Jump to content

Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 2

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


Crimes committed as 'Research'

[edit]

Townshend sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and accessed (in his words) child pornography websites (an offence under English law). He justified his activities as being "research". There is, under English law, a "legitimate reason" defence to the offences Townshend committed but he was not able to avail himself of this defence. Therefore he was not carrying out legitimate research but rather committing crimes. Where one says "Townshend was also adamant that he had not downloaded any images during the research" an acceptance of his claim to have been doing research is implicit, with a concomitant implication that the activity giving rise to criminal guilt was justified. With this type of wording, the article expresses POV. While we do not know why Townshend was arrested (someone argues elsewhere herein that he was arrested because his name was released to the press), we do know that the police issued a statement reading "Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity" (Guardian article of 8 May 2003). Thus they took pains to point out that accessing child pornography websites for research is not acceptable, presumably to discourage other people from accessing child porn under the mistaken opinion that could make themselves immune from prosecution by simply claiming "I did it to research the outrageous quantities of horrible material on the Internet". By repeatedly insisting on the "research" status of Townshend's activity ("he had formally reported the website he discovered during that research to The Internet Watch Foundation" and "Townshend was also adamant that he had not downloaded any images during the research"), this article seeks to undermine the police's intentions in publishing the statement. Is it now officieal Wikipedia policy to minimise sexual offending against children? Wiki-is-truth 14:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're putting this at the top of the page? What hubris. Keep grinding that axe. Clashwho 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you add to a talk page with the "Post a Comment" feature, it goes at the bottom. Things at the top of the page are the old issues that should be archived first. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 12:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the "Post a Comment" feature is where? Wiki-is-truth 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete discussion. Please check The Times articles that reported Landslide was only an ordinary adult porn site, and also Townshend's public statements on the subject (made before The Times articles). Townshend admitted accessing this site, but says he didn't see any child porn, which corresponds with The Times later report that there was none.Pkeets 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not simplify a complicated story to make it appear that your point has been conceded. Landslide was not a child porn website, it sold adult verification and subscription services to webmasters of adult sites. It also provided a pay-per-view service to webmasters. Most webmasters ran legal sites, some - however - ran illegal ones. Thomas Reedy of Landslide Inc complained about this to the FBI before the site was closed down by American LEAs. It is possible (maybe even likely) that Thomas Reedy and his wife were wrongfully convicted. BUT Landslide's services WERE used by some webmasters to sell child porn. Landslide's computers thus contained the subscription details to these child porn sites and, if the FBI had investigated Landslide's own complaints that some of its customers were operating child porn sites, these details might well have been used by the FBI to identify child porn subscribers and bring them to justice. You not only overstate your case, but you seriously misrepresent it to support a particular POV. Wiki-is-truth 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reedy reported child porn sites in an effort to keep his own operation clean, and the independent reconstruction experts reported that incidence of questionable or illegal porn within his operation was likely quite small. The UK police justified Operation Ore by saying there was a prominent ad for child porn and that all those who entered the gateway were guilty of accessing it. So far, the independent investigation seems to show this is without basis. So you concede that paying $5 to enter the Landslide gateway is not an indication that Townshend visited or accessed a child porn site, right? From below, here's an excerpt from his statement: "it didn't promise, contrary to what the police said to me when I was interviewed, to lead to child pornography."

  • Townshend could have paid $5 to enter an adult website - I have no evidence to say; however, he accepted a caution for the event. I would hope that - at the time he accepted the caution - he had some idea of what he was doing by admitting to paying for child porn. Wiki-is-truth 22:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what I'm saying here is POV, but my point is, what everyone is saying is the same. This is a celebrity case that has been hyped by the police and the the media both, and even the investigation is likely based on questionable communications between the FBI and the UK police. The legal battle regarding the prosecutions is ongoing. Thus, any statements made about it in this biography should be qualified.Pkeets 21:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the FBI did use the Landslide database to investigate. However, they did not assume, as the UK police did, that all names in the database were child porn downloaders. Instead, they ran a sting operation, sending child porn ads to the names on the list and arresting those who signed up to order the illegal material. This was a much more reasonable approach.Pkeets 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not deny that Landslide used the Landslide database in an investigation. What I am proposing is an alternative scenario in which the FBI took seriously and acted on Reedy's complaints about child porn sites abusing his AVS service rather than Landslide being closed down USPIS, FBI etc. The names of English subscribers would still have been passed to the English police; the only difference would have been that the Reedy couple would not have been convicted of child porn offences.Wiki-is-truth 22:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, the lawfullness or otherwise of Operation Ore can have no impact whatsoever on Townshend's status. Townshend's name was discovered in the subscriber database and he thus came under suspicion; his name was leaked by a police officer (who was sacked for so doing); he publicly announced that he accessed a site advertising child porn.

I agree this is the reason for the police caution. However, reading his other statements, it appears, as solicitors have publicly pointed out, that Townshend's memory of the site was not sufficient to support this confession. It's likely he was TOLD before making the statement that the site advertized child porn.Pkeets 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • His arrest was thus utterly lawful and proper. Moreover, he was (as he admits) cautioned for "inciting another to distribute or show an indecent photohgraph or pseudo-photohgraph of a child"; this is the offence that naturally follows from "Paying to enter a site advertising child porn" and it is properly charged and correctly based in the facts as presented. A person can only be guilty of incitement by paying to enter a website if he expected to find child porn when he entered it; otherwise, if the site "promised to contain" adult pornography but actually contained child porn, you did not pay with the intention that the website operator would supply you with child porn, so your payment simply cannot be construed as an incitement so to do. The only difficulty arises because Townshend (in the Observer interview) claims that the site did not promise to contain child pornography; if it did not so promise, why did he make a statement saying that he "used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn" in January 2003? Wiki-is-truth 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The police have said the site advertized child porn, but are unable to provide any evidence this is a true fact. Reconstructions have found no sign of child porn or a child porn ad, and thus the prosecutions are being challenged in court. If there was no child porn ad, then Townshend did not incite to distribute or show child porn, regardless of his statments.Pkeets 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reconstruction of Landslide has shown that the Landslide site did not contain any child porn, or any advertisements for child porn that were advertisements by Landslide (specifically the "click here child porn" banner). However, it is uncontested that the Landslide portal was used by some webmasters to sell access to child porn. How this was achieved is unclear, but the implication is that the sites using Landslides faciltites were able to advertise using the Landslide portal. The fact that Landslide did not itself advertise child porn does not mean that child porn advertisements could not be seen via Landslide - it is possible that Townshend saw an advertisement by one of these "rogue" websites.Wiki-is-truth 12:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did he make a statement saying that he "used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn" in January 2003?: Your guess is as good as mine about why he made this statement. I mentioned one likely scenario above, that he had been told by the police that the site did advertize child porn and that he was on the list of credit card users. He's never denied accessing the site. The question is what he saw there. Since this is now eight years ago, I'd guess his memory is now even foggier about it than it was in 2003.Pkeets 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding campaign against child pornography

[edit]

Cite sources detailing the actions taken by Townshend in this campaign (actions other than downloading child porn). Howcome we only got to hear of this "campaign" after the arrest? A secret campaign is hardly worth running.Wiki-is-truth 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, another one put at the top of the page. More hubris from Wiki-is-truth. First of all, there's his essay, posted on his website one year before the story broke. [1]
Then there's his Double-O Charities, founded decades ago. There's also his support for Chicago's Maryville Academy, starting in 1997. Jerry Hall also came forward independently and spoke of Pete Townshend's "avid support" of her public and private child welfare foundations: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990234186.html Clashwho 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More hubris from Wiki-is-truth: reformat the talk page if you wish; but please, stop throwing up the smokescreens.
  • I asked for sources detailing Townshend's "long-standing campaign against child pornography":
  • 'Townshend's essay in which he says "I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'. So I did nothing. I mentioned this shocking internet experience to a few people close to me". He did nothing. Hardly a campaign.
  • Townshend's Double-O charities: not anti-child porn organisations; it does not appear that they campaigned on the issue
  • Chicago's Maryville Academy: not an anti-child porn organisation
  • Jerry Hall the well-known anti-child porn crusader. Wiki-is-truth 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are forgetting The Times has reported that reconstruction of Landslide (the site Townshend is accussed of accessing) showed it was only an ordinary adult porn site. That makes this discussion pretty obsolete.Pkeets 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll actually research the subject, you'll find that Townshend ranted about the child porn subject in public interviews and essays before his arrest. These are on record and just because you didn't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist. I agree that examples discussed above have more to do with Townshend's support of children's welfare organizations than any "campaign" against child porn.Pkeets 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Townshend accessed child porn and spoke about it to his friends, one of whom was a lawyer. This friend advised him not to go to the police and do nothing. What kind of campaign is this? Wiki-is-truth 21:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary credit card access in 1999 to a child pornography website

[edit]

Townshend says he accessed a site once. CNN reported that he "said he had looked at the front pages and previews of child pornography sites perhaps three or four times in 1999". Including this quotation of an independent and reliable external source as proof of the unreliability of Townshend's own statements is of great value. This incongruity appears to suggest a particular meaning to Townshend's "access".... Wiki-is-truth 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another one at the top of the page. More hubris from Wiki-is-truth. And what "particular meaning" are you talking about, according to your overactive imagination? Pete Townshend accessed the Landslide site once, which is exactly why he was placed in the lowest tier of suspects, the ones that weren't going to be approached by law enforcement because their limited access did not fit the profile of a pedophile. The "three of four times" is clearly referring to other child porn sites that he found. The disparity between those two statements is a figment of your imagination. Clashwho 00:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend makes a great point in his public statements that he only accessed child pornography website once. It is clear that what he means by this is he paid for access once. In actual fact, he "accessed" (using the word in its normal sense) child porn websites on four or five occasions. Whether they were the same sites or not is irrelevant.
  • If it is true that Townshend was placed in the lowest tier, then this was not because of any limited access. The list was "tiered" on the police's assessment of the risk posed to children by the suspects involved, and those in positions of trust etc were given priority in police investigations - pedophile profiles did not come into it. If it did, please demonstrate my claim to be incorrect by citing your sources.Wiki-is-truth 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are forgetting The Times has reported that reconstruction of Landslide showed it was only an ordinary adult porn site. That leaves this discussion a bit moot.Pkeets 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formal report of child porn to IWF

[edit]

Roger Darlington (Chairmain, IWF) wrote to the Observer to point out that Townshend had made on-line reports of potentially illegal material on 24 August 2002, 19 November 20002 and 6 December 2002. All the reports came after the public was made aware in the spring of 2002 of Operation Ore. Townshend's IWF report sounds like a track covering exercise to me, thanks for making me aware of the IWF "corroboration" Davidpatrick... Wiki-is-truth 16:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, four in a row at the top of the page! More hubris. Yeah, you're not on a vendetta at all! No siree-bob! Your speculations and innuendo about "track covering exercises" have no place in this encyclopedia. You're heading into exactly the "potentially libelous" territory that the banner at the top of this page is warning about. Clashwho 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No siree-bob: correct. Look at my changes to the article and you will see that they are minimal; this "discussion" on the talk page is driven by you.
  • Your speculations and innuendo about "track covering exercises" have no place in this encyclopedia: funny, my "innuendo" is also contained in the IWF letter[2] published in the Observer on 4 January 2004, which Townshend did not challenge in court. Just to make things absolutely clear, the "innuendo" is comprised by the fact that Townshend only reported child porn to the IWF in 2002 after it had become public knowledge that the sites involved were the object of police investigation. Note that Townshend accidentally found child porn in 1999... Wiki-is-truth 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For information:
  • 1999: Townshend accidentally discovered child porn while looking for information about orphans...
  • 1999 Townshend looks at the preview section of child porn websites on "three or four" occasions
  • 1999 Townshend uses his credit card to access a child porn website "to see what was there". Insists he downloaded nothing (by which he means he saved nothing)
  • 8 Sep 1999, Landslide (the business at the heart of the incident) raided by American LEAs
  • 8 Aug 2001, US Attorney General Ashcroft announces end to Operation Avalanche
  • 20 May 2002, The first news stories about Operation Ore appear
  • 24 Aug 2002, Townshend makes first online IWF report (presumably 3 years late, or else he had accidentally found some new child porn websites)
  • 11 Jan 2003, Daily Mail claims an internationally famous musician being investiagted as part of Ore
  • 12 Jan 2003, Journalists harry Townshend at his home, he makes a statement in which he claimed to have acted "a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation"
  • 13 Jan 2003, approx 1500 GMT, Townshend arrested
  • 30 Jan 2003, IWF confirms that it had heard from Townshend in 2002. Wiki-is-truth 04:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting how mention of the IWF is allowed by Davidpatrick only in partial detail, in which form it can (if one so chooses) be seen to support Townshend's claim to have been carrying out research. When this spin is removed by a fuller presentation, the whole IWF episode is expunged. Wiki-is-truth 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your listing of the first couple of points corresponds to Townshend's statements, but here you depart: "1999 Townshend uses his credit card to access a child porn website "to see what was there". Insists he downloaded nothing (by which he means he saved nothing." Check what he says about the site. He says he didn't see any child porn. Later reconstruction of the site by independent experts shows there was none there. Other reports seem to indicate it was mostly a credit card fraud site, reason enough for the US Feds to bust it.Pkeets 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not misrepresent a complex story by simplifying it. Landslide was used by some webmasters to promote child porn websites. The "reconstruction" you speak of is a reconstruction of Landslide itself, NOT of any independent website using its AVS or KEYZ facilities and accessible through it.Wiki-is-truth 21:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More hubris from me, but this is a classic

[edit]

At 01:05 on 18 February 2007 Davidpatrick made an edit with the edit summary "balance between claims by police and Townshend - and of known reported facts without POV legal interpretations". Classic! I think it makes it perfectly clear that Davidpatrick will only accept Townshend's description of the incident, and the fact that other objective independent sources have differing "interpretations" must therefore be covered up - even when Davidpatrick seeks to rely elsewhere on those same "interpretations" to support his spin on the child porn incident. Wiki-is-truth 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. Enough of this. This is an article about a 61 year old artist with a 43 year career. This is an incident that spans a 4 year period. And in which there was only public activity for 5 months Jan-May 2003. The amount of detail in the article is already wildly disproportionate to the incident. Especially given that the police CHOSE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION to NOT charge Townshend. If they had and he stood trial - been found guilty - then this would be a different story. But they - for reasons that only they know - decided not to. Perhaps the facts in their statement had something to do with it. ie TOWNSHEND HAD NOT ONE SINGLE DOWNOADED IMAGE on any of 14 computers. The article as currently amended by me offers Townshend's view and the police's view. And states the legal conclusion dispassionately. Anything else is commentary. And does not belong in a fair article about his life. So enough. Davidpatrick 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then why not say: In 1999 Townshend paid to access a child pornography website. This became public knowledge in 2003 after Townshend admitted it in a statement he issued. He was arrested and cautioned. Plenty shorter.
  • You continue to present the fact that the police chose to caution Townshend rather than prosecute him as if it were some kind of vindication.
  • The article as it currently stands does not present Townshend's crimes as though they were research and I therefore see no need to make further amendments. Wiki-is-truth 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you folks kindly do some research on this issue? You're all going on public articles and reports that are basically opinion. If you read Townshend's public statements carefully, you'll see that he never admitted accessing a child porn site. He says he did access the Landslide site, but he doesn't remember seeing any child porn there. The Times reported afterward that reconstruction of the site by independent experts showed it was only an ordinary adult porn site. So then, what happens to the "crime"? Sounds to me like this discussion is over-reactions to erroneous hearsay.

Because Townshend published essays and conducted interviews on the subject of child porn, we gather that he was concerned about the issue. As stated here, his public statement include a description of accidental encounters with child porn in about 1999, and his reactions. He doesn't clearly define what research he might have done for his book, so this is an open point.Pkeets 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we accept your assertion that Townshend did not view any child pornography (which is possible, given that the police found no evidence of possession), then we are left with the only other offence: paying for child porn, thereby "inciting another to distribute or show an indecent photograph of a child". In an interview in the Observer, Townshend confirms that this is the offence he was cautioned for: "I was cautioned for the use of a credit card, which is interpreted as encouraging people to disseminate more, inciting others to disseminate more". However, if - as he later says - the website he found did not promise to contain child pornography, he cannot have committed the offence of incitement. His lawyers - if they are worth a penny (and, given that Townshend has lots of pennies that many lawyers would want to get their hands on, they probably are) - SHOULD have advised him that a caution could not be administered. However, Townshend accepted a caution. Therefore, on the established, undisputed facts, we can only (possibly for the time being) assume that Townshend paid to access a child porn website. Wiki-is-truth 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix survivors

[edit]

Despite bleating that the child porn episode takes up a disproportionate part of the biography section, Davidpatrick went on to add a large chunk of material lifted directly from a Phoenix survivor's statement. His refusal to allow the IWF episode to be included after it became clear that it did not serve its purpose in "exonerating" Townshend casts this Phoenix insertion in an interesting light: it too serves to exonerate Townshend. Davidpatrick appears to be using Wikipedia to engage in a campaign to have halt a "witch hunt" (which hunt is considered by every nation to be a major worthwhile policy objective). Wiki-is-truth 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of Townshend's arrest, Phoenix sent an open letter to the guitarist from its spokeswoman, Shy Keenan, who said she was sold as a child prostitute and her rapes were photographed and passed around. "Those people stole a massive part of me and sold the images for profit. I have never fully recovered," she wrote. "The moment a person clicks that button, they may as well be molesting that child themselves. How can anyone find any reason at all to give child molesters money?" Obviously a principled bunch whose word is worth repeating. So once again, it isn't the crime that matters, nor its consequences, but the person committing it, and their motivation in doing so. When pedophiles do it, it's bad, when Good Ole Pete does it, that's a different matter. Wiki-is-truth 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Good Ole Pete didn't do it. If you guys will keep up with ongoing information about the Operation Ore investigation, then we might have a bit more reason in this discussion (see other comments about the true nature of Landslide). Regarding this: "which hunt is considered by every nation to be a major worthwhile policy objective," some sources have suggested that the true objective is to impose controls on the Internet.Pkeets 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Caution = Criminal Record

[edit]

I clicked on the criminal record link and this is the first sentence: "A criminal record or rap sheet is a generic term used to describe a compiled record of crimes that a person has committed and been convicted of in a judicial proceeding."

This does not describe Pete Townshend's situation. He was not convicted of anything. I suggest removing the "criminal record" link. Mentioning the police caution is all that is needed.

  • I do not agree. All this means is that the article on criminal records is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Saying that Townshend has a "criminal record" describes his situation perfectly accurately. In the UK, which is the only place that counts insofar as Townshend's legal status is concerned, the fact that a person has accepted a police caution is recorded in that person's "criminal record" on the Police National Computer. lmno 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lmno wrote:

"the fact that a person has accepted a police caution is recorded in that person's "criminal record" on the Police National Computer."

Three points occur to me.

What is the definition of a "person's criminal record on the Police National Computer"? Do the UK police maintain "CRIMINAL records" on people even if they haven't been convicted of a crime? Or do the police maintain FILES on people who they encounter and have interactions with? Including those to whom they issue a caution? If so, are those files really "criminal records" or are they perhaps just "files"?

It may well be that Townshend is listed on a Police Computer because he received a Police Caution. But is that identical with having a "criminal record" in English law?

And if it is - is it misleading to have that in the article given that in many other countries the connotation of "criminal record" is that the person has been convicted in a court of law of a criminal act?

The "Webster's" definition of "criminal" is "A person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime". Townshend is neither of these. Dendennis 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the police maintain criminal records on people who have not been convicted of a crime; they maintain this information on people who have been cautioned for a crime. They are criminal records. Before you express your opinion what are "just files", please do some research and apprise yourself of the situation under English law.
  1. Yes, townshend is listed on a Police Computer because he received a Police Caution. That is identical with having a "criminal record" in English law.
  2. Americans are citizens; people in some other countries are "subjects". Becuase it might "mislead" Americans, should we call them "citizens" anyway?
  3. Websters is American; the Oxford Concise English Dictionare (11 ed) is English, and defines a criminal as "a person who has committed a crime".
I am reverting your changes.lmno 11:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh... and.... The "Webster's" definition of "criminal" is "A person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime". Townshend is the first of these. lmno 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The continuing effort to include mention of a criminal record in this article seems to be more emotional than anything else. If you really must insist on a paragraph detailing this, perhaps you might do a bit more research and itemize Mr. Townshend's other run-ins with the law. I believe he was once arrested and fined for assaulting a police officer onstage during a concert, and he spent at least one night in a Canadian jail for damages The Who did to a hotel. I'm sure a bit of digging might uncover some other skeletons, as well.

Regarding insistence on his guilt in the child porn incident, the question remains whether Townshend actually did view a child pornography site. He said in public statements that he only paid to enter and read the index at Landslide, which (according to the latest reconstruction of the site) did not have illegal images posted. His own admission of guilt is insufficient as sole evidence, as he would not be considered reliable to describe in detail what he did and saw at the site several years before. Townshend also said that he encountered obscene images online by accident (and reported these to authorities), but this was common in 1999. Since then it's quite a bit less likely, as child pornography has moved to file sharing technology for distribution. Pkeets 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The continuing effort to include mention of a criminal record in this article seems to be more emotional than anything else: So it is acceptable that Wikipedia is manipulable so as to reflect partisan opinions while not reflecting legal fact? Townshend sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and accessed (in his words) child pornography websites (an offence under English law). Gary Glitter did less (it is not proven that Glitter paid for child porn) but Glitter is classed as a convicted sex offender (in a Wikipedia category which has been manipulated so that it excludes people officially categorised as sex offenders). If you really must insist on a paragraph detailing this, perhaps you might do a bit more research and itemize Mr. Townshend's other run-ins with the law: Irrelevant. Wiki-is-truth 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gary Glitter did less: please read what was said; it lists the offences Townshend is guilty of (3 named offences). Glitter was convicted of one named offence ("making indecent photographs"). 1 is less than 3. Wiki-is-truth 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I suppose you're making the laughable assertion that Gary Glitter didn't "seek out" or "access" child pornography pictures, then? I suppose they just magically appeared on his computer, eh? Four thousand times? Please. You are not engaging in an honest debate. Gary Glitter is a proven pedophile. Pete Townshend is not. Once again, Pete Townshend would not have even been arrested if his name hadn't been leaked to the press. His limited access did not fit the profile of a pedophile. Unlike the circumstances of Gary Glitter's case. You're grinding an axe. You're dead wrong. Trying to say that Pete Townshend is worse than Gary Glitter is just preposterous. Clashwho 08:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make yourself familiar with that Townshend has admitted guilt for - accessing child pornography. Since the police could prove neither possession nor making, the police caution was almost certainly for "inciting another to distribute or show an indecent photograph or pseudu-photograph of a child"; an offence that, as the police describe it, amounts to "paying for children to be raped". This is the "seeking out" and "paying for". Glitter, however, was convicted of "making", i.e. accessing, which means downloading and viewing (I would take stock here, since "viewing" and "downloading" have relevance to your arguments elsewhere). Gary Glitter is a proven pedophile. Pete Townshend is not: pedophile is as pedophile does; or maybe you can explain why not. Once again, Pete Townshend would not have even been arrested if his name hadn't been leaked to the press: you know this... how? Actually, I suspect Townshend was arrested because he made a public admission of guilt and then tried to minimise his offence by claiming that it had been for research; in an attempt to dissuade other people from accessing child pornography and using the "research" excuse, I suspect they had to make a counterstrike against Townshend's propaganda. Honest discussion: bring it on. Wiki-is-truth 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are clearly incapable of engaging in an honest debate. You are quite obviously on a vendetta. I don't know what your problem is, and I don't care. "Pedophile is as pedophile does"? What kind of nonsense is that? Everyone who has ever looked at child pornography is a pedophile, eh? No matter what their motivation? No matter what their response to those images? You are ridiculous. Here's a scenario for you: Pete Townshend looked at those images out of outrage. He looked at them as a previously abused child who was disgusted that this filth was available on the internet. Why do you reject that scenario, Wiki-is-truth? I'll tell you why. Because you're on your little crusade. Have fun tilting at your windmill. How do I know Townshend wouldn't have been arrested? Because that's what the press reports said at the time. The Landslide suspects were arranged into tiers. The top tier suspects were those who frequently accessed those websites. Each tier below that was characterized by less and less access. Pete Townshend was in the bottom tier. To date he remains the only person in the bottom tier that was arrested. He was arrested because he was outed by the press after someone in the police department leaked Pete Townshend's name. He was victimized because he is a celebrity. Once again, you are contributing to the witch hunt. You ought to be ashamed. Go after the real pedophiles. Clashwho 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pedophile is as pedophile does"? What kind of nonsense is that?: it happens to be a paraphrase of the DSM definition of a pedophile. Everyone who has ever looked at child pornography is a pedophile, eh?: it seems that you hold a person's motivation for doing an act to be more important than the act itself. Townshend committed a "pedophile" crime and was arrested and cautioned for so doing. And please, Townshend didn't just look - he paid for the stuff! Here's a scenario for you: Pete Townshend looked at those images out of outrage. He looked at them as a previously abused child who was disgusted that this filth was available on the internet: let's say Townshend was outraged by the numbers of guns on the streets of London and... what would be a valid way for him to express that outrage? Before Townshend looked for and "accessed" the child porn website there were already laws making it illegal, hence Townshend's problem. Given that there are laws prohibiting child porn throughout the world - and in particular in the country in which Townshend committed his crime, what did Townshend hope to achieve by breaking the law? How do I know Townshend wouldn't have been arrested? Because that's what the press reports said at the time: if this is true, you won't have any problem in citing your sources. To date he remains the only person in the bottom tier that was arrested: if this is true, you will have no problem citing your sources. He was victimized because he is a celebrity: victimised by being investigated and punished for commiting a crime? What an interesting view of the world you have. Wiki-is-truth 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't know Townshend paid for it. That is unknown. What is known is that he had to use a credit card to access the site. It is not known if his credit card was charged. Some sites require a credit card for access and don't charge you unless you decide to subscribe. As for the cites you ask for, these may help you out:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed.html

  • An article detailing how English police were rather uncritical in their approach to evidence; however, before his arrest, Townshend went public and admitted guilt. The police did not arrest him improperly.Wiki-is-truth 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/townshend.htm

http://www.igtc.com/archives/thewho/2003/Jun/msg00028.html

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=03/06/03/3057579

Here's what the Phoenix Survivors have to say about the Pete Townshend case:

Our new position re: Pete Townshend

When this story first broke, we were given certain 'confirmed information' regarding this matter and asked for our comment. Based on those details, we released various robust statements regarding Mr Townshend's part in the 'Landslide' child porn web site case, known here in the UK as 'Operation Ore'. We then, as is our remit, took up for the victims.

