Talk:Pete Townshend

Archives
Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive01 Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 02

Pronunciation of the name

Can anyone please add a pronunciation of his name, as IPA or as a recording?

Thanks in advance.

(There's a comment near the name in the lead section - "see talk page". I don't understand what i was supposed to see here.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added an IPA pronunciation. I also removed the "see talk" which followed the pronunciation needed template, though I'm not sure what it was referring too either. --skew-t (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

(This section was pulled (probably by mistake) by wiki-is-truth here [1]. Restoring - Richfife (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC))

I've heard that it's "town-zend" even though almost everyone says "town-shend". I'd add it, but I can't find a cite. Is this correct? Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is Townzend. Who in their right mind would pronounce it Town-shend? Why would they want do that? 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did I know before even checking you were British... I should have said "everyone in the US (especially Disk Jockeys)". - Richfife (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And why aren't I surprised? You are actually being serious about this Town-Shend thing aren't you? Awesome. I was taking the mickey above because I thought you were joshing and trolling. Sorry about that. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

People see an "sh" and they assume it's pronounced "sh". They're funny that way. For a good time, ask an American to pronounce "Gloucestershire". - Richfife (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Child Porn argument

Could all of that stuff possibly be trimmed down? It's drawn-out, unsightly, and a lot of it is irrelevant to the improvement of the page.174.0.54.36 (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's well known, but the title is ridiculous. I'd suggest it should be called " Operation Ore", but "Legal matters" is just absurdly coy, misleading and disingenuous. Paul B (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the stuff on this talk page, but I also think that the section of the article referencing the investigation could be worked on. In its current form, it's been given as much weight as Pete's solo career, seeing as they've both got about two paragraphs written about them. If I came here as someone who didn't know much about Mr. Townshend, I'd think that because this has got its own section, there have been multiple incidents where he was suspected of possessing child pornography - not just the one. 174.0.54.36 (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But the child porn incident was the most publicity Townshend has got in 35 years or more. Plainly it is more notable than Townshend's solo career (although not his career as a whole), most people don't know anything about Townshend other than (a) The Who and (b) his child porn caution. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you basing this assumption on? In Australia and in New Zealand Mr. Townshend's legal hassles made very few news headlines. It was not a topic of conversation when it occurred. And I seriously doubt anyone actually gives much thought to it now since nothing ever came from it. In North America his travels are not restricted. He does not have to register with any authorities because he was not convicted of any crimes. I doubt anyone there cares very much about such a minor issue or else he would be protested everywhere he went. It may have been a spat of bad publicity in his home country. But it did not seem to have a negative effect on his career. Not much should be made of it. 202.174.177.44 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He admitted guilt for a crime and he had to register with the police in the UK. The section is slanted in favour of the misapprehension indicated by the comment above, but it isn't too bad. It is over long because it seeks to "explain" some basic facts so as to give the impression that Townshend was not "convicted of any crimes" (which is specious, tendentious and misleading) but hey, this is wikipedia 88.104.157.25 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Floss, Townshend's Upcoming Rock Opera

From http://www.thewho.com/index.php?module=blog&blog_item_id=331

(You may need to register on the site to view this article)

"I am writing a new musical.

FLOSS is an ambitious new project for me, in the style of TOMMY and QUADROPHENIA. In this case the songs are interspersed with surround-sound 'soundscapes' featuring complex sound-effects and musical montages. FLOSS will be a son-et-lumiére musical piece, intended for outdoor performance, or arenas. Several of the more conventional songs from FLOSS will be featured on a forthcoming Who recording for release in 2010. FLOSS will be heard in concert for the first time in 2011, at a venue and date yet to be established. I am already having talks with producers in New York.

The collected music and sound for FLOSS convey the story of a married couple whose relationship gets into difficulty. Walter, a straight-cut pub rock musician, is able to retire when one of his songs becomes the TV anthem of a big car company. He becomes a house-husband while his wife Floss devotes herself to a riding stables and stud. When he tries to return to music after a fifteen year hiatus, he finds that what he hears and what he composes evoke the ecologically rooted, apocalyptic mindset of his generation. Shaken by this and torn by personal difficulties, he and Floss become estranged. A series of dramatic events in a hospital emergency ward bring them both to their senses.

While Roger Daltrey exercises his ageing vocal chords by embarking on a two month USE OR LOSE IT solo tour, my focus is on FLOSS, which touches on the current issues faced by the Boomer generation. It also addresses their uneasy relationship with their parents, children and grandchildren. As a 19 year old – with My Generation – I wrote the most explicitly ageist song in rock. At 64, I now want to take on ageing and mortality, using the powerfully angry context of rock 'n' roll."

Why is there no information on Floss? Shouldn't something be added? I'm not to adept here on Wikipedia and it was confusing for me to even find this. Adding something about FLOSS would most likely improve the article, you know, with Townshend's recent activity. Yeah... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.230.235 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Observations

Hey- similar to the Keith Moon article, I've noticed a few things and would like some feedback.

• An attempt made to section various themes in Townshend's life is really nice, but still the article doesn't flow chronologically. .
• Let us agree to archive most of this talk page- most was handled already; a distraction to see what is left. Move on!
• Far too much time has been spent on "Is Pete a pervert, etc." It looks like it was dealt with some sensitivity, and some fans (disguised as editors) here have too much time on their hands.
• More time should be spent on Townshend the composer, rather than the guru disciple, as he's written entire rock operas- and nearly all the songs the band has performed (not even taking into account his solo albums and work with others).
• References -half the article isn't referenced.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Child porn issues

A few comments here: Townshend is known for the child porn charge. A Legal Matter, OTOH is a name of a Who song. 'Legal problems' is an absurd euphemism. This is not a man who has had legal problems in the plural - he had one problem, and it was very specific and very well-known and publicised, and it was child pornography.

The attempted conclusion of the section to say that Townshend never accessed child porn is again absurd. He stated that he did, and on several occasions. The weight of many dozens of sources including Townshend's direct admissions of this is clearly far greater than the attempt by a single campaigning journalist to say he did not. Plainly Townshend did access child porn, he said so himself. According to [2] the cost of Landslide was $10 and up, so the $5 Townshend stated he paid was almost certainly to a different site. He has after all stated "I've always been into porn. I've used it all my life." [3], so it's not really surprising that when he thought he had been caught looking at child porn, it turned out that the site they'd found was one he had looked at but wasn't in fact a child porn site. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pure speculation on your part. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed to great lengths. And the section, as it sits, is the consensus reached by all. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

By who exactly? I see no consensus in any of the discussions above. None at all.

In any case, I wrote some new prose following extensive reading of the sources, and it's not the same discussion. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussions... and there were many... are archived on this talk page. The earlier agreed-upon version is the one that will stand. No edits can be made to that section unless they are proposed here and agreed on by a string consensus. It is a touchy WP:BLP issue and the section attracts legions of anti-Townshend WP:SOAPBOX violators. For that reason the section stand. If it becomes a magnet for troublemakers the solution is simple. The page will be reverted to the consensus version and the page will be locked. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Townshend? Troublemakers? I think you should check WP:AGF. As it happens, I own every Who album released and have been to see them in concert since the child porn controversy. I am by no means anti-Townshend, just very confused at an article that concludes that Townshend never looked at child porn, when he said several times that he did. It's utter nonsense.

There are enough interviews, statements, etc. from Townshend that WP:BLP is not a major issue here.

Your attitude - that things cannot ever change - is contrary to all Wikipedia policies. There is quite plainly no consensus on this issue, I see none above, merely a succession of complaints about the article's content that have been ignored. What there is, most likely, is an inherent bias in that people editing this article are disproportionately likely to be Townshend fans, and therefore insist that an altered version of reality where Townshend suffered with 'legal problems' (in fact his legal problems were very minor - the issue was a reputational one) and didn't access child porn at all is fact, that black is white and the sun always shines, and so on.

I have made my points, you've completely ignored them, instead saying 'it's my way or the highway'. It doesn't work like that, sorry.

Now: can we have some sensible discussion on this issues I raised? Sumbuddi (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no my way highway stated. If you wish to make changes to that section your changes have to be proposed and discussed here. If there is agreement to change a line here and a line there then it can be moved on. But any wholesale change to the section, including the section title, cannot be done without discussion here first. Please view the talk page archives for further information. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes can be made to any article at any time. Nothing is set in stone. If you object, explain yourself, I've made my comments above. Please respond to them. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Libs is correct here. Due to prior incidents with this article there should be no changes made live to the main page until each change is proposed here. Each change should be put forth one at a time and the merits of the change discussed. GripTheHusk (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "without any database records" in that edit? Who says there were no database records? The police investigated him and his computers for four months and found nothing. I see nothing that says they had no database records to go by. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The "database records" probably refer to the copy of the Lanslide database recovered by the Operation Ore group action and used by various forensic experts to demonstrate extensive credit fraud etc in relation to the Landslide sites, and which was expressly refused to the defence by the prosecution.88.104.157.25 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been heavily involved in the arguments/edit wars/etc that led to the current "consensus". In my opinion "consensus" was never reached, but we just reached a stage where arguments stopped... partially by people saying we had reaced a CONSENSUS. 88.104.157.25 (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be better if you identify yourself in relation to your past contributions, because according to your 'contributions' page, you've never contributed before; much of the discussion of the 'Townshend did nothing at all' position has been built by people assuming multiple identities for he purposes of creating 'consensus' - let's try to avoid this in future by keeping a single identity. Sumbuddi (talk)

RFC: Child Pornography access

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The heading of this article "Legal Matters" has been suggested to be unduly coy by at least two editors recently. In addition, there have been a number of disputes over 2+ years over the content of the article, which appears to detractors not to present a balanced account of the events that took place. My attempt at an account is here: [[4]]. Comment from disinterested third parties would be useful, to preclude both Townshend fans and those that have an axe to grind against him. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC) *Based on the extensive discussion found on this talk page and Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 1 the subject of the 'Legal matters' section is very sensitive. I note several administrators taking part in a large portion of the discussion on the talk page archive. Taking each statement that was included in the article at that time and referring to numerous Wikipedia policies it is clear that the section was pared down from its original accusatory wording to the neutral wording found now. The reasoning for the section title and the process by which the current wording was agreed on is all found within those lengthy discussions. If changes are being sought then those changes should be stated here. To avoid an avalanche of statements where the original comments get lost each proposed change should be listed in point form. And only one change should be put forth at any one time. Once that change has been discussed and either agreed on, altered or rejected. A second proposed change can be put on the table for discussion. Wether B (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Great.

Change 1

Change heading from "Legal problems" to "Child pornography access and police caution". Mr. Townshend's problems with the law were transient and minor, the issue to him and to the reputation with the public was "child pornography". Many 'legal problems' are non-issues for rock stars - drug possession, for instance, poses little threat to a rocker's reputation. This one, however, is in a class of its own, and should be titled as such. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

re: "This one, however, is in a class of its own, and should be titled as such": that's your point of view, not objective fact. if there's any need to change the section title, i'd suggest naming it "Police caution" - but only if a clear consensus supporting a change is established on the talk page first. Sssoul (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

::According to previous debates over this section originally it had a title similar to the one you have proposed. But it was changed because the wording might lead readers to think that Townshend was actually convicted of a crime. He was not convicted of any crimes so the section heading became the most neutral wording it could be given. I agree with this decision. The section is about Townshend's legal problems. So it should stay that way. Fozforus (talk) 11:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Sumbuddi (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by your response. Townshend was 'convicted' in that he accepted a police caution. This is an acceptance of guilt in relation to a criminal offence "According to the Home Office, a police caution is a formal warning given to adults who admit they are guilty of first-time minor offences, such as vandalism or petty theft." He most definitely was guilty of a crime, that's why he was entered onto the sex offenders register, and this caution has never been overturned, Townshend has never denied it either.

no, he wasn't convicted, whether you put quote marks around it or not - he was given a police caution. Sssoul (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs now. We are supposed to be discussing the proposed title "Child pornography access and police caution", not start completely unrelated arguments about police cautions.

As you say, he wasn't convicted in a court of law: in fact he entered an admission of guilt with the police - I think this proves my point that the legal matters were very minor. To get to the point: do you, or do you not agree, that the issue which led to him appearing on the front page of newspapers across the world was the association with 'child pornography', rather than this mere trifle of a 'police caution'/'legal problems'?Sumbuddi (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

newspaper headlines front pages of newspapers and section titles in encyclopedia articles have entirely different purposes; and i really recommend that you read WP:BLP more carefully. meanwhile, i've already stated what change in the section title i would support if there's consensus for it. Sssoul (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are talking about newspaper headlines.

Townshend said that "If I had had a gun, I would have shot myself." [5] We seem to be in agreement a "Police Caution" is a minor response to an admission of guilt by an offender, so why propose to title it that. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC) [signature added for clarity]

smile: and you accuse others of splitting hairs?! you're the one who brought up front pages of newspapers. if you're now retracting that as irrelevant to the question of how the section should be titled: right, it's irrelevant. but meanwhile, no, we do not "seem to be in agreement" about the police caution, or about the proposal to change the section title. Sssoul (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You have missed my point, or simply chosen to ignore it. My point about Townshend being on the front pages of newspaper is not to say that we should use newspaper headlines for Wikipedia headings! That's a bizarre interpretation of things. My point was that the fact that he was on the front page of so many newspapers demonstrates the notability of what was happening to him at that time - certainly not the trifling matter of his police caution (which followed later) - but rather the 'child pornography investigation' that was ongoing. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Townshend stated 'I know that I caused the most incredible chaos by that one single neglectful careless act, the most incredible chaos. For my ex-wife, for my son, who's only 13, for his school friends, for the parents of all his friends' children, for my two daughters [Emma, 32, and Aminita 31], for my girlfriend, all of whom had to make a snap decision whether to swing behind me or not. And they all did. It was a test for them, too. For my neighbours, for the local paper, for the people in my band, for the fans. For the poor woman, for heaven's sake, who found my name on the list in the US, who apparently was a huge Who fan, and broke down in tears.' 'Two or three of them specifically sent their sons around to stay with Joseph as a way of expressing trust.' [6] 'Police caution' is not a reasonable description of this, and fails to communicate that people wouldn't have that response to pretty much any other offence. In any case, the worst time for Townshend were the months after his public statement but BEFORE his police caution, during which time he was being investigated. 'Child pornography investigation and police caution' would also work as a heading, if you want to get into that. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The police caution quite clearly is not the issue, it's absurd to say that it is - as that article says, police cautions are very minor from a legal point of view. The problem was the association with paedophilia. Example source: [7] "Shamed rock star Pete Townshend has hired round-the-clock security after receiving death threats and taunts about his Internet porn caution. Friends say the 57-year-old is terrified of an attack and is constantly harassed in the street by people calling him 'Paedo Pete'. Bodyguards now accompany the Who star everywhere and patrol the gates of his West London mansion through the night. 'Pete is a changed man because of what has happened,' said a friend last night. 'He has become practically a recluse. He rarely goes out and has hardly seen his friends. He has received a lot of hate mail.' " Second source: [8] "everyone knows about the wild years, the smashed guitars, the heroin addiction, the alcoholism, the sad deaths of Who drummer Keith Moon and bassist John Entwistle. But Townshend was a rebel for decency, a champion of peace, love and understanding with fire in his belly, his career apparently crowned with deep and fond respect. Today, though, he sits practically incarcerated in that handsome house. He is said to be shelling out $3,000 a day for a team of security guards, his fears of vigilante attack regularly reinforced by insults shouted from passing cars. The words are crude, but they all mean one thing: "Pedophile!""

