Jump to content

Talk:Dante Arthurs

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

Why is this person linked to Asperger's syndrome ?

[edit]

If he has never been diagnosed with that disorder it is wrong to list his as an Asperger's sufferer.

Inappropriate and perhaps impedes upon right to fair trial

[edit]

Strongly suggest you reword or remove this article. This article should be removed until such time as the outcome of the trial (if so ordered) is determined. Otherwise, strong wording should be used to show that he has only been charged, has not been ordered to stand trial and no verdict has been reached.

I would strongly rebuke the author of this article for what, is in my opinion, an article that is inappropriate at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.46.35 (talk • contribs)

I claim principal authorship. I acknowledge your rebuke. I never said that he was guilty. I presume him innocent. If others presume his guilt, I can't stop them. The only plausible reason why he shouldn't be included is for lack of notability. - Richardcavell 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. The initial article required substantial rewording to show that he had merely been charged with offences and guilt had yet to be determined. Furthermore he was classified in a category with convicted criminals which is inappropriate. You should be mindful of Australian laws as to prejudicial comment on people awaiting trial - in Australia the right to a fair trial is not just written in some amendment to an document that people do not uphold in practice but is a real requirement of the criminal justice system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.207.165 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone agree that describing him as a 'child sex offender' is appropriate? The term would be used in a reliable newspaper like the Sydney Morning Herald and that's what he is after all.

58.152.161.213 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed line

[edit]

I removed this line from the article several times, but Pocoloco keeps reinserting it:

However, since organisations are legally prohibited from disseminating any information that may lead to Thompson's new identity being revealed as per the permanent anonymity order, the veracity of the denial, from a non-legal perspective, is debatable.

I don't know what you think this line says, but it adds nothing to the article. It's just personal conjecture that the "veracity" of the denial is debatable. What do you mean "non-legal perspective"? Who's doing the debating? Australian "organizations" would not be affected by an order issued in the UK, no matter what the debators might think. The line is confusing and unverifiable, and does not belong here.--Cúchullain t/c 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Arthurs is Thompson, for this to be confirmed would require admission by authorities in the UK, not Australia, that Arthurs is Thompson under a new alias. If Australian authorities ask the UK authorities, "is Arthurs really Robert Thompson?" and the UK authorities, choosing to adhere to the demands of the permanent anonymity order, state that it isn't him, does not mean than from a non-legal perspective ie. one that ignores the permanent anonymity order, that the UK authorities are telling the "truth"? I have not labelled any party as being liars because from a legal perspective they aren't lying as it is possible that the UK is simply acting under the auspices of the PA order. To ignore this as a possible obstacle to the "truth" from a moral, non-legal perspective is dangerous as it suggests that in cases where PA is involved, PA individuals have the right to commit future crimes without their criminal history coming into consideration when being sentenced as they are protected by the justice system that have granted them PA. Elpocoloco 13:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, this line is just your conjecture. It adds nothing to the encyclopedic quality of the article; it is confusing and uninformative. It doesn't even have anything to do with Arthurs per se, it is just your criticism of permanent anonymity.--Cúchullain t/c 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry. He'll be going to trial in Oct and based on the plethora of evidence has a snowball's chance in hell of escaping a long sentence. That's when the real questions will be raised and will be included here without the protests of "fair trialists" posing an obstacle. Elpocoloco 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

This article will be protected from editing if the current state of edit warring persists. Please use the talk page to dicuss changes rather than constantly reverting each others edits in the roundabout fashion that's been occuring. Please make an attempt to identify problems with the state of the current article and work them out here rather than the main article space thanks. Also, be mindful of the official policies against reversions, in particular, the Three revert rule. -- Longhair 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

Does anybody else feel some of the references used in this article do not meet the guidelines as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources? -- Longhair 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you alluding to the forum links? I believe they're relevant as the case is not as cut and dried as the government and media would like it to be. The discussion continues and the community raises points that have been denied an airing here. It is false to assume that the phenomenon does not exist. It is as factual as anything else referenced in the article Elpocoloco 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Longhair. They need to be looked over, and some of them (yes, the forum links) need to be trimmed out. This is not a place for people to advance their views.--Cúchullain t/c 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the forum links in particular - I've marked them by not referencing them in the cite.php format. I;m having troubles viewing the Hansard PDFs so if somebody can assist with correctly linking those references until I can work out why I can't view them, it'd be great. -- Longhair 01:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the hansard pdf links and they're opening fine. Elpocoloco 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I grabbed an Adobe update and the PDF's now work fine. Thanks. -- Longhair 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes coverage

[edit]

FWIW, Snopes has updated its' page on the Bulger incident to refer to the recent email circulating concerning Arthurs. See here. -- Longhair 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is Snopes worth exactly? What does it cover that has not already been covered here other than adding a "FALSE" stamp? I recommend that your link to Snopes be removed. Given the sensitivity of the rumour, common sense would dictate that it cannot be conclusively proven as false at this stage with the trial still in progress.

Further information about Dante Arthurs' past

[edit]

Now that the trial is over, does anyone know if restrictions placed on the press about this convicted murderer have been removed? There doesn't seem to be any further public informaton on his background that has since been released such as accounts of his behaviour and personality from past empolyers, teachers or fellow pupils.

If not, there doesn't seem to be any public explanation given. I don't believe that Dante Arthurs is the same child murderer used to be called Robert Thompson. However, authorities should give an explanation as to why such information is still not available if they are going to consign this conspiracy theory to history.

(58.107.195.184 10:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]


There's some info. on his wayn.com profile: http://www.wayn.com/waynprofile.html?member_key=231852

58.107.189.40 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofiarodriguezurrutiashu.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Sofiarodriguezurrutiashu.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofiawikipedia.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Sofiawikipedia.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 8 August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-parole period

[edit]

Western Australian Attorney-General, Christian Porter, has since revoked Arthurs' non-parole period, making him one of three Western Australians to have their papers marked "never to be released"

The userbox and opening paragraph contradict Arthur's non-parole period. The legal proceedings section also makes an claim that I can't verify. Does anyone know of a source? In fact, one news article I came across had someone say in the comments "but Wikipedia says he is never to be released". Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 04:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dante Arthurs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dante Arthurs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dante Arthurs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dante_Arthurs&oldid=1256885420"