Since then, we have received a great deal of correspondence, all polite and respectful, offering further (known) information that was not made widely available at the time and asking us 'in the name of fairness' to reconsider our position re: Mr Townshend. We have since worked to confirm this information through Mr Townshend's solicitors and as a result we do indeed wish to make a further statement :

Based on the evidence secured by the police and the facts, as we now know them, it is our humble opinion that Mr Townshend should never have been placed on the Sex Offenders Register, it is a gross injustice and a complete waste of tax payers money, let alone an unnecessary drain on the sex offender management teams woefully inadequate and precious resources. We have enough problems with actual sex offenders without stuffing it full of 'the stupid', punish 'the stupid', use the sex offenders register to manage the actual sex offenders.

We now feel, that considering everything, Mr Townshend should have been 'less publicly cautioned' and allowed a second chance. It seems that Roger Daltry's assertions of a 'witch hunt' may indeed have real substance, the law definitely needs changing in this regard. We do not believe that Mr Townshend is either a pervert or a paedophile, indeed he shows many signs of being a victim and certainly falls under the category of the 'misguided with innocent intent'. We do not think that Mr Townshend should have paid such a price for 'stupidity' and we now regret that we didn't stand up for him sooner and offer him our support.

The Phoenix Survivors http://www.phoenixsurvivors.com/

That's right, actual victims of child predators stood up in Townshend's defense because they saw that case for the misguided witch hunt that it was. So what's your problem, Wiki-is-truth? What did they see that you apparently don't? Why don't you recognize once and for all that you're targetting a man who has already paid an enormous price for his actions and doesn't deserve to be painted as a pedophile by the likes of you or anyone else. Clashwho 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ahah! It took me a while, but there we have it: your actual motivation in using Wikiepdia is to engage in a campaign to stop the "Witch hunt" and have the current child porn laws altered. Wiki-is-truth 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't know Townshend paid for it. That is unknown. What is known is that he had to use a credit card to access the site. It is not known if his credit card was charged: again you are talking up your case beyond the evidence. In Operation Ore, incitement charges were used to prosecute people who had subscribed to Landslide, the website involved. Charges of attempted incitement were used to prosecute people who tried to access the sites but were unsuccessful - i.e. the charge to their credit card was rejected. Townshend admitted "accessing", so - logically - the charge to his credit card must have been successful. Some sites require a credit card for access and don't charge you unless you decide to subscribe: some sites may not charge, Landslide did. Wiki-is-truth 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a vendetta being pursued against Mr. Townshend by a solitary individual whose only activity on Wikipedia consists of demeaning entries about Mr. Townshend on this and other articles. Whatever his/her vendetta is - Wikipedia is not the place to pursue it. He/she may pursue it by complaining to the police - who clearly failed to take the actions against Mr. Townshend that he/she wanted. (Or he/she may reflect on the fact that if the police COULD have charged a high-profile celebrity who it had arrested in such a highly publicized fashion - it certainly would have.) The police decision NOT to prosecute is what appears to be troubling this individual. But Wikipedia is not the place to express that displeasure. This article as presented has been factual. It makes clear that he received a cauton. That he accepted the caution. That he was placed on an offenders list on a statuatory basis. It presents the police statement - and it presents Townshend's claims as publicly stated. The continual insertions and revisions by the person named "wiki-is-truth" are clearly POV designed to malign Mr. Townshend. And follow a consistent pattern of behavior by this user that borders on vandalism. Further attempts by this user to use this article as a place to express his/her personal vendetta against Mr. Townshend will be referred to senior wikipedians. Davidpatrick 07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • demeaning entries about Mr. Townshend: how do my contributions to Wikipedia demean Townshend? I am simply insisting that you not be allowed to present his crimes as "research" as if that were an objectively verifiable fact. If Townshend had performed his research with prior written permission as part of (say) a part-time distance educational course under strict supervision, I might accept that it was research. In truth, a solitary man, in secret, accessed child porn for his own reasons and hid that fact from everyone until it was revealed as part of a police investigation. Hardly research. Sounds more like crime to me; and in fact, the police had the same view.
  • The article does not present his crime as "research" as if it is an objectively verifiable fact. It states that it's Pete Townshend's claim. So if that's your problem with the article, you don't have a problem. Clashwho 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct that when the article stops presenting Townshend's crime as research, I will cease to have a problem with it. Elsewhere on this talk page you claim to have refuted me. If I say "in your refutation you mention that " it appears as though I am admitting that you have refuted my claims. You have done nothing of the sort; wherever you make verifiable arguments (legal distinction between viewing and downloading, for example), I prove you to be incorrect. Wiki-is-truth 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever his/her vendetta is - Wikipedia is not the place to pursue it: I do not have a vendetta against Townshend; I am concerned about the vulnerability Wikipedia exhibits to being used to minimise child sexual offences.
  • An "even-handed look at the issue" would not say that "'Townshend was adamant that he did not download any images during his research'". That is spin which is best left in Townshend's own words as a direct quotation so that it is obvious that it is Townshend saying he was doing research, not Wikipedia. Wiki-is-truth 02:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He/she may pursue [his vendetta] by complaining to the police - who clearly failed to take the actions against Mr. Townshend that he/she wanted: what I wanted the police to do is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia and furthermore you have precisely NO idea what I would have had the police do.
  • he/she may reflect on the fact that if the police COULD have charged a high-profile celebrity who it had arrested in such a highly publicized fashion - it certainly would have: here you demonstrate a misunderstanding of English law, which has been gone over in shall we say exhaustive detail in the past, as can be seen from the archive of this talk page. Obviosuly you choose not to "understand" it for your own reasons.
  • if the police COULD have charged a high-profile celebrity who it had arrested in such a highly publicized fashion - it certainly would have: Townshend was offered a police caution. If you look up the Wikipedia entry for police caution, you will find that a police caution can only be offered where there is evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction, the offender admits the offence (which would itself mean that a conviction would be a mere technicality should the opetion to prosecute be taken) and the offender understands the significance of a caution and giving informed consent to being cautioned. TO PUT IT IN SIMPLE WORDS, A CAUTION CAN ONLY BE USED WHERE THE POLICE COULD PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES. Please stop making statements about subjects you obviously do not understand.
  • If they wanted to press criminal charges, they would have. Apparently they thought it would be a waste of time. Maybe someday you'll realize what they realized four years ago. No vendetta, eh? Clashwho 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not comment on issues that you obviously do not understand, whether through inability or wilfulness. The police are only lawfully able to caution a person where they have a reasonable belief that they would secure a conviction. It is not lawful to prosecute someone where no purpose is served by the prosecution (i.e. it would be wasting time), therefore the fact that the police cautioned him is proof that the police did not choose to take the alternative path to prosecution because they believed charging was a waste of time. If your claim is true, please contact Townshend's lawyers and explain to them that the caution was unlawful and that he may petition the police to remove it. Wiki-is-truth 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The continual insertions and revisions by the person named "wiki-is-truth" are clearly POV designed to malign Mr. Townshend: How is it POV to insist that you stop saying that Townshend was carrying out research when he was in fact committing criminal acts? Saying that bluntly in the article that, for example, "Townshend was also adamant that he had not downloaded any images during the research" makes it appear that he was in fact carrying out research rather than committing criminal offences - THAT is placing a positive spin on the episode and therefore 100% POV. Please note that I do nothing more than remove this positive spin.
  • Further attempts by this user to use this article as a place to express his/her personal vendetta against Mr. Townshend will be referred to senior wikipedians: I am not using Wikipedia to express a vendetta; I am using it to prevent you expressing a point of view. Please get these "senior wikipedians" involved ASAP, and get them to explain how preventing a criminal offence being presented in a positive light is vandalism. Wiki-is-truth 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have tried without success to engage this person in reasoned dialogue. This person does not edit any other topics on Wikipedia. His/her agenda is fixated on attempting to do what the police decided NOT to do - namely give the impression that Mr. Townshend was charged and convicted of a crime. The police considered the evdence and elected NOT to charge Mr Townshend. This decision by the police 4 years ago is still agitating this individual for reasons undetermined - and more properly addressed by a medical professional. He/she is most apparently engaged in pursuing a vendetta against Mr. Townshend. I recommend that we do not waste further time engaging in a one-sided dialogue with this person. Davidpatrick 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only "reasoned dialogue" that has been entered into is documented on this talk page; anyone without a POV to push examining this talk page will see that that I am doing is stopping you placing a positive spin on Townshend's activity. This person does not edit any other topics on Wikipedia: so? His/her agenda is fixated on attempting to do what the police decided NOT to do - namely give the impression that Mr. Townshend was charged and convicted of a crime: what the police did or did not do is no concern of mine. However, what THEY DID do was caution Townshend for accessing child pornography. This means that THEY thought he was guilty of the offence, had evidence to prove it and reasonably believed that they could secure a conviction in a court of law. True, Townshend was not convicted, however this is a mere legal technicality: he admitted guilt. Since the police can only offer a caution where they believe they could secure a conviction, Townshend's lawyer(s) presumably advised him that he could not successfully defend a charge OR Townshend actually really truly honestly accepted and admitted guilt and would have done so in a court of law. more properly addressed by a medical professional: what medical condition do you propose I seek treatment for? Pneumonia? Arthritis? Adhominem? I recommend that we do not waste further time engaging in a one-sided dialogue with this person: then you openly admit that your arguments (uhm, where are your arguments exactly) cannot convince me of your position and that you cannot disprove my claims (actually I make no claims, I only question YOUR claims)... you openly admit that you will not engage in discussion and cannot defend your... uhm... POV. Wiki-is-truth 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they thought he was guilty of the offense. Pete Townshend admitted to the offense. The offense is accessing a child pornography website. The article is clear on that. There is zero white-wash involved. You're just upset that the article isn't a black-wash, because you're on a vendetta. Clashwho 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can I be engaged in a vendetta against Townshend when I make no claims whatsoever concerning Townshend but instead merely remove the spin present in the article (which presents Townshend's offending in his own terms rather than as determined by a lawfully elected Parliament)? The article is not clear that Townshend was not engaged in research since it on at least 2 occasions in its own text and not in direct quotation of Townshend states that Townshend was engaged in research. I simply removed the spin. Wiki-is-truth 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Caution = Criminal Record

[edit]

I direct your attention to section 113 of the Police Act 1997, which provides intera alia that...

(3) A criminal record certificate is a certificate which-
(a) gives the prescribed details of every relevant matter relating to the applicant which is recorded in central records, or
(b) states that there is no such matter.
(5) In this section-
"central records" means such records of convictions and cautions held for the use of police forces generally as may be prescribed;

- Good. This gets to the essential point. A caution DOES lead to a criminal record, for the simple reason that the accused admits the criminal offence that he/she was accused of. Police cautions are ONLY received by people who admit the offence. Peter Townsend was guilty (he did not deny this) and he accepted the caution to avoid the publicity, and risk of a more severe sentence, that a trial would have entailed.

And it must not be forgotten that Pete Townshend was tipped off by the media, who learnt that he was one of the individuals affected by Operation Ore. There was no element of surprise when police visited his home. Townshend, his lawyer, and most importantly his computers, were expecting them.

  • You obviously know nothing of computer forensics if you think such files can simply be deleted. After a four month investigation, if there had ever been images, they would have been found. Clashwho 11:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A) you are wrong; material CAN be removed from a computer disk so that it is either impossible or unreasonably difficult to retrieve it;
If the computers had been scrubbed they would have known it. There was no evidence the computers had been scrubbed. There were simply ZERO child pornography images on his computers. Clashwho 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The police issued a statement reading "it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images". You are reading far more into that statement than it bears. What evidence do you base you claim that Townshend's computer had not been scrubbed? Actually, Townshend himself publicly made a statement with the implication that child pornography should have been found on his at least one of his computers. In 'A Different Bomb', Townshend described how "within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a "free" image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man". If that is not a child pornography image, I do not know what is; and if Townshend saw it on one of his own computers, the fact that it was not discovered by the police amply demonstrates that his computer was "scrubbed". Wiki-is-truth 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying the computer was "scrubbed" is another potentially libelous accusation from you. The banner at the top of this page is warning against precisely that. Not finding child porn images on Pete Townshend's computers does not mean they were scrubbed. It means he hadn't saved any images to his hard drive, or "downloaded", as he said in his press statements at the time. It means the images he saw were temporary internet files that are overwritten constantly on computers. But, of course, you immediately leap to the most nefarious conclusion, because you're on a vendetta. A libelous vendetta. Clashwho 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You attempted to say that Townshend's computers had never contained child porn images and that this was proven by the fact that none were ever found: you said "if there had ever been images, they would have been found". There were images, but they were not found. Saying that temporary internet files are "overwritten constantly" is wrong and therefore misrepresentation. Such files are occasionally (with a frequency controllable by the user) removed from the cache, and then the space freed is reused. Wiki-is-truth 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please! YOU were the one who said "if there had ever been images, they would have been found", not me. I know perfectly well that images can be removed from a computer and I know perfectly well how various web browsers effect a caching system. Your claim that "temporary internet files ... are overwritten constantly on computers" is a gross simplification and therefore misrepresentation. Internet Explorer saves files in its cache by site and by file name, so an image saved by IE in its cache will only be "overwritten" by the same file from the same site (which does NOT happen otherwise the whole point of a cache has been obviated). The files saved in IE's cache are deleted when the cache is emptied - either by the system ("empty cache every n days") or by the user. The space previously occupied by those files is then made available once more and can then be reused (and again this does NOT amount to the internet file being overwritten). Anyway, which way do you want to have it: when you want to make it appear that the only way an "intensive" forensic investigation can fail to reveal an image is if the image was never there you have it one way, othertimes files are overwritten all the time. Wiki-is-truth 01:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
B) Townshend formally admitted guilt by accepting a police caution and this admission is accepted by the legal authorities in England as being equivalent to a conviction in many respects; how does computer forensics impact on this at all? Wiki-is-truth 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It impacts on whether he's a pedophile or not. Clashwho 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is that remotely relevant? It is not illegal to be a pedophile but it is illegal to commit pedophile acts because such acts have harmful consequences. You seem to be arguing that child pornography offences are only relevant when committed by pedophiles. Wiki-is-truth 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The crime Pete Townshend committed is in the article. There is zero white-wash going on. The article is attempting to relate the incident fully and accurately, something you are opposed to, due to your vendetta. Clashwho 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pete Townshend was arrested because his name was supplied to UK police in the information supplied by American authorities which they then used to initiate Operation Ore. Any mention of Operation Ore has been removed by people who are (apparently) trying to present an objective, even-handed look at the "incident". Given such an omission, the article's "look" at the incident cannot even approach being full and accurate.Wiki-is-truth 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep grinding that axe, bud. We know Pete Townshend admitted to viewing child porn on the internet in 1999, when viewing was not even a crime. Only downloading was. There is zero evidence that Pete Townshend downloaded any such images. We do, however, know that Pete Townshend contacted an Internet Watch foundation to report what he had found. We also know he campaigned against the proliferation of child pornography on the internet. These facts are relevant and should be part of the bio. You seem to want to paint this episode in Pete Townshend's life as negatively as possible. Why? What is your problem? Has it ever even occurred to you that you may be castigating a man who was motivated by outrage when he visited that website? Why do you want to stand in the way of an objective and fair look at his arrest that acknowledges that there is more to the story than just the arrest? By wishing for only the arrest and caution to be mentioned, and none of the extenuating circumstances, you're doing nothing more than demonstrating that you want this to be a black stain. Pete Townshend wouldn't even have been arrested if someone in the police hadn't leaked his name to the press. His limited access simply didn't fit the profile of a pedophile. But the tabloid frenzy forced their hand. You're contributing to the witch hunt. Clashwho 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure. In 1999 there was a distinction made between viewing pictures on the internet and deliberately saving them to your hard drive. The latter was called "downloading". With PCs it involved right clicking on the image and selecting "Save Image". I'm surprised you were unaware of this. You must be relatively new to the Internet. Hope this helps. Clashwho 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clashwho is thinking of the decision in R v Bowden (1999), in which a conviction for "Making an indecent photograph of a child" based on downloading an image from the Internet was upheld. Unfortunately, Clashwho is mistaken as to the implications of this decision. It definitely does not mean that "viewing" was not illegal before 1999, nor does it imply a distinction between "downloading" and "viewing". The Court of Appeal clarified the law to make it clear that downloading (and therefore viewing) was an offence (which means it had been an offence since 1984, when the "making" provision was inserted by that year's Criminal Justice and Public Order Act). Wiki-is-truth 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I've already asked you to quit the sarcasm. Perhaps you could now explain the relevance of Philadelphia law. as described in your first reference, to a case in England? In any case, neither example to supports your assertion. Andy Mabbett 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they attack the very crux of your issue - that there is supposedly no distinction between viewing online and downloading the images. There is. Obviously. That's clear to anyone who can read. Hope this helps. Clashwho 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's odd, Andy. Your initial question to me hinged on the erroneous idea that viewing online and downloading were the same thing. I have demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is a distinction between the two. Your refusal to acknowledge that sadly implies that you are not here to engage in an honest debate. There is a difference between viewing online and downloading images. My deepest apologies for not being able to find a UK specific article for you. But UK law is exactly why Pete Townshend was adamant in saying over and over in the press at the time that he had not downloaded. Yet he admitted to viewing. He admitted to viewing what was there out of outrage at the proliferation of child pornography on the internet and to inform his book on the subject. So, clearly, there was a distinction in his mind between downloading and viewing and I remember reading articles at the time that stated that UK law also made a distinction between viewing online and downloading at the time of Pete Townshend's offense. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you. And I have not been sarcastic. I continue to sincerely hope this helps. Have a nice day. Clashwho 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as English law is concerned, "viewing online" and "downloading" might not be exactly the same things, but both acts amount to the commissioning of exactly the same offence, namely "making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child". Each is an example of the more specific "offence" of "causing an indecent photograph to exist". Please see R v Bowden (1999). Wiki-is-truth 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Your refusal to acknowledge that sadly implies that you are not here to engage in an honest debate": .... it was said. Wiki-is-truth

Disputed status of Landslide

[edit]

Folks, I'm not sure where to add this into the discussion, but you might want to know that a group in the UK has challenged the police characterization of the Landslide site as a child porn operation and have brought charges against some in the police force for manufacturing evidence and coercing confessions during the Operation Ore investigations. You might also want to review the difference in the US and UK approach to the investigations and the resulting number of successful prosecutions. For more info check at http://obu.2truth.com/ Pkeets 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this story is now being used in an apparent campaign using Wikipedia to completely exonerate Townshend, it ought to be presented accurately. It is also pertinent to note that this spin on the Lansdlide was removed from the Operation Ore article as being too controversial.
  • Landslide was Internet business operating an adult verification and subscription serbices which were sold to webmasters of adult websites.
  • Most Landslide customers ran legal websites, but some did not
  • Landslide complained to the FBI
  • The U.S. Postal Inspection Service and others initiated a raid of Landslide after an investigator found he was able to access child porn via Landslide
  • Child porn was not stored on Landslide computers; BUT operators of child porn websites were using Landslide services, thus child porn was accessible via Landslide.
As an aside, no-one has brought "charges" against "some police force" (how usefully specific!); what is happening is that some people the police would have classified as suspects in Operation Ore might, at some future date, attempt to sue the police for trespass, wrongful arrest and to achieve other civil remedies. Some people will also appeal their convictions. This is based, not on the absence of child porn from this story, but on the police's willingness to rely on fragmentary evidence contrary to their legal obligation to check information provided to them for accuracy. Wiki-is-truth 21:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash

[edit]

This article is distinctly POV - it utterly whitewashes a major episode in Townshend's life. The removal of this material - completely sourced and thoroughly documented in the UK media - from Wikipedia is an example of why Wikipedia is utterly unreliable as a work of reference. The edit history of this article serves as complete documentation of the vulnerability of Wikipedia to partisan editors. I would mark the article as POV, if it were not for the obvious fact that the material documenting Townshend's paedophile crimes has been removed as a result of the normal article editing process and reflects the "consensus". Wiki-is-truth 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles from the news media accusing Townshend are hardly reliable as sole sources. They should be balanced by Townshend's public statements on the subject and other articles attacking the reliablity of the Operation Ore investigations.Pkeets 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So every article about a criminal should be qualified by his claims not to have done it, Guv? NonsenseWiki-is-truth 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with Wiki-is-truth. Who in their right mind admits to downloading/accessing child pornography when they did not do it? I am sure fans of Townshend would love to erase this part of his life but the truth is the truth.DJParker39 (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture?

[edit]

this article had a picture that seems to have been taken down. someone should upload a new one. Joeyramoney 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article badly needs a picture. MrC 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discography question

[edit]

I notice that the article divides Townshend's recordings into just two categories. "Solo Discography" and "Compilations and EPs" Is this a satisfactory delineation?

Perhaps it should break down his record releases into the following categories:

Original albums
Singles & EPs
Compilation albums (all Townshend material)
Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations

Any thoughts about this idea?

Davidpatrick 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davidpatrick wrote:

"Perhaps it should break down his record releases into the following categories:

Original albums
Singles & EPs
Compilation albums (all Townshend material)
Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations
"

I agree that this area could be cleaned up somewhat. I would add an area (perhaps a sub-section under "Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations") for devotional recordings, under which would be listed Townshend's Meher Baba Association recordings, his work on Raphael Rudd's 1996 album "Awakenings", etc.

Other areas which need to be addressed are Townshend-produced recordings and films. Any ideas?

Dendennis 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking for information on where to find this information, the Internet Movie Database is a good reference for Mr. Townshend's films: http://www.imdb.com/ Pkeets 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Work

[edit]

Pete Townshend recently published his novella "The Boy Who Heard Music" which he said was originally titled "Ray High and the Glass Household" online in blog format. http://boywhoheardmusic.blogspot.com/ See also: http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/projects/ He's started work on an audience participation musical project called The Method which is linked to the previous page. With The Who, he's planning to issue a mini-opera called "Glass Household" in June and follow up with a full new Who album. Pkeets 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Tour

[edit]

Is it true there is a new tour and if so where are they going to tour --Aaronpark 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Pete Townshend's official site for the tour schedule. They're expected to tour the UK an Europe in the summber, the US in the fall of 2006 and continue a world tour in 2007.

http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/projects/thewho/main/diary/display.cfm?id=306&zone=newsPkeets 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so was pete a pedo or not?

[edit]

yes or no?