Unless we've transferred to some alternate universe where paediatricians don't get attacked for being paedophiles [9], then plainly 'child pornography' is the issue, rather than the police caution. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So the warning he received was equal to the warning one would receive if they stole an apple from a fruit cart? I think we should look into reducing the size of the section if that is how it is. Let the section fit the "non"-crime. Not sure what your quotes above are trying to convey. For a supposed recluse Townshend travels the world with no sign around his neck labelling him as a criminal. 82.69.46.23 (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On reviewing the edit history of the article it shows that early in the section's life was titled "Police caution." I believe, by reading the original discussion, that this title did not receive a full consensus agreement but was a compromise that was to be changed at a later date. The section, along with all the other article sections, were eventually reorganised by a Wikipedia administrator named Nightscream and it was at this time the section was moved to its current location in the article and it was renamed to 'legal troubles' in order to best describe the content of the section using a neutral and encyclopaedic title. As per Sssoul's comments and concerns regarding WP:BLP (which was the main focus of the original discussion) I still think the 'legal troubles' title is the best fit for the section as it does not mislead the reader into pre-judging the subject before actually reading the section itself.(which is what would happen if the words 'child pornography' were included in the title) Townshend was not convicted of a criminal offence in a court of law. The section should not have a misleading "National Enquirer" styled title. It can be 'legal troubles' or it can be 'legal issues' but I oppose the suggested change re: the previously mentioned WP:BLP concerns. Fozforus (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sock. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be clutching at straws. Townshend made a legal admission of guilt. Had he not done so, he could have been prosecuted: this did not happen because he told the police he was guilty, and they decided that a police caution was sufficient. He accepted that he had committed a criminal offence. This should not be controversial. A hypothetical conviction in a court of law following a not guilty plea would leave some doubt, because the offender in such a case denies the offence but the judgement of a reputable court of law would still be sufficient for BLP purposes. In this case, however, we have something very concrete - a legally binding admission of guilt.

Once again, Townshend did not appear on the front page of newspapers for 'legal problems'. What there was was a 'child pornography investigation': this is fact, there was also a 'police caution' which ensued as a result of that investigation, this is also fact. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, for the title. If you're a reasonable editor, then you know that the words CHILD PORNOGRAPHY are among the heaviest in the English language. They carry a lot of baggage and should be used with respect for that baggage. You have posted several articles on this Talk Page and quoted the most sensationalistic portions. You have ignored the general tenor of those articles, however, which are mostly commenting on how most people, from the public to journalists, accepted Townshend's explanation for his stupid and criminal act.

A title like CHILD PORNOGRAPHY has zero nuance. It says pedophile, plain and simple. It does not say, "Moron who accessed a child pornography website out of 'vengeance' or 'research' or 'morbid curiousity.'" The general consensus, by FAR - from children's charities, to law enforcement, to journalists in both tabloids and more respectable publications, to Townshend's friends, family and the general public - is that Townshend is a person who made a stupid and criminal mistake, but who is not a pedophile and doesn't deserve to be branded as such. Yet here you are wanting to title the section CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

This is not the Gary Glitter article. It's clear that the pedophile tag fits Glitter, since they discovered thousands of child abuse images on his computers. That's an article where a title with the words CHILD PORNOGRAPHY would be justified. But Pete Townshend? The extent to which he has escaped being unfairly branded has been forcefully illustrated by him receiving one of America's highest cultural honors at the Kennedy Center just last year. If there were any inkling that the child pornography allegation had even a HINT of veracity, the Kennedy Center wouldn't touch Townshend with a ten foot pole. Neither would Live 8. Neither would VH-1 honor The Who with a two-hour Honors special hosted by numerous celebrities from Conan O'Brien to Sean Penn. Townshend would instead be a pariah. Yet he is not a pariah. He is the complete opposite - a man honored by a nation and its President. A man honored by policemen, firefighters and his fellow artists. And yet you want to title a section CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, with all that that entails. That's worse than titling a Hugh Grant section PROSTITUTION. Grant was at least guilty enough to face real charges, not have the charges be dropped. Townshend's charges were dropped, so why would the section be titled for something that was dropped? It should be titled for what happened. Not for what didn't happen.

And why has Townshend escaped the most damning and supposedly unrecoverable of allegations to such an extraordinary extent? Probably because of his forthrightness and public contrition. Probably because the police confiscated everything - from his diaries to his video and DVD collections to his computers - and found zero evidence of child pornography. Pedophilia is a sickness. Its addictive and compulsive. When you have it the evidence is there. Big time. Like in the Gary Glitter case. Yet police investigated Townshend for months and found zero evidence. Nothing. That's why his story held up. That's why the public believes him. That's why journalists believe him. That's why he was sitting in that booth last year, with the President of the United States, being honored for a lifetime of achievement. The world has moved on. Why haven't you? 74.73.110.46 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't want to title it 'Child Pornography', that would be stupid. Please don't put up straw men, there's enough bluster on this page as it is. I have suggested 'Child Pornography investigation and Police Caution'. That is a factual description of what took place. BTW, Roman Polanski is getting some pretty big support, and he committed a far more serious child sex offence - so let's not be claiming that the support of eminent third parties should be used to distort factual descriptions of what has taken place. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You want the title to include the words CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Don't nitpick. Your Roman Polanski analogy is a poor one, since he has many very eminent detractors, while Pete Townshend has zero. Just anonymous Wikipedia editors like yourself. And I don't see a section titled CHILD RAPE on Roman Polanski's article, anyway. 72.225.184.98 (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation has moved on, check the new proposal at the bottom of the page. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::I believe the section title is fine and should not be altered. BC Rocky (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC) striking sockpuppet Sssoul (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Townshend's charges were dropped, so why would the section be titled for something that was dropped? It should be titled for what happened." Townshend's charges were NOT dropped, he was not charged. If you don't appreciate the distinction, your interpretation does not deserve to influence the decision on the title of the section. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Change 2

As a user above mentions, this section may be too long.

The paragraph reading

'"In April 2007, an article in The Guardian stated that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography".[23] After obtaining copies of the Landslide hard drives and tracing Townshend's actions, investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote in PC Pro Magazine, "Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do." Campbell states that their entire evidence against Townshend was that he accessed a single site among the Landslide offerings which was not connected with child pornography.[24]'

is all sourced to the same person, a journalist campaigning against Operation Ore.

It is being given undue weight. There are sufficient statements from Townshend, see for instance in Time [10], "I have looked at child-porn sites maybe three or four times in all, the front pages and previews," "I have only entered once using a credit card, and I have never downloaded." that there should be no need to resort to third party sources that say things that Townshend, in his own fairly wide-ranging comment, hasn't said.

In addition, Townshend made a legal admission of guilt of a criminal offence in relation to child pornography. There should be a reluctance on Wikipedia to undermine the legal record, especially when the subject of the article is not even himself claiming that things are wrong.

Stating that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography" and that he "confessed to something he didn't do" are very strong words, and there should be some evidence that Townshend himself believes this is true. There is not adequate cause to undermine Townshend's admission of guilt, which followed months of investigation and consultation with his lawyers, with a statement from a journalist who has apparently never met Townshend. Townshend has stated that 'I've always been into porn. I've used it all my life.'[11], so the eventual caution was not necessarily in relation to paying for a Landslide site.

I remember something similar to that quote, "I've always been into porn. I've used it all my life." But it's not in that article you've cited. I recommend reading that article. Townshend states that the website in question did NOT promise child pornography and didn't lead to any, which the Duncan Campbell article verifies. As for your quote, he's referring to adult pornography, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I pasted the wrong link. Corection: [12] My point was that Townshend has said he has used porn all his life, and it's therefore very plausible that the Landslide payment was for an adult website , whereas the 'five dollars' he said he paid to a website advertising child pornography was to a completely different company. We simply do not know, because in legal terms it doesn't matter (although as an aside, $5 was not one of the subscription options that Landslide had) - Townshend admitted inciting the distribution of child pornography by making a payment to a website, and that admission, recorded in law, is quite good enough for Wikipedia purposes.

As for your statement that Townshend states the website did not promise this and did not lead to that,you'll need to give direct quotes where he says that. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's plausible? Your speculation does not belong in a Wikipedia article, and speculation is all you've got. Why do you know so much about Landslide? How do you know five dollars was not an option? Since you're apparently an expert, what were the options? And you want direct quotes? Try reading the articles that YOU are citing right here on this page! That's where I got them from. Also, are you Wiki-is-truth? You sound a lot like that editor. 72.225.184.98 (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What we do know is:

• Townshend was investigated due to Operation Landslide. He suffered bad publicity as a result.
• Townshend accepts (more recent source [13]) that he committed a criminal offence in relation to his paying for a site that advertised child pornography. We do not know what the identity of this site was, and whether it was a Landslide site or not.

What we should not do is contradict the legal record based on the unverifiable conjecture of a single journalist. And what we should also not do is give undue weight by giving a paragraph discussing the worldwide headlines, legal admission of guilt, etc. and then devote the entire other paragraph to WP:SOAPBOX views from one journalist saying 'Townshend didn't do it'.

Accordingly DELETE this pargraph. There shouldn't be any BLP issues with this as these aren't statements by Townshend or anyone connected to him, only objection I can see is people wanting to preserve their 'he didn't do it' WP:SOAPBOX. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the statements aren't by Townshend. Rather, those statements VERIFY Townshend's statements in this article [14], which you should have known since it's an article that you posted right here on this Talk Page. You are very quick to point out WP:AGF and claim to be a huge Who fan who owns all the albums and sees them in concert, yet here you are clamoring for an entire Townshend section to be titled CHILD PORNOGRAPHY and asking for the removal of the one exonerating paragraph. That's a fan, huh? Seems like quite a disconnect to me. For such a big fan, I don't see a single Who-related edit in your entire edit history except for this recent spate of child pornography edits and posts. So I'm calling bullshit. You've got some axe to grind. I, on the other hand, am a genuine Who fan, as my edit history copiously demonstrates. That does not mean, however, that I want to whitewash this article. I want fairness. I'm open to deleting that paragraph. But drop the Who fan act. Tell us where you're really coming from. Tell us the real reason for you deciding to make this an issue. My biases are on the table. Let's see yours so we can edit this article knowing where we stand. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, WP:AGF, I was actually defending Townshend on another website on the basis of what I read on Wikipedia. The person I was arguing with was referencing other (non Wikipedia) sources incluing his numerous statements saying that he had broken the law, and I came off looking pretty stupid, which was the point at which I realised that this article is not balanced and gives a deliberately distorted view of reality, so I went off and read all the anti-Operation Ore sites, Townshend's own comments and re-wrote it. I don't think that what Townshend did makes him a bad person, but that's not to say we need to whitewash him. Townshend broke the law, said he did so, gave his justifications ('research'), people can make their own judgements - there's no need to try and ram down a 'Townshend did absolutely nothing wrong' POV down people's throats.

I don't know what you're talking about, because the article very clearly states that Pete Townshend broke the law, that he acknowledges breaking the law, and that he accepted a police caution for breaking the law. Nowhere does it say that he did nothing wrong, absolutely or otherwise. As for this website where you were defending Townshend, could you please direct me to it? 72.225.184.98 (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done enough distorting of what I've said and what I want things to say (what I've written is down here in black and white, I've no idea why you need to twist it) - you can lose the hyperbole and the ad hominem arguments, and actually justify this 'Rather, those statements VERIFY Townshend's statements in this article [15], which you should have known since it's an article that you posted right here on this Talk Page', as it's the only thing of relevance you said in your whole screed there - you linked to a long interview with Townshend but haven't bothered to say which statement you suppose this pararagraph affirms, and nor have you said why we should link to a third-party rather than Townshend himself.

Remember, we are not here to exonerate anybody.Sumbuddi (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

:::I have read this through a number of times. I believe that the second paragraph in the section is good. I believe the first paragraph can be trimmed by one or two sentences and still convey the same neutral content and references. I don't think the section should lose focus on the fact that Townshend was never charged with any criminal activity in any way. And it should maintain that the investigation itself was controversial and questionable. BC Rocky (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC) striking sockpuppet Sssoul (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Change 3

'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.[18][19] '

This sentence is misleading. Landslide was a payment gateway akin to CCBill. It was not a website. In addition, Townshend's caution may or may not have been for accessing a Landslide site, there are actually no sources to support this. He was investigated because he had accessed a Landslide site, but what the eventual charge related to cannot be sourced.

I am proposing to replace this with:

An investigation by the British police, Operation Ore, was under way into Landslide, a pornography payment gateway used by legal adult as well as illegal child pornography websites. On 11 January 2003 the Daily Mail, which had received a leaked copy of the members list, revealed on its front page that "A legendary British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet", describing him as "a household name on both sides of the Atlantic" with "a well-documented history of hell-raising". The reference was sufficiently specific for Townshend to issue a public statement identifying himself as the unnamed star, saying that on "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there." , adding that he was opposed to child pornography and was not a paedophile.

I think this gives a better summary/description of the events that took place. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Too much detail considering that weak foundation for the investigation and the tabloid tall tales that followed it. If the desciption of Landslide is all that it misleading then that is all that should be changed. The sentence should state:

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging credit card access in 1999 to Landslide, a pornography payment gateway used by legal adult websites as well as illegal child pornography websites.

Since sources show that the one site Townshend viewed did not contain any child pornography and since the investigation showed that Townshend was in no possession of any questionable files, the single sentence is all that needs to be included. Peter Fleet (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet

Wikipedia is not about what you - or I - or any other editor THINKS that a person thought. It is about verifiable facts. And while I'm on the page - let me also remind editors that Wikipedia is not solely read in any one country. It is read worldwide. So where there are legal terms or aspects of law that are particular to one nation but those same terms mean something different to people in another country - then great care must be taken not to leave a mistaken or misleading impression. Davidpatrick (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are quite correct that it is not about what people think, and that is why I am rejecting the faulty syllogism that because Townshend was investigated as a result of Landslide and because, according to one journalist, his payment to Landslide was not for an illegal website, it means that Townshend's initial statement must have referred to Landslide or that his eventual police caution was for accessing Landslide.

