Talk:Peter Hore (prankster)

Video footage

Anyone know sites that show video footage of these stunts? The only ones I was really aware of before reading this article were the obvious ones (Melbourne Cup, funerals, Iran etc). Some stuff actually sounds quite funny ;) Rogerthat ^Talk 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

have a look here for footage of Peter Hore the Serial Pest

http://www.hawkmoore.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.107.2 (talk • contribs)

The abovementioned video no longer exists. You can find some at Youtube if you search for 'serial pest'.Devobaby (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page names

It looks like Peter Hore was cut and paste moved to Peter Hore (aka Peter Michael Howard). Might need to get someone with suitable priviledges to fix it, if possible. -- Chuq 07:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC) I just had a look and found I have the required level of access - will do it soon. I will also make Peter Hore the primary topic as he is by far the best known, and add a topnote to it to link to the professor. -- Chuq 07:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, all fixed (hopefully). Ironically the only edits User:Wikifixor ever made needed fixing! -- Chuq 10:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am frankly dubious that his real name is Peter Michael Howard. It is far too close to "Howard, PM" to be accepted without a reference. He is only known as Peter Hore (or Hoare) as far as I know. Thepm (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Stunts

Do we really need a list of stunts? It verges on a celebration of his activities.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: I've tagged that section as needing more secondary-source analysis. Lacking such coverage, most of the content should be removed, in my opinion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an exposition of every detail of a subject's life. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure there is any analysis. This raises the question whether we should have the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I've removed most of the trivial information and added some commentary by secondary sources. I agree that questions of notability remain. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Funeral of Nicole Kidman's father

"19 September 2014: Peter Hore influenced security conditions at the funeral of Nicole Kidman's father. It is understood he may have astral travelled into the funeral, however his mental illness may have influenced this incident as it may have not occurred. He was known to be responsible for Nicole experiencing a slightly dramatic episode at the funeral.[citation needed]" Erm...what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.200.117 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC on "criminal" description

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Peter Hore be primarily described as a "criminal" both here and at the Peter Hoare disambiguation page? His misdeeds are relatively minor and there is a suggestion that he might have a mental illness.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The courts see fit to lob him into prison for his "crimes". The reference after the mention of 'He allegedly helped release 35 asylum seekers from the Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre.[32] Hore was sentenced to three months in jail.[33]' is now a broken link by the way.

IANAL, however mental incapacity is a defence in law, yet they seem fine dishing him out punishments. The article needs a good going over for accuracy and perhaps then we can decide. I feel the criminal tag is on the harsh side, yet who are we to argue when that's pretty much all he's known for? -- Longhair\^talk 08:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think he's known as a criminal. He's known as a serial pest. The "criminal" label implies he's done something more serious. By comparison Mark Roberts (streaker) is not described as a criminal. The articles that I can access say that Hore was given good behaviour bonds, conditional bail, fines etc. Even if he was given a prison sentence, it wasn't for long. I think the description of "criminal" is misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems he's assaulted a cop around 2014. That's getting "serious". Beyond that I agree he's more a pest than a crime lord. -- Longhair\^talk 08:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's getting serious. He has obviously been disruptive. Charges of assaulting police are common in demonstrations and similar.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I say serious insofar as an alleged assault is an escalation from previous incidents of trespass and being a dick, which he's mostly known for. Police appear to think he's a "criminal", and I'm fully aware how police are more than capable of twisting versions of events when it suits them. "Detective Superintendent Darren Bennett, of the counter-terrorism unit, said on Thursday. ‘‘The bloke is an imbecile and should not be treated as anything but a criminal" [1]. The only reason counter terror police seem to be interested was due to his suspected disruption at the Brisbane G20 summit, where Hore did say he'd walk naked over a bridge, but was prohibited from entering the zone before the event. He hasn't streaked as far as I can find. Hore's lawyer made submissions for his assault charge to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act [2] but I've not located anything about the outcome as yet. -- Longhair\^talk 10:46, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would describe him as "serial pest" or "serial disrupt-er" or if there is a better term for the specific crime - then it. He is a criminal, however it would be correct to describe a career bank robber (or pickpocket, drug dealer, embezzler, etc. etc. for that matter) for their specific criminal activity - and not with the general criminal tag. In this particular instance where the crime is generally minor, criminal could suggest he's been convicted of offenses more significant than disrupting or causing a nuisance - which is not the case here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Criminal has been suggested by some contributors to be a potentially pejorative label – see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 5. I'm inclined to agree. Simply calling someone a criminal doesn't tell others what the crimes were, or whether they were serious or petty crimes. It does, however, signal that the person is a member of a despised underclass ("We don't associate with criminals here!" she cried, aghast). Used by itself, criminal is nearly always gratuitous and inflammatory. Unless the subject fits a specific label such as war criminal, mass murderer, serial rapist, etc., then it's much better to describe the criminal acts themselves, e.g.