No. If you'll read the article, you'll see that he has been involved with child abuse issues and charities since the sixties. Experts say pedophilia is nearly impossible to hide through an investigation and Mr. Townshend was cleared by the police probe. Anyone who was online during 1999 had to be aware of the growing problem of Internet child pornography, and it was clear at the time that Mr. Townshend was concerned, as he complained about it in both interviews and published articles. Whether the Landslide site was actually a child porn site or a credit card fraud site is now being fought in the courts.Pkeets 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if it was a child porn site, he was only there to research for his book AGAINST child porn.--Alexrules43 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES and NO: According to the applicable legal definitions, Townshend is a "registered sex offender", and will cease to be one in 2009. Townshend was NOT cleared by the police investigation, he was given a police caution. This article used to include only the facts, now it whitewashes them. Wiki-is-truth 10:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong, Wiki-is-truth. "Pedophile" is a clinical and psychological term. Pete Townshend has not been diagnosed as a pedophile. So your saying "Yes" to that is libelous. Clashwho 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uhm... well, common public usage would have it that a person who commits a "sexual offence against a child" is a "pedophile". However, if you want to get technical, according to the DSM-IV definition of pedophilia, a person could only be classified as a "pedophile" if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning" (to himself!). Given this... Glitter was (apparently) committing pedophile acts (downloading child pornography) but was not distressed; Townshend was committing pedophile acts (accessing child pornography) and it caused him great distress. Using the technical definition, Townshend is the pedophile and Glitter is not. Don't think you will like that :-) Wiki-is-truth 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have just made it abundantly clear that you are willfully engaging in dishonest discourse. No one has diagnosed Pete Townshend as a pedophile. Gary Glitter has been. And your assertion that Gary Glitter wasn't distressed is ludicrous. You're wasting my time. Clashwho 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dishonest discourse: Dishonest, adjective, characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : unfair, deceptive. Everything I have brought to this "discussion" is true and what I am insisting on is the barest presentation of the objectively verifiable facts with the least amount of "spin". While I am not claiming that Townshend is a kiddy-fiddler or even a pedophile, neither am I claiming that he is a child-saving hero-knight dressed all in gold and shining bright, valiantly battling the scourge of child pornography even though he doesn't need to since there are already many many laws against possession, distribution, showing, producing etc, and police and other NGOs worldwide devote huge amounts of energy to the same end. No one has diagnosed Pete Townshend as a pedophile: common usage would have it that a person who commits a "sexual offence against a child" is a pedophile; Townshend has committed such an offence... we do not need a psychiatric diagnosis to give a word its common usage. Gary Glitter has been (diagnosed as a pedophile): sources please. And your assertion that Gary Glitter wasn't distressed is ludicrous: in what way was Glitter distressed by his pedophilic offending (i.e. downloading and viewing child porn?) Sources please. You're wasting my time: it appears, then, that you have rather more time than you need. Wiki-is-truth 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now you're trying to have it both ways, claiming that you're not calling Pete Townshend a pedophile on the one hand and doing exactly that on the other. Like I said, you are engaging in dishonest discourse. As for sources on Gary Glitter, try Wikipedia. Clashwho 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not claim Townshend is a pedophile. In particular, I am talking about my edits to the article, where I simply remove a sping on the way in which the child porn episode is presented. I do not replace that spin with any claims that Townshend did anything or is anything. Whether or not the word pedophile can be used to describe Townshend is a smokescreen. Wiki-is-truth 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Townshend was cleared by the police probe. - Nope, He accepted a police caution, which means that both he and they accepted that he was guilty of the offence. Andy Mabbett 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what offense is that? Accessing child pornography online. No one is refuting that. So what exactly do you think you're proving? The question is not whether he accessed that website or not, the question is what his motivations were. The question is whether or not he is a pedophile. So, out with it, Andy. Where do you stand on that issue? You think you know better than his wife of twenty years? Let's hear it. Clashwho 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions are "straw men", and (in other recent comments) your tone is increasingly unacceptable. Andy Mabbett 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your non-answer is noted. I find your non-answer to be a cowardly response. I expected better. Clashwho 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask the police, since one of the first things they do in the investigation of a pedophile suspect is ask the wife. You are ridiculous. It is so laughably obvious that you are on a vendetta when you post nonsense like the above. Clashwho 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say that it is common usage to use the word pedophile to describe someone who has committed a pedophile crime, to which your response is that pedophilia is a psychiatric category; if only a clinical diagnosis can be accepted before the word "pedophile" is used, then the wife's opinion is irrelevant.
  • So what you are saying is that, when a man has been found to have abused his children over many years, the wife must have known that he was a pedophile? Wiki-is-truth 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The law does not require Townshend to be a pedophile before it can find him guilty of accessing a child pornography website; all that is required is proof or admission - and he admitted it. The concept of pedophilia is fairly vacuous at the best of times, but you reduce it to nothingness with your insistence that Townshend, while guilty of "pedophilic" activities, is not a pedophile; what would actually make him one? Wiki-is-truth 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, we know Pete Townshend accessed that website. We know he's guilty of accessing a child porn website. He admitted it. The concept of pedophilia is not vacuous at all. It's very clearly defined. It's a condition in adults of being sexually aroused by children. Your ludicrous claim that the concept of pedophilia is somehow vacuous is just the latest example of you engaging in dishonest discourse. Until you have evidence that Pete Townshend is sexually aroused by child porn, rather than disgusted by it, you have no legitimate standing in claiming he is a pedophile. You're just wasting time with your misguided crusade. Clashwho 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend accessed a child pornography website, thereby committing a sexual offence against a child. Does this make him a pedophile? You would have it that it does not on the ground that he is not a pedophile. So, since committing a sexual offence against a child is insufficient to be a pedophile, one must (presumably) self-describe as a pedophile before one can be said to be one. As for vacuity, the technical definition of a pedophile is interesting: A) Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger); B) the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning; C) the person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. The 2000 definition further requires that the person acted on his sexual feelings or they cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. Townshend acted by accessing a child porn website. Since we do not know his motivation for doing so (you take it on faith that the motivation was research), we are unable to declare that he is a pedophile... despite the fact that he committed a pedophile crime. How more vacuous can the definition be? What it - and your argument - boils down to is that a pedophile is a pedophile not because they commit pedophile acts, but because they are pedophiles. Wiki-is-truth 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More nonsense. No, it does not make Townshend a pedophile. It makes him a law breaker. Responding to child porn with disgust is not pedophile behavior. Responding to it with lust is. A pedophile can be self-confessed or diagnosed by a professional. Neither of those scenarios apply to Pete Townshend, so drop your libelous crusade. Clashwho 01:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I say Townshend is a pedophile? No, I said the concept is vacuous. Townshend found child porn by accident. If he had reported this to the IWF then, and then campaigned publicly and used every opportunity (interviews etc) to make make sure that the availability of child porn on the internet, then you might have a point. What actually happened is that the man then "looked at" child porn sites on "three or four" occasions in 1999 and then paid to access its content. The man had (allegedly) taken legal advice after accidentally finding images and yet he paid for access subsequent to the accidental find. This sounds less and less like "responding with disgust"...
  • Committing a pedophile offence makes Townshend a law-breaker. True. Since the problem addressed by the law is the harm caused by pedophile offences and not the psychiatric state of an individual, why should it matter whether or not Townshend can be classed as a "pedophile" and, moreover, why is the diagnosis more important than the crime? Wiki-is-truth 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pedophile can be self-confessed or diagnosed by a professional: you say whether or not Townshend is a pedophile is the crux of the matter... is this because pedophile crimes are only of concern when they are committed by pedophiles? Wiki-is-truth 03:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Outdent: General point] Whether or not Townshend is a paedophile is irrelevant, since this article does not assert that he is. He is, though, a person who admitted an offence relating to child pornography, and who was thus placed on the Register of Sex Offenders. It is right and proper to report this as part of his biography. Andy Mabbett 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Townshend's public statements carefully. He admits to accessing the Landslide site, but says he didn't see any child porn there. The statment taken as a "confession" is carefully worded and only admits accessing the site; it does NOT admit to paying to view child porn. The Times has reported that independent reconstruction shows Landslide was only an ordinary adult porn site.Pkeets 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please stop misrepresenting the Landslide story. Landslide was not a child porn website, but child porn websites were accessible via it. They were using Landslide services and we accessibly via Landslide. Wiki-is-truth 21:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Townsend and others like him such as Chris Langham (people who look at child pornography, but do not abuse children) may or may not be pedophiles, and are definitely not sexual predators-the viewing of the image cannot "re-victimise" the abused child in the image, unless we have some new principal in physics at play. Therefore, to place them on a "Sex Offenders" register, which brands them as child sexual predators, is a form of state sponsored libel. Such people should be compensated, assuming they have not been driven to suicide already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.99.42 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biography a muddled mess

[edit]

The biography should be broken up into sections like you see for most every other person on Wikipedia. i.e., the child pornography incident should have its own section along with many other parts within that giant load of text.

---The above comment unsigned - was by user 67.190.61.6 ---- (please remember to sign comments)

Thank you for posting an opinion on this. There are no hard and fast rules for how to structure a biographical article. Some are better with multiple sections - others not. This article has been through many incarnations and I think the present article (which has been in this shape for a while now) works fairly well. It follows a good chronological arc rather than having multiple sections in the main body. Then has sections appropriate to his life underneath the overview. There is a proportionality to the so-called child pornography incident. Had he been charged in a court of law and convicted then that would obviously have warranted a separate section. The police's eventual acknowledgment that he had not downloaded any images and their consequent decision to not press charges - obviously placed the matter in a different light. The issue was discussed on these pages extensively - and unanimous agreement was reached that the article should deal with the incident within the body of the overall chronology of his life. Davidpatrick 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete is one of my favorite artists, displaying perhaps musical genius with The Who and in his solo work. I must ask, however, if a statement from the biography section of this article isn't a bit vague and arguably not really accurate. From the top 3rd of the biography section, a sentence credits Pete with "...the introduction of the synthesizer as a rock instrument." The article on The Who says of the 1971 album "Who's Next" that it "became one of the first successful rock albums to heavily feature the synthesizer." What is not mentioned however, in the Pete article or The Who article, is that progressive rock had just come into its own around this time. Keith Emerson of the supergroup Emerson, Lake & Palmer (ELP) was breaking new ground with his use of the synthesizer and keyboard as the feature instrument in rock music. ELP's first album, self titled, included the hit "Lucky Man", featuring Keith's work on synthesizer. The statement that credits Pete (and The Who in their own article) with introducing the synthesizer to popular rock immediately made me stop and wonder how this claim could be considered an accurate and generally acknowledged truth among fans of rock of that era. The sentence that relates this is so matter-of-fact that it doesn't even offer room for the reader to consider the subjectivity or veracity of it. As such I would recommend that this statement be elaborated upon, and an explanation of its acceptance cited. For readers who would not agree with this statement, the current presentation may detract from the credibility of the rest of the article.peterr 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better wording would be "the introduction of the synthesizer as a rhythm instrument." ELP weren't the introduction of the synthesizer to popular music, either. The Monkees claim that one. Clashwho 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Info

[edit]

There is some incorrect information in the article...

From this beginning they moved on to The Detours, a skiffle band fronted by then sheet-metal welder Roger Daltrey and with Keith Moon on drums, which, under Townshend's leadership, would metamorphose into The Who.

The Detours were a band lead by Roger Daltrey. Daltrey asked John Entwistle to join, Entwistle managed to get Townshend to be the rhythm guiatarist (after their original rhythm guiatrist drowned---I think). The Detours renamed themselves The Who in early 1964, after Daltrey switched from lead guiatrist to lead vocalist/harmonica player (when their lead vocalist quit). This switch left Townshend to became the band's only guitarist. Keith Moon was never a member of the Detours. By the time he joined (after the departure of drummer Doug Sandom) the band was called The Who. They were briefly renamed The High Numbers, but within a few months had reverted back to calling themselves The Who.

To put this in simpler, less confusing terms Doug Sandom was the drummer for The Detours (and briefly the early Who), Keith Moon was only a member of The Who (AKA High Numbers, briefly).--Bappzannigan 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Child Pornography Incident Edit War

[edit]

That was getting way out of hand. I have chopped this section down massively. It's now relatively concise and non-POV. Leave it at that. Clashwho 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not - the PoV as you left it was yours. Andy Mabbett 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. It details the arrest, the caution, Pete Townshend's statement, the police's statement and Pete Townshend's solicitor's statement. Nothing else. It's accurate and neutral. Clashwho 23:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A concise description of the incident would read "In 1999 Townshend paid to access a child porn website and he was cautioned for this as an Operation Ore suspect in 2003.". 81.179.116.2 12:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be consise, but I think it should be qualified. Because of the reconstruction of the Landslide site and ongoing legal efforts to establish the truth of the accusations brought by Operation Ore, the statement "paid to access a child porn site" is in question. If the site was an ordinary adult porn site as is now reported, then the whole thing is a mistaken accusation.
BTW, I've reported on this reconstruction, these article and the legal challenge to Operation Ore before without seeing any acknowledgement of them. Are you guys purposely ignoring the issue?Pkeets 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we focus on the known, reported FACTS as distinct from opinion or interpretation of English law.... And if we place this incident in a proportion that is appropriate for a biographical article in an encyclopedia - we arrive at this:
In 2003, Townshend came under suspicion of downloading child pornography from a solitary access to a website in 1999. Police confiscated all 14 of his computers and investigated for 4 months but found no evidence to support the allegation and decided not to charge him with any crime. However, because Townshend publicly volunteered having accessed a website that placed him in breach of the law - he was issued and accepted a caution.
I support this statement. Clashwho 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, because it's not only not neutral, but its factually incorrect. You therefore demonstrate that you do not care about neutrality or accuracy. Your support for this wording is worthless. Goodbye. Wiki-is-truth 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This reports that he was under suspicion. And does not sugar coat what the suspicion was about. It reports that the police investigated the matter for which he was under suspicion. That the police did not find any evidence to support the charge. (A fact declared in the official police statement concluding the entire matter.) And that they elected to not charge him, That Townshend made a public acknowledgment (in the statement issued by his solicitor) that he had accessed a website that it was wrong for him to access. And that as a consequence of that admission - he accepted a police caution. Those are all undisputed facts. Not opinion, interpretation or conjecture.
Davidpatrick 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This describes the sequence of events without establishing proof of the accuracy of the charge; thus you can't say it's a fact Townshend accessed a child porn site. I agree that it's a fact the police caution was issued, but Townshend's statements on the child porn issue are open to interpretation. Read these carefully and omit the media commentary. Townshend admits paying to enter the Landslide site, but does not admit to viewing or accessing child porn there. The police caution is based on the premise that there was child porn on the site, that it was easily accessed and that all visitors to the site viewed it. As resported in The Times and elsewhere, independent reconstruction of the site indicates it was only an ordinary adult porn site. This calls the legality of the police caution into question. Although I haven't heard that Townshend is pursuing this in court, others accused and prosecuted under Operation Ore are doing so in an attempt to establish their innocence and restore something of their reputations. The site reconstruction is a definite blow to the police case. If anyone wins in court against the police, then the whole thing will fall apart.Pkeets 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Valid point re knowing exactly what he accessed. But the text doesn't say what he DID access. It simply reports that he came under suspicion of having downloaded something relating to "A" website. (without delineating the type of website - for which there is no clear evidence.) We have no knowledge of whether he is challenging the unerlying issue - and cannot allow that to affect the reporting of what DID happen in 2003. That would be added as and when... This wording reports that there was initial suspicion - and the fact that the police found no evidence etc. And the fact that he was offered and accepted a caution for what Townshend acknowledged (in your view perhaps erroneously) what was a breach of the law. If it subsequently transpires that no law was broken, that the caution was improperly offered and needlessly accepted - then that info would be be added later. Davidpatrick 18:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you can't say it's a fact Townshend accessed a child porn site. Why not? He did! Andy Mabbett 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because his statement did not specify a "child porn site" but "a site advertising child porn."

ie it could have been - as Pkeets has indicated - an ADULT porn site which was ADVERTISING child porn - but transpired not to actually be a "child porn" site.

As Pkeets wrote:

As resported in The Times and elsewhere, independent reconstruction of the site indicates it was only an ordinary adult porn site. I don't know. Neither do you. So neither of us can - or should speculate. We can write something based on what Townshend said which was:

"On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn."

No reference to paying. No reference to it being a "child porn site" per se.

But there is a reference to "a site advertising child porn" So let's revise

In 2003, Townshend came under suspicion of downloading images from a solitary access to a website advertising child porn in 1999. Police confiscated all 14 of his computers and investigated for 4 months but found no evidence to support the allegation and decided not to charge him with any crime. However, because Townshend publicly volunteered having accessed a website that placed him in breach of the law - he was issued and accepted a caution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidpatrick (talk • contribs) 19:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
his statement did not specify a "child porn site" He has also said "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me." [3]. Accessing a site which advertises, but does not contain, child-abuse images is not illegal. Pkeets has yet to provide any evidence that the site referred to by the Times is the one which Townshend admitted accessing. Your suggested wording omits the fact that the police chose not to release him; the fact that acceptance of a caution is an admission of guilt; the fact that his multiple reports to the IWF post-date the case and the fact that he is on the register of sex offenders. Those are all undisputed facts. Not opinion, interpretation or conjecture. Yet you have recently reverted sourced additions of these facts as "completely out of hand". Also, how does one "use" a credit card to access a site, without paying? Andy Mabbett 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some sites use credit cards for age verification. Clashwho 23:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The police chose not to release him" ??? What are you talking about? The fact that the police chose not to CHARGE him.

It is also an undisputed fact that Townshend spoke to the press in January on a Saturday morning. That he wore a dressing gown. That the police station was in Surrey. There are lots of undisputed facts. Encyclopedias have to determine what is essential to include. This is an article about a person - not the detailed blow-by-blow anatomy of a case. Not every detail is included about every incident in every person's life. The salient facts are included in my revision. You may be baffled and/or irritated - as some people are - that the police did not charge him. But wikipedia is not the place to attempt to tar the reputation of a person who the police DECLINED to charge. A caution is not nothing. It's not the same as nothing having happnened. But neither is it the same as someone being charged with a criminal offence. It necessitated a considered decision by the police NOT to charge him. Neither you nor I can know definitively WHY the police did not charge him. (Though the police statement that there was no evidence of images provides a good idea.) Ultimately this incident - which did not result in charges or conviction - cannot and will not be overstated in wikipedia out of proportion to its significance. There are other avenues to pursue your displeasure with Mr. Townshend. You do not have free rein over wikipedia to impose your POV about this small incident. Davidpatrick 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. I must admit, I am seriously impressed by such a brazen attempt to use Wikipeida's rules and policies to spin a story... Wikipedia is not a soap box, nor is it a suitable tool for carrying our a campaign - its own policies are supposed to protect it from such abuse, but of course they do not.
  • Because of the reconstruction of the Landslide site and ongoing legal efforts to establish the truth of the accusations brought by Operation Ore, the statement "paid to access a child porn site" is in question: the normal procedure for establishing the truth of an accusation is a criminal trial. Townshend admitted guilt and chose not to take this path. Wikipedia is not a soap box nor a campaigning tool.
  • If we focus on the known, reported FACTS: then Townshend paid to access a child porn website in 1999, was arrested in Jan 2003 as part of Operation Ore and was cautioned in May 2003. This is not "opinion" nor is it "interpretation of English law".
  • Police confiscated all 14 of his computers: source please
  • found no evidence to support the allegation: but elected to caution him anyway. If there was NO EVIDENCE then the caution was unlawful. Contact Townshend's lawyers if you must and get them to petition the police to remove the caution, but do not use Wikipedia to effect a campaign.
  • and decided not to charge him with any crime: they cautioned him. Before the police can issue a caution they must be happy that criminal charges could be brought with a good chance of securing a conviction. Please read the information on police cautions, get someone to explain it to you if necessary.
  • However, because Townshend publicly volunteered having accessed a website that placed him in breach of the law - he was issued and accepted a caution: citation please. The police cautioned him because he broke the law: plain and simple. Wiki-is-truth 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your displeasure with Mr. Townshend. Don't attempt to put words into my mouth. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The police chose not to release him" ??? What are you talking about? The fact that the police chose not to CHARGE him: the police chose not to release Townshend without charge, which was one option open to them; they thought it was inappropriate not to handle the matter informally (perhaps with a verbal warning) so they cautioned him. If it was inappropriate for the police to caution him, or if the caution is based in wrong details, then Townshend's lawyers can petition the police to have it removed. They have not done so. Wiki-is-truth 20:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend accessed a site containing child pornography

[edit]

Reliably sourced news stories stating that Townshend accessed a child porn website:

  • 12 January 2003, BBC, I'm no paedophile, says Who star: Rock legend Pete Townshend has admitted paying to view a child pornography site on the internet but said he did so "just to see what was there"
  • 12 January 2003, BBC, Townshend 'wrong' over child porn: Mr Townshend admitted he had paid to see a child porn website, but insisted he had done so for research and was emphatically not a paedophile
  • 14 January 2003, BBC, Who star Townshend bailed: Rock star Pete Townshend has been released on bail by police after he admitted accessing child pornography websites.
  • 5 February 2003, BBC, Online child porn arrests total 1,600: Townshend says as an anti-paedophile campaigner he was accessing the sites purely for research.
  • 7 May 2003, BBC, Caution lifts clouds over Townshend: Admitting to accessing a child porn website for research has left a black mark on the glittering career of a surviving rock legend
  • 11 July 2003, BBC, Townshend speaks of 'tough' year: Rock artist Pete Townshend has said his police caution for viewing child pornography did "great good" in showing he was not above the law
  • 28 December 2003, BBC, Who star 'suicidal' after arrest: Rock star Pete Townshend has said he contemplated suicide after confessing to viewing child pornography
  • 16 March 2004, BBC, Child porn crackdown nets results: Townshend was arrested in January 2003, cautioned and had his name put on the sex offenders' register after he admitted accessing child porn
  • 4 April 2004, BBC, UK probe into online child porn: Pete Townshend was arrested in January 2003, cautioned and had his name put on the sex offenders' register after he admitted accessing child porn

And, in conclusion and as proof that Townshend himself admits paying $5 to access a child pornography website, from an interview with Townshend by Sean O'Hagan in the The Observer on Sunday December 28, 2003, in Townshend's OWN words, not from the journalists observations and paraphrases:

Townshend (on viewing a newsgroup): "Then I saw sight of this thing - now I'm reconstructing this a bit, I have to confess, because I just vaguely remember this - but I saw sight of this thing that said, "Avoid this site - it's an FBI sting." I remember the name Alberta or the name Landslide. That was in May 1999."
O'Hagan: You actually saw this warning on one of the listings, I say, and yet you took out your credit card and accessed the site?
Townshend: "Yeah. I was really, really curious, and I think that's the mistake I made. I saw that it was a five dollar listing, and that it was in America, and that it didn't promise, contrary to what the police said to me when I was interviewed, to lead to child pornography. I told them, "Well, actually, I don't remember." This is one of the problems - I don't really remember it very well, because I did a lot of searches. I was just meandering around generally. I'd done a fair bit of that, but this was exciting to me - the FBI was running a sting. This is maybe where the naivety set in. I can't remember my state of mind but, looking back, it was stupid and it was wrong. I think I made a terrible mistake."

And... it's interesting. He specifically states that the site to which he subscribed, in full expectation that it was a sting being run by the FBI and therefore likely to contain child porn, did not advertise child pornography. Another discrepancy in Townshend's story. But proof that Townshend accessed a child porn site. Wiki-is-truth 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste my time refuting each and every discrepancy in what you posted. (Sorry - I forget which of your user names you are using right now). But the first few BBC stories use REPORTED speech on this particular point. Townshend's own statement on that point referred to "a site advertising child porn." The BBC news reports condensed/paraphrased that and arrived a subtly different meaning. (On one occasion making website singular into a plural.) Enough for someone with a vendetta to try and exploit. Not enough for the police - who rely on actual evidence. And who on investigating for 4 months elected to NOT do what you are attempting to do 4 years later through Wikipedia. You are not the police. Whichever usernames you deploy. And wikipedia is not a court of law.

His responses to a journalist in December 2003 - over four years after the incident included the phrases: "now I'm reconstructing this a bit, I have to confess, because I just vaguely remember this..." and "This is one of the problems - I don't really remember it very well" and are not pertinent to the hard incontrovertible facts of what happened in 1999. And to the police's decision in May 2003.

The only proof we have here is that the police - who took 4 months to investigate - decided that there was NO proof of downloading. And made a pro-active decision to NOT charge him with an offence. And that you (plural) will stop at nothing to use wikipedia to post potentially libellous material as part of your vendetta. That does not belong in a biographical article. You can try as long as you wish - but you will not succeed in turning wikipedia into an outlet for your personal vendettas Davidpatrick 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have free rein over wikipedia to impose your POV about this significant incident. Andy Mabbett 21:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use one username. Are you actually Clashwho? And maybe even Pkeets? I have wondered this before, but refrained from asking because it isn't particularly relevant. Every independent, unbiased publication cited mentions that Townshend accessed a child porn website and Townshend himself admits that he paid to access a child porn website, but you refuse to accept any of these reliable sources, which have nowhere been refuted or corrected or subjected to libel proceedings for their reports as material that can be relied on as documentation of a hardly obscure criminal episode. Why is this? Wiki-is-truth 22:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, Davidpatrick rarely sources his claims, makes incorrect statements of fact and when a fuller presentation of an apparently correctly quoted statement reveals that it does not demonstrate what he wants it to say deletes claims from the article. Great way of maintaining objectivity and neutrality. Wiki-is-truth 22:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend's own statement on that point referred to "a site advertising child porn": many criminals attempt to present their behaviour in a favourable light and make incorrect or incomplete public admissions of the details of their offending. Are we now to believe all of them, too? Wiki-is-truth 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LIBEL: what have I said that is libelous? That Townshend accessed child porn? The BBC, CNN, ITV, the Guardian, the Observer, the Daily Mail, the Sun, Yahoo!News all make exactly the same claim (in fact I AM QUOTING THEM AND THEY ARE RELIABLE SOURCES), sometimes in an article that Townshend (and his lawyers) would have had access to before publication, and not a single one of them have been asked to correct an article, or have been subject to libel proceedings. Please stop using unfounded allegations and threats to attempt to censor Wikipedia. Wiki-is-truth 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously what is libelous is not saying Townshend accessed child porn. What is libelous is your various fantasy speculations about "scrubbed" computers and Townshend "covering his tracks" and any insinuations that he is a pedophile. Clashwho 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scrubbed computers: this is the logical implication of the police not finding an image that Townshend himself described seeing in their "intensive" forensic examination under the conditions alleged by yourself to be true - namely that files cannot simply be deleted. Anyways - for you education - for a claim to be libelous it must a) be false and b) defame the person concerned. Townshend has commited a sexual offence against a child and, more importantly, admitted it; alleging that he "scrubbed" a child porn image (which I do not do) cannot harm his reputation any further.
  • It is not a logical implication at all. The odds that images in temporary internet files from 1999 would still be on the hard drive in 2003 are slim to none. The logical implication is that Townshend viewed images online and did not save them to his hard drive. A "scrubbed" computer would have tipped off the police that there was something to hide. The computers were not scrubbed. There were simply no illegal images on them. You have zero evidence that the computers were scrubbed, so, once again, keep your fantasy scenarios to yourself. Clashwho 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I actually said was it is a logical consequence IF what YOU said were true (i.e. You obviously know nothing of computer forensics if you think such files can simply be deleted. After a four month investigation, if there had ever been images, they would have been found. Clashwho 11:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)). You were suggesting that the police WOULD have found an image IF ONE HAD EVER BEEN THERE. Please make your mind up: Intensive Forensic examinations will ALWAYS reveal child porn images, or they will not, and if they do not THAT FAILURE IN ITSELF IS NOT PROOF THAT THEY WERE NEVER THERE. Wiki-is-truth 01:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you engaging in dishonest discourse by misrepresenting what I say, or are you really not paying attention? Are are you really being neutral and objective? When you want to present the events in a way that appears to exonerate Townshend (if there had ever been images, they would have been found) you say one thing, and later when the logical consequences of that position are pointed out and it is shown that the "intensive forensic investigation" proved far less than you were claiming it proved, you volte face and attack ME for an inaccuracy perpetuated by yourself? Wiki-is-truth 01:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your admission that temporary internet files are unlikely to be found fours years after raises interesting question: what, precisely, was Townshend reporting to the IWF in 2002? Townshend made on-line reports of potentially illegal material to the IWF on 24 August 2002, 19 November 2002 and 6 December 2002. Since no images were found on examination sometime between January 2003 and May 2003, we can probably assume Townshend was not reporting potentially illegal content that he found in 2002 (or are you saying that a temporary internet file is unlikely to leave any trace even one month after it was downloaded?). But Townshend (allegedly) either didn't see any illegal material in 1999 (at least not when he paid to enter a site advertising child porn) OR couldn't remember anything much by 2003... Oops, you will claim this is an insinuation. Wiki-is-truth 01:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible Townshend was laying the groundwork for a defense and it's possible he was making the reports with no ulterior motive. We don't know. Speculation on his intent in making those reports don't belong in an encyclopedia. Clashwho 23:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I make no claims whatsoever that Townshend is a pedophile, but I doubt very much that a court would entertain a person who has committed a sexual offence against a child in a claim to have been libelled by being called a "pedophile". Wiki-is-truth 00:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One sample will suffice to demonstrate to senior wikipedians - I can't be bothered to respond directly to a vendetta-obsessed person - even one who uses two usernames.

The BBC story of 12 Jan 2003 says:

"Rock legend Pete Townshend has admitted paying to view a child pornography site on the internet but said he did so "just to see what was there".

But nowhere in the article does it have that direct quote. The actual quote that Townshend gave to all media that day (which the BBC story quortes directly elsewhere in the same article) on that specific point - printed and available elsehwere is

"On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn."

His statement says he "used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn"

Did he actually pay? Or did he provide a credit card number to obtain a free trial - with the card not due to be charged till some point later (a common method in which a credit card is used to provide access to some websites but without a charge being made at the initial point of entry)?

We don't know. But we do know that the BBC paraphrased a reference to using a credit card and turned into "paying"

Clearly incorrect.

That's just one example.

Another one...