Both of these conclusions are what people, specifically certain Wikipedia editors, THINK, and neither of them are supported by any sources. If you can find a source where Townshend says that he 'paid to access Landslide, a site advertising child pornography', this would not be opinion, but as it is there are no such statements, and all we KNOW is that Townshend admitted to paying for A (some unknown, unspecified) child pornography website, and that he did so in advance of any specific police allegations. As such, the question of whether the Landslide website that he accessed was illegal or not is irrelevant, because we can only THINK (or not) that that the website advertising child pornography that Townshend paid to was Landslide, we cannot KNOW it. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing was based on Landslide. That's how Townshend was outed. That's where the charges came from. They accused hundreds of people of accessing child pornography through Landslide, not just Pete Townshend. You're assuming that Townshend's credit card purchase was for a different website, but that's absurd, since he was investigated for four months by the police. ANY questionable credit card purchases would have been investigated. Now, that may be an assumption on my part, but you're engaging in assumptions yourself by saying, without a single verifiable source, that it must have been a website OTHER THAN Landslide that Townshend was talking about. 72.225.184.98 (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not engaging in any assumptions. You are assuming (a) that Townshend knew what Landslide was when he made his public statement BEFORE FOUR MONTHS OF POLICE INVESTIGATION, and that (b) the eventual charge was in respect of Landslide. I am saying 'we do not know what site was the one he (a) admitted to accessing and (b) was charged for'. Since we do not know, the correct approach is not to jump to conclusions about what Townshend did or didn't access. It might be a Landslide site, it might not. If you can prove it either way, you go ahead and list the cite that shows it. The **cause** of the investigation was Landslide, but there is no evidence that the charge was in relation to that. I suggest you take a look at Chris_Langham#Arrest_and_conviction which illustrates this well. Langham was **investigated** due to Landslide, but what they needed was evidence, and it was evidence they found, and there is NO statement that the evidence came from a Landslide site. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in Townshend's case, there isn't evidence of any criminal activity. That's why they offered the caution. In Chris Langham's case, there was actual evidence, and that's why he did jail time. 72.225.184.98 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you people PLEASE READ AND UNDERSTAND what a police caution is. A police caution is an ALTERNATIVE to charging. It is unlawful to caution someone if a sufficient case cannot be made against the defendant. No evidence was recovered forensically, BUT TOWNSHEND ADMITTED GUILT ANYWAY. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved user. Were you actually looking for comment on something? If you can formulate a question then you might get some comments. As it is, there is too much argument above for anyone uninvolved to know where to start. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There are three proposed changes, you can have a look at any or all of them as you feel fit. Change 1 is perhaps the simplest. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The proposed changed are similar to changes proposed quite some time ago. The consensus as strong now as it was then. No changes are needed. The section uses the most neutral wording possible to avoid nay/all accusatory speech. It is brief. It does not use any words which will mislead the reader into assuming information or casting judgement ahead of reading the section. And it contains numerous references for readers to follow if they wish to get more information on the incident. That was the aim before. And it is still the goal now. One suggestion is that the lead sentence should say...

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging credit card access in 1999 to Landslide, a pornography payment gateway used by legal adult websites as well as illegal child pornography websites.

This is a valid suggestion and I would support this change if someone else wants to.. second the motion... so to speak. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that there's no evidence that Townshend did acknowledge credit access to 'Landslide'. He acknowledged access to a website advertising child pornography. If you have a source where Townshend states that website was Landslide, please provide it. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually read the links you've posted in this discussion? Try this one: [16]. Pete Townshend describes the website as an FBI sting and as Landslide. That's your link. How did you miss that? Did you bother to read it? 72.225.184.98 (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like bullshit to me. [17] "Keyz payment was access on a per site basis and 65% of the profit was paid out to webmasters. Webmasters could mix a range of prices and access durations. Access durations consisted of 7 days, 2 weeks, 30 days, 60 days and 90 days. Charge options consisted of $9.95, $14.95, $19.95, $24.95 and $29.95." "Landslide charged AVS (1 month) $19.95, AVS Gold (90 days) $29.95 and AVS Platinum (6 months) $49.95." Cf. Townshend's statement "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."

He claims it was a sting, which wasn't true, nobody has ever claimed this, the site was shut down *because* it contained child pornography, that was why the FBI got involved.

Townshend's caution is a matter of public record, and is verifiable. Attempts to whitewash this OTOH, are most definitely not. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Landslide was investigated by UPSIS and the FBI, then raided and taken over and operated for some period of time by the authorities, who continued to distribute child porn. For some period, it WAS run as an FBI sting. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Title suggestion

As an uninvolved editor, I agree that any title mentioning child pornography carries with it the implcation of 'peodophile', but that 'legal problems' is somewhat euphemistic and misleading. How about something like 'Operation Ore investigation'. This is factual and neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with that is that Townshend admitted to a child pornography offence. It seems to me that it would not be neutral to omit that. I have suggested 'Child pornography investigation and police caution', which is factual and accurate. Surely it is POV to call it anything else? A new reader may not know what 'Operation Ore' means, so it's actually less meaningful than 'legal problems', which at least unambiguously conveys that Townshend had a run-in with the law. 'Operation Ore' is synonymous, if you know what it means, with child pornography, so this basically amounts to a euphemism for 'Child pornography investigation'.Sumbuddi (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

no one suggested omitting from the article what the investigation was about; the question on the table is whether to change the name of the section. see WP:BLP: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist". Martin Hogbin's proposal fulfills that policy a lot better than Sumbuddi's proposal does. i could go with "Operation Ore investigation and police caution" as a compromise; if that means (as Sumbuddi suggests) that someone has to read the section instead of jumping to conclusions without reading: good. Sssoul (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Have we got any views on the other two changes? Sumbuddi (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

since this is one of the RfC issues, i think it's appropriate to wait for the RfC to close before making changes to the article. Sssoul (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

this got a bit lost in the shuffle of edits yesterday, so i'm reiterating: the section header is the subject of one of the questions in the current RfC, and it doesn't seem appropriate to change it until the RfC is closed. please change it back - thanks. Sssoul (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's your feeling, then you go ahead and revert it. Sumbuddi (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions?

It's been a month now. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

so (unless you're extending the RfC, by renewing the announcement/timestamp) an uninvolved editor should be asked to tag it as closed and to state whether there's consensus to change anything. Sssoul (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

so do you want to choose someone from WP:Highly Active Users and ask if they'd be willing to decide if there's any consensus for change and formally close the RfC? anyone who's got "disputes" checked would probably do. Sssoul (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As one of the few uninvolved editors who has shown an interest here, I suggest you go ahead and change the title to "Operation Ore investigation and police caution". Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the other two issues, specifically the removal of the paragraph that says he was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography" (WP:WEIGHT, etc.) - Change 2 above, and the re-write of the lead, Change 3 above. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) i see no consensus for the changes, but get an uninvolved editor to make the call. Sssoul (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that "police caution" is a term I (and most Americans I'd assume) aren't too familiar with. Deserted Cities (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

the phrase "cautioned by the police" is linked to police caution in the first sentence of that section so that anyone who is unfamiliar with the term can learn all about it. yes, it means people have to read more than just the "headlines", but that's an excellent habit that should be encouraged. Sssoul (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Although I personally believe that police caution was inappropriate and unfair in this case, it is what happened and it has the legal consequence that Townsend has admitted a degree of guilt. This is best explained by using the term 'police caution' with a link. As Sssoul points out this means that people need to read the article and follow the link rather than make assumptions based on a few words. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand why you should think use of a police caution in these circumstances to be unfair, but it was probably improper. A caution should only be used for minor offences. Here were are talking about a caution being administered following the admission of guilt to of one of the most reviled crimes of current times - incitement to distribute child porn, i.e paying for the rape and torture of children. Wiki-is-truth (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Assumptions about the nature of the content are out-of-place here. We have no information about whether the pornography was consensual teenagers on a webcam or young children being raped, and speculation is not wikipedia's job. The biggest problem with this article is the paragraph stating Townshend "falsely accused of accessing child pornography", contrary to his own admissions and to the legal record. I have suggested that paragraph be removed, unfortunately there has been little comment on it. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• As this debate was sorted, so to speak are there any objections to archiving it? Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Going.......

since one editor is still pushing for the changes that failed to gain consensus in the RFC, the RFC needs to be formally closed by an univolved editor before it's archived. i'll ask if someone from WP:Highly Active Users would be willing. Sssoul (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

RfC closure

I have been asked on my talk page to close this RfC. Note that I have had no previous involvement in this debate or any note worthy contact with the involved editors. I can't see a consensus here for any particular version of the page. Emotions seem to be running high at times which may have made the formation of a consensus difficult. If this dispute drags on then perhaps other options, such as request for mediation or WP:MEDCAB should be considered. I do not personally see anything massively wrong with the current version [18]. However, given the lack of consensus, and this is a BLP article, defaulting to the most conservative version seems appropriate for the time being. That seems to be removing the second paragraph under "Operation Ore investigation and police caution" (title seems appropriate, I would recommend just leaving it) which is being disputed. The first paragraph alone seems to explain what happened neutrally and sufficiently, if consensus is established in the future more content can be added. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for taking this on, Camaron. i see Sumbuddi has already implemented part of your suggestion (eliminating the second paragraph); i trust that means he/she accepts the other points you've made: that WP:BLP policy requires conservative writing, and that proposed changes to the article need to be discussed and consensus reached before the changes are implemented. Sssoul (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to Malware Website

Sumbuddi, Occultaphenia, SineBot, or whoever you are... Google labels this website as "Reported Site Attack!", so it is inappropriate to cite this as a source on Wikipedia.

http://www.artitwd.com/joyzine/music/ledzep/zeppelin.php

Please use another citation to prove your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.80.252 (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to see this link removed, anything even closely resembling malware links should imo be removed immediately. Off2riorob (talk)

Influenced Jimmy Page

Provide proper citation and then add it again. Otherwise not. Jimmy himself had (arguably) played on the Who's first LP as a session guitarist. I've removed the sentence that Townshend influenced Led Zeppelin I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.167.80.252 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, the source is legit.--Occultaphenia (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

This comment of Page playing on the actual first album is incorrect and irrelevant, asides the point, Townsend did influence Led Zeppelin I and a quote from Page was actually used to back it up... Your other claims for it being "malware" and unworthy are ridiculous and the content has been there for quite some time, and i believe u are just trying to have it removed because you don't like it.--Occultaphenia (talk) 10:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

you both need to read Wikipedia:3rr#Handling of edit warring behaviors. Sssoul (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Google labels this website as "Reported Site Attack!", so it is inappropriate to cite this as a source on Wikipedia. http://www.artistwd.com/joyzine/music/ledzep/zeppelin.php

Occultaphenia links to a Malware Website, which is against Wikipedia's terms of use. Use another valid citation to prove your point. You don't seem to read the main article's "Discussion" page.

Artistwd.com is clearly filtered by Google as "Reported Site Attack". Here's my proof:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/8256/atwd.gif

My second proof:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?&hl=en&source=hp&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artistwd.com%2Fjoyzine%2Fmusic%2Fledzep%2Fzeppelin.php&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Notice Google distinctly mentions "This site may harm your computer" tag on this malware link you're trying to cite. So, please stop trying to add inappropriate pages/ sources to this article. Thanks --Scieberking 01:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking (talk • contribs)

The link is fine. Please cease your Pro-Jimmy Page agenda which your sock account is clearly trying to push here.--Occultaphenia (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The link is Malicious and that's why Google shows "This site may harm your computer" note. Please stop adding that bad link again. --Scieberking 14:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking (talk • contribs)

As an uninterested third party (found on the reliable sources notice board), I don't think that the info is sourced enough to have. "Attack site" or not, the website doesn't fit the criteria for a reliable source. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the link is actually a copyvio of [19], which IS a WP:RS. Problem solved. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sciberking is looking to push a POV and is a sockpuppet, however i'm willing to let it go, if you point out the passage that says it has to be excluded, because i don't see one on the reliable sources page on why it shouldn't be there. --Occultaphenia (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

it looks like the disputed statement & ref were originally added by User:CosmicLegg: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Townshend&diff=next&oldid=307860966 - does that sound familiar to anybody?

meanwhile, re "I believe the link is actually a copyvio of [20]": but that piece doesn't seem to support the assertion that Townshend influenced Page. Sssoul (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

@ Occultaphenia. Your sockpuppet allegation was totally false, unethical, and got me banned (though for 1 hour only) wrongly. Please stop adding such misinformation. @ Sssoul. The link is not authoritative plus it is a Site Attack. Thank you, Sir. --Scieberking 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scieberking (talk • contribs) If you read the quote in the reference that is in there it has a direct quote from Jimmy Page stating ""The music that influenced the first Led Zeppelin album was Muddy Waters, [Pete] Townshend, [Joan] Baez, a lot of rockabilly." Thats a direct quote from Page himself. And the ban was completely ethical because you were using multiple accounts to removed sourced content, You should be banned for longer, but that's not the point. - No-one has shown a direct reason from Veritable Sources showing why it shouldn't be kept in, and i'm willing to let it go if someone can directly show something from that... But knowone has yet. --Occultaphenia (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

all i see when i click on the Artistwd.com link is a notification that it's an "attack site", which pretty clearly disqualifies it as a reliable source. but i asked for an outside opinion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, since i have no (0) interest in being drawn into this dispute. Sssoul (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hendrix, Beck Vs. Slash, Vedder

This reference (http://www.wright.edu/cola/Dept/eng/blakelock/rockweb2/rockpgs/w97/wright1b.html) states "His (Townshend's) experimentation with feedback and sound effects had an impact on Jimi Hendrix, Jeff Beck, and many other rock guitarists in the '60s. His influence spans several generations of rock music, and his music has inspired everyone from young punks and mod revisionists to heavy-metal guitar heroes." NOT that Beck and Hendrix have cited Townshend as an influence on their guitar playing.

These two references (http://www.snakepit.org/answers03.html and http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pages/PearlJam1.htm), however, show that Slash has actually cited Townshend's stage presence as an influence and that "Pete Townsend was a huge influence on his (Eddie Vedder's) guitar playing style and attitude, as well as Daltrey's stage presence and intensity".

For the above reasons, I've changed the sentence to:

Townshend's experimentation with feedback and sound effects had an impact on Jimi Hendrix,[8] Jeff Beck,[9] and many rock guitarists have cited him as an influence such as Slash[10] and Eddie Vedder[11].

Thank you all. --Scieberking (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[transplanted from Sssoul's talk page, since it belongs here:]

Do you see any reason why the Page with a quote about Pete Townshend is contenstable by Veritable Sources, but these links are not:

(http://www.wright.edu/cola/Dept/eng/blakelock/rockweb2/rockpgs/w97/wright1b.html

(http://www.snakepit.org/answers03.html and http://www.cathedralstone.net/Pages/PearlJam1.htm)

:for other Rock stars being influenced by Townshend are Okay to include? --Occultaphenia (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Occultaphenia (talk • contribs)

if you question the reliability of those links, ask about them at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Sssoul (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The wright.edu link is a personal essay, and is not reliable. The snakepit.org link seems fine to me. The cathedralstone.net link is an unpublished book that therefore also fails WP:RS. I guess better links could be found if need be. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Sumbuddi- So should we remove wright.edu and cathedralstone.net links and content associated with it also? Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed these two unqualified references and added "citation needed" tag instead. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't find a reliable source that Townshend's experimention with feedback influenced Beck and Hendrix. Beck himself has pretty much squabbled that he has invented controlled use of guitar feedback. Watch out Townshend's interview here in which he accepts that:

To your knowledge were you the first to use controlled feedback?

PT: To tell the truth, Dave Davies, Jeff (Beck) and me have got a tacit agreement that we will all squabble ‘til the day we die that we invented it. I think possibly the truth is that it was happening in a lot of places at once. As the level went up, as people started to use bigger amps, and we were all still using semi-acoustic instruments, it started to happen quite naturally. I think the development of it was the word was around the street and then Lennon used it at the beginning of that record I Feel Fine and then it became quite common and a lot of people started to use it.

For this reason, I'm removing that unobjective sentence. Open to your suggestions. Thanks --Scieberking (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail Quote

I understand there was discussion about this quote above, but there doesn't seem to be any consensus to change what's currently on the page. I'm bringing it back in hopes of getting more eyes on it.

This proposed edit [21] provides the details on the Daily Mail's original story, which led to Townshend publicly acknowledging what had happened. The edit adds quotes about Townshend which seem irrelevant and unnecessarily splashy (""A legendary British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet", "a household name on both sides of the Atlantic" with "a well-documented history of hell-raising"). It also seems undue, given that Townshend talked about that issue openly afterwards.