Peter Hore is an Australian-born man, described as a "serial prankster", who is known for disrupting major sporting and political events, etc.

Alleged assaults, etc. don't qualify – see WP:BLPCRIME. Are there published, reliable sources that describe him as a "criminal"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC) (updated 11:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

• Convicted criminal is the correct term. The difference is small, but the difference per BLP is significant. Adding the qualifier "convicted" emphasizes that his status is a result of a legal proceeding rather than an innate attribute of his person. It also clarifies that the description is justified by a reliably sourced fact about his documented history. Just writing "Criminal" alone appears more personal and alludes to the concept that he may commit crimes in some unspecified future. We cannot be seen to be accusing him of the potential for criminal behavior. I have made this change to the article text already. Edaham (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Edits pertinent to ongoing RfCs are generally not advisable – it's best to wait for the issue to be resolved through discussion first (see WP:RFC § Suggestions for responding). In any event, the phrase convicted criminal is still vague – convicted of what exactly? – and in this case appears incidental to the reasons for Hore's notability. The sources I've seen label him as a "pest", "prankster", "troublemaker", etc., indicating that those are the things he is known for, rather than for being a "criminal" per se. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Strongly suggest you change it to "convicted criminal" (with a citation) until the RfC is resolved. We should of course look at articles on a case by case basis, but the policies in WP:BLPCRIME (suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. A conviction is secured through judicial proceedings) strongly support referring to and clarifying that criminal status is the result of a conviction. Compare verbiage in articles like:

  1.Raffaele Lombardo

  2.Kenny_Kunene

  3.Hugh Jeffery Ward

  4.Andrew Fastow

  5.Stanley_Mark Rifkin

  6.Abdul Nacer Benbrika

  All of which explicitly mention the judicial status of the previous conviction(s) - and articles which use the current verbiage, "is a criminal" which refer to fictitious characters as having criminality as one of their significant attributes.