The BBC story describes Townshend as admitting to viewing "a child pornography site"

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. (Unlike people with vendettas - I concede what I don't know. I don't let POV distort my process)

But for the moment that is not the point.

The point is that on the day that the BBC wrote the story - they only had Townshend's statement to go on - and they paraphrased him as saying that. Yet a cursory glance at Townshend's statement reveals that he only described it as "a site advertising child porn"

ie perhaps it was an adult porn site (legal) that was advertising child porn. That is different than a "child porn site" per se. Small difference. But important none the less.

I mention these distinctions not in respect of any determination on the underlying issue. But to demonstrate that citing a story on a website does not in itself necessarily provide conclusive evidence of anything. It is commonplace for journalists to conflate statements and in so doing leave an erroneous perception.

So wikipedia - which is not in the business of besmirching people who have not been convicted in a court of law - has to tread carefully and with diligence. Which is how this article was for a long time before some people (or a person with two IDs) decided to try and hi-jack the article to pursue a vendetta

The words of the highly respected UK organization that campaigns on the topic of child abuse need to be repeated

The Phoenix Survivors on Pete Townshend

When this story first broke, we were given certain 'confirmed information' regarding this matter and asked for our comment. Based on those details, we released various robust statements regarding Mr Townshend's part in the 'Landslide' child porn web site case, known here in the UK as 'Operation Ore'. We then, as is our remit, took up for the victims.

'Since then, we have received a great deal of correspondence, all polite and respectful, offering further (known) information that was not made widely available at the time and asking us 'in the name of fairness' to reconsider our position re: Mr Townshend. We have since worked to confirm this information through Mr Townshend's solicitors and as a result we do indeed wish to make a further statement :

Based on the evidence secured by the police and the facts, as we now know them, it is our humble opinion that Mr Townshend should never have been placed on the Sex Offenders Register, it is a gross injustice and a complete waste of tax payers money, let alone an unnecessary drain on the sex offender management teams woefully inadequate and precious resources. We have enough problems with actual sex offenders without stuffing it full of 'the stupid', punish 'the stupid', use the sex offenders register to manage the actual sex offenders. We now feel, that considering everything, Mr Townshend should have been 'less publicly cautioned' and allowed a second chance. It seems that Roger Daltry's assertions of a 'witch hunt' may indeed have real substance, the law definitely needs changing in this regard. We do not believe that Mr Townshend is either a pervert or a paedophile, indeed he shows many signs of being a victim and certainly falls under the category of the 'misguided with innocent intent'. We do not think that Mr Townshend should have paid such a price for 'stupidity' and we now regret that we didn't stand up for him sooner and offer him our support. wikipedia will not be hi-jacked by people who wish to pursue a vendetta out of disappointment that the police found that Mr. Townshend had told them the truth. Davidpatrick 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many times does that Phoenix material have to be included on this talk page before you will accept that it amounts to unobjective POV?
  • Wikipedia HAS been hijacked - by you. You will not allow the facts to be reported objectively, you insist that they are qualified - which, given the sensitivity of the issue (after all, Townshend is a criminal, and criminals have rights), might be the correct approach. However, the qualification you wish to give is one which presents Townshend's crimes as research and Townshend's criminal status as an unfortunate byproduct of an inflexible legal system and where the reliable, independent sources were wrong and thus cannot be quoted and Townshend's own subsequent statemtents are unreliable and cannot be quoted or relied upon because they rely on his memory... Wiki-is-truth 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • before some people (or a person with two IDs) decided to try and hi-jack the article to pursue a vendetta: User Pigsonthewing, I think he thinks you're me!!!! If I were you I would be greatly offended by this and sue for libel! You would win, I can assure you that by saying you are me he is saying something that would materially affect your reputation ;-) Wiki-is-truth 23:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he actually pay? Or did he provide a credit card number to obtain a free trial? He actually paid. With his credit card. He paid $5. Please, read things! Things that Townshend said. Or stop willfully misunderstanding them. Oh I forget. It's Townshend's memory and thus unreliable. But we must accept the claim in his January 2003 statement that he "accessed a site advertising child porn".. even though it is only based on his (now magically reliable) memory. Wiki-is-truth 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • His responses to a journalist in December 2003... are not pertinent to the hard incontrovertible facts of what happened in 1999. And to the police's decision in May 2003: The police's decision in 2003 were also based on Townshend's memory. If Townshend actually could not remember what happened, he should have refused the caution and thereby forced the police to charge him or release him without charge. If he wanted to clear his name, or if he had such doubts about how events had taken place in 1999, he should have trusted in the ability of a jury of his peers to assess the evidence presented by the police. Either he, or his lawyers, must have found the police's evidence compelling, because Townshend accepted the caution for inciting others to distribute child porn. Wiki-is-truth 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps it was an adult porn site (legal) that was advertising child porn. That is different than a "child porn site" per se. Small difference. But important none the less: yes, it's important. Because if it was an adult porn site that was advertising child porn, then by using his credit card to pay $5, he was "inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child", which is a criminal offence.... and indeed it is THE offence for which Townshend was cautioned. So yes, it is an important difference. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not the site contained child pornography, or whether or not Townshend saw or downloaded any child pornography, because he paid money in the expectation that he would receive access to child pornography as a result; he thereby commmunicated with the operators of the site involved and incited them to sell him child porn. Based on this important distinction, the episode should be written as follows:
In 1999 Townshend used the Landslide subscription service to pay for children to be sexually abused. Police officers working on Operation Ore arrested him for this in January 2003 and, after a 4-month investigation, cautioned him for inciting sexual offences against children. By accepting the caution, he became obliged to comply with the Sex Offenders Act 1997. Wiki-is-truth 23:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just more proof that you're on a vendetta. Funny how there's no mention that thousands of others who did just as much as Townshend were never arrested, charged, cautioned or anything. Pete Townshend was because his name was illegally leaked to the press, forcing him to come forward. Your crusade is frankly ridiculous. You know enough about this case to know that Pete Townshend is likely not a pedophile and never has been. But you don't care about that. You just want your black stain. What, did Pete Townshend kill your dog or steal your girlfriend, or something? Clashwho 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'thousands of others who did just as much as Townshend were never arrested, charged, cautioned or anything': What's up Clashwho??? does it bother you that the police failed to act in their cases? Does it bother you that the police might have chosen to act in Townshend's case because the (guaranteed) publicity would spread the message that claiming to be engaged in research is no excuse for paying for child porn much further than arresting Mr Nobody? Anyway, please cite your sources since I suspect you are wrong. 7250 suspects were identified in Operation Ore, 4283 searches were performed; this means action was taken against at least 59% of the people identified. While this does mean that the properties of 2967 people were not searched, this does not mean that 2967 people were let off without "anything" being done, it probably means that some (i.e. an unknown number of) people were arrested without a search, and that in other cases there was insufficient information to secure a search warrant, which means they are innocent under the English system of "innocent until proven guilty". Wiki-is-truth 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Britain to date, 4,283 people and their families have had experiences similar to 'Adam Smith', and another 3,000 computer users still on the Operation Ore target list could face similar treatment.
  • The US government approached its citizens differently from Britain. Instead of branding every name on the list as a paedophile, officials carefully profiled and investigated selected individuals against whom there was fresh evidence of making indecent images of children or of actual abuse. In respect of the 35,000 US records, only 144 houses were searched and 100 people charged with the trafficking of child pornography through the mail and via the Internet.
  • I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that this was all a witch hunt. So now what you are saying is not that thousands were let of without anything happening, but that thousands were caught up in a witch hunt? Now there's a neutral point of view if I ever saw one :-) Wiki-is-truth 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your lack of reading comprehension skills are your own problem. You contested my statement that thousands of people who accessed the same website that Pete Townshend did suffered zero legal consequences. You asked me to cite my sources. I did so. Clashwho 02:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite my reading comprehension skills, I point out that your sources do not confirm your claim. Your claim is that thousands were let off without "anything" happening. What the (non neutral and not uncontested) "sources" claim is that thousands were abused by the police in some manner, and thousands are left facing the possibility that the same will happen to them.Wiki-is-truth 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You throw out a figure of 3000 people as if they are guilty. Operation Ore started with 7,272 suspects. The properties of 4,283 of those people were searched leaving 2989 people. However, this does not mean that they have not been approached depsited doing as much as Townshend. Police investigations might have revealed that some percentage of that figure 2989 was on the list as a result of credit card fraud and were excluded from the investigations. But you somehow know they were guilty. Please cite your sources. Wiki-is-truth 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not only do you say in one place that thousands were let off, you then have the gall to say that it is possible they might be subjected to search or arrest and treated in the same way as the people who were not let off without anything happening. Amazing.Wiki-is-truth 02:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly I have to stop arguing with someone who is either not able to comprehend what they are reading or likes to pretend they don't comprehend what they're reading when what they are reading isn't to their liking. Goodbye. Clashwho 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I thought that Townshend was only arrested because his name was leaked to the press and that otherwise the absence of a pedophile profile would have left him unmolested by the fuzz (Pete Townshend accessed the Landslide site once, which is exactly why he was placed in the lowest tier of suspects, the ones that weren't going to be approached by law enforcement because their limited access did not fit the profile of a pedophile Clashwho 00:00, 18 February 2007). But now you are (for some reason) claiming that English police FAILED to emulate their American colleagues by not carefully profiling their suspects... "Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." (Oscar Wilde) Wiki-is-truth 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Wrong again. First of all, I'm quoting the article. Second of all, the USA had a higher threshold of evidence before arresting and prosecuting. The English police obviously did profile since 3,000 people have still yet to face any legal consequences. Pete Townshend's situation is that a police officer saw an opportunity to make a buck and leaked the name of someone from the lowest tier with one instance of accessing the site. Obviously, Townshend would have been in the 3,000 that haven't been approached, since his access was as limited as possible without being nothing, and thus his name wouldn't have been dragged through the mud. At least not until they get around to the 3,000 low risk names. We'll see if they ever do.Clashwho 02:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you were quoting the article: but why? Honest discourse? It was published on 1 July 2005. How many of those 3000 people have been subject to legal consequences in the 20 months since that date? Moreover, on what date was the information quoted in that article correct? You do not know and you do not care. In fact, police figures showed that there were more than 1300 investigations ongoing. This reduces your 3000 to 1700. And, moreover and quite fundamentally, you simply present a figure of 3000 unapproached people as if they were guilty. Maybe the reason they were unapproached is because the police checked the information available to them and dismissed it as insufficient to support an investigation. You throw up smokescreens as you go and as they are revealed as such, you grasp at a different straw. Wiki-is-truth 03:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly right, "insufficient to support an investigation". That's why they offered Townshend a caution. They wouldn't have had a case at all if one of their own people hadn't illegally leaked Townshend's name to the press, forcing Pete Townshend to come forward with statements that gave the police the opening they needed to investigate him. An investigation that turned up zip. Clashwho 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will you stop spouting nonsense? They had a list of subscriptions to a child porn website. This list contained Townshend's name. So long as the police checked that Townshend had not reported his credit card stolen at the time, had not complained to the credit card company about the charge to his card, etc, this information is sufficient not only to "support an investigation" but to secure a search warrant. They had all the case they needed at that time to have a reasonable belief that they could secure a conviction for inciting distribution. For obvious reasons, a search would have been the logical next step in that investigation, which they could have execute at any time between mid-2002 and now, depending on their prioritisation of Townshend. But their hand was forced when Townshend published a statement admitting guilt (admittedly in circumstances he ought never to have been placed in). Wiki-is-truth 14:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know enough about this case to know that Pete Townshend is likely not a pedophile and never has been: You are quite right - I care not whether Townshend is a pedophile. The law prohibits certain actions because they are harmful per se, not because those actions are harmful when performed by pedophiles. Wiki-is-truth 01:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

Due to the obvious edit war going on here I am locking this page down temporarily. Let us look for consensus before making any further edits to this obviously controversial section. Although the tag says February 20, I will extend the protection beyond that date if needs be. 23skidoo 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know how you think that consensus might be possible, while a couple of PoV warriors insist on removing cited, factual references, and one even removes text which supports his PoV, and which he's previously supported, once it's been tagged {[fact}}. Andy Mabbett 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well excuse me for trying to find common ground, pal. There was a lot of supported exonerating information that I left out because I attempted to paint the episode as neutrally as possible. So what exactly is your problem with the current version? Clashwho 00:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's a simple answer, but the fact is this edit warring is not helpful to the article, is probably in violation of some aspect or other of WP:BLP and all it's doing is getting people pissed off. Back in late 2005 another admin did this same thing (probably over the same issue) in order to give people a cooling off period. And that's what I'm doing now. 23skidoo 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Take on the Issue

[edit]

In 2003 Townshend's name was illegally leaked by the police to the tabloid press in connection to illegally using a credit card on one occasion to access a website advertising child pornography. He claimed to have accessed the site as research for a campaign against child pornography websites and for his autobiography and was adamant that he was not a pedophile. Police searched his house and computers and found no child abuse images. The police declined to press charges and instead offered a caution, which Townshend accepted. The police officer who leaked Townshend's name to the press was fired over the incident.

There. How does that one compare to the one that's currently protected? Better? Clashwho 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 2003 Townshend's name was illegally leaked by a British police officer to a UK tabloid newspaper as an individual who may have used a credit card to access a child pornography website. Following the newspaper's hint about a "famous rock star" Townshend immediately came forward to identify himself. He volunteered that on a solitary occasion in 1999, he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. He stated that he did so as research for his longstanding campaign against such websites and for his autobiography. He was adamant that he was not a pedophile. Police searched his house and confiscated his computers. After a four month investigation, the police declared that they had found no illegal images. The police declined to press any charges and instead offered a caution, which Townshend accepted. The police officer who had leaked Townshend's name to the press was subsequently dismissed for his illegal action.

Davidpatrick 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • immediately came forward to identify himself immediately... 3 years late. If you wish to present Townshend's tardiness as if it were civic duty, then the IWF aspect becomes relevant.
  • He stated that he did so as research: he claimed to be doing research. The police rejected this claim and treated him like a criminal.
  • longstanding campaign what did this longstanding campaign consist of?
  • The police declined to press any charges this is largely irrelevant: since they cautioned him, of course they did not charge him. It is verbiage and serves to confuse people who do not understand the subtleties of the system of police cautions
  • The police officer who had leaked Townshend's name.. was subsequently dismissed not relevant to an article on Townshend - maybe one on Operation Ore? Wiki-is-truth 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

living persons biographies noticeboard

[edit]

Davidpatrick has kindly listed this article on the living persons biographies noticeboard with the following text:

The story in a nutshell is that in 2003 Townshend was briefly under suspicion of having downloaded child pornography. The UK police investigated thoroughly, Took away 14 computers from Townshend. Spent 4 months on forensic investigation. Then elected NOT to charge Townshend with any crime. It issued a statement declaring that they had found no images. Townshend had vountarily acknowledged that he had ACCESSED a site on a single occasion - which was certainly a technical breach of the law. The police elected to caution him and Townshend accepted the caution. End of story. Receiving a caution in England is not the same as if you have done nothing wrong. But neither is it a legal conviction or judgement of guilt as that is construed by other countries or by lay persons.
There has been a concerted effort to insert inflammatory (and possibly defamatory) language into the article that will brand Townshend as though he had been charged and found guilty in a court of law. And the sheer quantity of data about an incident that covered 5 months duration in a 43 year career is wildly disproportionate. You can see the excessive exchanges on the Talk page - and the endless edit war of the past 2-3 days prior to an administrator locking the page (which I think was a prudent decision)

Before any godlike experienced Wikipedia editor should deign to grace this article with his/her wisdom and sound counsel, he/she first ensure that he/she understands the concept of a police caution and know under what circumstances a person can be cautioned. They will then be in a position to assess the Davidpatrick's claim that a caution is not "a legal conviction or judgement of guilt as that is construed by other countries or by lay persons". A police caution is a formal recording of guilt and, once this is understood, a layperson would recognise it as proof that the offence had been committed by the person who was cautioned. The fact that this method of case disposal appears to baffle some Americans is not reason to make heavy reliance on the fact that the police did not charge the Townshend "with any offence". The unqualified use of phrases like "the police decided to offer him a caution rather than charge him with an offence" and "irrespective of not having been charged or convicted of any criminal offence" is clearly intended to bamboozle a layperson unappreciative of the subtleties of the formal police caution into thinking some kind of wrist slapping has taken place. Furthermore, a caution is recognised by the US legal system: an English person who has been cautioned by the police will be ineligible for a visa to enter the USA (Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads "No visa or other documentation shall be issued to an alien if ... such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 212", and section 212 makes aliens who have admitted having committed a crime involving moral turpitude so ineligible). I trust that once this is appreciated, the positive spin that was placed on the child porn episode will be be plainly seen and the so-called edit war has been largely the result of Davidpatrick's attempt to prevent this spin(=POV) being removed. The pertinent attempts to "insert inflammatory (and possibly defamatory) language into the article" amounted rather to the removal of non-attributed uses of the word "research". It is neither defamatory nor libelous to insist that Wikipedia does not appear to present serious arrestable offences as "research".Wiki-is-truth 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • an English person who has been cautioned by the police will be ineligible for a visa to enter the USA: Uh, Pete Townshend has been touring the USA with The Who extensively since he received the caution. Clashwho 05:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your post above: "perhaps it was an adult porn site (legal) that was advertising child porn. That is different than a "child porn site" per se. Small difference. But important none the less: yes, it's important. Because if it was an adult porn site that was advertising child porn, then by using his credit card to pay $5, he was "inciting another to distribute an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child", which is a criminal offence.... and indeed it is THE offence for which Townshend was cautioned."

Hah. This is really stretching the incitement accusations. How far could we go with something like that? How is one to know when they are supporting child porn when they see no ad nor any sign of it? For example, are you contributing to the file sharing of child porn by supporting the Internet through your ISP? I guess I could make up a pretty good argument for that.

  • The nub of the charge of incitement is that the incitor encourages another person to commit an offence. If you actually read what I wrote, you will notice that I question the events on exactly the same basis as you are now doing. Townshend issued a statement which said "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn". That, as a public admission, is sufficient to convict him of incitement: he paid for access to a child porn site. But elsewhere he says that the site was not promising child porn. If that is the case, then one simply cannot consider him guilty of incitement, or even attempted incitement. But Townshend (with presumably top-notch legal advice) accepted a caution, which presumably means that, in private, he is prepared to admit that the site that he paid to enter was advertising child porn. Either that, or he should sue his lawyers for damages in negligence and instruct new solicitors to petition to have his caution removed. Wiki-is-truth 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might be able to make up a pretty good argument that I am contributing to the file sharing of child porn by supporting the Internet through your ISP, but this would not prove that I was guilty of incitement: I am not communicating with anyone in an attempt to persuade them to send or show me child porn. Wiki-is-truth 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Townshend said he accepted the caution to save his family from the scandal of a trial. However, he did continue to complain about his innocence on his website, but later took it down and said he would make no more comments, apparently at the advice of his solicitors.

Interestingly, I read comments by a solicitor at the time who said Townshend would never have been convicted in court, because no images were found and his contradictory statements would have been insufficient to establish what he did five years before.Pkeets 04:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Townshend himself said in the Observer interview that "My culpability is clear, but my innocence is absolute". Apart from being pure sophistry, it illustrates your point perfectly well: from his public pronouncements, Townshend did not accept the caution on any level above telling the police that he consented to being cautioned. Since a prerequisite of a caution is that the accused unreservedly admits guilt and accepts the caution, a caution should not have been administered. Now, I expect that Townshend can afford decent lawyers, but the whole website episode is deeply confusing. Townshend was presumably advised by his solicitors to keep shtum beacuse every time he said something like what he said to the Observer above, he made it possible that the police would withdraw the coution and press charges. Given Townshend's public admission that he paid for access to a site advertising child porn, his lawyers would have had to work damned hard to prevent a jury finding him guilty of incitement - simply because he had himself admitted the offence. But Townshend stated that the website to which he subscribed did not promise child porn. Were it not for Townshend's public statement of 11 Jan 2003, that should raise sufficient doubt to establish a defence to a charge of incitement or attempted incitement. Then, had they charged him, the police would have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the site advertised child porn. But again the whole matter is complicated by Townshend's recollection in the Observer interview that he had read that Landslide (or Atlanta??) was a sting site being operated by the FBI. If he could prove he had read this in 1999 (it had already been admitted by the American authorities by 2003) he would muddy the waters for the prosecution: if he knew the site was being run by the FBI, and it was NOT advertising child porn, then he was expecting to pay the FBI for them to supply him with child porn. How an English jury (or judge for that matter) would react to a deliberate entrapment of law enfoircement officials operating an entrapment site is a complete unknown. Incitement is a difficult enough charge to explain to a jury without the extra complication THAT adds. As a first stab, I would say that it is impossible to be guilty of inciting a law enforcement agency(that is, knowing them to be LEA before you incite!) to distribute child porn since one presumes LEAs operate within the law. Therefore one may reasonably presume that it is lawful for them to distribute child porn to you as part of their entrapment, but since you know they are acting lawfully (HOPEFULLY!) you know you are not asking them to commit a crime. Like I said, the whole episode is deeply confusing. I think Townshend should have been arrested given his public admission of guilt, but the caution makes no sense whatsoever. Wiki-is-truth 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, though, "contradictory statements" by a defendant are insufficient to establish a defence to criminal charges, even one committed five years before... otherwise, defendants would just drop confusion in their wake like a squid squirting ink.Wiki-is-truth 14:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, regarding the advertising: Read the subsequent articles for later developments in the investigations. Reconstruction by the independent experts found no sign of a child porn ad on the site, either. However, witnesses reported seeing one there. When asked to speculate on where it might have come from, the experts suggested that this was on a banner ad provided by an advertising company.Pkeets 03:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am almost completely au fait with the developments in the Landslide, thankyou. However, they are irrelevant in Townshend case. He (on at least one occasion) admitted to the police that he saw an advertisement for child porn and paid to access the site advertised.Wiki-is-truth 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wiki-is-truth" wrote:

an English person who has been cautioned by the police will be ineligible for a visa to enter the USA (Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads "No visa or other documentation shall be issued to an alien if ... such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 212", and section 212 makes aliens who have admitted having committed a crime involving moral turpitude so ineligible)

Perhaps "Wiki-is-truth" will be able to explain why Pete Townshend who is "an English person who has been cautioned by the police" has been a frequent visitor to the USA since he received a caution in May 2003. Has entered the US on multiple occasions for personal appearances and for concert tours and is currently touring the USA at present. (It is completely impossible for an English person resident in the UK who has no American family ties to enter the USA without being granted a visa. Especially in the post 9/11 era. If Townshend is "ineligible for a visa to enter the USA" then why has the US government granted Townshend a visa on multiple occasions since 2003?)