To me, the current paragraph detailing what happened is sufficient, and going into tabloid-style details about something fully admitted later seems undue. Any thoughts? Dayewalker (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

i agree that it is unnecessarily splashy. WP:BLP states: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively ... Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist". that seems pretty clear. Sssoul (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed your comment here... My intent with this wording is to explain to the reader how the story unfolded. If Townshend had simply been arrested by the police following their own private investigation, then I would agree that any tabloid headlines would be irrelevant. I am not trying to be tabloid or sensationalist, the point is that Townshend heard about this article, thought 'shit, they mean me', and was on his doorstep, surrounded by television cameras the next day, making a rather ill-advised statement (IMO) stating that he was not a paedophile, etc..

More from the source:

I was having a cup of tea, looking out at the river, when I got this phone call, and someone says, "Have you seen the Daily Mail?" I said, "No, I don't take it", and they said, "Well, this is what it says." They read me the front page down the phone, and then they said, "It sounds like you, Pete", and I said, "Yeah, it sounds like me."'

The Daily Mail article was THE REASON Townshend became such a big news story. The list was leaked by the police to the newspaper (illegally, I believe the policeman was sacked), Townshend decided, rather than ignoring it, to come out and make a public statement, which I give a brief summary of, and the result was an immediate investigation and major media circus. Townshend was a low priority on the investigation list, and probably would not have been dealt with for many months, but the combination of the DM article and then his statement caused a huge media storm. This was a tabloid exposé, basically, so I think repeating the tabloid language ('history of hell-raising') to demonstrate to the reader the nature of the veiled reference to Townshend is quite relevant. Tabloid stories *are* documented in Wikipedia, when they are notable in the context of the subject. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

there is no (0) need for Wikipedia to "explain to the reader how the story unfolded". again, WP:BLP states it quite clearly: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively". Sssoul (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You might want to have a look at some of the movie pages, OJ Simpson, whatever, Wikipedia certainly DOES explain motivations, gives 'Timelines', etc. As for the specifically 'tabloid' language, this clearly communicates to the user what it was that motivated Townshend to appear 'in his dressing gown' making this statement. We are reporting, not using tabloid language, and in the concisest manner that still communicates the essence of what was said. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tabloid stories may be documented at times, a la the current situation at Tiger Woods. However, we should be very careful not to give them too much weight, especially after they've served their purpose to expose a story.

Are you saying Townshend wouldn't have gone public if not for the headlines? I know you're saying one led to the other, but why are these splashy details necessary to understand what happened? It seems very much undue weight to add tabloid headline details to something that was admitted later, and was really found to not be a big controversy. By including the headlines from before the story broke, we're giving them the weight of the story, rather than the admission and subsequent details. Dayewalker (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely not --- The next part of that reference:

What, I ask Pete Townshend, went through his mind after he put the phone down? 'I went into deep panic and anxiety. I had sensed, or I knew that there was a developing witch hunt in progress, and I thought, "Oh my God, this is going to be hung on me."' He was still taking this all in when he looked out his front window and saw that his house 'was surrounded not just by scores of reporters but a ring of satellite vans'.

The shock and disorientation of those first few hours, he says, are still difficult describe. 'I was just spinning. It was a bit like being shot. I didn't really quite know what to do. When I recognised myself in the Mail piece, I called my lawyer and he called the police. I very nearly went to the local police station. I was halfway there with my girlfriend, then I said, "Maybe I shouldn't do this."'

Instead, he later emerged in his dressing gown to face the throng of reporters and news crews outside his front door. Looking haggard, he read a pre-prepared statement in which he not only outed himself as the Mail's mystery rock star but confessed that he had indeed on one occasion used his credit card to access a child pornography site on the internet.

That oddly meandering statement must have had the Operation Ore detectives rubbing their hands with glee

Clearly this tabloid headline/story is critical to this section. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this the discussion? Could someone please simply outline the issue. Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is to discuss what reasons you think there are to revert my edit here: [22] And yes, this is the discussion of that so far Sumbuddi (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotes are linked above. Simply put, Sumbuddi feels the details and headlines from the Daily Mail that began this story should be quoted on the page. I disagree, since the current paragraph already includes all the relevant information I feel that using the splashy, tabloid headlines gives them undue weight based on what actually happened with the case, and how minor (no pun intended) it turned out to be. Dayewalker (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment.. I support Dayewalkers position here, the simple edit is plenty and encyclopedic, the additional edit is imo excessive. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that there might not even be a 'child porn' section on Townshend's page without that article. That's plain from the sources, so it is rather important.

We could go with something like this:

An investigation by the British police, Operation Ore, was under way into Landslide, a pornography payment gateway used by legal adult as well as illegal child pornography websites. On 11 January 2003 the Daily Mail, which had received a leaked copy of the members list, published a front page story referring to an unnamed rock star [Townshend] being the subject of a police internet child pornography investigation. The article's 'star' was sufficiently identifiable for Townshend to issue a statement saying that on "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there." , adding that he was opposed to child pornography and was not a paedophile.

My probem with this wording is that by omitting the wording used by the paper, the reader has no sense of what 'sufficiently identifiable' means. It's not as if 'hellraiser' in the context of a guitar-smashing rock star is defamatory, after all. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell raiser is titillating and tabloidese, we should try to write a more encyclopedic comment,. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions? The problem for me is that 'hellraising' is 'rock and roll', and in the nihilistic tradition of The Who, My Generation, etc., it's very much a compliment. Wiktionary defines it as "a person who is of wild, wanton behavior"; however, saying that "the newspaper referred to an internationally famous rock star famed for wild, wanton behaviour", is that has less positive connotations - "wild behaviour" could be perceived as referring to someone who is mentally unstable, rather than simply engaging in guitar smashing. Any more specific reference (such as 'the guitar-smashing star') would be inaccurate. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion is not to use it, as it's not necessary. The paragraph already stands as a complete description of what happened. Dragging tabloid headlines into this serves no purpose, as the matter is already settled. It seems to me that using tabloid headlines only serves to imply that Townshend only confessed because of the tabloids. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

But that is what he said, in the source above. It makes it clear that that was why he made his statement (I'm not sure 'confession' is exactly accurate, he was attempting to clarify what he had done and why, he did not at this point formally 'confess' to a specific offence.) If you look at other famous people who commited child pornography offences, they all explain how the offences came to like, for instance Chris Langham states that Langham was arrested first, and the news appeared a few weeks after that, or [{Gary Glitter]] where the offences came to light due to computer repair. The detail on this matter is very much encyclopedic. Even sites such as 'Pete Townshend is innocent' are clear on the critical role of the tabloids.[23] Sumbuddi (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't edit either article, so I looked into it. Both of those examples are of people who were found guilty and served time for child porn, and it is a major part of their lives and notariety. It's listed in the lead for both men, since it's one of the defining moments of their lives, perhaps the circumstances are given more weight. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So there's no room to explain what happened, but we do have room for a paragraph from an unconnected third party claiming, contrary to what Townshend stated and formally admitted, that he never accessed any child pornography websites? hmmmmmm. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One point at a time, please. "What happened" is explained sufficiently without having to splash tabloid headlines in a biography page. Dayewalker (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I didn't say we had to splash tabloid headlines in a BLP page (although there are plenty of BLPs that do have such headlines, some considerably more lurid than this). My preference would be (1) to include a brief excerpt from the paper for clarity, but failing that (2) a description of the sequence of events from newspaper story to statement, without quotes. If you agree we should detail 'what happened', then I'm willing to omit the quotes. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the discussion, but this is a BLP, not a negotiation between the two of us. I'm not in a position to agree to anything with you and make it stick, I'm just the only one left here on the talk page discussing the matter. Consensus above, which I agree with, is against this edit. Dayewalker (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a negotiation between the two of us, along with the other users who choose to get involved. Whether or not certain facts are reported has everything to do with the opinions of the editors editing, and really rather little to do with WP:BLP, which doesn't have a specific section on whether the Pete Townshend child porn section should be two hundred words or two hundred and twenty. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, it seems as if we've reached the end here. Let's see what other editors have to say. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) just to make sure i've been clear: i oppose the proposed change; it adds nothing but sensationalism, which is against WP:BLP. i'll try posting this discussion on the BLP Noticeboard in case some uninvolved parties can be persuaded to express a viewpoint. Sssoul (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It adds the facts about what happened, as I said any 'sensationlist' quotes, while preferred for clarity, are not essential. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

see Talk:Pete_Townshend#RfC_closure for continued discussion Sssoul (talk) 07:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

the RFC that ended on November 9th

in one of Sumbiddi's recent edit summaries s/he asserted that s/he's "had an RFC up for over a month". s/he seems to be referring to the RFC above that automatically ended on November 9th showing no (0) consensus for any changes other than the modification of the section title. since no one has relisted the RFC to extend it beyond the standard month, it is no longer current, and the result is no consensus for other changes to the article. if the RFC is supposed to be current, then it needs to be re-opened, and Sumbuddi needs to stop imposing the changes s/he's proposing until the RFC is closed again. Sssoul (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was wrecked, and unfortunately the requested comment didn't really materialise.

I'm not quite sure why my latest change is being rejected: I can see that removing the paragraph claiming Townshend did nothing wrong might be objected to, but having worked through the title change, and being willing to defer on the 'Townshend did nothing wrong' pargraph, I don't see that the 'you can't touch this' approach to the intro is reasonable. Do we really have to go through this word-by-word, or is there anyone willing to work with me, rather than reverting? Please can those reverting explain their objections. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

the RFC was not "wrecked". if you feel more input is needed, then relist it (preferably with better organization this time, and a clear, concise statement of what you're trying to propose). meanwhile there is no consensus for the changes you keep trying to impose; you need to discuss them on the talk page first and try to achieve consensus. Sssoul (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, what we are talking about:

This:

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.

becomes

An investigation by the British police, Operation Ore, was under way into Landslide, a pornography payment gateway used by legal adult as well as illegal child pornography websites. On 11 January 2003 the Daily Mail, which had received a leaked copy of the members list, revealed on its front page that "A legendary British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet", describing him as "a household name on both sides of the Atlantic" with "a well-documented history of hell-raising". The reference was sufficiently specific for Townshend to issue a public statement identifying himself as the unnamed star, saying that on "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. I did this purely to see what was there." , adding that he was opposed to child pornography and was not a paedophile.

To those that have, or would, revert this change, please explain your specific objections. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done, above section. Dayewalker (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, just noticed that.... Sorry. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

the "other notes" section

i'm puzzled by the Pete Townshend#Other notes section. why are these listed in a separate section instead of being used as references or added to the "External links" section? and what are the little "annotations" for? (i've also requested input from WP:BLP and WP:ELN on this question.) Sssoul (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

update: i've cleared out a lot of this section, eliminating the apparent copyright violations, duplicates and dead links, and turning some of the links into references. it seems like most of what's left in there now should either be moved to "External links" or be jettisoned. Sssoul (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job of weeding that link farm. The next step is to decide if these are really "Further reading" (usually used for books, but a very long news/magazine article is included under that title on occasion), or just potential WP:RSs, in which case they should probably be listed here, for editors working on the article, instead of there.

Also, can anyone think of any good reason to have them in a numbered list? I'm concerned that it might be confusing for inexperienced readers (who might mistake it for the {{reflist}} itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your input. i've cleared out the rest of it; the only link i couldn't really figure out what to do with is:
 ::*"An Introduction to Lifehouse" by Pete Townshend, The Richmond Review, 1999

so here it is in case it's useful to someone. Sssoul (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

bisexuality/homosexuality

Watch out this "Associated Press/ The Free-Lance Star - Nov 8, 1990" news report:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19901108&id=C2UQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=I4wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5965,1330430

"Guitarist Pete Townshend of The Who says his 1980 song "Rough Boys" was a "coming out, an acknowledgment of the fact that I'd a gay life"."

With that said, this portion "A 1990 book of interviews by Timothy White, Rock Lives, contained Townshend's thoughts on the meaning of his song "Rough Boys" that gave the mistaken impression that he was gay or bisexual. The information was picked up by the British tabloid press that spread this misinformation around the world. Townshend kept silent on the issue out of respect for his gay friends, until clarifying in a 1994 Playboy interview that he was neither gay nor bisexual." of the article is POV and even written without any references. --Scieberking (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

there is a reference, just not in proper citation format: "The Playboy Interview" by David Sheff in Playboy, February 1994, Vol. 41, Iss. 2. someone who has access to the magazine would need to check the exact page number of the relevant bit, but the interview is on pages 51-60 and 148-151. Sssoul (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Sssoul. Got the interview page and added it. This Free-Lance Star article also needed a mention so I've added it too with the reference. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for balancing out the statements and stuff. I just can't get what this nonsense, unreferenced POV means: "Townshend still continues to write pieces on rock and his place in it, mostly for his website but he also remains a celebrity sought after by music magazines and newspapers to the present day". --Scieberking (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been inserted as a kind of rebuttal, as in..no he is not gay, but it is the first time I have heard that he was supposed to be, so I am wondering if the accusations are reported widely in other reliable sources or if the comment is being given undue weight in the article. Presently its cited to these two citations only,[24] [25] the queer one doesn't look reliable and the google one is pretty weak looking also, any comments? Are there any stronger citations from reliable sources? This comment for example... This was picked up by the British tabloid press and spread around the world Was it? The whole interview section is in need of a big trim actually, barely cited at all and a bit fanzine imo Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

as noted above: if you can access the February 1994 issue of Playboy that will be a thoroughly reliable source for the quote from Townshend about it. Sssoul (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a quote from playboy is not representative of This was picked up by the British tabloid press and spread around the world was it widely reported? We can't just add whatever interests us from all the interviews he has made, I don't think it is notable or that it was widely reported and I think that it is being given undue weight in the article, please feel free to convince me otherwise. Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a better source for the Playboy quote. It's secondary but it's more readily available. I also removed the "British tabloid press" part because they were neither the source of the story of the reason for the reporting of it. Also, since the story was carried by the Associated Press I don't think any further explanation or citation is needed to say it was widely reported in the mainstream media. Piriczki (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see my edit has already been undone but I will add this anyway. I see no reason to mention a particular newspaper (Free Lance Star) that carried the AP story or attribute part of the Townshend quote to a newspaper instead of the book. And as this could be viewed as a contentious issue, I think the quote should be shown in its entirety or not at all. Piriczki (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree and as this is a new addition of material thats inclusion is disputed and it is controversial content it should be removed until there is clear support for its inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

:::: Quote should be shown in its entirety. That Free Lance Star news report passes WP:RS so why don't you see no reason to mention a particular newspaper? Pete had admitted his bisexuality in that interview and that was recorded on an audio tape, to which Daltrey had expressed wonder. Pete had also joked in the Induction Ceremony that he was "fortunate enough" to sleep with Mick Jagger. --Scieberking (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not notable its more gossip and fanzine stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets see, the story so far...Pete said a comment and someone thought he was gay but he wasn't...yawn. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying to include this Daltrey and Induction remark thing, but AFP report is NOT gossip stuff. The entire quote should be mentioned. Nobody should get special treatment. --Scieberking (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the entire quote, even more undue weight to a non event, it is not special treatment at all, it simply it a bit titillating and tabloid, which we should avoid in general. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

