Jump to content

Talk:Patrick Power (lawyer)

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

Minor edit re appearance at court

[edit]

"did not appear" at his court mention was replaced with "excused from appearing" at his court mention. While the first is correct, it could be inferred that Power failed to appear without permission, which was not the case.

Information removed

[edit]

Whilst the conviction of this individual is notable, there is no need for us to report the sensational details at length. We are not a tabloid newspaper. Further this is a biography of a living person not a fact sheet on a sensational court-case.

I also find it, frankly, worrying that the author of this article has personally taken a picture of the guy's house and supplied it for this article. This is intrusive and not relevant to the article. I have removed it.

If you disagree, let's discuss it. But was we err on the cautious sire with biographies do not replace this information unless there is a consensus to do so.--Docg 11:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely endorse your actions and would have done the same thing. Cbrown1023 talk 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur Shorvath 01:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rapist category

[edit]

This page is linked to from the page listing Australian rapists. Unless I'm missing something here, Power is not a rapist. Evil bacteria (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that, and removed the link to [[Category:Australian rapists]]. However, should he be in the other [[Category:Australian convicted child sex offenders]]? Not sure if child porn comes under the category. Lester 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On balance I'd say yes. Power was charged under the NSW Crimes Act which unsurprisingly child pornography in the same Division as child prostitution. Child prostitution is clearly a sex offence. A habitual user of child pornography is able to do so only as the end beneficiary of that sex offence, and is arguably therefore also a sex offender. Actual physical contact with the victim is not always necessary to commit a sex offence against them.
NSW also has legislation prohibiting convicted child sex offenders from employment with or near children. The Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 defines child sex offenders as including those convicted of possession or dissemination of child pornography. Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking up that legislation, Euryalus. I was worried about the category myself, but I guess you're right about that. I mean, what he did was heinous but you don't want to falsely call him a rapist. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - its not an allegation to be made lightly. Power cannot be included in the rapist category as rape requires actual physical cotnact and Power was not convicted of any such offence (noting that the precise word "rape" no longer describes any offence in NSW). On balance I'd argue he is a child sex offender for the reasons and there seems some support for this as the category has remained in the article for a while now. Still, it could be argued either way. Euryalus (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weight given to arrest and conviction

[edit]

Recently a large portion of this article was deleted on the groudns that it gave undue weight to Power's child pornography arrest and conviction compared to the rest of the biography. There is some merit in this as the child porn section was longer than the rest of the article. However the answer is not to delete sourced and relevant material but to expand the remainder. There must be a wealth of information on power's legal career - interesting cases, involvement in legal policy, conribution to the DPP's office and so on. This should also be incldued after appropriate sourcing.

I have restored most of the deleted information excluding some that appeared to be speculation or a bit pejorative (eg. we shouldn't say 59 people "saw fit" to give references, just that 59 people gave references). I'm happy to discuss this further if there are alternative views. Euryalus (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes are much better than the original version which I cut. I still think the negative stuff takes up too much weight for a BLP, but at least it's moving in the right direction.. --Jkp212 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with you - if either of us get a chance we should hunt around for details of Power's legal career prior to the arrest to flesh out the article. I'm also a bit puzzled about the jail term - the original sentence was 8 months before parole, he was released immediately on bail but after the appeal was dismissed he served seven months only. What happened to the other month? Euryalus (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit re: jail/ gaol

[edit]

In the section 'sentencing and release', the American spelling 'jail' is used whereas in the second paragraph, the Australian spelling 'gaol' is used. I know this is just a minor mistake, but its inconsistent. Im not prepared to change it as I am not sure if wikipedia uses American English as its standard (although im guessing that it might). Fionaalison (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English or American spelling is often an issue of contention. There's a guideline here that gives the various options - in this case "gaol" would be correct as the article has "strong national ties" to a country where English spelling is used (similar to using Australian Department of Defence instead of Defense). I note the reference for the gaol term uses the word "jailed" in its title, but this needs to remain as is because it is the wording of the newspaper article.
Despite all the above, I've reworded the sentence to use "imprisonment" which seems to fit better. If you see inconsistent spelling in articles, you're welcome to jump in and change it - if there's disagreement it can be brought tot he talk page. Euryalus (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that, and thanks for pointing out the guideline.. I'll check it out. Fionaalison (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Patrick Power (lawyer). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Power_(lawyer)&oldid=1204878936"