  • Perhaps "Wiki-is-truth" will be able to explain why Pete Townshend who is "an English person who has been cautioned by the police" has been a frequent visitor to the USA since he received a caution in May 2003 That is a question for the US State Department
  • Likewise If Townshend is "ineligible for a visa to enter the USA" then why has the US government granted Townshend a visa on multiple occasions since 2003? is a question for the US State Department.
  • However, I am able to save you the trouble and provide an answer: Aliens who are ineligible for a visa under one of the exclusions of eligibility for a visa may be eligible for a waiver of ineligibility under certain provisions of the US Immigration Act. Do you see what I did there? I READ THE CITED SOURCES, which you have patently failed to do. If I am attempting to create a fog by documenting my argument, what are you doing when you deny my claims based solely on your opinion, patently failing to document anything? Wiki-is-truth 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like many of wiki-is-truth's claims - it had the air of mild plausibility about it - and might temporarily fool a layperson or wikipedia administrator (as the fog is designed to) - until the sunshine of truth and reality reveal that these were words yet again twisted in order to advance the vendetta against a famous individual with whom he/she is obsessed. The behavior is consistent with stalking. The language and vehemence used about Mr. Townshend are consistent with someone who has an agenda somewhat greater than helping wikipedia to have better quality articles. Davidpatrick 03:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wiki-is-truth is correct that denial of a visa for sex offenders is standard in the US. I recall there was some concern on the part of fans that Mr. Townshend would be denied a visa after the caution. However, it appears that the immigragion office does look at and make informed decisions on the individual cases.Pkeets 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which underscores that it is wrong to have the article imply that Townshend's caution is the equivalent of him being "convicted of a criminal offence" as that is understood in the US. If it were - the US government would not waive its visa restrictions. And certainly not for Townshend's commerical ventures (as distinct say from permission to enter for a humanitarian purpose such as visiting a dying family member)

  • Please ask the US government why Townshend was provided with a waiver of ineligibility, but that they did so does not mean that general provisions on exclusions of eligibility do not apply. Wiki-is-truth 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is wrong to have the article imply that Townshend's caution is the equivalent of him being "convicted of a criminal offence" as that is understood in the US: the article does not imply that a caution is the same as being equivalent to being "convicted of a criminal offence" as that is understood in the US; it merely mentions that he was cautioned. The article ON cautions makes it clear that a police caution is equivalent to an admission of "having committed a criminal offence" as that is understood in the US. Information and details on police cautions DO NOT BELONG IN AN ARTICLE ON TOWNSHEND BUT IN THE ARTICLE ON POLICE CAUTIONS!!!!!!Wiki-is-truth 04:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it also raises another issue. Wikipedia is an international site. The differences in law from country to country have to be taken into account. Legal terminology that means one thing may have a different connotation in other countries. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be easily comprehended universally. Not require scholastic understanding of differences in each nation's laws. The absence of a legal charge, a conviction and due process in a court of proper authority makes a difference in the concept of "guilt" in the USA. Davidpatrick 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nonsense. Townshend is a criminal in England, and this is recognised in the US immigration law. Wiki-is-truth 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are pertinent differences in the laws of different countries, Wikiepdia should not simply gloss over them and treat them as if they do not exist; it should explain them sufficient that a reader can appreciate that there is a difference and know where to look if further details are required. To present one country's laws in the paradigm of another country is utterly fallacious. Wiki-is-truth 04:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, a general biography isn't quite the place for this. I would think you'd need something more specific to law.Pkeets 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

[edit]

The above thread can continue to be used for debating the issue. However now that there has been some discussion, I have noticed a statement by Wiki-is-Truth under my original protection announcement that he/she is fine with the article as it currently stands save for a grammatical issue. Under this thread I would like to conduct a straw poll to find out where things stand. Please note (and if you aren't familiar with it, read) WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. As stated in the rule, an editor can use a straw poll to test for consensus, but the results are not binding and it isn't a "most votes wins" scenario. Basically the results of this poll will determine whether the locking of the article will continue beyond the 20th. The last time the article was locked down back in December 2005 it was closed for a month, and I've seen some articles locked down for longer. For the purposes of this discussion, the options are Support current version and Oppose current version. Please do not enter into detailed discussions as to why -- that's what the thread above is for. Thanks. 23skidoo 14:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested that I include the text under discussion so we're clear on what we're talking about:

In 2003 Townshend was cautioned by the police after acknowledging a solitary credit card access to a child pornography website in 1999[4]. He claimed in the press and on his website to have been engaged in research for "A Different Bomb" (a now-abandoned book based on an anti-child pornography essay published on his website in 2002), his autobiography and as part of a campaign against child pornography. Townshend was adamant that he had never downloaded any images and that he is not a pedophile. The police searched his house and confiscated 14 computers and after a forensic investigation confirmed that they had found no evidence of child pornography. Consequently, the police decided not to charge him, instead offering him a caution. The police issued a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." In a statement issued by his solicitor [5], Townshend said "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me. 23skidoo 15:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was premature in starting this straw poll. I think we should have a proper version to vote on, and I have just noticed another error that was a result of all the edits, namely one of the links no longer relates to the text as it currently stands, or more likely related to text that had been at some point removed. So that we have a fair view of what's going on, I'm going to remove that link, and I would like to request Wiki-is-Truth indicate the grammatical error that he noted. Then we can fix the text and start the straw poll again. 23skidoo 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was wrong about the grammatical mistake; I was thinking of how a particular sentence read when I wrote it first time so I didn't pay close enough attention to the current sentence. Sorry. For clarity, Support the version aboveWiki-is-truth 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support this version, as it pretty well represents the case at this point in time. Later on there may be other developments, but they can be taken care of when they happen. One comment about the police raid and the 14 computers, though. Photos at the time showed them carrying out boxes of tapes, etc., so would you like to add "fourteen computers and other materials". If you're looking for grammatical comments, numerals of only one word are generally written out.Pkeets 02:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for their discussion on this issue. Since it appears that most of the people involved in the debate have reached consensus, and unless there is any objection, I see no reason to not let the protection expire. 23skidoo 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the above, not least because it does not point out that Townshend is on the register of sex offenders. It also makes no reference to the IWF issue, and includes the nonsensical "credit card access to a website" wording. Andy Mabbett 20:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the sex offender register is included, which will expire within a year, amplifying information in the article will be required in order for it to remain neutral and even-handed. Information such as that he was given the minimum possible of five years, that being placed on the register was required by statute and not because they thought he was actually a danger to children (they would have taken his son away from him, otherwise), and the Phoenix Survivors statement. The section will again be disproportionately large. I don't know why the IWF issue needs to be included. That information is largely exonerating, anyway. "Credit card access to a child pornography website" is not nonsensical. It is accurate. It may be more accurate to say "credit card access to a website advertising child pornography." And then we're back to the whole can of worms being opened and this issue never being resolved to anyone's satisfaction. Clashwho 21:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no sex offender registry in England - one is subject to the requirement to notify local police of various details about yourself imposed by the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (replaced by the Sexual Offences Act 2003), which is a mouthful. But it is an objective, neutral fact about Townshend that he is subject to those requirements. To give any further detail is spin and thus POV. Details on the implications of sex offender status belong in the article on sec offender registration.
  • The IWF information is not in the least exonerating, for me it only serves to raise more questions.
  • Credit card access to a website advertising child pornography: this wording is fine by me, I have no problems with saying the site advertised child porn; a) that is what his statements said, b) the police cautioned him for an offence that would be relevant to this. The problem is with "credit card access". You do not access a website with a credit card, you use a computer. The credit card is used to pay for access. Townshend admitted paying $5. But to me, "credit card access", while nonsense, tells me he used his credit card to access... which is enough detail. I do find it intersting, though, that a person reading this document, which is meant to be a biography, will have to look elsewhere for some of these details. Wiki-is-truth 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four of us involved in this disagreement (wiki-is-truth, Clashwho, Pkeets and myself) support the compromise. One (Pigsonthewing) does not. For what it's worth I am not really happy with the compromise - for several reasons. However I have let go of those points for the sake of us resolving our differences and moving on. In previous edit disagreements that have got to this level, I have learned that compromise is necessary. I agree with Clashwho that if there is any inclusion of the "sex offender" info there must absolutely be information that places that in proper context. Including the fact that notwithstanding that status (which by US law renders UK citizens ineligible for admission to the US) - the US government has decided on multiple occasions since 2003 to override that status and grant Townshend admission for his commercial enterprises. And that Townshend is currently on a world tour visiting multiple nations that are also granting him free, unfettered access that is customarily denied to those on the register. Davidpatrick 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One moment wiki-is-truth writes that Townshend is an alien "ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 212", and section 212 makes aliens who have admitted having committed a crime involving moral turpitude so ineligible" No ifs and/or buts.

The next minute the US government can apparently be influenced by "highly-paid lawyers" to completely reverse US law even in a high-profile case which could place the US government decision under massive media scrutiny. Hmmm...

An objective person would of course write that it is POSSIBLE that the US govenment examined the facts and determined that the process by which Townshend was placed on the list did not meet American standards of due process - and/or that it was inappropriate to exclude Townshend based on the actual circumstances (and the police statement of May 2003). But that would require an objective person... Davidpatrick 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The jihad resumes - that's assuming good faith how, exactly? An objective person would of course write that it is POSSIBLE that the US govenment examined... - You could cite that, could you? Andy Mabbett 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Ah the things highly-paid lawyers can do for a person" - posted by Wiki-is-truth - Please explain the good faith anyone should assume behind THAT post. It's what provoked my response.... Davidpatrick 02:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend is an alien "ineligible to receive a visa: I admit to making this statenment, and it is true, and I cite my sources (Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1001). However, you go on to misrepresent me. There are ifs and buts about it, and they take the form of (apparently) section 212(d)(1) of that Act, which authorises the Attorney General to determine whether a ground for exclusion exists. Those are your ifs and buts. So the law is not "completely reversed", it is merely followed. For clarity, I make the assumption that a waiver of inadmissibility is issued once and does not have to be applied for every time one wishes to travel to the US. But saying this, I very much doubt that the US authorities examine every application for a waiver of ineligibility to see whether or not the foreign state's legal procedures meet up with American standards, but it is possible - the US is quite scathing about UK libel laws.
  • An objective person would of course write that it is POSSIBLE that the US govenment examined the facts: why would they do this? From the goodness of their hearts? Do you think they read in the news that Townshend had been cautioned for a sexual offence against a child and then thought "Gosh, this man is the victim of a one of a) a witch hunt, b) a vendetta, c) a jihad, d) all of the previous, so we had better see what we can do to help the poor victimised man out!". Uhm, it IS possible.... but I doubt it. I expect that when Townshend realised accepting a caution meant he was ineligible for a US visa, which would rather screw the point of most world tours, he set his lawyers on the task. And I expect they are highly paid lawyers. The two facts are mutually independent. So I expect his lawyers set about trying to obtain a waiver of ineligibility from the US authorities, who I also expect issued that waiver perfectly properly. And furthermore, I do not expect his lawyers pursued this application for a waiver of ineligibilty on legal aid. Hence the wonders of expensive lawyers. I also expect that the teacher who had a caution for child porn images (where it appears none had been found) who was the subject of a media frenzy concerning pedophiles in schools does NOT have a waiver of ineligibilty. I might be wrong: it is possible that he has applied for one and has been rejected, it is possible that he applied for one and received it (on the same grounds justifying the issuing of Townshend's waiver, persumably). But somehow I doubt he has one. I suspect the reason is lack of resources, i.e. highly paid lawyers (the pertinent resource when you are dealing with a complex bureaucracy; either that or a LOT of determination and enrgy)
  • So, to précis: I expect Townshend had to apply for a waiver of ineligibility; I expect he did this via his lawyers; I expect it was not a simple matter of sending off a form; and I expect the waiver was issued on perfectly good, justifiable and proper grounds. I do not think his lawyers got him into the states on a "tecnicality" (over and above the fact that every aspect of the law is a "mere technicality")
  • So, I see you jumping to conclusions yet again, assuming bad faith where merely humour was intended. And furthermore, I propose this as evidence that you are engaged in mis-using Wikipedia's rules and policies to effect a campaign to the effect that "Townshend is innocent". Please take your campaigning away from Wikipedia and do it on a website dedicated to such campaigning - Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox.
  • Comments like that are why myself and others think you aren't here to assist in writing a fair and accurate article, but are instead on a vendeta: "myself and others", please let the "others" speak for themselves. I know you mean Davidpatrick, but saying it like that, you make it sound like the "silent majority" :P Although I am happy to accept (and have stated so already) the wording of the article that has been reached, you say I am not here to assist in writing a "fair and accurate" article. That means you think the article as is currently is unfair and inaccurate? Wiki-is-truth 12:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Who knows why Pete reacts this heavy on the words "Get on with it"? Who started this and why does Pete (often) reacts with "f*ck off"?

80.61.254.83 17:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know wether you've seen The Who's dvd-album "Live at The Royal Albert Hall", but before going to the next song (Drowned), Pete says "Me and Gary, we do it between us. He waits for the most important moments, he goes: "Get on with it"...". Who is this Gary..? Does this bring you a step closer to the answer, because I don't have a clou who this is!
145.53.248.65 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert war on photo

[edit]

I see a revert war starting on the issue of a fair use photo. The WP:FAIR seems pretty clear on this when it says the image or content can only be used if it is not replaceable with a free content image. In this case it appears there is a free content image therefore the fair use image cannot be used. The argument "but it is not such a good photo" doesn't change the issue. The argument "that is only a guideline, not a policy" has some merit if there is a compelling reason, but one editor's preference is just not that compelling weighed up against the potential legal problems caused by using a non-free image. AntiVan 03:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there aren't any legal issues with a fair use, you'll never find a court anywhere that would declare fair use illegal. Secondly, an inferior image isn't a replacement. See Monty Python: "Better replace it then. [...] Sorry guv, we're right out of parrots. [...] I've got a slug." 152.3.46.147 03:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that it is not fair use if it is potentially or actually replaceable with a free use image. But this is based entirely on my reading of WP:FAIR so you may some expertise in this area that I do not. The inferiority of the fair use image is a matter of taste. I actually prefer the blue one - the screen capture seems a bit colourless, but I fully appreciate this is simply a matter of opinion. AntiVan 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just an Internet expert and not a lawyer, but I've never seen anything in a law or court case mentioning replaceability. Wikipedia prefers free-use images because of its "mission of producing and distributing free content which is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification, and application for all users and in all mediums". But replacing this image seems fairly over-the-top in its distrust of future copyright law. A portion of a single frame, whose use is for education and which will have no negative effect on the value or sales of The Kids Are Alright, is very unlikely to be declared unfair use by any court, present or future, and that miniscule possibility shouldn't enough to warrant making the article less informative.
As for the image: looking at the photographic qualities, you're perfectly correct. The modern one was taken with a still camera using modern digital technology, so other than the blurriness at full resolution it's a better-looking picture. But in an encyclopedia, the illustrative qualities are much more important. Pete is difficult to take a good photo of, because he moves around so much on the stage, and it's hard to capture that in a still. I think the screenshot is excellent at doing that. It's got his arm in the air right after or during one of his famous windmills, his legs are spread wide, but he's still perfectly balanced, and it shows the Marshall stacks he pioneered in the background. It is, perhaps, lower in resolution and less colorful than an ideal picture, but it's shown at only 200px wide in the article anyway. Also, Pete takes up the full frame in the screenshot, whereas he uses less than half the width of The Who 018.jpg. It's almost impossible to discern any of his features with the modern image at 200 pixels wide, with the background lit and his face so small. 152.3.46.147 05:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I lied. Canadian case law does mention replaceability with an "equivalent". 152.3.46.147 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Free Use always wins over fair-use-regardless of quality. The way Wikipedia is leaning, eventually the only photos left will be the ones that editors have taken themselves. And, for this article, the screenshot isn't even fair-use in the infobox anyways so it can't be used. Fair Deal 10:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence makes me want to puke, but I'll ignore it as I dislike the taste of stomach acid. Why the _hell_ does free-use triumph regardless of quality? I can understand a preference for free-use images, even a strong preference for them, but in a case like this where the image is better in many ways and would never be declared unfair use in any court, anywhere, anytime present or future, it makes no sense to replace it. When responding, please don't tell me it's just the policy, or that the people at the top say so, or anything similar to that. I want a reasoned response giving a good rationale for the replacement of this and similar images.152.3.46.147 18:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching and thinking about the revert war too. 152, much as it slightly sickens me as well, we are bound by Wikipedia rules to use the inferior image (and I tend to agree with your analysis of the aesthetic qualities of the two pictures). It says, in part: "Content used under this doctrine on Wikipedia must meet the United States legal tests for fair use. Furthermore, Wikipedia places additional restrictions on "fair use" of copyrighted material; the image or content can only be used if it is not replaceable with a free content image. This might, for example, allow for the inclusion of a photo documenting a historical event such as the Hindenburg disaster, but a simple publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person will be subject to much greater scrutiny."
However, I have an idea. If you can contact the copyright holder and persuade them that having the still (or, even better, a higher quality version of the same image!) on Wikipedia would not in any way damage the value of their intellectual property (an assertion of yours that I agree with), there is a procedure whereby we can get them to donate that still to us as a free image, in which case we could use it. That would still of course be subject to consensus here that it was the better or the best one to use.
I've copied this to Wikipedia talk:Fair use, and it might make sense to continue that aspect of the discussion there. The aesthetic aspect can of course still continue here. Best wishes, --Guinnog 18:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, if a preference for freely licensed content makes you feel physically ill, you might be in the wrong place. It is a fundamental principle of all of our projects. If you would like to follow Guinnog's suggestion as an antidote, you can find sample letters requesting a release at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 19:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
152.3.46.147's discussion of the illuminative merit of the image is well argued. Perhaps we could improve the free image in this direction to a small extent by cropping it to a better view of just Pete and the guitar. AntiVan 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it out real quick in GIMP, and it's still just not working. You either have to have Pete off-center due to the neck of the guitar, or center Pete but put half the drummer in the picture. And there's still the issue of the lit background casting his face in shadow, so you still can't make out his face at 200 pixels wide. Also, it's just not the same as young Pete - he's not moving anywhere, he's not smiling with the exhilaration of a brilliant stage show for a screaming audience; he's just standing there, staring at the fretboard. When you look at Pete1977.jpg, you can see why The Who was one of the greatest live rock bands in the world. When you look at The Who 018.jpg, you can see why everyone makes fun of Pete for being old. I just can't see replacing Pete1977.jpg with The Who 018.jpg without a _really_ good reason, and Pete1977.jpg is such a very, very fair use, it just can't be justified. 152.3.46.147 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a preference for freely licensed content that makes me ill; I understand that. What makes me ill is editors blatantly and unashamedly following badly-thought-out rules when they actively hurt the quality of the encyclopedia, without even stopping to think about the rationale for the rules. I was, in that case, specifically referring to the crap idea that a screenshot can be fair use in an article about the movie, but not in an article about the guitarist- patent nonsense, which I can't even find anywhere in Wikipedia's policies, and which doesn't stand up to even the most casual of legal arguments.
As to getting a free-use image, I can't find any way to contact Pete Townshend or any PR or similar people. Comments are disabled on his blog and no email is listed anywhere on his or The Who Tour's web sites. Perhaps people with $60-per-year memberships on thewhotour.com have a way to contact him, are there any of those people reading this? 152.3.46.147 05:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a few Wiki-Admins have already said earlier in this discussion. Image policy wins out over personal opinion. Until another, better quality free-pic is uploaded...maybe a better shot from the original uploader of the free-use pic thats already permitted for use? Screenshots aren't fair-use in image boxes. It's a simple rule that shouldn't cause any gastro-intestinal disorders. 156.34.142.110 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss the policy with us instead of being a sheep? Do you have any answer to any of my points other than "durr... dem say no fair use in infobox. me no question"?152.3.46.147 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The older image is from a tv programme, fine, use it alongside some commentary about the programme to satisfy fair use, otherwise it's nonsense to war between an iffy image and dead cert.--Alf melmac 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M'kay, that last sentence conveys exactly the same information as "Durr... dem say no fair use in unrelated articles. Me no question." I'll admit it's not DIRECTLY opposite the response I was hoping for, but it's close. Again, can you provide any legal rationale for screenshots being restricted to commentary about the film itself? 152.3.46.147 23:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you know you're right - it is a case of "me no question" - I don't rely on what people tell me is the law, or what I know to be relevant myself, I can see that there is variance, so what does that matter? - as an administrator I rely on the policies and guidelines that have been formed, whether an individual like me or you think they are wrong is irrelevant, until they are changed they are policy.--Alf melmac 09:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rely on what people tell me is the law"... you *do* know you can read laws yourself, right? They're not state secrets or anything. As to not relying on "what [you] know to be relevant [your]self"... not much of an individualist, are you? Didn't people in bygone days resist being cogs in the machine? Can I expect to receive no support whatsoever in my attempts to better the article? Is there nobody reading this who recognizes how stupid the policy is? Nobody who remembers the existence of WP:IGNORE? Nobody who actually cares about the quality of the encyclopedia? Man, what a sad world this is if that's true. 152.3.46.147 22:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As to getting a free-use image, I can't find any way to contact Pete Townshend or any PR or similar people." You might try contacting customerhelp@eelpie.com to request a photo for use in this article. Although Mr. Townshend on tour right now, there may be staff that handle requests for publicity stills.Pkeets 23:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opening

[edit]

His child porn past is highly notable and should not be buried. it is accurate and referenced and 2 editors are opposing you in blanking this without even referenciong the talk page so please stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of this issue is your POV.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the unimportance of it is your POV, SqueakBox 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to slightly agree with this view. However, it is important that everyone refrain from edit-warring and discuss here instead. --Guinnog 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops I see both david and I are in violation of that. Can we both please stop and discuss here. I have tried to address David's concerns re accuracy. Previously there wasn't even a sub section on what IMO is the most notable thing Townshend has done in the last 30 years, SqueakBox 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the notability of this issue is your POV.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the lack of notability is your POV, SqueakBox 00:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given an IP address keeps reverting for David and appears to be David perhaps this can be taken in hand, a clear case of 3rr reversion after ebing warned. Anbd totally pointless as people dont get their way by 3rr editing, SqueakBox 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The content is already in the article. And was the blade of an already lengthy EW earlier this year. Sticking it in the lead turns the page from being an encyclopedia article into a page straight out of The National Enquirer or The World Weekly News. I am definitely not the logged user. You may do an RCU if you wish 156.34.142.110 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that posting this in the opening is somewhat tabloidish. Still, it might have an advantage. This issue seems foremost in the minds of some readers, and finding a balanced statement about it in the opening might settle the issue right away. However, for fairness, any statement about it will have to address the liklihood that Townshend may not have viewed or incided to distribute any child porn, regardless of the caution.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, for fairness, any statement about it will have to address the liklihood that Townshend may not have viewed or incided to distribute any child porn, regardless of the caution: irrelevant - the police put their case to Townshend and he ACCEPTED it. If he felt he was NOT guilty, he should have opted for a trial. Therefore we must assume he looked at child porn. Sorry. Wiki-is-truth 15:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But notable enough to be in the opening. Child porn is hardly a news of the world issue, klets face it, even respectable people think it unacceptable not just tabloids, SqueakBox 18:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor who contributed to diffusing the last edit war that occurred on this article, I have to agree with 156.34.142.110's comments. As an examination of this talk page and the history reveals there are people of very strong opinions on both sides, and both came to an agreement a few weeks back over how this article should read. At no point in this rather lengthy argument was it ever suggested that this information belongs in the lead, because among other things it would require an explanation in the lead regarding the minutae of English law. The whole thing about "a caution" differs from how American law interprets its, and to be honest, let's not go there in the lead. Someone has placed an "NPOV" tag on the article, and this is fair. Once again, I must ask that all parties seek consensus here rather than edit-warring otherwise I'll have to lock the article down again. Please remember also that WP:BLP applies to talk pages and that potentially libellous comments about Townshend (and this includes any pronouncements of guilt that are not supported by the public record) should be avoided at all costs. 23skidoo 18:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

both came to an agreement a few weeks back Not so. I disputed the so-called compromise wording, but it was used anyway. Andy Mabbett 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your view, Andy? I agree about BLP and disagree that we have to mention the caution in the opening but think it essentail that a brief description of the incident belongs in the opening. This would bring it into line with gary Glitter and Jonathan King, 2 otther people with similar backgrounds. He was clearly caught purchasing material and admitted to viewing and that is whatr shoudl go in the opening, SqueakBox 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the references where independent experts have established there was no child porn on the site to "catch" Pete Townshend purchasing. In light of the current challenge, this is potentially a libelous statement.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop simplifying this story. Landslide was a portal site. It did not sell any porn, it sold access control facilities to other websites, some of which offered child porn. However, the Landslide computers had the subscription data. Hence, the Landslide data could be sufficient to prove Townshend's guilt while Landslide was free of child porn. And... Pete ADMITTED it. Wiki-is-truth 15:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong wrong wrong. Glitter and King were both charged. And both were convicted. The police quite rightly investigated Townshend and after undertaking the investigation and finding NO EVIDENCE OF DOWNLOADING - DECLINED TO CHARGE HIM. A caution is very different indeed to a charge and convicition. This is not easy material - especially since the law is different in every country. Townshend was not "caught purchasing material". He acknowledged a solitary access of a site that advertised material relevant to the topic he was researching (as ill-advised as that work was). It is not a defining issue of his life. It is a complex issue. It is clearly related in the article. Davidpatrick 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was "alleged" to advertise child porn. Whether the site actually contained any child porn or advertisements for it is currently under challenge in court.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was caught because he used his credit card to buy access. If he viewed the images, he downloaded them. No? --Guinnog 18:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the current references on challenges to the Operation Ore investigations. Townshend says in his public statements that he does not recall seeing any child porn on the site, which is consistent with independent experts' reconstruction. They found no child porn or child porn advertisements on the site. Your continued insistence on this in light of the current references is coming across as intentionally libelous. Are you ignoring them for some particular reason?Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have a very interesting concept of libel. Townshend has formally admitted guilt for inciting others to distribute child porn. Thus, saying he "incited others to distribute child porn" is not libellous. Wiki-is-truth 15:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)For me the important thing is to deal with this issue in the lead. As I say it is the most notable event about Townshend in decades and caused huge controversy when it was first releasede in the press; Keith moonm usede to be more controversial but after his death nothing was more publicized about the members of The Who than this. I am open to having this described in the ways you suggest in the opening but whjat i am unhappy with is no reference in the opening. I am also unhappy to not have a subsection for this, ie to keep it in the biography section without a sub-section header, SqueakBox 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just asked by one of the regular ip editors about this and gave some advice, but looking again at the article, it makes that a heap easier. Whilst WP:LEAD does suggest that the lead should 'briefly describe its notable controversies', it says before that that it should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Now obviously the concise overview in this article is virtually non-existant and needs work to make it a concise overview and having a poorly worded sentence or two about this as the only other thing in the lead does make it look really shabby. When there is a concise overview of the subject of the article comprising "the lead"™ I'd be happy to see some really carefully thought out words that do what they should - tempt the reader into reading the whole article.--Alf melmac 19:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> In England, a caution has to be accepted, which is an admission of guilt. This has been explained to you previously. Andy Mabbett 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the basis of the "admission of guilt" is under challenge. If the site contained no child porn, then it's possible the caution is invalid. Remember that this challenge is now in court, and so all contributors should treat the subject with care. Again, we must avoid potentially libelous statements.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landslide contained no child porn. It sold access control facilities to other websites. It thus had information about who HAD subscribed to child porn. The operators of Landslide should not have been prosecuted on the basis of these facts, but Townshend quite legitimately can be. Wiki-is-truth 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, a caution is an admission of guilt in the UK and its not really disputed that he viewed this material anyway, Townshend did dispute the reasons for doing so but not the act itself, SqueakBox 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check his public statements. Townshend only says he viewed child porn by accident. This is illegal in the UK, but if this is what you're picking on, then you should say so. The presence of child porn on the Landslide site is disputed, and this is what Townshend references in the caution. He was only told there was child porn on the site, and its presence there has not been clearly established. If it's established there was none, then the caution is invalid.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my understanding too. So what exactly is the problem with mentioning it briefly in the lead? --Guinnog 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<scratches head> Sorry to appear thick here, I've read the posts above in which you receive a heap of undue sarcasm, Andy, but don't see where you state it - in other words you're saying that as Mr Townshend received and accepted a caution in the UK, it cannot be considered a notable controversy at all and that even when a lead that satisfies the WP:LEAD definition is written, it should not be included there anyway?--Alf melmac 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I would suggest the opening should contain basic info including the fact that he has denied being a paedophile but admitted paying for and accessing a child porn site, SqueakBox 19:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He has admitted accessing the site. However, it has not been legally established that this was a child porn site.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) He wasn't "caught". His name was one of thousands and thousands on a list provided to the UK police of people who MAY have used a credit card to access suspect websites.

  • Quite right, he was not "caught", he came under suspicion. His name was recorded on a computer that operated a subscription service to sites that may or may not have contained child porn. This is sufficient to warrant an investigation. So they investigated him. Wiki-is-truth 13:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2) The police MIGHT have eventually investigated him - but they were quite correctly investigating people in order of usage. Townshend had made one solitary usage of his credit card in 1999. therefore was certainly not high on the list for investigation.

  • This, if it were not incorrect, would be mere speculation. The police ordered their lists of names according to the danger those people posed to children (i.e., child care workers, police, judges). No one knows where Townshend would have appeared on this list, i.e. sources please... Wiki-is-truth

3) A policeman saw his name on the list and illicitly leaked it to a British tabloid paper. For which the policeman was later fired.
4) The paper did NOT print Townshend's name - it wrote a story referring to a "prominent rock star"
5) Recognizing that this reference might be a reference to him - Townshend made a statement volunteering that the reference was probably to him. He made crystal clear that he had made a solitary access using his credit card. (You can of course use a credit card to gain access to a website without the card being charged. Very common on the internet)

  • It might be common to use a credit card to access a website without payment. However, this is mere smokescreen - Townshend admitted paying $5. Wiki-is-truth

6) He declared in his statement that as part of his research that he wanted to see what the difference was between the images that were shown without using a credit card and those that were available WITH a credit card. (Utterly foolish IMO - but that's what he did.) He claimed adamantly that he did not download any images. You CAN view without downloading.