By all means its not "titillating" and is a reliable Newspaper report. Most Newspapers even publish Iraq War News in Tabloid (Newspaper/ News Report with half-size pages) format, don't they? So does it mean that Iraq War is a gossip for you? --Scieberking (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try to stay calm, of course the Iraq war is well reported by all major news agencies and is a very notable situation, the fact that this guy said something that was picked up on to appear to mean he was gay and then he wasn't gay is worthless gossip that adds nothing of any value to this biography. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm CALM and COOL. Townshend had openly admitted his bisexuality in that interview. Now if he claims he's not, technically, why doesn't he sue the interviewer, but this fact is not relevant here. Okay If I agree he's not gay and even Jackson is not pedophile, should the assault case controversy from MJ article be removed for "it adds nothing of any value to this biography". And he was a living person back then. --Scieberking (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Pete Townshend did NOT admit to bisexuality in that interview and he has said that he did not. He said his comments about having "had a gay life" referred to important people in his life, like Kit Lambert, who are gay. Your obsession with proving that Pete Townshend is bisexual is beyond odd. Pete himself says he is not. End of story. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Few more sources that pass WP:RS and show Townshend was/is Bisexual

1- Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-129793/Petes-gay-affairs-revelation.html The Who's guitarist Pete Townshend has told how he had homosexual liaisons in his youth. The rock legend said he had sex with two men 'consciously' and another 'unconsciously' during his drug-fuelled years in the Sixties. He made the revelations in an interview with the rock magazine Rolling Stone after his former friend Danny Fields claimed in a book that the pair had been 'boyfriend and boyfriend'. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-129793/Petes-gay-affairs-revelation.html#ixzz0ZDgMg9Nj 2- Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-53877981.html We've known that Pete Townshend is bisexual. The rock legend acknowledged as much a few years ago. But he's never been exactly eager to go into detail. So imagine the surprise of a VH1 camera crew when Townshend casually tossed in a juicy same-sex ... 3- Rolling Stone: Rather Confused and Offensive towards the Interviewer (Indirectly confirms he was gay) Did or do you consider yourself fundamentally bisexual? No, I don't. I know that I've got -- and this has got nothing to do with anything I've actually done, or not done -- a very, very feminine side. I think my creative side is very feminine. And I went so far as to say in that interview [with Timothy White in 1989, when Townshend was misunderstood as referring to his bisexuality] that I often feel like a woman; I can see what a woman feels -- the whole act of submission sexually. But, in a sense, what I was talking about was the act of submission sexually in a male-female relationship, that you can swap roles. But that's very common and corny now, in a sense, to even bring it up. And I suppose what I'm doing is taking all of the feminine attributes and regarding them as being passive, gentle, submissive or whatever. But in the sense that my creative side is archly feminine, it is "I want the baby and I want it now!" It's biological. It's absolute. It's the feminine side that says to you [raises voice], "If I need to take heroin, I'll fucking take heroin -- who are you to even raise an eyebrow? If I need to give birth, I shall do it!" But it's got nothing to do with my sexuality. So, to clarify, in your life when you had sexual encounters with men, did that have anything at all to do with expressing that feminine side? No. I think what it had to do with -- and to be honest [laughs], I can't remember much about any of it -- was to do with the fact that I was actually completely smashed out of my head. I'm fifty-seven, I've got a young girlfriend, I'm not gay. I'm not interested in men. I don't think I ever really have been. I've had a high sex drive all my life, which has actually been difficult sometimes to reconcile with some of my spiritual aspirations, which are just like, you know, a monk, I suppose. But, no, I think it would have been because I was completely off my face with something. If you want to talk about this, and Danny's the one that's gone into print . . . [loudly] if Danny fucked me, Danny drugged me first. So if you want to fucking print that, then print it. Because that's the truth. It fucking hurts, that he so fucking carelessly said this in the papers. He should have fucking told me what he did to me first. Aside from the newspaper side of it, do you feel like if that's the case that he mistreated you on a personal level? No, I don't give a damn! But to actually say that we were boyfriend and girlfriend! Boyfriend and boyfriend. I don't know what he's fucking talking about. [Louder] And this is it. This is the fucking thing that stinks about this whole fucking thing of doing a fucking interview with fucking Rolling Stone magazine in the first place when I don't need to! I don't need the magazine, I don't need you. . . . The tour is sold-out. I don't want to talk about my work, I don't want to talk about the Who, I don't want to talk about any of this shit. But you go and you talk about it, because it seems the polite thing to do. [Shouts] Live in the real fucking world! Live in the real fucking world! . . . I just don't know what Danny is talking about. I know that I spent a night in his house. I don't remember much else about it. You know, I did not go out with him. He is not my type.

More from http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/petetownshend/articles/story/5939827/pete_townshend_the_rs_interview --Scieberking (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Few more sources that probably do/ do not pass WP:RS and show Townshend was/is Bisexual

1- Danny Fields Fucked Bus Boys, Gave Tables: http://www.queerty.com/danny-fields-fucked-bus-boys-gave-tables-20070912/ (One Critical Question from Rolling Stone Interview Mentions Danny Fields and ridicules Townshend) This isn't the first time Fields has found himself embroiled in a war of words. The famed music manager once alleged that he and The Who's Pete Townshend were "boyfriends". Townshend denied the claim and even suggested that Fields may have drugged him. Of course, Townshend later faced kiddie porn charges, so we're not sure who to believe. Jeff Bercovici thinks so, too. 2- The Rock Radio: http://www.therockradio.com/2006/10/pete-townshend-explains-walking-out-on.html Townshend, who was waiting to be interviewed along with his girlfriend Rachel Fuller and bandmate Roger Daltrey, was reportedly incensed after hearing Stern list the various personal topics he wanted to address with Townshend, including the 2003 child porn charges; his admitted, then recanted, bisexual affairs; and his close working relationship with Fuller, whom Stern poked fun of, jokingly saying, "Uh-oh, Yoko (Ono)." After Townshend and Fuller left, Daltrey went ahead with the interview alone with an apologetic Stern.

3- Pete Townshend: NNDB Profile http://www.nndb.com/people/573/000022507/#FN1

AKA Peter Dennis Blandford Townshend Born: 19-May-1945 Birthplace: Chiswick, England Gender: Male Race or Ethnicity: White Sexual orientation: Bisexual [1]Occupation: Guitarist Nationality: England Executive summary: Lead guitarist for The Who

4- The Boston Globe Article: WHO'S TOWNSHEND SAYS HE'S BISEXUAL

Who guitarist Pete Townshend has divulged his bisexuality in a interview in a new book in which he says "I know how it feels to be a woman." Townshend, who has been married to Karen Astley since 1966 and has three children, revealed in "Rock Lives: Profiles and Interviews" -- a collection of interviews by music writer and radio host Timothy White -- that he has been involved in homosexual relationships. "I know how it feels to be a woman because I am a woman," Townshend said in an interview with White that ran on White's radio show in September 1989. "And I won't be classified as just a man." Townshend said his aversion to the macho rock star ethos surfaced publicly in the "Rough Boys" ... More http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8200505.html

Now it is quite clear that Townshend has admitted his bisexuality. Thanks. --Scieberking (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has reached a level of absuridty that makes any rational discourse impossible but I will mention one thing regarding the BLP issue. The quote from the Rock Lives book as it appears in the article ("coming out, an acknowledgment of the fact that I'd a gay life") is only part of one sentence of what was an extensive answer to a question about the song "Rough Boys" which filled more than one page of the book. Piriczki (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not about a book, a sentence, a word, or even a letter. In spite of admitting his bisexuality here "coming out, an acknowledgment of the fact that I'd a gay life", Pete Townshend has also confirmed in the RS Interview that "he had sex with two men 'consciously' and another 'unconsciously' during his drug-fuelled years in the Sixties" and its no gossip.... RS Official website and Daily Mail, the second biggest-selling UK newspaper, backs this up. Now what? No lame excuses... --Scieberking (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-129793/Petes-gay-affairs-revelation.html#ixzz0ZGD081T3

Whoa! The entire well-reference "Bisexuality" and ["Child Porn, though partially"] information has been REMOVED and the page is'PROTECTED. I'm a new editor at Wikipedia and haven't even spent one month here yet, but barely two weeks or so. I've always made well-referenced and positive contributions here, music or outside music. Now I've realized that this Wikipedia article is a FANZINE well "protected" by Townshend FANBOYS in disguise of Wikipedia editors. The funny part is that they can't simply deny the well-referenced FACTS above. What most you can do?? Block me, huh! --Scieberking (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a highly sensitive matter and I would urge strong caution when adding material like this to the article, as it is exactly the kind of thing that could be libellous if adequate care is not given. Such content can be added to the article if it passes relevant policies and guidelines including WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, however in the spirit of the biographies of living persons policy, particularly WP:GRAPEVINE, such content should only be added when it is 100% clear that is appropriate. If there are reasonable concerns, it is better to hold off and wait until they are resolved. The world will not end tomorrow. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Read: http://books.google.com/books?id=b03CYc9UWSIC&pg=PT448&lpg=PT448&dq=%22a+gay+life%22+townshend&source=bl&ots=N5Lw-rYUdQ&sig=qqzLc8USfmi5TVWfUc3_DzGeD-0&hl=en&ei=QT8lS6mcM86WtgfM7uzTBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I think we can drop this, now. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 03:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protected for a day

And Scieberking is on the verge of being blocked for edit-warring. Enigma^msg 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pete Townshend and the Guardian article reference that was taken out

In regards to the paragraph reading:

'"In April 2007, an article in The Guardian stated that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography".[23] After obtaining copies of the Landslide hard drives and tracing Townshend's actions, investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote in PC Pro Magazine, "Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do." Campbell states that their entire evidence against Townshend was that he accessed a single site among the Landslide offerings which was not connected with child pornography.[24]'

I think this article helps put into context what exactly happened and I think it gives due weight to specify what he was accused of, and what actually happened. I think it helps give due weight to why he was not found guilty of the crime. I'm going to look at that being put back in, as it appeared to have been removed recently and I think someone jumped to have its removal without understanding that bit's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statement above is completely incorrect, in every possible respect, most spectacularly in the claim that he was found not guilty. Townshend in fact admitted guilt, in the form of a police caution. I suggest you review the previous discussion on this issue (see above at "Change 2"). Suffice to say, if there was any evidence that Townshend himself holds or even held the opinions expressed by Mr. Campbell, it would probably be worth mentioning, but as it's pure third party speculation from someone with no idea of the evidence or admissions made, it's not.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Constantly disrupting/ vandalizing verified content on the articles regarding The Who and Led Zeppelin, I conclude Rickens is the new incarnation of Occultaphenia. It's been proved that In So-Called Operation Ore Townshend had pleaded guilty (though later tried to rebut it) and he has admitted his bisexuality many times in interviews (though later tried to rebut it, too). This is what the "facts" (not the "fans") say or tend to say, and these "facts" have been verified by the finest newspapers and news agencies and music magazines including Associated Press, Daily Mail and Rolling Stone. --Scieberking (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite a fan, Scieberking. I can tell. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are sock puppetry concerns, it is best to report it to WP:SPI where it will be sorted out. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rickens was blocked indefinitely as a CosmicLegg sock. CL has some obsession with this article. Enigma^msg 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some great news. I've been struggling against unobjective, fanboyish WP:POV. CosmicLegg and his socks Occultaphenia and Rickens among others have been causing disruption, vandalizing articles, abusing my talk page for a long time and I've helped block those indefinitely. While I'm a fan and tend to agree The Who is one of the greatest rock bands ever, I just can't stand any unverifiable WP:POV and heavy bias on Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see you apply your ideals to pages dealing with Led Zeppelin. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be no discussion about how this supports or does not support Townshend "guilt" or whether he was "found guilty." This is not "third party speculation." This is what happened, period. Please read the references in regard to this passage. To summarize: The Operation Ore investigations/prosecutions were challenged by a group of individuals as it became obvious the UK police had made serious errors in prosecution. Based on this challenge, a group of independent investigators obtained and researched the Landslide hard drives. Landslide was alleged by the police to be be a "child porn" site, but it turned out to be a credit card fee site (with a high incidence of fradulent charges) that offered access to a number of pornography sites. With the hard drives, the investigators traced the IP addresses of specific individuals of interest to see whether they had actually accessed any child porn. Townshend's IP was traced to a website called "Alberto" which had nothing to do with child porn. The PC Pro article is technical and details the research, but The Guardian article summarizes fairly well. Regardless of the caution and the formal statement Townshend filed admitting access to the Landslide site, he did not buy or view child porn through this site. Period. His IP address was traced through Landslide to an ordinary adult porn site. The section is clearly referenced, but I gather people are not reading the references before hitting the delete button. Since there is discussion about the section, please let me know how to make it clearer. I don't want to repeat the whole of the Operation Ore article here. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look now at some of the arguments above. 1) Regarding confusion in Townshend's statements: This investigation took place about four years after Townshend's access to the Landslide site, and his statements about it appear contradictory. It's not reasonable to quibble about the "truth" of his statements in regard to actual events, as they represent his thoughts, memories or opinions at the time he spoke. His quotes can be referenced, but the article and the editors should make no assessment of whether or not they represent true facts--memories very seldom are. Because this has not been an open process, it will be impossible to acertain exactly what Townshend was cautioned for or what he admitted to the police. The article can only provide the statements on file without offering opinion. 2) Because this article is entitled "Operation Ore investigation and police caution," then that is what it should address. The follow-up investigation as outlined by Duncan Campbell relates directly to Operation Ore and Townshend's purchase at the Landslide site, so it qualifies to be included in the section. Campbell's quotes are again, his opinion based on his research (referenced), and the article should make no assessment of their "truth." If some readers have concerns that Townshend's caution was based on some other website, then that should be addressed separately and referenced appropriately. Such speculation has no place under this title. Pkeets (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, just because there had been discussion on removing reference to later investigations on Operation Ore doesn't mean you have license to remove the paragraph at will. I don't see anywhere here that you have a consensus to do so. The information is material and provides a balanced view on a legal issue. You need to discuss the paragraph here instead of in the edit summary. Pkeets (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you see above. There are concerns from contributors to this page that the child pornography section should not be overlong in relation to the entire article. There is a large amount of content in relation to this incident that has been removed regarding Townshend's statements and actions to comply with this, and unless this section is very much expanded to cover more of this (which consensus is against), claims made by someone who has no access to the evidence put forward in Townshend's case by his lawyers and by the police and/or CPS do not belong. In other words, while we have this man's word (and nothing more official or reliable than that) that Townshend accessed a non-cp site on Landslide, this certainly does not justify inserting the eye-catching statement that he was "falsely accused" of attempting to access child pornography ever, given that statements made by Townshend himself (which you can find in this Talk page and its archives, and which have been removed from this article on several occasions) contradict that. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion, and I apologize for arriving a little bit late for it. I didn't see the Rfc above, and I thought you were just vandalizing the article. If the aim here is to shorten the section, then I would be in favor of removing some of Townshend's statements, as well. The one provided by his solicitor was only a formality required by the caution, so provides no more information than the fact that the caution was accepted. The information that Townshend recalled he was doing research at the time he encountered child abuse images might be more relevant. I would be open to further discussion of whether that materially contributes to understanding of the situation. Since Townshend was found to have accessed only an adult porn site, I'm thinking his recollections in this case were in error and confuse the issue. I could also look at shortening Campbell's statements. However, I suggest you have a look at his credentials before making posts that he is an uninformed third party. The research he's detailing was on the Landslide hard drives (evidence that Townshend's solicitor had no access to at the time of the caution) and his articles were a very important development in the Operation Ore cases. The research he outlines is now being used to challenge the prosecutions in court.Pkeets (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Townshend made a specific legal pleading, and that can be considered verifiable 'truth' for the purposes of this article. Material that calls that into question should NOT be included without good reason. Good reason would include any kind of statement by Townshend that supports what this uninvolved third party says. Townshend has plenty of opportunity to comment on what he did, and there is NOTHING from him that supports Campbell's claims. Remember that Townshend has explicitly stated "I have looked at child porn sites maybe three or four times in all, the front pages and previews," he has also published articles such as "A Different Bomb" [26] on the subject, and it is ridiculous to try and contradict the clear words and legal admission of a man who has every opportunity to defend and speak for himself, including his own website, over which he has total editorial control. The claim that "Townshend was found to have accessed only an adult porn site" is unverifiable, contradicts Townshend's own statements, and in any case Townshend was not cautioned for the access, but for paying for a website that appeared to contain child porn (which might not even have been Landslide). Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you think of this? The references present the important facts in the case and could be inserted in the general biography without any heading at all. Since this is a contentious issue, I'm in favor of cutting the whole thing down to bare bones facts and removing the quotes and explanations which can be used to damage the neutral point of view.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003.[26][27][28][33][34]Pkeets (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. A minute ago you wanted to double the size of this section by adding irrelevant content contradicting Townshend's own statements. Now you want to cut it down, presumably to present a more favourable effect. I can't agree.Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor to this page I would also like to know why a factually uncontested article that had been deemed relevant for a long time should suddenly become irrelevant. I would hope that Wikipedia is not succumbing to pressures stemming from a publicity campaign. BrianInAtlanta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Eh? Unless you're somebody's sockpuppet, you've never contributed to this page before...... Sumbuddi (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article has not been contested factually. What I see in the discussion above is opinions about "truth" and "guilt" which should not enter into a neutral point of view. The purpose of the article is to present events and facts that are verifiable, not to show that Townshend is "guilty" of some offense or that he was cautioned for something that doesn't appear in a verifiable reference. Pkeets (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure what's meant by "a factually uncontested article ... suddenly becom[ing] irrelevant", but if the issue under discussion is why the paragraph about later investigations of Operation Ore was removed, see Talk:Pete_Townshend#RfC_closure, above: i asked an uninvolved editor to close the RfC; User:Camaron made the decision about that paragraph and will no doubt be willing to explain and/or discuss it if you ask him. hope that helps. Sssoul (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My original RfC closure can be found above. I was asked to close the debate as a person outside the dispute. When I read what had been discussed I could see no consensus on material beyond the first paragraph, so I suggested it be kept to that for the time being. There was no prejudice for adding further content but per the spirit of WP:BLP there should be talk page consensus for it first. This page is once again undergoing edit warring, so I have fully protected it. A provisional expiry of 2 weeks time has been given though it may be unprotected earlier depending on when the dispute is resolved. I think in this incidence protection would be better than alternatives such as blocks. Per WP:PREFER within the protection policy, I am allowed to revert to the version from before edit warring began, which would be without the second paragraph, and I was tempted to do that per the spirit of WP:BLP. However, given that the material of the second paragraph is not highly problematic I have decided just to leave the page on what happens to be the current version without endorsement.

