former singer, songwriter, and musician? FireDragonValo (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

BLPs

WP:BLP applies not only to the subject of this article but to anyone else mentioned in it. I've removed some material about a convicted child abuser who was clearly not the police officer with the same name.

I've also removed:

Linkin Park vocalist Chester Bennington had also harboured much animosity towards Watkins once rumours of his sexual crimes became public near the 2010s, often refusing any festival dates with Lostprophets as a result.

as unsourced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

Change "Joanne Mjadzelics an ex girlfriend of Watkins recalls him displaying multiple graphic images with minors or drug paraphernalia as early as 2010." to "Joanne Mjadzelics, an ex-girlfriend of Watkins, recalls him displaying multiple graphic images with minors or drug paraphernalia as early as 2010." Indiewriter2004 (talk) 06:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Good suggestion, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2023

Reorder after the initial "Ian Watkins is a..." so that child rapist appears first. This reflects the seriousness of his crimes. 2A02:C7C:C0AB:CC00:F9B3:1AD2:3670:AA17 (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Also read WP:NPOV. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Prison Stabbing

It appears that he's been stabbed in prison - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66419302 - Puffin123 (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC).

Prison Stabbing Correction

Page states currently his stabbing injuries are "non-life threatening" but he is reportedly "in a life-threatening condition and there are fears he could die. If he survives, he’ll have been very lucky." Source: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lostprophets-singer-ian-watkins-taken-135316702.html 2601:646:9600:7E80:ECBF:73C1:7C26:CFB5 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The Yahoo source is from Consequence Heavy, an American website, quoting the Mirror, a British tabloid. Note that your quotation comes from "a source" (cop? prisoner? his agent or family?) while the BBC quoted the police as saying it's not life threatening. [10] Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please edit

Its not possible to engage in sexual activity with a one year old, please change this to rape or sexually abuse to reflect the truth 2A02:C7C:66D0:3700:1140:F6A0:19DC:5185 (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

The 'engage in sexual activity' wording comes directly from legislation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/557104/Ian-Watkins-Lostprophets-frontman-HMP-Rye-Hill
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ian_Watkins_(Lostprophets_singer)/Archive_2&oldid=1229401734"