  • You cannot view without downloading. You are confusing two meanings of the word "download" - you mean he did not "save". In such sensitive matters, please be accurate and avoid obfuscating.Wiki-is-truth

Where is the reference that says he checked the difference with the credit card and without? Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7) Once Townshend had publicly identified himself - the Police HAD to investigate him. Even if they had not intended to do so until much later - when they reached that part of the investigation that dealt with the people who had made a solitary transaction (which was Townshend's category).

  • The police already were investigating him - his name was on a list giving rise to a police investigation. How do you know when the police would have "investigated" him? Sources please. Wiki-is-truth

8) The police made a very thorough investigation. It was essential to do so because of the media spotlight. They confiscated 14 computers. Kept them for 4 months. Made a forensic investigation of all of them. Found not one single image. Not one. Zero. Nada. The police made this clear in their statement. They did not say anything such as - "his 14 computers were bereft of content or images as they had been wiped clean by Townshend - so it was impossible to tell if there had once been any downloaded porn images on them." They said nothing like that. They investigated thoroughly - and found ZERO images. Townshend had apparently told the truth.

  • The police investigation found no evidence of the possession of images. Townshend himself admits to having seen such images. What truth did Townshend tell? Wiki-is-truth

9) Townshend had publicly VOLUNTEERED that he had undetaken an action that was technically a breach of the law. He hadn't realized he was breaking the law - but that is no excuse in the eyes of the law. So he certainly COULD have been prosecuted for this breach. However minor. However technical. And if he had been - he might well have been convicted.

As I understand it, the police would have to have samples of the images in order to establish they were indecent. Townshend's recollections of what he did six years before would have been insufficient support for the confession.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You understand it wrong. If the police wish to charge Townshend, they must be happy that the images are indecent, otherwise they have no evidence. They must then present such images to a jury, which will make up its own mind as to the decency or otherwise of the images. This would ONLY happen if Townshend elected not to plead guilty at the beginning of the process.... hence, Townshend's admission that what he did involved indecent photographs of children is perfectly acceptable under law. Wiki-is-truth 15:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paying for access where a website advertises child porn is hardly a technical infringement. Wiki-is-truth
It has not been established that the site advertised child porn. Independent experts' reconstruction show no sign of either child porn or advertisements for it. Thus the prosecutions are being challenged in court.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not the police's case that Landslide contained child porn - it is that Townshend subscribed to child porn site via Landslide. He accepted their charges, therefore we must assume they are true. Wiki-is-truth 15:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10) The police are given discretion. In order that they can distinguish between those who flagrantly have broken a law with malice aforethought. And those who have - (by way of example) - broken a law as a result of a well-intentioned but foolish action. Especially a solitary action. On such a serious matter - the police almost always err on the side of caution. If there was the remotest chance that Townshend might have been considered to be a paedophile or a sex pervert - the police could have, would have and SHOULD have prosecuted him. No question about it. And rightly so.

  • Parliament enacted laws prohibiting child porn not because they don't like paedophiles looking at photographs of naked children, but because the production of such pictures HARMS the children involved. It matters not one jot whether Townshend was a paedophile or "sex pervert". He encouraged the further production of such images, i.e. paid people alleging commercial supply, thereby rewarding them. Wiki-is-truth

Townshend did not "incite" production or distribution if there was no child porn on the site where he paid to enter. Accidental infringements of the law can't be helped in any case.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is quite definitely not how the charge of incitement works. A can incite B where B has no intention or abiltity to perform the act suggested. But it is not relevant anyway, since - as I keep explaining - Townshend subscribed to a child porn website via Landslide, the site was not Landslide. Wiki-is-truth 15:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11) The police examined ALL the evidence. The 14 computers. Interviewed Townshend extensively on two occasions. And came to the conclusion that he should NOT be prosecuted. (Something that was perhaps disappointing to some of the tabloid media and some individuals who appeared to have been salivating at the prospect of a celebrity on trial. They instead offered him a caution (which is NOT the same as a charge or conviction). Townshend had to acknowledge that he had breached a law (however inadvertently or innocently). This was not an issue for Townshend as he had already publicly volunteered that he had done so. So he accepted the caution.

  • A caution is not the same thing as a conviction, true. It is an admission of guilt. An admission of guilt makes the outcome of a criminal trial entirely predictable - conviction. Your continued harping on on this point is mere sophistry. Wiki-is-truth
I don't agree that this predicts he would have been convicted at trial. The police found no evidence to present, and Townshend's confession was unsupported, and unreliable because of the time elapsed.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A confession does not need to be supported. And the police case convinced Townshend but more importantly it convinved HIS EOXPENSIVE LAWYERS that they could not defend a case. Wiki-is-truth 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree that this predicts he would have been convicted at trial: The police chose to caution Townshend rather than charge him. Had they not done so, or had Townshend rejected the caution, they would have charged him. Since Townshend accepted the caution (i.e. admitted guilt), it is likely that he would have pleaded guilty to the charges. This is, admittedly, speculation; but given then opportunity to admit guilt in one way, I think it is safe to speculate that he would have chosen to admit guilt in another way. That is, Townshend would have had the charges read out to him while he stood in the dock and asked "How do you plead?", and he would have said "Guilty". No Jury would have been sworn in, and Townshend would have been convicted. Again, I admit this is speculation; but there is less speculation involved than saying he would not have been foudn guilty at trial. Wiki-is-truth 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12) In accepting the caution - Townshend HAD to be placed on a register of sex offenders - something that does not happen in the US (or many ther countries) without due process of a charge and conviction. But English law is different. He was placed on that list for the statuatory minimum of 5 years.

  • Smokescreen.Wiki-is-truth
  • Every time I read such a depcition of English law, the more offence I take. This police cautioning process is being presented as if it were some kangaroo court or summary execution by a judge-jury-and-execution style police force. It is NOTHING of the sort. Police cautions are a system aimed at reducing waste in the justice system; where a non-serious offence has been committed, and the police can prove it (i.e. the suspect is not being asked to plead guilty on merely speculative charges), a criminal is given the opportunity to accept a caution rather than have to go to trial. This means that barristers do not have to be instructed by either party, court facilities do not have to be booked (thereby excluding their use for other purposes and increasing costs), a jury does not need to be selected and so on. There is plenty of "due process". The entire cuationing procedure is formalised. Both parties (prosecution and defence) have to accept guilt. If a person being offered a caution truly does not believe he is guilty, he may reject the caution. Hopefully, the police case will be strong enough, and their conviction steadfast enough, that they will then press charges (if no charges are pressed, the suggestion might arise that the police were acting oppresively). So, simply, Townshend was asked "did you commit this crime?" and his answer was "Yes". How the police deal with that situation from that point is not a relevant issue, and certainly it is quite definitely does NOT constitute an absence of fairness or "due process". Tghis continued insistence on this "lack" of "due process" can be intended only to suggest that the English legal system is unfair, arbitrary, and unjust. Please desist in this smokescreening, or else set up a campaigning website to have English law amended. Do not use Wikipedia as your soap box. Wiki-is-truth 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13) Ordinarily - people on that list are NOT admitted to the US for ANY purpose. Not even humanitarian family visits. Let alone commercial business to ply their trade. Exceptions CAN be made by the US authorities. But the authorities have to judge each case on its merits. Especially one featuring an internationally known figure in a high-profile case. To simply bend the rules because he was wealthy or had good lawyers would open the authorities to charges of having been bought off. So such cases are quite understandably weighed very carefully. The opinion of the UK police and the circumstances would have been taken into account. The US authorities would have been very unlikely to go simply on the say-so of Townshend or his lawyers.

14) Townshend was granted a visa to visit USA and work just a few months after the issue was resolved. And he has freely visited and worked in the US throughout the time since the caution. Something that would have been extremely unlikely if the US authorities had not been satisfied with what they learned from the UK police.

This is POV and immaterial to the facts. However, it could be there should be a paragraph on "perceptions" regarding this controversy. It's clear that in most countries Townshend is not viewed as a sex offender, regardless of the caution.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest that this is metely your POV. The United Nation's Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution pretty much requires every nation on earth to consider him a sex offender. Certainly the European Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography requires EVERY EC country so to consider him. Wiki-is-truth 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and child pornography15) After the initial impact in the tabloid media (like the charges that Woody Allen had molested his own kid or that William Borroughs had killed his wife) it turned out that this was NOT a defining moment in a 43 year career. It was - like the incidents that befell Allen and Burroughs - a brief interlude in his life. From the first screaming tabloid headlines - to the eventual resolution - with the police taking the important decision to NOT prosecute him - just 5 months. If he HAD been prosecuted and/or charged - then this SHOULD absolutely be in the opening. But the police - who had the evidence and the full picture - said that he should NOT be charged. It did NOT turn into a charge or a conviction. Or a mjor defining incident in his life
16) All the necessary info is in the article. This isolated incident in which the police did NOT charge him and for which he was NOT convicted - does not belong in the opening of an encylopedia article.
Davidpatrick 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice essay, but he still accepted the caution, which is still an admission of guilt in English law. As to your fallacious claim that All the necessary info is in the article - it isn't, the article fails to mention the requirement that he register (weekly?) at his local police station (plus other, related restrictions). Andy Mabbett 20:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this really material, though? Most readers will not be interested in this, and it should be covered in a separate article on "Cautions in the UK" or something like that.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)He was indeed caught, that is why his name was on the list of people who had indeed paid to access this site. Your view that he was considered less important than other abusers would need sourcing, but clearly there was an enormous backlog of work for the police. He viewed the images and had the chance to download them onto his computer but whether he downloaded or not we have no evidence that he did so should stick to view,
This is libelous, considering the current challenge. You're writing as if Townshend definitely viewed and downloaded images that independent experts say were not on the site.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

even thopugh our article states that dowenload could mean he received them on his computer so saying download is not strictly incorrect and certainly not a BLP vio. WEe have no evidence the US auithorities talked to the UK police, that is specualtion. I think your assertion that it wasnt a defining moment in his career is your opinion and would be original research. But some of your points should indeed be added such as the media specualtion re a pop star viewing these images, SqueakBox 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the important info that he had to register as a sex offender for 5 years to the article. --Guinnog 20:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not important info. It is minor information on the terms of the caution.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: After reviewing more evidence than we'll ever know about or have access to, the police made the decision not to charge Pete Townshend with any crime. It is neither fair nor acceptable to include this information in the opening section of an article about him. The incident recieves sufficient attention in the article as it stands. Dendennis 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In England, a caution has to be accepted, which is an admission of guilt. Andy Mabbett 22:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Townshend's statement's carefully. He admits to accessing the site, but not to viewing or downloading child porn there. Elsewhere he says he doesn't recall seeing any there. The "admission of guilt" is carefully worded and it's invalid if the site contained no child porn.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It's not a conviction of a crime. If he was convicted of a crime, then it could belong in the opening. The police offering a caution and declining to press charges is suitably covered in the main body of the article. His admission of guilt was an admission of access which he had already volunteered in the press before his name was outed.Clashwho 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And given the recent climate in the UK and the world admission to child pornography is highly notable as is being on the UK sex offenders register, its not the same as say the crimes he committed during his battles with substance abuse (ie drug possession), its considerably more notable, SqueakBox 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has again lost sight of independent reconstruction which indicates there was no child porn at the Landslide site to view or download, and the current challenge to prosecutions based on this fact. I thought we had agreed to say this was "a site reported to advertise child porn." Please check the easily available documentation on this, Squeakbox. It has become clear you can't say Mr. Townshend was "caught" when the site turns out to have been only an adult porn site which may have featured a banner advertising child porn at one time or the other. Because of this recent reversal about the content of the Landslide site, pursuit of wording that emphasizes Mr. Townshend's guilt is extremely doubtful, especially for the opening of the article.Pkeets 00:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This "independent reconstruction" is utterly irrelevant. The police outlined their reasons for believing him guilty of inciting distribution of child porn, and either Townshend (and his lawyers) saw no way to refute the police argument, or truly accepted Townshend's guilt to such an accusation. Whatever is established about Landslide in future is totally irrelevant - Townshend admitted guilt. Wiki-is-truth 13:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no way to refute the police argument at that time. However, those accussed have been working to establish the nature of the site, and are now challenging the investigations. Read Townshend's statements carefully. He admitted accessing the site, but not to seeing or downloading child porn there. If the site is established to have contained no child porn or ads for child porn, then his confession is invalid.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nature of Lanslide is irrelevant to Townshend. Townshend's actions in 1999 are obscure and strange, but he accepted a caution. What Landslide contained or did not contain is irrelevant. Wiki-is-truth 15:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Point fifteen from David Patrick is spot on. SqueekBox's campaign to put the police caution incident in the opening of the article is simply absurd. Pete Townshend is a public figure for being a successful rock songwriter and guitarist, particularly with The Who. That's what belongs in the opening. Given his numerous recent appearances on television programs in the USA and UK, his return to the Top Ten on the album charts with The Who, and The Who's hugely successful tour, the police caution episode of several years ago is cearly not a major factor in his life. In addition to David Patrick's Woody Allen and William Borroughs examples, here are two examples from another angle: The Roman Polanski and Phil Spector episodes clearly have had severe and long lasting impacts on their lives and those episodes are thus rightfully placed in their openings. Townshend's incident is not in the realm of statutory rape and murder and the consequences of his incident are nowhere near those suffered by Polanski and Spector. Spector is indicted and is going to trial. Polanski has refused to set foot in the USA for decades for fear of being arrested. Those are major upheavels in their lives. Townshend, by contrast, was investigated for four months and the police declined to press charges. The caution he accepted has clearly had minimal impact, if any, on his professional and personal life. This episode clearly belongs in the body of the article, not the opening.Clashwho 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet WP:LEAD has "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." (my emphasis). Can you justify your argument in terms of this guideline? --Guinnog 21:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to seeing the energies expended on this page create something more than a one sentence lead (for it to be at the point where its inclusion is likely to be an issue).--Alf melmac 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to rise to your challenge. See what you think. --Guinnog 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated one sentence. Since you took much of that material from The Who's page, perhaps you could also add the references for that material that are found on The Who's page. The police caution doesn't belong in the lead any more than the controversies of Woody Allen, William Burroughs, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis, Hugh Grant, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Page, Winona Ryder, Sean Penn, etcetera, belong in their leads, many of whom suffered far more severe consequences, legal and otherwise, than Pete Townshend. Those controversies are suitably covered in the bodies of their respective articles, not in the leads. This article should be no different.Clashwho 04:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please describe how this fits in with the guideline I quoted above. --Guinnog 08:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It fits the guidelines because this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. See the articles for Woody Allen, William Burroughs, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis, Hugh Grant, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Page, Winona Ryder, Sean Penn, etcetera. I suppose you think Winona Ryder's lead should say she's a renowned actress and shoplifter? I suppose James Brown's lead should say he's a renowned musician and convicted wife beater? I suppose Hugh Grant's lead should say he's a renowned actor and solicitor of prostitutes? For some reason you are holding Pete Townshend to a very different standard.Clashwho 16:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at the lead myself, it's still about only half coverage of the article contents though, but any steps along the way I hope are an improvement.--Alf melmac 11:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. We need ideally to mention (even if briefly) each section of the article in the lead para.--Guinnog 11:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, thanks for the tweaks, I must admit to copping out a bit by the time I'd got to the 'does a lot of charidee work' bit. The ideal is to be able to stand on its own, so yes we'd need at least a mention of the subjects covered by the sections. Thanks.--Alf melmac 11:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK done some more to help cover the rest of the biography, ready for more tweaking now ;) --Alf melmac 13:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, that was super. I think it looks better with the nature of the "legal trouble" spelled out in a NPOV way; the lead is supposed to avoid "teasers" remember. I think we can almost lose the disputed tag now? --Guinnog 13:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rats - wanted to stay well clear of a simplistic reduction of the actual case as it will give incorrect picture of the thing. I'll have a real hard think about some way of wording it to avoid being too teasy and hit the right mark there.--Alf melmac 13:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Townshend's incident is not in the realm of statutory rape and murder: Yet more POV from Clashwho. Townshend admitted to the police that he had incited another to distribute or show child porn. Townshend admits this publicly (The Observer, 28 December 2003).

This does not follow. When you isolate Townshend's statements, he has not admitted to inciting another to distribute or show child porn. Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this respect his statements are irrelvant - what he said to the police is what matters. They asked if he incited, he said YES.Wiki-is-truth

That is, Townshend paid for access to a website advertising child porn,

This is currently an allegation being challenged in court and as such should be treated with care so as not to make libelous statements. The Operation Ore investigations may be overturned as unfounded.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources please. As far as I know, Townshend is not undertaking any such challene so we must assume he still accepts his caution and the basis on which it was administered. Speculation will get us nowehre. Wiki-is-truth 15:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thus communicating to the site's operators that advertising child porn is a profitable venture, possibly further suggesting that the actual distribution of child porn might be more or similarly profitable.

If there was no child porn on the site, then he communicated nothing of this sort.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are allowed to quote the child protection experts (I'm sure Claswho and Davidpatrick will disallow this, alleging that it amounts to a jihad, vendetta or witch hunt), child porn cannot be produced without a child being sexually abused and its creation and distribution leads to the sexual abuse of more children to satisfy the demand for such pictures. Townshend paid for children to be sexually abused, raped and tortured. Hardly in the realm of statutory rape... Wiki-is-truth 13:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially a libelous statement considering that independent experts are bringing evidence there was no child porn on the site where Townshend paid for access. Please take note that there is currently a case in court challenging the basis of the Operation Ore investigations. Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't see what your saying re the article, this section is trying to deal with the opening, putting in the above would be a massive overbalancing of coverage there.--Alf melmac 13:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had any views on repeating information from the article in the opening, I would insert "Townshend was cuationed by the police in 2003 for child porn offences committed in 1999". However, I see no reason to repeat blocks on the article in simplified form in the opening, therefore I did not edit the article. I was merely responding to points on this talk page, and I was doing it... on this talk page. Thanks for giving me the chance to point that out. Wiki-is-truth 14:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok. Articles should adhere to the Manual of Style, which likes to have a summary of the article as a lead, so some repetition is always going to be the case.--Alf melmac 14:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the child porn incident is too subtle to be reduced to a single line in the opening - so I think the opening should skip it entirely. In fact, I believe the whole issue cannot be adequately dealt with in the article at all without a great deal being written, most of which would not not relevant to a biographical article on Townshend. Absent such detail, I am unhappy with the way in which the article proper deals with the incident; I would rather it were just given the briefest statement of fact as an incident that is, in all decency, best quickly and quietly passed over unmentioned. However, Davidpatrick and Clashwho will not allow the incident to be reduced to something like "in 2003 Townshend was cuationed by the police for child porn offences committed in 1999".

This is a controversial statement in view of the evidence and the court challenge. Any mention of it should include info on the possible invalidity of the caution.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They wish to write it up in such a way as to make it seem like an event of little significance. While I agree that it IS an event of little significance, this is my POINT OF VIEW. The UK Parliament and a multitude of other agencies (the EU, UNICEF, InterPol, etc) see child porn offences as being intrinsically extremely serious and people with such a POV encounter great difficulty in dealing with an offence like Townshend's - definitely stupid rather than bad (... however, I withold opinion on "mad"). They are compelled to denounce it in all seriousness and so you end up with the confused and confusing situation in which Townshend finds himself. Normal decency would (I hold) require his (I hold) minor indicretion to be passed over quickly and basically ignored, but ideology and policy dictate that it cannot be. Since this is the position of (it seems) every government in the world,

So what we're dealing with here is an attempt at political correctness? That is a spin (aka propaganda), regardless of whether it is supported by governments. I'd rather that the article remained scholarly and neutral i n POV.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propaganda? I'm sorry, this "propaganda" is the official position of my elected government and just about the elected governments of every nation on the planet. If we don't like that position, we may - of course - vote to have it changed. It is also the position that is likely to be espoused by EVERY reliable media outlet in the world, and it is THOSE sources that are to be our reliable sources. Anything else, including the position that Wikipedia should (somehow) rise above this "propagandistic" position and achieve "scholarliness" and "neutrality" is likely to be "original research". Wiki-is-truth 14:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider that it is permissible to allow Wikiepdia to be used to spin the episode: Davidpatrick et al downplaying Townshend's episode of criminality basically makes it appear that it is OK for Townshend to commit a child porn offence cos he's a nice guy, but it's BAD for Gary Glitter to do it cos he's a dirty old man. Wiki-is-truth 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this POV would be unsuitable. However, the fact that the caution might be invalidated by a current court challenge should be addressed if it is mentioned at all.Pkeets 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial

[edit]

Perhaps instead of edit warring and saying "discuss controversial changes on Talk page" you should do so yourself as you made the changes! I made the section and title, see please be clearer in your edit summaries. It strikes me that your willingess, indeed eagerness, to edit war against the consensus on talk page and refusing to engage in discussion but demanding others do (which is what you have just done) is deeply counter-productive, SqueakBox 23:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopedia. And what is written about living people is governed by laws of libel. WP is explicit about this. Phrases such as "admission to child pornography" are loaded and inaccurate. Acknowledging a solitary access to a website during research is NOT "admission to child pornography". As was apparent when the police had the option of prosecuting him and decided NOT to. No one is permitted to use Wikipedia as an alternative means of prosecuting a case that the police - with ALL the evidence in front of them - decided should NOT be prosecuted.

  • It is possible to be guilty of a child porn offence where no child porn is involved - as in Townshend's case, where he himself admitted to being guilty of a child porn offence (in which child porn was not involved) by accepting a caution for inciting distribution. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 14:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss proposed changes on these pages Davidpatrick 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"admission to child pornography" since those words don't appear in the article, what's your point? Andy Mabbett 23:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those words appeared on this Talk Page. And THAT was referred to earlier today. See post from administrator above

Salient point:

Please remember also that WP:BLP applies to talk pages and that potentially libellous comments about Townshend (and this includes any pronouncements of guilt that are not supported by the public record) should be avoided at all costs. 23skidoo 18:41, 26 March Davidpatrick 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But admitting to child pornography is exactly what he did. He admitted to accessing a site, paying for exclusive content with a credit card and then viewing it on one occasion. He also admitted that this was wrong for him to have done in his circumstances by receiving a caution and signing the sex offenders register. Nobody has said "Townshend is a paedophile" or Townshend did it for sexual gratification" which would be a BLP violation and original research but those things havent been said. You are not beginning to understand the legal niceties involved in libel and cant quiote libel where it is not appropriate without violating WP:AGF ie please read what I say more carefully, SqueakBox 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No libels are being broken so why feel the need to point that out. Receiving a caution and signing the sex offenders register is admission, and it wasnt that he accessed a site it was that he paid to access a site. What we must not do is draw original research conclusions about why the police chose not to prosecute, we can draw no conclusion from this (and my own private conclusion as to the reason is very different from yours) and I will not draw conclusions from your beliefs about why the police chose not to prosecute though give me sourced material as to why and we can debate it. It strikes me you are going beyond BLP because you want to give an unduly rosy picture of Townshend that fits your beliefs but not the sourced facts, SqueakBox 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many more times? In England, a caution has to be accepted, which is an admission of guilt. You have been given citations to support this. We also have Townshend's own words: "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, Andy Mabbett 23:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot determine WHY the Police did not prosecute. We can and do need to state that the police elected not to charge - which was highly unusual. As has been pointed out by several people who are apparently disappointed by the police decision. This is not the forum to try to do to Townshend's reputation what the police had the opportunity to do - and declined to do. Davidpatrick 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual, just like Townshend. That notability created the publicity about the rock star stung by the chilkd pornography operation and that adverse publicity along with the nature of the offence and many other factors were taken into consideration, doubtless, by them. You cant thus claim anything and certainly not that it either showed the police believed him or that it showed it wasnt a serious offence (some people think all unauthorised child porn access is serious). One could argue his fame saved him but again that is just OR and so we shouldnt be usinjg our personal opinions only the facts but you seem to still want to draw unwarranted conclusions from the decision to not prosecute, SqueakBox 23:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But admitting to child pornography is exactly what he did. He admitted to accessing a site, paying for exclusive content with a credit card and then viewing it on one occasion." This is not "admitting to child pornography" if there was no child porn on the site. If you'll read Mr. Townshend's public statements carefully, he admitted to accessing the site, but said he saw no child porn there. This has now been explained by reconstruction of the site which indicates there was none. "Paying to access" is another moot point, as the credit card number in the Landslide database was the only record that Mr. Townshend had been to the site at all, and if there was no child porn, then he didn't pay to access child porn. If you have to discuss something like this in the article, you'll need to come up with some wording which indicates the prosecutions have been challenged.Pkeets 00:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a gross simplification of the issues. It really does not matter whether there was or was not child porn on the site for which Townshend paid for access rights. But let us briefly examine Townshend's own position. His statement says "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." He then goes on to say "I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen." In other places he outlines what advice that lawyer gave - do not go to the police. Why would a lawyer give such advice if Townshend saw no child porn at that site? However, the relevant point is this: Townshend responded to a child porn advertisement and used his credit card, thereby communicating to the site operators that there was a demand for child porn, which amounts to encouragement to provide such material. It really does not matter what anyone else is doing re challenging convictions, since Townshend admits this offence. Even if it turns out that Lansdlide was supplying only images of fluffy bunny rabbit babies, Townshend effectively said to them "SELL ME CHILD PORN". He has thus committed the offence for which he was cautioned.... and he accepts this himself. The Townshend article need not even mention the challenges to Operation Ore convictions. Wiki-is-truth 14:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a site with a collection of articles about this controversy on the nature of Landslide. Note that the PC-Pro article broke the news that the site had been reconstructed. Later articles document the class action suit. I also believe there's an attempt to bring criminal charges of misconduct against members of the police organizations.

http://www.ore-exposed.co.uk/Media_Related_Artices.html

Pkeets 01:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check Wikipedia's article on Operation Ore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ore#External_links Pkeets 20:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"06:59, 29 March 2007 Guinnog (Talk | contribs) (not alleged. he admitted it by accepting the caution)" Guinnog: Townshend's caution is not alleged, but the media is now referring to the Landslide site as an "alleged" child porn website because of criminal and civil action are pending regarding the Operation Ore prosecutions. I see considerable emphasis elsewhere in the discussion about references, so I think we need to stay current with the Townshend article. Information on the Operation Ore cases did not stop in 2003. Pkeets 20:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested in what the controversy is about, here the archived Landslide front page which is alleged to have advertised child porn. The links work so you can have a look at the index as well. I agree that some of the titles are questionable, but I'm sure you know that in itself does not indicate that the content is indecent. [6] Pkeets 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This would normally prevent travel abroad, but in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution." Why is this included in the "Controversial" section? Do we know the restrictions have been "waived"? Is there a reference to verify it? It seems to be a interpretation of US visa policy that we don't really know anything about. Pkeets 02:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi - First by way of prologue - Along with two other editors I am currently under a "soft ban" in respect only of this article. I am permitted to post on this Talk Page - but not on the article itself. The ban appears to be indefinite at the moment. Though the "soft ban" was an arbitrary imposition by just one (I'm sure well-intentioned) admin - whose judgement in imposing the "soft ban" without there having been the usual procedures of conflict resolution - has been questioned by several others - I am going to abide by it until the "soft ban" is lifted.