Since this page seems to have had disputes on it for a while other forms of dispute resolution may be necessary. Given that the dispute currently seems to only has two main parties involved, perhaps a third opinion would be helpful. Otherwise venues such as WP:MEDCAB should be considered. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cameron. I do notice that BrianInAtlanta has checked in with a comment not in favor of the revision.Pkeets (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed BrianInAtlanta (talk · contribs) had also registered an opinion. I am surprised by it as prior to editing this page the account has not been active for over 2 years. However, the previous pages edited were related to Pete Townshend and it is never too late to return to Wikipedia! Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedia people for locking it down. There is a campaign out there right now and removing the page from editing seems a rational solution. BrianInAtlanta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

I think you have missed the point. The purpose of this is not to preserve your point of view, it is to preclude edit warring. Also there is no such thing as 'Wikipedia people', you can be a 'Wikipedia person' if you want. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Locking it down would prevent vandalism. As I said, I thought from your lack of response that you were vandalizing the page. Did you have a look at my proposed change above?Pkeets (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded already. I don't much like this article being edited into an unthinking Townshend fanclub POV. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I thought you had proposed a change to reduce the size of the section. I normally try to respect the work of others when I propose revisions, but I agree that this section is a mess of conflicting POVs and it would be better deleted in favor of a purely factual statement, plus references. There's a similar change proposed above, I notice, but awkwardly worded, trying to preserve expository elements. In order to make the statement factual, these elements need to be removed and only the facts and the references preserved. If this isn't what you meant, then please clarify. Pkeets (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this started because you came here trying to re-add POV that has no purpose other than to present Townshend in a favourable but inaccurate light. I certainly did NOT propose reducing the size of the section from where it was before, in fact I have previously proposed adding some more detail (see previous discussion); what I did say on this occasion is that in the context of the current length, which has been suggested previously by various editors should not be made too long, including this content from Mr. Campbell would be to give this POV undue weight - and it would be similarly unbalanced in anything short of a full 'Pete Townshend and Child Pornography' article.

Saying that this sentence should not be overlong is not the same as completely removing all context down to a single sentence leaving the reader completely in the dark about what happened, for the same apparent purpose as adding the Campbell statement, viz. to present Townshend in a favourable but inaccurate light. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. My mistake. But then you're suggesting that the section should have a POV adjustment? Remember that it's not Wikipedia's purpose to present persons in either favorable or unfavorable light, but to report verifiable facts and events. The clear solution to Mr. Campbell's opinion having too much weight is to delete that section, as you say, but that leaves other elements with similar problems. Deleting all of it with the exception of the fact of the caution and attaching references seems a good solution, as it provides all the information to anyone who is interested in this particular event in Townshend's career, but without Wikipedia having to worry about libel or POV. Trying to adjust the POV of an article with conflicting statements will continue to be awkward and contentious. I'm open to other solutions if you'd like to draft something, but notice that I am a big fan of neutral POV. Pkeets (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Townshend's talked plenty on this subject, there's no reason to suggest there are libel/BLP issues with anything beyond a single sentence. There are significant POV issues with NOT adequately covering this topic, which is why I came to this page in the first place.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do recall that there was a lot of coverage of his comments, but again, are these material and/or trustworthy? Transcription of every article published on the Operation Ore investigations would be fair, but once you start to pick and choose statements, then you have to be very careful to remain neutral. I personally think that his acceptance of the caution covers the subject adequately and that no attempted interpretation of the act is suitable for Wikipedia. That's bound to get into POV.Pkeets (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor, I also feel this subject should remain closed unless new and verified facts from someone without an obvious agenda (pro or con) comes forth. Until then, the page should remain as it now stands. BrianInAtlanta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Analysis section

I'm going to start a new section, as it's becoming difficult to navigate in the last one. I've broken down what I think of the first paragraph. Please provide your opinion on each sentence and let's try to reach agreement on what's really important.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 (good to this point)

after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography.[26][27][28] (expository and redundant - acceptance implies acknowledgment - the site name is not required and an explanation of how it worked too long to present here)

He stated in the press and on his website that he had been 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.[29] (sentence is overly expository and favorable POV, attempting to provide a valid reason Townshend was at the site - unfactual - Townshend's statements about the event are conflicting and apparently untrustworthy)

The police searched his house and confiscated 14 computers and other materials, and after a four-month forensic investigation confirmed that they had found no evidence of child abuse images. Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing 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." (redundant information - much if not all of this could be cut out - again, the caution indicates they found nothing to use in prosecution - favorable POV)

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."[30] (redundant - it's clear from the first sentence above that Townshend accepted the caution - unfavorable POV)

As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years.[31][32](redundant - this follows from the caution - unfavorable POV)Pkeets (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of balance. Wikipedia articles contain sentences that are about favourable and unfavourable about their subjects. This in combination provides balance. Removing every such statement leaves you with pretty much nothing - as is your result here. Not a good outcome. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please recommend something else instead. I understand your objection to the Campbell statements, and I'd be open to leaving explanation of those investigations to another article. Explanations of the caution, what the Landslide site was and how it worked, etc. should also be covered elsewhere. I also think it will be totally impossible to unsnarl Townshend's public interviews on this matter into any sort of sense. As you say above, they call into question what Townshend admitted to the police and what he was cautioned for, but unfortunately this is in the realm of speculation. It remains between Townshend, his solicitor and the police and so is immaterial to this article.Pkeets (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you think of this: As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003.[26][27][28][29] The police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing 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, 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."[30][31][32][33][34]Pkeets (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested edits to this paragraph in the past, and I'm certainly not opposed to edits to this paragraph, but as the article is currently protected due to our dispute over the Campbell claims, I think that should be our priority - the article cannot be edited by anyone at the moment until this dispute is resolved.

Are we now in agreement to exclude these claims by Campbell? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarilly. I agree that the whole thing needs to be shortened, but the tone needs to be neutral. If you feel that could be accomplished by taking out the Campbell quotes, then I'll be open to it, but only if what remains sounds neutral. It needs to report the fact that Townshend was cautioned without suggesting he was either guilty or not guilty. That's what neutral means.Pkeets (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Townshend was guilty!!!! That's what a caution means. He was found to be guilty by the investigator, and he made a legal admission of that guilt, by accepting a police caution. Neutral does NOT mean saying that someone who was guilty was not...... Sumbuddi (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It just seems like yesterday this was extensively discussed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has a draft that they want to include would they offer it here for discussion, with the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, Sumbuddi. Anyone who's read the info on cautions know that by accepting the caution, Townshend admitted guilt. I don't see that anyone has suggested that the statement about the caution should be removed. However, Wikipedia is not the place for trying to establish "guilt" or "innocence" through what quotes are included. We need to be discussing how to make this passage neutral in POV.Pkeets (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia is not the place to establish guilt, it is the place to REPORT IT, given that guilt has already been conclusively proven. I shouldn't need to spell this out again. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proven? How? Do you have some reference not included in the article that discusses this? From what I can see in the cited articles, he admitted guilt and accepted the caution. There was no process to "prove" guilt. Pkeets (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

????? What are you disputing? There was a long investigation following which Townshend made a legally binding admission of guilt. Guilt was acknowledged by Townshend. I am not sure why you are now talking about 'proof'; if a murderer pleads guilty on day 1 of a trial before evidence is entered, nothing has been proven formally - his plea is more than sufficient: once you admit guilt there is no need for anybody to prove anything, you've proven it yourself. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the definition of "proof." Proof is a series of statements that leads to a valid conclusion--evidence, in other words, that someone did or did not break the law. There are plenty of false confessions around, so that can't be taken as clear evidence to prove anything. You see in the article that the police say they've found no evidence in the investigation. There is no public record of what Townshend admitted to the police or whether it was verified. Campbell says the later investigation shows he didn't buy any CP through Landslide. There is no evidence here, and again, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to try to establish proof. The purpose of this article is to present references that show the chain of events without suggesting guilt or innocence. Since the claims in the references are often inflammatory, I'm suggesting that most of this be cut out of the Wikipedia article to provide neutral POV. Pkeets (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate etymology with you; suffice to say, he admitted guilt, he has never disclaimed this guilt, nor has anyone connected to him, despite numerous opportunities, despite having made numerous statements on the subject, and this is more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Townshend has never attempted to cover this up, on the contrary he has written wordy essays, discussed the subject in interviews, came out voluntarily in advance of any police investigation into him, and it's wholly irrational for you to try and reduce this section to nothing. I don't think there can be any more to say on this..... Sumbuddi (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not etymology, just definition. Are you saying this section ought to be slanted to emphasize that Townshend is guilty? You've not really discussed revision, other than saying the Campbell articles should be removed. Pkeets (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I've suggested the following: As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] This provides a statement of neutral fact, and provides all the references for further reading by anyone who's interested in this particular event.Pkeets (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell testified as an expert witness in Operation Ore cases and established key facts which discredited much of the foundation of Operation Ore. Operation Ore, which identified over seven thousand suspects and led to 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charges, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautions - and thirty-nine suicides - is now the subject of a group action (class action) appeal that was just cleared to be heard in the High Court in the U.K. Since Pete Townshend was identified as part of the Operation Ore investigations, it is entirely appropriate and relevant to retain the Campbell reference in the Pete Townshend article. Indeed, omitting this information would lead one to assume that Operation Ore was a well-executed, run-of-the-mill police operation, which it most certainly was not. --Dendennis (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you'd be in favor of retaining the section as it is?Pkeets (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of maintaining the section as it currently stands. --Dendennis (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All this is very interesting, but Mr. Townshend has made numerous public statements on child pornography, has access to the finest lawyers money can buy, and in the first instance came out on his doorstep and made a highly incriminating statement prior to any investigation or official contact whatsoever (plainly the credibility or otherwise of Operation Ore has no relevance to this).

Were it the case that Townshend denied any dealings with child pornography, that he had ever stated he was incorrectly treated, then the background information on Operation Ore would have relevance. As this is not the case, it is irrelevant - another famous person, Chris Langham, was investigated as part of Operation Ore, and his Wikipedia page quite rightly does not mention any doubts about Operation Ore, because illegal images were found on his PC, so the unsoundness of other convictions is totally irrelevant to him

Given that Townshend has never denied the accusations against him, instead adopting a similar 'it was research' defence as employed by Langham, it is entirely unjustifiable to try and introduce the words of an unconnected third party into this article.

As Townshend is subject to WP:BLP, I think it is only proper that we allow his words and actions to speak for him, rather than the claims of third parties with no formal or informal relationship with Townshend, given that these claims are contradictory with Townshend's own. A reader reading Townshend's own words in one paragraph "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." (as referenced in the article at [27]), and then that 'he was "falsely accused"' in the next, is left confused at best. Given that child pornography/paedophilia are some the most damaging crimes in Western society, it is important that we are careful not to undermine Townshend's claims, except where justified by the legal record - certainly not with the words of unconnected investigators with access only to a computer database, not the actual evidence available to the police and Townshend's lawyers. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Townshend was quoted to the effect that what he had done wasn't illegal at the time and that the law had been changed to prosecute the Operation Ore investigations, but that brings on a complicated discussion of the UK law and its technicalities and whether he was right or wrong, all of which has no place here. Plus, a minor point: It appears unlikely that Landslide advertised CP, so if this is the site Townshend was referring to, then his memory is faulty. If we could review the chain of events: 1) Townshend's name is presented on an FBI list taken from the Landslide databases. 2) He is arrested on this basis. 3) After an investigation, police announce that nothing was found. 4) After making contradictory statements, Townshend accepts a caution. 5) Later investigators of the Landslide database trace his IP to an ordinary adult porn site.

According to WP:BLP, biographies should be written conservatively. I understand what you're saying about undermining Townshend's claims to guilt, if in fact he has made incontrovertible claims to having willfully accessed a CP site for the purpose of consuming CP. However, we have to be equally careful not to leave the impression that Townshend is a pedophile/CP consumer if he did not, as is widely published, pay for CP through the Landslide site, or if he encountered CP by accident and reported it, or if he did research that was authorized by someone in the police department--all of which have been reported in good quality references. Unfortunately we have no access to evidence or confessions that the police hold, so we can't take that into account in presenting the references here. I'm in favor of removing anything that could be controversial from the article, but I expect the next most conservative move would be to leave the section as it is. Pkeets (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you have the chain of events wrong. First step was (1) Townshend outs himself as having accessed CP on the basis of a newspaper report and was arrested as a result of that.