  Bill_Sikes

  I am very reluctant to revert after having been reverted, but since this is a BLP issue, I really think its best that we use a version which errs on the side of more conservatively following BLPCRIME until we have had the RfC closed, at which time the term may be replaced altogether. You are right that we shouldn't generally edit articles while RfCs are in progress but I hope you can see eye to eye on this one, as having been called over as an outside editor, the disparity between the verbiage in the lede of this article and of other convicted criminals was immediately apparent and disconcertingly close to an BLP faux-pas. Edaham (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Given the notability issue I raised above, I really don't see how convicted criminal is any better. Yes, Hore was convicted of something (what was it again?), but labeling him as such in the first sentence gives that conviction undue weight, in my opinion. That's a BLP concern as well. The other problem is that simply putting convicted in the text doesn't actually demonstrate that a conviction has been "secured through judicial proceedings", per WP:BLP. That requires a citation to a reliable source. Feel free to provide a citation that demonstrates the noteworthiness of any criminal convictions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  I am not trying to provide a definitive solution to the ongoing RfC. I am still reading the article to assess the question raised and am not yet sure in which direction to cast my support. What I do want to do is make sure that the page as it is does not contain a BLP violation and would rather err on the safe side until it is resolved, please. The term convicted criminal refers explicitly to judicial status whereas the term criminal is taken to mean people who commit criminal acts which may or may not be associated with convictions. Edaham (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Feel free to raise the issue at WP:BLP/N, but I don't think that it's necessarily a BLPCRIME violation to call a convicted criminal a criminal, as long as a verified conviction exists (it may very well be unduly sensationalized and thus counter to the spirit of BLPs more generally, which was my earlier point). It's the facts that matter. But I'm wary of entrenching the epithet further via the serious and official-sounding phrase convicted criminal, especially absent reliable sources demonstrating the noteworthiness of any "crimes". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  I've actually raised the issue as a proposal to adjust the policy at TALK:BLP as I think the policy ought to better uphold and support the qualification of "convictions" vs "criminal or potentially criminal behavior" when referring to criminals. In the meantime, if the other editors here can agree, I think if we cannot agree on the qualification of the term, "convicted criminal" I would support removing it temporarily until advice is given at the policy page where I raised the issue. I'd like to not be the one to make this edit, as I've already been reverted. Edaham (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  To clarify, exactly which text do you suggest removing? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Peter Hore is an Australian-born criminal, known for disrupting social and political events. Edaham (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  I've removed criminal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  Ok - after further reading and research, I think I'd support its permanent removal from the lede (regarding my RfC vote), as this person is not a "career" criminal and is not typically referred to as such in sources. Moreover he is not known for any one specific notable act of criminal activity. His stunts, while possibly illegal, don't seem to be criminally motivated and, most importantly, are not predominantly referred to as criminal acts by reliable sources. BLPCRIME and PERP do not give specifics on usage of criminal as a term but in this case I think the term criminal is misleading to the reader as what he is is actually a prankster. Edaham (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• Convicted criminal. This is an encyclopedically necessary qualification, especially in a BLP, and also especially when the alleged criminality is contested (on factual and on metal health vs. criminal intent grounds) in the real world. Otherwise we have a WP:NPOV / WP:OR problem of WP asserting in its own voice that Hore is a criminal, in a way that can be misinterpreted in multiple directions at once.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I think this is splitting hairs. To use the label convicted criminal would indeed be an assertion, in Wikipedia's voice, that Hore is a criminal – just a specific kind of criminal, namely one that has been convicted. Any variation on [...] criminal also runs into issues of notability, as mentioned above – i.e., most sources refer to Hore as a "pest", "troublemaker", etc., not a "criminal ", convicted or otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  I agree that 'convicted criminal' would not be an improvement. While it's true, it's also very vague, and would (I think) imply to many people that he had been convicted of very serious crimes (as well as disrupting events). However, it don't think his criminality is contested on 'factual' grounds.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Well, since WP:NPOV enjoins us to avoid "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd", and WP:BLP specifies that biographies "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid", we should probably stick to language that is as dry and precise as possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Exactly. I think that sums it up quite well. Vagueness is not neutral. We need to be precise. (However, 'pest' is not neutral either!)--Jack Upland (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Very true. Quoted terms such as "pest" should probably be used only with attribution to the source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  A conviction can be reliably sourced. Guilt cannot. The end.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  22:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I don't see how that's relevant to the topic of the RfC. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

  my main argument here for permanent removal of this term is simple - wp:due - a preponderance of sources label and title him as something other than a convicted criminal. The check list at wp:blp and at wp:perp requires that this info be sourced - really well. It would pass DUE if all the sources in this article begin by saying "Convicted criminal... some name....blah blah blah" (like they do at David Duke for example - although for some reason they all prefer to call him a felon). I suggest that the next post in support of including the word criminal, or mentioning his conviction in the lede, include a list of sources which mention his criminal status, demonstrating that his criminality goes beyond a trivial mention of the conviction and is an important part of an understanding of the subject. Edaham (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524144802/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC19980910036 to http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC19980910036

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)