That by way of explaining why I am presently unable to make changes to the article.

You raise a very good question. Allow me to answer it. It relates to the Edit War on this article from 6 weeks ago in February. And the "chapter and verse" about this will be found on exchanges on this Talk page (above).

As you will be aware - there are one or two editors who for whatever reason (and I'm trying hard to assume good faith!!!) appear to be mystified that the police elected not to prosecute Townshend. And those people do seem rather determined to do everything possible to tar Townshend's name with the equivalence of a guilty criminal prosecution. Extrapolating every possible nuance of the vagueries of English law to find a way to position this incident as a criminal conviction. It wasn't. The careful calibrations in the official statements by the police and by Townshend are very clear indeed. And the news stories you have posted about Operation Ore from very respected news sources - underscore the shaky premise of the entire matter in the first place.

At one point in February - in attempting to paint Townshend as an evil blaggard - someone said that this was clear by his being placed on the Register.

What he/she posted was this:

Furthermore, a caution is recognised by the US legal system: an English person who has been cautioned by the police will be ineligible for a visa to enter the USA (Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act reads "No visa or other documentation shall be issued to an alien if ... such alien is ineligible to receive a visa or such other documentation under section 212", and section 212 makes aliens who have admitted having committed a crime involving moral turpitude so ineligible). I trust that once this is appreciated, the positive spin that was placed on the child porn episode will be be plainly seen and the so-called edit war has been largely the result of Davidpatrick's attempt to prevent this spin(=POV) being removed. Wiki-is-truth 02:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki-is-truth" (sic) The person who posted this was a single-issue editor who sprang up out of nowhere in December 2006 - and almost single-handedly destroyed a consensus on this topic that had prevailed for almost a year. Interestingly - the moment that the article was locked and an admin negotiated a new consensus - that editor disappeared. And of course has never been heard of again. Gone back to "Sock-ville" methinks... Doubtlessly his/her style and feral determination to persecute Townshend will manifest itself again at some point.

Anyway - to counter this assertion that was unfairly besmirching Townshend's name - I pointed out that if the above was the case - how come Townshend has been a regular visitor to the USA ever since the caution? Not for a one or two day mercy visit to see a family member... But for long extended periods for commercial gain. ie working in the USA for profit. For which a Work Visa MUST be granted for each occasion. There are no ways to get round that. A British national who is working in the USA MUST apply for and secure a Work Visa for each period of work. The best that the "editor" could come back with was:

Ah the things highly-paid lawyers can do for a person :P Wiki-is-truth 14:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words - no ability to counter the point at all. Just invective.

  • The point was countered, in full. At the time you chose to ignore this, and you still ignore it. It is your favoured tactic - smokescreen, blag, never answer a point, move on as soon as your bluff is called, ignore and hope no one else notices. My point in mentioning the visa problem was not to paint Townshend as an "evil blaggard" (as a quick aside, I would rather call Townshend a promoter of child porn than a "blaggard") but to show that the "lack of due process" Davidpatrick insists the cautioning process represents does not concern the US authorities. Not to make any point about Townshend whatsoever. Wiki-is-truth 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So - the reason that that information is in the article - and it is not currently worded as I would like to see it - is to disabuse any reader of the notion that the statuatory placing of Townshend's name on the register rendered him as the pariah that the name of the register implied. A work visa has had to be obtained for every visit that Townsehend has made to the USA between 2003 and 2007 - and Townshend is legally obligated under penalty of perjury to declare on the Visa application form the fact that his name is on the register (as if a high-profile person such as Townshed could hide it!) The ONLY way that a person on the register can be admitted is by a variance. A dispensation. The US INS is not in the business of having an open-door policy to registered sex offenders - especially high-profile ones - and especially figures who are noted for being anti-establishment and counter-culture. So therefore someone at the INS has had to examine the circumstances of Townshend being on that register to determine if he is a danger to American children. It would be criminal negligence for the INS not to do so. And the political scandal if someone to whom a variance was granted ever committed a crime - would be gigantic. So the iNS must be sizing up the circumstances that led to Townshend being on that register. And their conclusion leads to him being granted work visas over and over. Perhaps (and I don't claim to know this for a fact) it is because the arcane English statute by which an individual who has NOT been charged, NOT been convicted of any crime can be placed on a list with VIOLENT SEX OFFENDERS and PAEDOPHILES - without any due process - simply as a consequence of accepting a caution for acknwledging a solitary technical infringement of a law - almst certainly woudn't fly in the US. Not for us to judge, But apparently the INS HAS made that judgement. Many times between 2003-2007.

  • We have precisely no documentary evidence to show how the American authorities came to decide that Townshend should be granted a waiver of ineligibility. So please stop spinning their decision in this way so as to make it appear that the carefully balanced all the variables. To use Wikipedia's idiom - quote your sources, don't tell us your opinions on how you hope the INS is run. Wiki-is-truth 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So - that's why it's there. Imperfectly worded at present - but to underscore that Townshend is still a highly respected member of society in the US - and indeed in the UK and Europe. The only place he is NOT respected is in the minds of a tiny minority who seem bitter that the Police decided not to charge Townshend - and are trying to use Wikipedia to do unto him what the police - who had ALL the evidence - decided it would be wrong to do... Davidpatrick 04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the comments, David. I understand your point, but just the granting of a work visa doesn't necessarily establish anything. I also doubt if it has to do with highly paid lawyers. I'm not sure how visa reviews work, but I'm thinking it's more likely how much economic activity a Who tour would generate that tips the scales in Townshend's favor. That's a bit cynical, but I'm sure everyone here would agree.

I agree with your point that the perception of most people in the US is that the caution was issued over a technicality and that Townshend should not actually be considered a sex offender. Reading through the references, I notice that the UK media seems to have given up on this as well. His reputation has apparently been strong enough to withstand the tarring.

My personal concern with the article is that some contributors seem fixated on events of 2003 to the exclusion of everything else. Only a quick review of the references available indicate that making unqualified black and white statements about Operation Ore prosecutions are potentially libelous. It appears that serious errors have been identified in the investigations and now lawsuits are flying right and left. Pkeets 05:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter what US people think. In Britain he is classed as a sex offender. The views of non-Brits have zero bearing on this, SqueakBox 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he's classified as a sex offender in the UK. That is a fact. However, if you're saying that the views of non-Brits have no bearing on the Wikipedia biography we're discussing, then I'll have to disagree with that. It's also a fact that PC-Pro and The Times (among others) have published articles challenging the basis of the Operation Ore prosecutions. Since this may affect the validity of Townshend's confession, then it should be mentioned as part of the article to let readers draw their own conclusions. Also, a court challenge means the article should follow convention in discussion sub judice accusations as "alleged." However, if you're talking about perceptions, then it's the same thing I've questioned elsewhere in this discussion. If the article is to maintain a neutral point of view, then perceptions should be discussed as a separate topic and not mixed in with facts in the article. Pkeets 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has been placed on the register as a consequence of accepting the caution. I agree that the legal challenges need to be referenced. They are certainly not determinative yet. But not inconsequential either. BTW - FWIW - I myself don't regard Townshend as having "confessed". The wording of his official statement was - as you have noted - very precise. I regard his statement as an "acknowledgement" rather than a "confession". The minimum requirement necessary to settle the matter. Another issue that is a constant concern is the international issue. Wikipedia is international. It is not specifically for American or British eyes. So we have to ensure that what is written fulfills multiple purposes. Factual of course. NPOV of course. But the amount of space devoted to the incident needs to be proportionate in length and emphasis to his life and 43 years of prominence and achievments. Not airbrushed into nothing at all. But certainly not presented as some kind of gargantuan melodrama. The consequence of the police choosing not to prosecute him (when they certainly could of) is not of zero consequence. The English legal system's unusual process by which a person neither charged nor convicted can be placed on a register with people who HAVE been charged and convicted is unusual to say the least. To most readers not in England (and probably quite a few there too) - presence on such a register with convicted felons conveys an assumption of charge and conviction. People can rail all they want about the legal implications of accepting a caution - but without contextual detail such matters are too complex to reduce to simplistic statements. To leave international readers with simplistic conclusions that give a false impression is anti-wikipedia. And prospectively libellous. And that is covered by BLP. Davidpatrick 06:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system of police cautions exists to allow non-serious criminal offences to be dealt with quickly and efficiently without wasting expensive criminal justice system resources. Thus the process of cautioning is unimportant to foreign readers, what is important is that they understand the consequence - guilt. Wiki-is-truth 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the visas being granted does mean something. Given the quoted regulations governing admission into the US - I don't think trade issues alone would be why he is granted a visa. Risk of far too much negative publicity for the INS. But in any event the key issue on that point is that he is persona grata everywhere. Not excluded from major countries - which is what the Register list reference would imply left unqualified. You are right that there are contributors (only a very small number) who are fixated on this one small incident and are giving it disproportionate amount of space and negative spin rather than neutral presentation of the facts.

The other matter of concern is that Wikipedia is meant to be truly international. it is a vaguerie of English law that a person who has NOT been charged or convicted can be placed on a list for 5 years with people who are CONVICTED dangerous violent sex offenders. There is no way to succinctly explain that complex incongruity to people in other countries - the vast majority of whom live under laws that would not permit an uncharged/unconvicted person to be placed on such a list. Wikipedia is not a legal journal. So we have to keep this simple and proportionate. I hope that common sense will prevail and that those who have been pushing their POV about Townshend will recognize that there are people here who will never permit that to happen. Davidpatrick 05:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you may think of EBritish law has zero relevance here. To claim that the vast majority of countries wouldnt permit such laws is your original reseach POV and is not relevant to this discussion, SqueakBox 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the visas being granted does mean something. Given the quoted regulations governing admission into the US - I don't think trade issues alone would be why he is granted a visa. Risk of far too much negative publicity for the INS. But in any event the key issue on that point is that he is persona grata everywhere. Not excluded from major countries" You're right that this is a world tour The Who have been conducting. I notice they're been to Japan, Australia, Germany, Spain, etc., etc. in the recent past. The info about the visa does mean something, but my point is that it's just about perceptions and I'm not sure that has a place in the article as written. It would be an interesting analysis, but questionable to insert into a biography. I personally think we should provide more balance in the controversy section by updating to show the challenge that has arisen because of the police errors in Operation Ore. I'm rather amazed by the whole thing, actually. If there was no child porn on the site, it seems there might be some serious trouble. Pkeets 06:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townshend acknowledged viewing child pornography online, so I think the disputed status of Landslide is kind of moot.Clashwho 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, as Landslide is what everyone takes as Townshend's admission he purposely paid to access a child porn site. Read his public statements carefully and cut out what the media says about it: "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law." This is carefully worded to meet the requirements of the caution, but he does not admit to viewing child porn at the site. Elsewhere, he says he doesn't recall seeing any child porn there, which is completely accurate if there was none. In his essays Townshend reveals that he did accidently view child porn online, which is also illegal under current UK laws. However, public perceptions of guilt over something like this is likely to be very much different. Pkeets 22:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete said he went looking for child pornography, didn't he? He said he just looked at the front pages and previews of sites supposedly advertising child pornography and only entered one once with a credit card. Maybe he never saw anything, but if so, that makes his disgust at what he called the proliferation of pedophilic images on the internet kind of odd. I don't know why he would characterize it that way if he went looking and found nothing.Clashwho 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elsewhere he says he doesn't really remember and he's trying to reconstruct what he did six years before. I appears he was wrong about entering the one site with a credit card, as independent experts are now saying there is very little liklihood there was child porn there. Looking at the front pages and indices of various sites doesn't mean he viewed child porn. Landslide, for example, showed no porn pictures on either one. From Townshend's recorded interviews and published essays, it appears he was concerned about the prominent VISA and MasterCard logos displayed on these sites, and on the easy availability of this material to children surfing unsupervised. Pkeets 19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page locked again

[edit]

Obviously whatever compromise and consensus was reached earlier (and the proof that a consensus was found can be seen if you scroll up this page, btw). For this reason I'm locking the article down in an attempt to once again try and get everyone to agree on what is to be done with this article or at least reach consensus. There are those who clearly want to demonize Townshend. There are those who want to defend Townshend. There are those who are somewhere in the middle. And we should try to meet somewhere in the middle. Is this going to happen every few weeks? 23skidoo 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly dont think one editor browbeating other editors with obsessive edit warring ignoring 3rr twice in one day is exactly going to create a compromise. I do support Andy's edits over David's in that particular battle, SqueakBox 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously whatever compromise and consensus was reached earlier (and the proof that a consensus was found can be seen if you scroll up this page, btw)., no but you will find me saying that I don't agree to the proposed compromise. There are those who clearly want to demonize Townshend. There are those who want to defend Townshend. There are those who are somewhere in the middle. and there are those of us who want to present a neutral representation of the facts. Andy Mabbett 23:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(This is responding to SqueakBox but it's also applicable to Andy's comment) Let's see what others think. I have not performed any reverting myself in this and as the protection banner states, locking it at this point is not an endorsement of the current version. But regardless who is doing 3RR, it does appear to have been sparked by an editor changing something that created controversy. Doesn't matter who, the fact is this has started. And it seems to happen every few months. So let's try again to come up with a version we can all live with that neither demonizes unfairly nor beatifies unfairly the subject. Andy's objection to the version is noted, with the response that clearly there are editors who are of the opinion that neutrality is not being maintained with the edit that started this latest round, and some of those that have followed. So let's have a cooling-off period. It seemed to work last time as the article was relatively stable for about a month before things hotted up again. 23skidoo 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have also been some improvements sparked by this, which isnt a justification of edit warring, but sub-sectioning the biography section has been a great improvement! We do, though, need a better sub-title thaqn police caution which is very poor but david rejected all of my alternatives withoput coming up with a single one himself. i would like to see how far he is willing to compromise because so far I havent seen any on his part, SqueakBox 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, what this article needs is a simple statement of the facts. There are two many editors trying to shape public opinion, instead of simply presenting the facts from both sides and let the public shape it's own opinion. If the police reports could be quoted with what they claim occurred and then what Townsend's lawyers have disputed and claimed and allow the public to draw its own conclusions it would be more beneficial. I agree though, seems difficult to believe Townsend would enter a guilty plea without first consulting the best lawyers someone of his wealth can buy and determining this is his best course. I find it highly unlikely they would then advice to him enter a guilty plea if he was not, or if they could not prove it in court. He's much more wealthy then O.J. Simpson and look at the team of lawyers he was able to assemble for his murder trial. Again that part is simply my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.156.151 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-ban on fixated article editors

[edit]

I am hereby banning SqueakBox (talk · contribs), Davidpatrick (talk · contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm here now and i'll set this all right!

  • The "three participants" who are the "Only" people engaged in the edit war are obviously the only people who care about the accuracy of a section of the article. This "soft ban" entirely subverts what I see as the point of Wikipedia and is rather crass - 23skidoo at least had the good taste to get involved to try to direct the "discussion" rather than simply silence it. Wiki-is-truth 15:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that all editors are interested in the accuracy of the article. You may certainly discuss issues with article content here if you feel that there is false material in the article. Sancho 15:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed - as one who is not involved in the edit war, I do care about the article's accuracy, but some of the discussion above appears to be between two polar opposite groups - people with a vendetta against Townshend who want to smear his name as much as possible, and people who idolize Townshend and believe he can do no wrong. Neither group cares about accuracy as much as pushing their view, neither of which represents reality. —Erik Harris 15:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think wiki-is-truth has a point. To claim any editors are involved in a venbdetta against Townshend is an outrageous comment that attacks certain editors in an entirely unacceptable manner, at the very least violating WP:AGF. Erik, I strongly recommend you strike your comment and for the record your outrageous and potentially criminal accusation against me is entirely without substance. Nicholas strikes me as an admin out of control who should probably ber up fo Rfc for abusing his admin privileges. Adnmins who abuse their blocking facility or threaten to do so are, should, IMO, be de-sysopped, SqueakBox 15:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squeakbox, either provide a dif in which you, as an editor banned from this article, was specifically targeted by a peronsal attack, or withdraw your accusation against Erik. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't on a vendetta, SqueakBox, then perhaps you could go "fix" the leads for Woody Allen, William Burroughs, Chuck Berry, James Brown, Jerry Lee Lewis, Hugh Grant, Russell Crowe, Mel Gibson, Jimmy Page, Winona Ryder, Sean Penn, etcetera. That ought to be a hoot. See what kind of hornets nests you stir up. Unlike Pete Townshend, several of the above were actually convicted and served jail time, garnering enormous amounts of press coverage. Those incidents are covered in the bodies of the articles, not the leads. For very good reason. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. You are doing a diservice to wikipedia.Clashwho 16:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Page? Hugh Grant was arrested for lewd conduct with an adult prostitute which is not the same thing at all and isnt notable enough to go in the opening. The ones you want to check out are Gary Glitter and Jonathan King. I am not interested in editing American bios for the most part, plenty of Americans to do that. George Michael was arrested for having sex in a toilet but that isnt notable enough to go into the opening either. Of course I dont have a vendetta againsty Townshend whom I dont know and whose music has left me largely indifferent over the years (certainly in comparison to particularly Glitter and also Page), SqueakBox 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Page was involved in a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl. I disagree with your assessments. Hugh Grant's infraction is absolutely notable and garnered huge media coverage. Gary Glitter and Jonathan King were convicted in a court of law and served jail time. Their situations are not analogous to Pete Townshend's at all. Read up on James Brown and Chuck Berry. The day their leads mention their extensive criminal infractions, without an outcry and ensuing edit war, is the day I'll consider supporting putting Townshend's mere police caution in the lead. Your "indifference" to Townshend's music is irrelevant. Your greater fondness for the music of Glitter is amusing. Your holding Pete Townshend to a different standard than Chuck Berry, James Brown, Hugh Grant, and so on, and your erroneous comparison of Pete Townshend's situation to the situations of Jonathan King and Gary Glitter, tells me that you're on a vendetta. The day your arguments are consistent is the day I'll think otherwise.Clashwho 19:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course my indifference to Townshend's musuic is irrelevant. I am not editing Berry or Brown but I do edit Glitter's article. I dont think either the Page let alone the Grant situation are at all analogous, SqueakBox 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're not analogous. Jimmy Page is actually guilty of statutory rape and Grant is a convicted prostitute solicitor. Their leads are sadly lacking these controversial facts. Your different standard for Pete Townshend is illuminating.Clashwho 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Townshend is a registered UK sex offendor who has been accused in public of accessing and viewing a child porn site. IMO given today's morals that is much more notable. I dont really want to comment ont he Page case right now as I have no info about it but to compare what Grant did to what Townshend did is like saying that Art Garfunkel has done worse than Townshend because he has a cannbis conviction, SqueakBox 00:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grant's arrest is a noteworthy event that garnered at least as much press coverage as Pete Townshend's case did. Your opinion that Townshend's case is more "notable" is down to your own bias. Grant actually engaged in illicit sex and was arrested and charged for it. Pete Townshend accessed a website in his self-proclaimed vigilante role and was cautioned rather than charged with anything.Clashwho 00:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This The Guardian article claims he was falsely accused of child pornography, SqueakBox 00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim made in this article, while possibly correct, isn't relevant. The matter developed as follows: Townshend subscribed to something; Landslide was closed down by the American authorities; The Americans passed on Landslide data to UK police; Townshend's name was in that list; A police office leaked some of the names on that list; Townshend was spooked and published a statement in which he voluntarily admitted sufficient information to consider him guilty of inciting distribution; UK police subsequently arrested him. The original data was possibly insufficient to warrant an investigation (some other people arrested in Operation Ore were arrested on similarly inadequate grounds but were convicted; some are now engaging in actions against the police). Since we are incapable of coming up with a brief description of the child porn incident for the article, I suspect that any expansion to include these new "revelations" is likely to meet with some resistance. As an aside, it is possible that, had Townshend held his mouth rather than make the doorstep statement of guilt, the police would never have got round to visiting him, thinking him to be too risky a catch. Wiki-is-truth 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to a better suggestion, but I still think it's well summed up in the "alleged to advertise child porn" wording which indicates the sub judice nature of the challenge. Otherwise, you're right that this is not something that can be explained within the scope of this article. Possibly the Operation Ore article might be a better place? Regarding your aside: Definitely Townshend should have kept his mouth shut, especially as he revealed later that he really didn't recall the incident very well.Pkeets 05:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is that the source for the "advertising child porn" is Townshend's own statement, and various editors have forbidden use of any other "reliable sources" on the grounds of their being unreliable (they don't correspond with Townshend's statement). I think the "alleged" should not be allowed. Wiki-is-truth 13:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not quite accurate. There are a number of media articles from 2002-2003 that also state Landslide was a child porn site, and/or advertised child porn. A number also say that Townshend was guilty of accessing this site to view child porn. However, recent research has shown this was inaccurate and likely ill advised. Apparently the researchers have gone on from reconstruction of the Landslide site to investigating exactly which sites were accessed by what individuals, and they've tracked what Townshend did. The source of the Guardian's comment seems to be the PC-Pro article this month which states exactly what Townshend accessed. See the entry below where I've asked to open a discussion on how to handle this latest. Pkeets 17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Astley

[edit]

"Townshend met and married Karen Astley in 1968, but separated in 1994 and divorced in 2000." Are we sure Pete and Karen are actually divorced? Is there any confirmation of this? I do believe he said they would probably divorce, but I thought the press reported in 2003 that they were still married due to "complex property issues."Pkeets 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no evidence it shouild be removed and BLP will empower you to do this over the so-called soft ban and I would support you in removing unreferenced material without discussion, SqueakBox 00:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pkeets isn't one of the three editors banned.Clashwho 00:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to edit this, but didn't remove it completely. I expect 2000 was when he announced they would divorce, but in 2003 the press indicated it was still in work. Comments? Pkeets 01:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably came in from IMDb, which as we know, is always spot-on with its info </sarcasm> :p --Alf melmac 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Career

[edit]

We had a bit of a muddle in the solo career portion of the lead. Pete's solo career had nothing to do with some of those Rockestra musicians. I changed it to musicians that actually appear on Townshend albums.Clashwho 00:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Tag

[edit]

I see this tag has been removed. Even if we have a reasonable consensus, I'm not sure this article has a neutral point of view. I'd be in favor of retaining the tag. Pkeets 10:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no comment, I replaced the NPOV tag. This article has so much spin on it, there's no way it could be called neutral.Pkeets 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support its retention, SqueakBox 04:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin

[edit]

This article has so much spin on it... I would be extremely interested to know what your think this "spin" consists of. Wiki-is-truth 10:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this for an example? "His career with them spans more than forty years, during which time the band grew to be considered one of the greatest and most influential rock bands of all time, in addition to being "possibly the greatest live band ever."" Pkeets 22:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spin? Looks accurate, to me. The "greatest" and "influential" tags are sourced from the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame and the Encyclopedia Britannica and the "possibly the greatest live band ever" quote is from Eddie Vedder in Rolling Stone with support from Johnny Ramone. You can't possibly dispute that The Who is widely considered one of the greatest and most influential rock bands of all time and often given the accolade of rock's greatest live band. Not if you have the barest knowledge of rock history.Clashwho 04:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to get into a dispute about it. I'm just saying this kind of statement (and the way it's presented) isn't exactly neutral POV. Pkeets 05:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to The Who, it's neutral. It's an objective statement of fact. You don't have to be a fan of the band to acknowledge their widely recognized greatness and influence. Same with the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Elvis Presley, etc.Clashwho 22:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's opinion, regardless of who you've quoted. Pkeets 05:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Erik said, that they are widely considered as such is not opinion.Clashwho 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pl;ease dont include the Who with the real greats of rock'n'roll as it, IMO, makes you look silly. The Beatles, Stones and Elvis indeed? SqueakBox 05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Who have long been placed alongside the Beatles and the Stones as the greatest bands in rock in publications ranging from Life to Time to Rolling Stone to Newsweek and that opinion is echoed by the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame and the UK Music Hall of Fame. There are plenty of bands where such a comparison would be silly. The Who is not one of them.Clashwho 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That they're considered to be (and publicly acknowledged as being) among the greatest (by the notable sources cited) is a fact, not an opinion. That they're influential is also a fact (given the number of musicians who have cited them as an influence), not an opinion. Whether or not they are among the greatest, however, is an opinion. A number of widely-accepted experts in their genre consider them to be so - you are more than welcome to disagree with them (or to reject their expertise), that doesn't change the fact that they hold that opinion. There are many musicians who are considered among the greatest in their field that I haven't been able to gain any appreciation for. Even if I don't think they're very good, or if I don't even think their genres are worthwhile (or should even be called music), it doesn't change the fact that those musicians are considered among the greatest in their genres. As for whether considering The Who to be one of the real greats of rock'n'roll makes one look silly - that's a matter of opinion. :) —Erik Harris 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the tag

[edit]

I see no reason to keep the tag. Could those who wish to keep it please describe clearly in terms of policy just what in the article at the moment is contested? --Guinnog 14:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV isn't about consensus or whether some particular point is contested. It's about tone and neutrality in the description. As an example, I can use the discussion above about whether The Who is the "greatest rock and roll band of all time." Here's the Wikipedia quote about opinion: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." So, the quote about whether The Who is "the greatest rock and roll band" doesn't quote the sources in the article, such as "Eddie Vedder says The Who is the greatest rock and roll band," but instead states this and references it as if it's a fact. This does not meet the requirements of NPOV. Here's the Wikipedia page on it: Wikipedia:NPOV Pkeets 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "the band grew to be considered one of the greatest[1] and most influential[2] rock bands of all time, in addition to being "possibly the greatest live band ever."[3]"? That comes under "facts about opinions"; the superscript numbers direct to verifiable references, which I think makes it acceptable. If you have a specific change you want to introduce, to address the POV problem you perceive, could you please suggest it here? --Guinnog 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"That comes under "facts about opinions"; the superscript numbers direct to verifiable references, which I think makes it acceptable." It doesn't. A fact about this opinion would be "Eddie Vedder said this about The Who..." The statement is asserting the opinion, and the fact that it's referenced doesn't make it meet the Wikipedia requirements. 72.161.41.226 05:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming quickly through this, I think there's a general bias to it and I don't really want to spend the time to argue all the points. See the discussion above where commenting on this line started a dispute right away about whether The Who are or are not considered the greatest, etc. I'm writing on other articles and I just don't care enough about this one to let it take up all my time. I think it's important to avoid libel, but otherwise it's easier to just retain the NPOV tag until the bias is cleaned up (or not). About this particular statement about The Who, why is it even in the Pete Townshend article? Shouldn't it be in The Who article instead? Pkeets 23:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your vague feeling of "general bias" is sufficient to keep the tag on the article. As I explained, these are all well-referenced quotes about the Who (and they do indeed come direct from the Who article). Unless you can make a more specific objection couched in terms of policy, I don't think the tag is justified. --Guinnog 23:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you think the Pete Townshend article should read like a promotional ad for The Who?Pkeets 00:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) That's a bit of a non sequitur. Can you make a specific suggestion please?--Guinnog 03:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"His career with them spans more than forty years, during which time the band grew to be considered one of the greatest[1] and most influential[2] rock bands of all time, in addition to being "possibly the greatest live band ever." Okay, looking at this particular statement, it's the "greatest" that's most offensive as opinion. How do you define that? Number of fans? Album sales? Concert tickets sold? Is there some scientific survey data that shows The Who is considered by a large segment of the population to be "possibly the greatest live band ever" (Sorry, Eddie's opinion isn't sufficient)? And what is inclusion of this statement suggesting, that Townshend is solely responsible for the "greatest" status of The Who? I can't believe anyone reading this really thinks it's NPOV.
I don't have any good suggestions to fix this article, but if you have to include mention of The Who's status here, you might say something like: "...more than forty years, during which time the band achieved both artistic and financial success," and leave it at that. So, are you ready to go on to sentence four now?
Just leave the tag there. Pkeets 05:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't like having the tag there long term. We could maybe tone down the praise for his Who career, but the best for this would be if you could come up with some well-referenced criticism of (for example) his solo work. You do know that that is how we work here, trying to collate and transmute verifiable data into a free online resource? The trouble with your version is that it removes referenced info. Perhaps balancing the lead would be good (see if you can find any reputable and more critical reviews of Townshend, or of the Who's later work, and add them to the article), and perhaps we should slightly tone down the praise for the Who in the lead here. I can look at that if you like, it's a reasonable stylistic criticism, though not really a cause to have this tag here long term, in my opinion. Best wishes, --Guinnog 06:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not having heard back to the contrary, I have removed the tag. Please do not replace it without making specific proposals here first. Thanks. --Guinnog 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on Operation Ore Scandal

[edit]

There is reportedly another article on Operation Ore in this month's PC-Pro which specifically addresses Pete Townshend's credit card purchase through Keyz at Landslide. This doesn't seem to be available online yet, but here is one pertinent passage as provied elsewhere:

"[Pete Townshend's name was] listed on Landslide records as signed up to Keyz websites. But the police never had any evidence that the websites concerned - which are shown as "Alberto " and "Spermed" - had anything to do with children. Nothing was found on [his] personal computers.