This is important because Townshend precipitated his own investigation (his investigation might have followed at a later date, but that's not a given). Although there are issues with Operation Ore, they are not really relevant to Townshend - Townshend was concerned with child pornography, was plainly conscious and aware of it, and chose to come out on his doorstep with a statement, with no idea what evidence the police had on him. For this reason whether or not Landslide advertised CP or whether the site Townshend subscribed to had CP on it is really not relevant, so it's pointless introducing third party statements on this subject.

As for what is reliable, I would suggest that you look to quotes from Townshend published in reliable sources.

This: [[28]] for instance is highly reliable, given the source and that it is "Pete Townshend's statement in full".

In the context of the cp section in this article, clearly the critical part of that statement is this:

"I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.

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

I did this purely to see what was there.

I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.

I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse."

which is an admission of a very specific action: 'using a credit card' to 'enter' a 'site advertising child porn' and also describes Townshend's motivation for doing this. They never found any images on his PC, so he was cautioned, eventually, for exactly what he came out (prior to any official contact) on day 1 and admitted.

I think it would be unreasonable to question Townshend's statement made prior to the investigation, when it concurred with his eventual caution after the investigation. While it might well be that Townshend's payment to Landslide was perfectly legal, it is quite clear that Townshend *did* "use a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn", because he said as much, has not redacted that statement. Sumbuddi (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, here was the article that preceded Townshend's statement:

"A LEGENDARY British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet.

Details of the musician - a household name on both sides of the Atlantic - have been passed to detectives dealing with an American pay-per-view porn ring.

Scotland Yard officers are investigating the star, who has a well-documented history of hell-raising, and are deciding whether to make an arrest. If he is taken in for questioning, he will become the highest-profile person to be held under Operation Ore - the largest ever investigation into online paedophilia in the UK.

...

The rock star's name, credit card details and email address were contained in a list of 7,000 people passed to British police by the U.S. Postal Service earlier this year after the pay-per-view service was smashed.

The star under suspicion, who has also been involved in major films, is married with children and lives in Britain. The Daily Mail knows his identity but is not publishing it because a top-level investigation into the man's background is continuing.

Detectives were handed details of the multimillionaire's credit card last month and believe that it was used to pay for access to the perverted images.

Their investigation into his background is expected to last for several weeks. Police are anxious to confirm that his card used had not been stolen or 'cloned' by a criminal before being used to download the porn.

They are also investigating the possibility that the card had been used by someone else.

'The high profile of this celebrity means we have to be absolutely sure before we make an arrest,' said a source.

Another reason for the possible delay is that police have had to split the list of 7,000 suspects into three categories.

They have been prioritising those contained in Category One, which consists of anyone thought to have access to children, such as teachers, doctors and social workers. Category Two is for those who hold positions of authority and public confidence, such as police officers and magistrates.

The mystery rock star would be placed in the final category, because he is not thought to be a direct risk to children.

...

Police estimate that Operation Ore could take years, not months, to complete "[29]

I tried to reference this before, to spell out exactly what caused Townshend to make his statement and go from Category Three to 'arrested the next day', but other editors said it was sensationalist to describe what happened. Anyway, the article did not give any details on the name of the website, and it included a long 'get out clause' about credit card fraud, quite plainly you would not come out and make a statement that "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." on the basis of that article if you had not ever used a credit card to enter such a site.

Like I said, it might be that the website Townshend advertising child porn was another website besides Landslide, but it's totally pointless speculation to even discuss this, because Townshend would not have had a clue what 'Landslide' was (it wasn't mentioned in the article), all he knew was that he was the subject of the article, and that he had paid to enter a site advertising cp, he didn't think 'huh, that sounds like me, but I haven't done that, I guess my card details got stolen', he thought straight away 'yup, I did that', and put out a statement. It's for this reason that I don't want to include Campbell's statements - the credibility of Operation Ore isn't relevant, because Townshend's legal problems were basically self-induced and his initial, unprompted, statement was an admission of the offence he was eventually cautioned for. Sumbuddi (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're speculating some. What we're trying to achieve here is a neutral POV, not controversy. I think everyone will agree that Townshend admitted guilt when he accepted the caution and so took responsibility for his statements. However, if you want to suggest that he actually is a willful CP consumer or a pedophile, then it's a big problem that the police investigated so thoroughly and found nothing. Also, I don't know if Campbell's statements say so much about Operation Ore as they do about the UK press which has publicized the credit card purchase so thoroughly. Landslide is the only credit card site referenced in the articles on this subject. Therefore I can't see anything wrong with Campbell's statement that Townshend was "falsely accused" in regard to Landslide and the Operation Ore investigation. That says nothing about the statements Townshend made himself. Pkeets (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not speculating at all. I don't know why you say I suggest he was a 'willful CP consumer', I said nothing of the kind - please read what I said. You said there were sourcing problems, in an attempt by you to reduce this section to nothing, so I responded by pointing out a cast iron source where he states "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn.". This is something that is an offence under UK law, and he was later cautioned for this offence.

I'm not sure what you mean about the UK press publicising this purchase 'so thoroughly', the fact was Townshend came out before he had been named/contacted/investigated and specifically stated that he made such a purchase, even though the article didn't name him and said he might have been a fraud victim. Like I said, it's completely immaterial and irrelevant what the site was, because the site was named only after he made his admission that he had accessed 'a site'.

Townshend clearly was not "falsely accused", because he himself started the story, and it's absurd to say he falsely accused himself, plainly contrary to BLP policies. Nobody had accused 'Pete Townshend' of anything. He came out and openly admitted the exact charge he was later cautioned for. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So why is Townshend the expert? The problem in referencing is that he said different things in other articles, including that he really doesn't remember and that he's reconstructing. Then Campbell participated in an in-depth investigation of the Operation Ore cases and thought Townshend had confessed to something he didn't do. Clearly Campbell thinks he was "accused."

You may be right that Townshend was cautioned for his public statements, but in that case Campbell's article would be material for casting light on whether or not Townshend was right in his initial confession. My suggestion to cut almost everything of this out of the article was to reduce the controversy (and these arguments). I just don't think the different parties will ever agree completely on what to include and what the interpretation should be. However, I'm getting the idea that most editors will think the article is balanced as it is.Pkeets (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) for the record, Sumbuddi's statement "the fact was Townshend came out before he had been named/contacted/investigated" is inaccurate. according to the sources Sumbuddi him/herself is citing, what the newspaper reported was that Townshend was being investigated by Scotland Yard, although they didn't state his name. he had however been named on the list provided to the police, and was being investigated.
meanwhile, the police do not offer cautions in cases of egregious guilt or major offences; and there are many reasons someone might accept a caution rather than elect to go through a trial. it isn't Wikipedia's place to speculate about Townshend's reasons - including speculation that his acceptance of a caution "proves" he was guilty. Sssoul (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've linked to this before, but read: [30]. It makes it very plain that any police 'investigation' had not got in contact with Townshend, and hence that this statement was unprompted by police/investigators. Not inaccurate at all.

Secondly, I am utterly mystified by suggestions that we should not say that he is 'guilty'. A police caution is an admission of precisely that - guilt of a criminal offence. Moreover, Townshend came out on the 11th of January and confessed his guilt of a criminal offence. Given that he quite plainly confessed to an offence in his initial statement "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." and subsequently made an official acceptance of that guilt in the form of a police caution, it would certainly not be Wikipedia's place to suggest anything else.

Here's yet more confirmation of that guilt - hopefully we can get over the absurd suggestion that he was 'falsely accused':[31]

"You have been arrested for the suspected possession of child pornography and inciting another to distribute child pornography. Do you understand?

'I did subscribe to that website, on that day. I felt that by using my real name I would be able to enter and research and see what was going on the website. That's what happened, and I greatly regret inciting others to do so. '"

He admited in that interview inciting another to distribute child pronography [by paying for a website he believed to contain cp]. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC) '

No one is disputing that he admitted this and that he consequently accepted a caution. The discussion is how to present it in a short section without using loaded terms or inflammatory language. When you say "guilty" then you will have to explain exactly what he's guilty of, and then you get into speculation. Note the reference you've provided is one of the cases where Townshend says he can't remember the site, but is then prompted to "explain," leading to a contradictory and likely inaccurate statement. Because of this confusion in his published statements and the lack of clear evidence in the case, it will continue to be highly speculative, and we should guard against this entering the article. However, Campbell's articles have been published in reputable media and his comment in light of this original interview seems material to me.Pkeets (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now. Does the section include the word 'guilty'? Have I suggested it includes the word guilty? No on both counts. So why waste time discussing this? Complete misdirection.

We are here having this extended discussion because of your insistence that this claim from unconnected third party Duncan Campbell go in this article.

Now, as I have said already, it is not our place to second guess Mr. Townshend, we should follow the BLP policies, not seek to redefine him in our own image. I see no confusion in his statements - he came out, before any police contact, and made a statement, several months later confirmed that when he accepted the police caution, and further confirmed it in subsequent interviews.

If you wish to suggest that he is 'confused' you will have to prove this very carefully by reference to reliable sources, showing exactly what 'confusion' there is, being careful to follow WP:BLP and WP:NOR as you do so. Until then, his statements (as above) and actions (accepting a police caution) should speak for him - not the words of uninvolved third parties. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New Section

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood. Here's your statement I was responding to in regard to "guilty": "I am utterly mystified by suggestions that we should not say that he is 'guilty'." I thought you wanted to discuss how to show this in the article. If you don't want to show it, then there's no need to bring it up.

In regard to "second guessing" Townshend, I've already said there is no hard evidence to support his statements, so therefore we have no gauge of his reliability. If you have anything other than his statements to provide, then please present it here. For example, continuing your quote above regarding the site he subscribed to:

PI: Did it contain child pornography?

PT: I can't remember ... it may have had images on it of children. They may have been in a state of undress. I can't really recall.

In the interview he then goes on to describe "the first images I stumbled upon" through Google, language which indicates he broke the law, but by accident. If Townshend was unsure of whether he subscribed to a pay-per-view CP site, then he was highly misdirected to publicly say he did, but his statements do not make the claim true, and we should take this into account. After researching the Operation Ore cases, Campbell has said that Townshend was an unreliable witness in his own case. It's an interesting development. I'd prefer to remove all but the one sentence, but if the whole section is to be included in Townshend's biography, then yes, I am in favor of leaving this in. There may be further developments in the future which should also be considered.Pkeets (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take on this. Given that it is verifiable that Townshend has publicly confessed his guilt about this matter on a number of occasions and accepted a police caution, the claim that he is or may be innocent looks to be an extraordinary claim. Which means we require very strong sources. Because of the BLP issues on top of this (not only with regard to PT but also the officers involved in his case, who are probably identifiable and whose competence/honesty is questioned), the sources should be very strong sources.

What we have is two sources by one author, both of which are basically op-eds (we can rely on them to states plain facts in a neutral manner less than we could in the case of a news story). The Guardian story only carries a passing reference to Townsend, and the claim "falsely accused" is plainly false when compared to other sources. Townshend confessed to a crime. "False accusation" (as opposed to "mistaken", for example) is a strong claim to make against living persons, and we cannot reproduce this claim based on that one article IMO, particular since the article itself offers no further explanation.

The PC Pro article is a little different. IMO it is a valid RS allowing us to suggest that there are (attributed) doubts as to the strength of the evidence against Townshend. However, the suggestion in the source that Townshend did not commit the offence seems highly extraordinary, and the source again does not offer an explanation. It seems that there is a big leap of logic between weak police evidence and Townshend not committing the crime, particularly since he has confessed.

So in summary, "false accusation" and "appears to have confessed to something he didn't do" are both too extraordinary, IMO, to be included based on passing, unexplained mentions in single op-ed sources. --FormerIP (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe other publications also carried this story, but are less neutral and reliable than Campbell's articles. These are a little more than Op-Ed pieces. Campbell gives his credentials and provides supporting details in his PC-Pro article, including the exact name of the website Townshend accessed through Landslide. It's unfortunate that this case does reflect on the police handling of the investigation. However, it does seem to have gone wrong right from the beginning when the list of names was leaked from the police department to the press. Once it's become a public issue, then everyone has lost control. It would have been much better handled discreetly.Pkeets (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that the phrase "it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images" is unsourced. Also, I think it is unclear what exactly is meant. Does it mean that no porn was found or that no hardcore porn was found. IMO all child porn constitutes child abuse, but I think the article should be 100% clear about what was found.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears both quotes come from reference #31. If you think the sourcing is unclear, I'd be fine with you adjusting it once the protection is lifted. This is part of the official statement from the police as reported by the press, and unfortunately there is no more information about what was found. We have discussed this lack of evidence above. Because the published evidence on the case is limited, I've suggested cutting out everything but the statement of the caution and the references. Pkeets (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pkeets, I think you are reading far too much into Campbell. His views are not corroboration by any other sources, do not appear to be based on any evidence and run completely contrary to statements by Townhend himself.

A credible claim that Townshend may be an unreliable witness would indeed change things a bit. However, Campbell doesn't even appear to make such a claim. It look more like you interpreting his words, and over-reaching. --FormerIP (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I'm interpreting there. However, I'm not suggesting that my interpretation be added to the article. I'd prefer to cut almost all of this section out as controversial and inflammatory.Pkeets (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was not charged with possession or downloading any child porn, he accessed a web site that had child porn on it. If they had found any downloaded child porn pics on his computer he would have been charged with that crime, he was cautioned for entering the site. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comments, the police had very little on Townshend - they found no indecent images after months of investigations. As a result he was not charged with possessing indecent images, he was cautioned only for the paying to access an indecent site - the same thing he admitted to doing in his initial statement. As this really wasn't an evidence-based case, sources casting doubt on the evidence are of scant relevance - the charge that Townshend was cautioned for is what he himself admitted to doing, and therefore it is Townshend's own words (plus the fact of his police caution) that should be reported.

The minimum facts would be to state that Townshend admitted paying to access a website "advertising child porn" and was given a police caution for that. Extending the section beyond that I guess is an issue of balance - Townshend provided justifications for his behaviour but certainly a number of organisations were on record as saying there can be no excuse, so I guess some care needs to be taken with that. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is pretty much what I've been saying. However, there are a couple of issues with what you've written above. 1) How do you know what he was cautioned for? Note that you have repeated the standard "accusation" that Campbell has commented on. 2) How do you know Townshend accessed a site "advertizing" child porn? There is nothing in the references that show this.Pkeets (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus here. In that case does the majority vote rule? More editors have voted to leave the article as it is now than anything else.Pkeets (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) You can find out what he was cautioned for by checking any of numerous sources. [32] "At 12.00 today the musician Pete Townshend was formally cautioned for accessing a website containing child abuse images in 1999. " (Scotland Yard statement.)

I see nothing there that says he paid. Your post: "he was cautioned only for the paying to access an indecent site." You have repeated the standard "accusation" that Campbell commented on.

Look down.

(2): "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. ". Sumbuddi (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing here that says this is what he was cautioned for. We've agreed that he may have been cautioned for saying it, but not that anyone presented evidence that he did it.Pkeets (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Campaign to ban Townshend from performing at the Super Bowl

{{editprotected}}

A recent, relevant news report. I think this fact could be included:

Child advocacy group wants Townshend pulled from Super Bowl: A Florida-based child abuse prevention organization is pushing the NFL not to allow Pete Townshend to perform with his band the Who at the Super Bowl halftime show because of Townshend’s 2003 arrest for accessing a child-porn website in 1999.