"But the police didn't tell Townshend that their entire evidence against him was a single entry made on Landslide on 15 May 1999 for the purchase of the Alberto website. Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do. He was cautioned and his name was placed on the sex offenders register."

It's likely a good idea to wait until this article is available online before adding it to Townshend's Wikipedia article, but we can start the discussion now on how to handle it. Is this sufficient evidence to say that Townshend was falsely accused? Pkeets 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the whole article. http://ore-exposed.obu-investigators.com/PC_PRO_Operation_Ore_Exposed_2.html Pkeets 19:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guinnog, for someone who's such a stickler for references, you're being pretty lax here. There are two Duncan Campbells. One works for the Guardian and the other is an investigative journalist who obtained the Landslide hard drives and wrote the article in PC Pro Magazine. If you're going to leave your latest revision in, you'll need to clarify which Duncan Campbell has done the investigations and which has written the article in the Guardian. User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 04:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'll check the Guardian reference, it appears to the Campbell the investigative journalist who's done the article. He's writing in the first person. Pkeets 04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I'll change them. --Guinnog 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely Campbell the investigative reporter who wrote the PC Pro article. It says so in the credits. I've already fixed the references. Pkeets 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I fixed them again; you had them pointing to a dab page! Very interesting stuff. I met this Duncan Campbell once years ago, not that it makes any difference to anything.--Guinnog 05:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Police Cautions

[edit]

BTW, I seem to recall there's been discussion here about the fine points of police cautions in the UK. There is an article in Wikipedia on this if anyone here would care to contribute. Just follow the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.41.226 (talk • contribs)

See also [7]. Andy Mabbett 22:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure how this is a "talk" page. It seems one person has highjacked the entire discussion. How can one person have so much control? In their effort to inform us about Townshend's guilt, they have stifled any and all other discussion about him. There's nothing else here except allegations of child porn. Wasn't he also a musician? Which leads to my next question. Didn't he smash the guitar his grandmother gave him?

Heroin addiction and Cranial electrotherapy stimulation

[edit]

User:Oldspammer/Robert C. Beck makes mention of "Pete Townsend" in the "Controversies" section, about 40% down the entire Beck article. It concerns the use of electronic brain stimulators, a.k.a. CES (Cranial electrotherapy stimulation), and an Omni Magazine article about Dr. Meg Patterson, M.D., using such a device on Townsend to cure him of his addiction. Anyone have any comments about this story regarding its success or failure? Oldspammer (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Townshend Tinitus 01.jpg

[edit]

Image:Townshend Tinitus 01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Townshend Tinitus 02.jpg

[edit]

Image:Townshend Tinitus 02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Townshend Tinitus 03.jpg

[edit]

Image:Townshend Tinitus 03.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Townshend Tinitus 04.jpg

[edit]

Image:Townshend Tinitus 04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Who's studio albums

[edit]

The Who's studio albums are the following: My Generation, A Quick One, The Who Sell Out, Tommy, Who's Next, Quadrophenia, The Who By Numbers, Who Are You, Face Dances, It's Hard and Endless Wire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.222.188 (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Sentence

[edit]

In the section Early Life,(this article) at the end it says pete also fell in love with a young man called CHRISTOPHER HARRIS LEWIS or something. Is this fact, or plain vandilism?PandaSaver (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ignore it. For some reason a few children with IP addresses decided it would be fun to vandalise the article today. I've taken that crap out and have locked the page down until further notice. 23skidoo (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAGE PROTECTED

[edit]

Since a bunch of idiots have decided it would be fun to vandalise the page today I'm locking it down until further notice. 23skidoo (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...protection removed, this has been long enough. — xaosflux Talk 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but I'll be keeping a close eye on it. There are a few articles that justify ongoing protection; Angelina Jolie being one. If things stay on the straight and narrow, fine, but I won't hesitate to lock this down if the nonsense starts up again. WP:BLP is absolute. 23skidoo (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"legal matter" section

[edit]

Ha ha. I got a laugh at the pun. DavidRF (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I made these edits to the infamous Townshend article. They were more-or-less immediately undone by user User:Wiki libs

Let's address those changes:

  • "Legal matters" to "Criminal investigation": "Legal matters" is pure spin. While it is generally correct that Townshend was caught up in "Legal Matters", it is rather like saying that Charlie Manson was a Beatles fan who infringed the law. It is true, but it reduces the seriousness of the matter, which is why it is used. Spin. Further, he is involved in "legal matters" every day of his life - contracts, copyright, purchase of goods, administrative requirements (car tax, etc). Why not list all of those in "Legal Matters"? Because we ain't interested. There is only one legal matter discussed in this section, and it is the "Criminal investigation".
  • "As a result of the Operation Ore investigations" to "As part of the Operation Ore investigations": Townshend was cautioned because of Operation Ore, not as part of them. It is a minor change.
  • "after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography":
    • Landslide was not a child porn website, it was a portal site that facilitated access to independent websites, some of which offered child porn. So it should be "a website", or arguably (and more dubiously) "a Landslide website". To say "the Landslide website" is a definite error.
    • "alleged to advertise child porn": so the police said to Townshend "we can prove that you accessed a website that is alledged to advertise child porn"? No. It's easy enough to prove that he accessed A website. What is important is that the website advertised child porn, and that Townshend responded to the advert. Townshend admitted guilt to this allegation, and hence we must assume that it is true. Therefore it is pure spin to prioritise the word of a journalist over the words of the person involved.
  • "the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges": again, this is true. But they offered it to him? "Would you like a caution Mr Townshend?" "Oh yes, that would be much less tedious than going to court. Why thanks!" Again, it is pure spin, and the more simple and less wordy "the police cautioned him" exhibits less spin (i.e. POV) and is equally accurate (and shorter). Saying "they cautioned rather than charged him" is rather like saying "he turned left rather than right" - sometimes the tautology is worthwhile, others it is simply spin.
  • "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images": this says EXACTLY the same as the sentence that precedes it. Neither is sourced, so there is no justification for prefering one to the other, but normal English stylistic conventions say that we should avoid unwarranted repetition.
  • "As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years": now this is PLAIN WRONG. VISOR is a system operated by the authorities for their own convenience. There is no statutory requirement for Townshend to be entered on it, the police do that for their own purposes. Townshend's only obligation is to inform the police of certain details about himself. What the police then do with it is up to them - they can shred it if they so choose, although that would probably amount to negligence. Certainly Home Office (or League of Justice) circulars do not amount to statutory requirements. The statutory consequence is that Townshend becomes subject to the notification requirements - nothing to do with VISOR.
  • "This would normally prevent travel abroad, but in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution": I have yet to see a more perfect example of spin (nee POV).
    • it is WRONG. Any sex offender is free to travel abroad unless a travel order has been obtained against him.
    • the restrictions were waived? What is the source for this? Who waived the restrictions? Was it that famously music loving President Bill Clinton? Oh wait, he was dreaming about the days when he used to have interns by that time. So who was it? We do not know. We do not know if the restrictions were "waived" or if Townshend Aliens was eligible for a waiver of ineligibility under the US Immigration Act. So to have it as "in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived" is spin, pure and simple. We know he has been to the USA, but we don't know under what authority he did it. It is unsourced and blatantly wishful thinking.

So, in reverting these edits, both User:Wiki libs and User:Sssoul were concerned merely with the removal of errors, POV and meeting the Wikipedia requirements for biography? The BLP policy says:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

Wiki-is-truth (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for bringing this to the talk page - i hope it can stay on the talk page until consensus is reached on any of the proposed changes. i'm not presently able to converse with you at length about all this, but wanted to leave a brief reply so you don't think i'm ignoring you. of course you know that WP:BLP policies apply to your edits too, so it would be great if you'd provide sources for your assertions (above) that some of the text is erroneous. some of the other points you raise are merely differences of opinion about how to phrase things - i personally favour "The police cautioned him rather than charging him" as a clear and unambiguous statement of fact. Sssoul (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are, of course, entirely welcome to this talk page. The problem with the phrase you favour ("The police cautioned him rather than charging him") is that it is not a clear and unambiguous statement of fact. A clear statement of fact is: "the police cautioned him". It says nothing about the man, it makes no claims whatsoever about what should and should not have happened. It simply states fact. So why do people want the extra verbiage "rather than charging him"? Because it makes it sound like it was simply a technicality ("So sorry Mr Townshend, we've started this thing now and we can't just make it go away, you understand I'm sure - it's been in all the papers. How about we get it all out of the way with a nice simple caution?"). It is unnecessary verbiage and it introduces the aforementioned slant - which is, plain and simple, a POV. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This battle has raged before. And it will periodically come up as long as there are people with an agenda to try to do to Townshend what the police elected (after spending 4 months reviewing all the evidence) decided it was wrong to do. They did not prosecute. He was not charged. He did not go to court. He was not found guilty. A long, long battle was fought on this article. The current version was agreed to by consensus - with an administrator helping to adjudicate. It is disappointing - but not surprising - that some would wish to overturn that consensus. But BLP is BLP. And people who are disappointed that the police decided not to charge Townshend cannot use Wikipedia as a place to mete out vigilante-style justice. The article as written was NPOV and balanced. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with this article is the fact that certain people do not understand what a police caution is. I do not care what the police did or did not do. What I do care about is whether this article can be given a spin that makes it seem like nothing really happened. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It its not the place of this article to define what a police caution is. Personally I see no way a reader could misunderstand the term, however given the fact a lot of people have convicted him anyway, it's important for the sake of BLP to specify that the caution did not lead to a charge. 23skidoo (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it important "to specify that the caution did not lead to a charge"? Cautions NEVER lead to charges, they are ALTERNATIVES to charging and prosecution; prosecutions occasionally result in an acquital (i.e. a finding of innocence), cautions NEVER do (they are an admission of guilt). People say "its important to show he wasn't charged" cos they want to make it sound like a slap on the wrist. No other reason. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What Wiki-is-truth's definition is, or is not, is not relevent. The full definition can be found at Police caution but the relevent phrase boils down to a single sentence "A formal recording of guilt, given by a Police Officer, instead of a charge". It is also formally added to the offender's criminal record. Many people when offered a verbal caution, particularly after a harrowing interrogation, do not realise the full implications of what they are accepting. Whether intended or not, accepting a caution is an admission of guilt and an acceptance of a criminal record. Unlike Wiki-is-truth and that editor's single minded crusade against Townshend, I tend to believe that he was totally innocent and was simply misled into accepting a caution. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pure sophistry. My definition of a police caution is... "a formal recording of guilt". People are not (or should not) be given a caution after a harrowing interview with no idea of what it is they are getting into. They should be presented with the police case and their legal representative should advise them on the merits of it. In consultaiton with his legal representative he should then come to a considered decision. And, if Townshend was misled (which is your worthless OPINION), then why does he not march back into the police station whence the caution was issued and demand that it be revoked? Wiki-is-truth (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was totally innocent and was simply misled into accepting a caution... but much later he admitted that he was wrong and broke the law.. he knows how guilty he is, why don't you believe him rather than come to your own conclusion? Wiki-is-truth (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for what it is worth, I am not engaged in a "crusade against Townshend". In my eyes, Townshend was nothing more than idiotic; idiocy certainly isn't a even approximately a good reason to attack a person's life, reputation and career. What I am interested in is the fact that Wikipedia is a nonsense. It's rules are blatantly open to misuse by anyone with a partisan opinion on any particular matter. Take, for example, the "foreign travel" claims made in the current version of the article. They are wrong. Wikipedia's own rules would, if applied at all, have them removed - they are indefensible and unsourced. But when I try to remove them, they get put straight back as "the concensus". But Wikipedia's rules say that in a biography, anything contentious should be sourced and verifiably true, or removed. Given this manipulability, Wikipedia is simply worthless as a reference material. I like pointing it out. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Wiki-is-truth strongly argues that a series of other editors (including myself) are refusing to allow himer to make edits the article needs, and I find this effort to be very NPoVish. I will not revert the edits further. sinneed (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from DVD

[edit]

The article is about Townshend, not Oliver Reed or Moon. There are thousands of Townshend quotes on various subjects, this one is not particularly noteworthy or illuminating to the article's topic. Jgm (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign travel

[edit]

The article currently says:

As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years. This would normally prevent travel abroad, but in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution.

It is riddled with inaccuracies and plain misunderstandings. In fact it is blathering nonsense!

  • There is NO statutory basis for ViSOR
  • Indeed, there is no Sex Offender Register, merely a requirement to register
  • Being listed on ViSOR does NOT prevent foreign travel - hence the creation of foreign travel orders by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (NOTE THE YEAR!)

What you want to say is that Townshend has been allowed in the states. A mere arrest for an offence involving Moral turpitude can prevent entry into the US. Note that this is applied by the US, and has NOTHING whatsover to do with UK authorities (over and above responsibility for the original arrest, of course). An "entry" on ViSOR is totally unneccessary for an American visa to be refused. The misuse of Wikipedia here is totally and utterly blatant. Can someone please make the rules apply!!!! Wiki-is-truth (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Foreign travel" claims are nonsense. I edit the article to try to remove them, they get put back. I try to get people to cite sources (which, if they tried, they would be unable to do, becuase the claims they would be trying to support are nonsense!) but those attempts too are removed (see this edit by User:Wether B). When are you people going to follow Wikipedia's rules instead of using them to manipulate the "truth"? Wiki-is-truth (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years. This would normally prevent travel abroad, but in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution."
  • Which Act makes entry on Visor a consequence of accepting a caution? It should be a simple matter to identify the Act (i.e. the Gross Nonsense Act 1893) so I will take refusal to do it as an admission that it cannot be done and that the claim is nonsense.
  • Which Act would prevent travel abroad because of an entry on ViSOR? Again, it should be simple to identify it. So do it.
  • Who waived what restrictions? It should be easy to find some source for this. It should be possible to identify what legal powers enabled them to make this waiver. Name the Acts (that is "Acts of Parliament").

If you support the "consensus" wording, take this as a challenge to you. Prove your version, or be considered dissemblers and liars. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bs text. If you support its reinclusion, follow Wikipedia's own rules (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, where it says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material") and provide evidence that justifies that it should stay. I outline above what you would need to provide to do this. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 01:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed

As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years. This would normally prevent travel abroad, but in Townshend's case such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution.

to

As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend had to register as a sex offender for 5 years. An arrest for a crime involving moral turpitude bars entry to the USA under the visa waiver program, but waivers of inelligibility are available on application - Townshend's many trips to the USA suggest that he has obtained such a waiver.

and User:Wiki libs reverted it as vandalism. I just love wikipoodia :-) Wiki-is-truth (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of the "Legal matters" section

[edit]

Somewhere above, (talk) (at 15:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)) says[reply]

Because User:Wiki-is-truth strongly argues that a series of other editors (including myself) are refusing to allow himer to make edits the article needs, and I find this effort to be very NPoVish. I will not revert the edits further. sinneed

The "Legal matters" section is extremely PoVish. Wiki-is-truth (talk)

I will paraphrase it for you (with the PoV I see it expressing emboldened):

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography, but which didn't really because he was wrongly accused. He was actually a normal person enraged by child porn and engaged in research for A Different Bomb (a now-abandoned book based on an anti-child pornography essay published on his website in January 2002) and his autobiography, and as part of a campaign against child pornography and it is absolutely crucial that some decent person runs such a campaign or else who will do anything about child porn?. The police searched his house and confiscated fourteen computers and other materials and after a four-month thorough, totally professional, complete and absolutely innocence-proving forensic investigation confirmed that they had found no evidence of child abuse images, which of course they wouldn't have since Townshend isn't a perv. Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, because after acting so publicly they couldn't really be seen to do nothing. They issued a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." Note that very carefully: Mr Townshend was NOT in possession of any child abuse images! In a statement issued by his solicitor, Townshend said, "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me." As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years. The police couldn't do anything else than put him on ViSOR - they didn't really want to but the law is stupidly inflexible so they had to. This prevents perverts from travelling abroad, but because Townshend is totally normal and nothing whatsoever like a pervert, such restrictions have been waived, making possible his numerous concert performances with and without The Who since receiving the caution.

You might perhaps do the same and highlight the PoV MY changes add to the article... and you might try sourcing those parts of the article that I keep trying to remove or change. If you tried, a) you might succeed and shut me up, or b) you might find that you can't, because the article is WRONG. I don't really care about Townshend, but it entertains me enormously to see Wikipedia manipulated so blatantly (and in defiance of its own rules! (the one that says biographical articles should be factually correct, for example)) and yet still have people try to tell me that wikipedia is worth using as reference material. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted or emailed the admins who worked on the previous neutral consensus version of the section following your previous soapboxing attempts and asked them to re-visit and read through your edits containing your own personal pov, o.r. and non-neutral soapbox skewing. They will determine if any of your slanted wording can be used. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I didn't think you would even try to highlight what you think the PoV problems are with my "slant" on the "legal matter" (makes it almost sound like writing a will, eh??? nothing serious). But that is unfair, so I'll just assume that you CANNOT highlight any problems with my version. And, uhm, anyone who looks into this (lack of sources in the consensus and factual incorrectness) in any depth will, I am afraid, have to side with me. Your version of this article is unsustainable. But please, don't go running after daddy to get him to stamp his authority down, do some work yourself - SHOW WHERE MY CHANGES ARE WRONG, which is not required by the rules, because I am actually removing FACTUALLY INCORRECT material AND slanted material from the article and replacing it with bald statement of fact, as required by the rules on biographies. And by those same rules, it is down to YOU to defend the material I seek to remove but you continuously replace, not for me to justify my changes. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see with revisions like this is that it links independent facts together with additional commentary - for example adding in the usual process of law relating to a particular aspect - if a reader needs to know and compare the data against this, THEY should do this, NOT the wikipedia editors, UNLESS an outside reporter has made such connection and reported on that issue. Wiki-is-truth may have a point that some of data is not correctly represented but his version goes too far into original research becuase of the above approach. I have no need to know the particulars of what is involved in the usual process of being on the sex offender's register and what it usually means for travel - that has been arrived at by deduction - if an outside voice reported it then we should report that but we appear to be making comparisons that no outside reliable source is making, we should just cut those right out, as we should with the other (potentially erroneous) syllogisms that have been arrived at, we are not the ones who should be recording that data set, we should be only recording what is reported.--Alf melmac 10:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here we go, something for all consensususites who seem to see no need for actual discussion on the discussion page but rather sit heavily on a false and biased article text as if it were a holy crapseat through which they were squeezing out worship. What prevents Townshend from travelling? How extensive is that prohibition? Who imposes the prohibition? The impression given by the article is that it is a statutory consequence of his entry on ViSOR. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources mention travelling in connection with this section? I see no reason for travelling to be mentioned at all if an reliable source doesn't pick up it.--Alf melmac 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly my point. No reliable source "Picks it up" cos it is bushlit, at least in the way it is presented here. I tried deleting it, it got replaced, i tried correcting it, it got turned back into crud. And I get accused of vandalism! Maybe the Vandals actually improved Rome.... Wiki-is-truth (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh BTW, WHAT ORIGINAL RESEARCH? The change you didn't like was a direct quotation of the police statement given on the occasion of Townshend's caution, and the other stuff is a precis

of the ACTUAL conditions on "travel restrictions" as they pertain to perverts (and others). No original research WHATSOEVER, and if you read the sources, and maybe thought a bit, you would realise that. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • My apologies, I hadn't at that point read The Scotsmans cite, I didn't think police statements could be that procedurally anal, but I'm obviously wrong there. If, as the Scotland Yard spokesman says it's normal process it's unnecessary to add. The sources do not mention Townshend. As I said before, readers should do their own sythesis of the data.--Alf melmac 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the current status here? It's still tagged POV, but I don't see there is any issue with the current version. What bits do editors consider to have POV problems? Mdwh (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Facts

[edit]

The neutrality of the Legal Matters section may be disputed but more importantly in keeping the section up it damages Wikipedias reputation as the basic facts are not disputable and the section highly misleading.

A: He was arrested under the Protection of Children Act 1978 on "suspicion of possessing indecent images of children, suspicion of making indecent images of children and suspicion of incitement to distribute indecent images of children."

B: He had high quality legal representation led by John Cohen, Senior Partner at Clintons, a leading London Law Firm, from the start.

C: He publically admitted accessing and viewing the pay for child porn site using his credit card. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/01/11/uk.townshend.statement/index.html

Under the Protection of Children Act 1978 this means he admitted to possessing indecent images of children. http://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm

D: Under Home Office Rules the Police have to have enough evidence of his guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction before they could offer to deal with the offence by way of a formal caution. ( now known as a simple caution) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/powers/cautioning/

E: Under the Home Office Rules he had not only to admit the offence but also understand the significance of the caution and give his informed consent to being cautioned before it could be issued. He did.


Truth Outs (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please cite specific sources for each of these statements - then they might be helpful in some way. Sssoul (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C: In the cite you provide it quotes Townshend saying in a statement to the media "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." nowhere has he "admitted accessing and viewing the pay for child porn site" - even the (sub?-)title of the piece relates that - "LONDON, England -- British rock star Pete Townshend has admitted having paid to enter an Internet site advertising child pornography." The article uses "after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography." with two cites. This one adds no new further information.
"...this means he admitted to possessing..." - This conclusion by any form of argument is synthesis, the url you provide does not support a direct statement.
D:This conclusion by any form of argument is synthesis, the url you provide does not support a direct statement.--Alf melmac 12:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

[edit]

Why does it still need to be protected? Sumbuddi (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the Superbowl thing is still ongoing, correct? and that's not countered by any need to rush to unprotect the page, as far as i know. anyway it would be good to see the results of this good hard work last more than a couple of hours Sssoul (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware there ever was a 'Superbowl thing', given that this article was protected during the media coverage of that (seems to be the period December 29th-January 4th), which seems pretty much dead now, and given that it was protected then, we don't know if it was an issue then anyway. It's protected for a content dispute that's now resolved, at least according to the template Sumbuddi (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the template text is designed to suit various situations; my understanding is that in this case it's the "until February 10th" part that's specifically relevant. the protection was extended following a request related to the Superbowl "campaign", and the February 10th end date was specifically chosen because it's after the Superbowl – here's a diff to refresh your memory: [8]. is there some reason to rush to unprotect the article? i hope it'll remain at least semi-protected, and that the page can stay stable for a while. Sssoul (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I originally unprotected the page as the dispute appears to have been resolved for the moment. Per the protection policy, particularly WP:NO-PREEMPT, full protection is against the spirit of Wikipedia and pages should not be left on full protection for long periods due to pre-emptive concern of future vandalism or edit warring. The reason I originally fully protected the page, edit warring over the Operation Ore investigation section, now no longer applies as the dispute has been resolved above. I will be watching the page; if edit warring resumes full protection can easily be re-instated and the version pre-dating the edit war (probably the consensus version above) reverted to per WP:PREFER. Given reasonable concerns over the Superbowl issue, and the WP:BLP status of this page, I will in the spirit of compromise leave it on semi-protection until the February 10th expiry. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the clarity, Camaron, and for the semi-protection, and for keeping an eye on the page. Sssoul (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pete_Townshend/Archive_2&oldid=1072745571"