More links for verification:

• http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6966965.ece
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239024/Pete-Townshend-treated-sex-offender-The-Who-play-Superbowl.html
• http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/28/2009-12-28_pete_townshend.html

Sincerely. --Scieberking (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not a news report. This is unworthy of reporting at present, perhaps if this campaign by the Florida Child abuse group succeeds or even becomes particularly notable then we could include, but we are not here to advertise not notable campaigns by groups such as this. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I think they are at this point of no consequence. More interestingly, I see they are (indirectly) the source of the current dispute. Check: [33] where pkeets asks his fellow fans to "help me keep an eye on this. It seems the passage that proves Pete innocent is annoying to some readers, who want to delete it." 'BrianInAtlanta' (above, ironically suggesting that people with agendas should steer clear) is also there.

Pretty hard to get things done when you have 'defenders of the faith' being drafted in from a fansite. It should be clear from that thread that there is NO chance of a balanced article when you have those kind of views.Sumbuddi (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? BrianinAtlanta already mentioned the campaign above. When something like this is going on, then vandals always sweep through Wikipedia. I've removed links to these websites from several Wikipedia articles in the last few days, and I already apologized to you for assuming you were a vandal (as indicated in the quote above). I'm here attempting to preserve neutral language in the article, and I don't see that there has been any influx of "defenders of the faith."Pkeets (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any vandals, only fans trying to promote an inaccurate point of view. You said above 'Unfortunately it doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus here. In that case does the majority vote rule? More editors have voted to leave the article as it is now than anything else' but it doesn't work like that, especially not when you've called people out on a fansite. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fans didn't vandalize various articles with links to websites. I've not intended to call fans out of a website to promote an inaccurate point of view, only to keep an eye on Who related articles, especially this one. I do know that articles are vandalized when a campaign is going on, and I'd recommend that this one stay frozen until after the Superbowl which is on February 7.

At that point, maybe you'd like to resume the discussion? It's been interesting, and I respect the points brought forward. These arguments have been going on for years, though, and I do think the best plan is what I've proposed above. There will never be an agreement on balanced language. Pkeets (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are well positioned to determine the best wording for this article. As a Who fan, you have an understandable aversion to anything linking Townshend to child pornography.

This is quite a problem, as this article will naturally attract Who fans, rather than netural observers, and that's why I requested outside input from an uninvolved third party. The result of that here: [[34]] was to remove the Duncan Campbell, per User:Camaron.

Similarly, my request today for outside input resulted in User:FormerIP passing comment - again he has had no past involvement with this topic. His conclusion was the same - remove the content.

I don't see this changing, it's clear to me, and has been confirmed twice now, that the neutral perspective is not to include this, and no number of Who fans (biased by definition - and naturally attracted to this page) is going to change that. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re: "that's why I requested outside input from an uninvolved third party": for the record: i believe it was someone else who pursued that, after suggesting it to you a couple of times Sssoul (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need to point-score on this, but I started the RFC, which was listed for third-party attention on the rfc/biographies page,[35] and also again, more recently on a different page: [36] Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, let's record this website regarding the media campaign. See http://uspoc.org/ for an example of what might be appearing in this and related articles. Pkeets (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being a casual fan of The Who, enough so that I was aware of the campaign referenced above. I think you'll find this whole article has been written by Who fans, but I'm the one requesting neutral language.

You've apparently mistaken my suggested edit. I've not come out in favor of the Campbell paragraph, but in favor of removing most of the language as slanted and unfactual. I've offered two suggestions: 1) Remove all but a statement of the caution and references. 2) Remove all but a statement of the caution and official quotes related to it. My feeling is that you've brought up the discussion of the Campbell material.Pkeets (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this protracted discussion is that this article is protected from editing precisely because you added in the Campbell material. That is the only reason it is protected - because you and I were warring over this Campbell paragraph.

If that has changed, and you no longer think this content should be in the article, it should be removed immediately, then we can move on to other things. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Users "clashwho" and "jenlennon" at the Official forums sound familiar? These names are very similar to the banned socks of CosmicLegg... BTW, I'm a fan also but The Who aren't the same without The Ox and Moonie, but their own cover band. --Scieberking (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Scieberking, this is coming across as a bit uncivil, and possibly disparaging to other editors. I don't know those people, but similar isn't the same. I gather you're a big Pete Townshend fan? Pkeets (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm declining the protection request for the time being as there does not appear to be consensus for such additions, and adding material to a protected page can be very controversial and should only be done with clear consensus. The page was fully protected due to edit warring, if this is no longer going to happen and the dispute is close to being resolved then the page should be unprotected. Pages are very rarely left on full protection on grounds of vandalism, general disruption, sock puppets e.t.c. If this is a concern the page could be left on semi-protection for the time being. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I put in a request at WP:RFP to have the page fully protected until after the Superbowl because of the media campaign and vandalism to related articles and it was granted. Note that the template has changed on the front page. Therefore we have some time to consider this and maybe we can come to some resolution.Pkeets (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much support for my suggested edits. Let's look at the Campbell section again. "so it's not really surprising that when he thought he had been caught looking at child porn, it turned out that the site they'd found was one he had looked at but wasn't in fact a child porn site." Sumbuddi, checking above, this appears to be your first reaction to the Campbell quote. My feelings are that this is why it's an interesting addition to the article. What concerns have you developed since?

Also, I think the sentences are poorly edited that describe Townshend's research. Would someone like to suggest a re-write for this?Pkeets (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well given that the Superbowl is very much related to the dispute at hand then an extension may be appropriate, and I was probably going to have to extend the protection beyond the original 13 January expiry. However a month plus is very long time to leave a page fully protected, and full protection goes against the spirit of how Wikipedia operates. I will see how things go, with the protection shortened and extended as necessary, with talk page consensus playing a key part. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron. I suspect the page would still bear watching until after the Superbowl, but if we can work out some consensus, then maybe it will cut down on the possibility of vandalism.Pkeets (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any vandalism of this page. There was dispute over this reference from Campbell, that was the only reason this page was/should be protected.

As far as I can see, that dispute is now over, the reference should be removed and the page should be unlocked so people can contribute to this article. I have no objections to edits to the remaining content, but I think we should put this particular discussion/dispute/protection to bed first of all. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the following for a re-write of the paragraph in question:

Townshend was interviewed by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend claimed that this access was related to research for his previously reported campaign against such internet sites (he had posted the anti-child abuse essays 'A Different Bomb' and 'A Different Bomb-Revisited' on his web site the previous year), and categorically denied having downloaded any images. Police searched Townshend's home and business addresses and confiscated 14 computers and other materials for forensic examination. In May 2003, Police issued the following 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." Townshend was informed by police that he would face no charges, but would instead receive a caution. 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.

Obviously I'll need to add references. Just wanted to get the text out there now for everyone's review. --Dendennis (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, have you changed your mind about the Campbell content?Pkeets (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've missed the context on why he made this statement. He didn't 'acknowledge' this for no reason.

I would start with something like 'In 2003, a newspaper article was published claiming that Townshend was being investigated by the police as part of the Operation Ore investigation into child pornography. Townshend responded to the article by issuing a statement stating that he had "on one occasion" "used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn". '

Do you have a reference for the claim that he 'categorically denied having downloaded any images'?

As for the police statement, I don't see any reason to include that police quote rather than these:

"At 12.00 today the musician Pete Townshend was formally cautioned for accessing a website containing child abuse images in 1999. "

"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."

I would go with "The police searched Townshend's house and after a four-month investigation stated that he was not in possession of any child abuse images, but had been cautioned for the offence of accessing a website advertising child pornography in 1999. As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, he was entered onto the Sex Offender Register for five years." Sumbuddi (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any support for removing that content at the BLPN, I would suggest accepting it and unlocking the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The only response to my posting at BLPN was by FormerIP, above, who said that it should be removed. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Are these serious comments, Sumbuddi, or are you trying to make some unstated point? I agree that there should be a reference for the denial statement. Regarding this quote above: "At 12.00 today the musician Pete Townshend was formally cautioned for accessing a website containing child abuse images in 1999," are you sure you want to use this part? It does highly suggest that Townshend was cautioned for access to the Landslide site in 1999, which, according to Campbell's articles, was not an access to CP. As FormerIP stated above, this will be an embarrassment to the police. Pkeets (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would my comments not be serious? I think they are quite straightforward - Dendennis' proposal is ok, but needs to include the reason for Townshend's statement, and also the section on the police statement/actions can be cut down - I don't want to use the police statements I quoted, I was just suggesting that the police statement is rather selectively quoted at present. You can see what I prefer, it is in the next paragraph 'I would go with' - and includes none of the police statement, which I think is better than a single very selective quote.

While the identification by the police of the site access as having occurred in 1999 would be consistent with an access to Landslide, we cannot know whether the site in question was Landslide, because the police never said it was. Whether or not there was mistaken identity (as in 'hey you robbed that bank', 'no, I robbed the bank across the street' - i.e. he accessed a different illegal site from the one they thought) cannot be proven from the sources, and I certainly cannot see there is any proof of police error (the charge might have followed from the Landslide database evidence, from Townshend's credit card statements, or from his initial admission of law-breaking). It is certainly far from unlikely that after a four month investigation they found different evidence, and they are hardly likely to put out a statement saying "Initially we thought he accessed the site 'LusciousLolitas.com', but actually it was 'Childporn.ru'".Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Campbell says it was 'Alberto.' This may be Alberto Rey, who is still an online porn star. Pkeets (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, thank you for putting something forth. I, at least, am going to be civil enough to consider it.

This is longer than what I had proposed and includes more detail. However, it does have the advantage of cutting out all mention of Operation Ore, a likely source of controversy given the action group challenge, and the highly disputed Campbell articles. Do you mean to suggest a different title? One point about clarity: what do you mean by "previously reported campaign"? Pkeets (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

what is the advantage of sidestepping mention of Operation Ore? the investigation of Townshend was part of Operation Ore. (for the record, i'm not convinced it's appropriate to eliminate all mention of Campbell's assertions.)

i agree that the newspaper article that prompted Townshend's statement needs to be mentioned and that "his previously reported campaign" is unclear. also, as far as i know a police caution is offered and accepted or rejected; saying "Townshend was informed by police that he would ... receive a caution" sounds like he had to accept it.

also, please see WP:WTA regarding the use of "claim". "assert" and "state" are neutral alternatives Sssoul (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re campaign see [37], dated 21 October 2002, [38] dated 24 August 2002, [39] dated 8 August 2002, [40] dated January 2002. I'm not sure 'previously reported' is entirely accurate, he made some blog postings on his website, but they didn't get any media coverage. Regarding the 'research' claim, this initially emerged in a statement made on his doorstep: [41] ""I have been involved in a campaign against paedophilia on the Internet but it fizzled out. " "I think I may have been sexually abused as a child and I was doing research into it. I've been writing my life story and the research is for a book. "

I don't get the preoccupation with the faults with Operation Ore. It's quite clear from all of this that Townshend did break the law, he said he was doing 'research', and as the police said 'research' is not an allowable activity. The very clear admission of law-breaking by Townshend means that this article should not place any doubt in the readers mind as to whether he broke the law. It really doesn't help Townshend's case to say basically, 'although he broke the law, the police didn't actually have any evidence to prove it until he came out and admitted it'. The fact of the law-breaking should not be mitigated against - OTOH, Townshend's justifications for his actions also constitute a form of mitigation and should be fairly reported. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ps: Sumbuddi, you stated above that "The only response to my posting at BLPN was by FormerIP, above, who said that [the paragraph about Campbell's assessment of Operation Ore] should be removed." could you provide a link to the posting you're referring to, please? the only one about Townshend that i see on the BLPN is this one here, where two editors clearly state "keep the material". Sssoul (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The posting was made by FormerIP on this Talk page (see above somewhere), in response to my request for outside input, he was the only new contributor to actually read this page and post a reasoned response. You can find it by doing Ctrl+f in your browser, please forgive me if I don't take the anon IP saying 'People are trying to force The Super Bowl not to let the Who perform at half time on the grounds that Townsend has been accused, whether he was found guilty or not.' too seriously. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, Sumbuddi, yes I do have a reference regarding the statement that PT 'categorically denied having downloaded any images'. It's the charmingly entitled 'Cops Can Come and Get Me', an article by Dominic Mohan in The Sun, 13 Jan 2003. Pete told Mohan, "...I have only entered once using a credit card and I have never downloaded." And Pkeets, I think that the Campbell comments are contingent on the mention of Operation Ore. So I'd have to see what the final draft of the reworded piece looks like before making a decision on that. I'll have to address other suggestions, etc., later as I have to go to work now!! --Dendennis (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't actually my view that the Campbell material should be removed. I felt that it could be used to say that a journalist had looked at the police evidence and found it to be weak. However, I do not think it should be used for claims that Townshend might be innocent, even though the source says that, because that would count as an extraordinary claim and (1) the argument put forward by Campbell does not appear logical (ie it says he might be innocent on the basis that the evidence is weak, but this ignores the fact that he confessed); (2) the only source for this claim of innocence is one journalist, whose claim seems to contradict what has been said by Townshend himself. The whole issue of innocence is also slightly complicated because it seems a reasonable POV that Townshend may be more technically guilty than he is morally culpable.

I especially don't think the phrase "falsely accused" should be used, since this is potentially libellous against police officers involved in the case, IMO.

If there is doubt as to whether Townshend really did confess, as expressed by Dendennis, that might be another matter. But we should treat newspaper stories printed at the time the story was developing with caution. If he denied it then admitted it (which I think is likely to be the case), then the important fact is still that he admitted it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe he did ever admit than deny it. Dendennis' quote states that he 'entered once using a credit card'. This is an admission of the same offence he was eventually cautioned with - making a payment to a child porn site.

I'm not sure there are any references where he states that he *did* download from these sites, and indeed neither was he ever charged with that, the police said they found no downloaded images, so it doesn't appear there are any contradictions or changes to his story in that sense either.

The Campbell sources claim that he never made the payment, which does indeed seem rather incredible. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As Sumbuddi says, he seems to have admitted it from the beginning, although what the Campbell sources mean is that he may have been in error as far as the Landslide site goes, not that he didn't make a payment to this site. As far as I can tell, he admitted access to Landslide (to Alberto, not a CP site), to running across CP by accident, and then researching the problem of CP, which may or may not have entailed actual entry to CP sites. There were verified emails that he sent to the Internet Watch Foundation regarding this last. In 1999, pornography was everywhere on the Internet and it was easy to blunder into it by accident, or even receive it as spam, and a certain proportion of it was certainly CP. Ironically, the best thing to do legally was to pretend it didn't exist.

This does seem to be the central issue: "The whole issue of innocence is also slightly complicated because it seems a reasonable POV that Townshend may be more technically guilty than he is morally culpable." The question is how to present this so it satisfies the various factions here.

Campbell didn't address all Townshend's statements, only the one about Landslide, the site apparently mentioned in the caution. Here's what Campbell says: "Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do." A team working for the action group traced Townshend's IP and credit card charge to the Landslide site in 1999 and found he went to the site 'Alberto,' which was an ordinary adult porn site.Pkeets (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend came out before he had been contacted by the police, and said that he had paid to access a cp website. If Campbell's claims are true, and the Landslide-powered site Townshend subscribed to was perfectly legal, then the cp site Townshend paid to access was not a Landslide site. Clearly Townshend did not admit to accessing a Landslide site on the 11th of January - he admitted to accessing some totally unspecified cp website.

You've listed faulty premises for your conclusion above. 1) Landslide and Operation Avalanche were widely covered in the US press. 2) It's clear from his published statements that Townshend had contacts at the police department, so it's possible he had knowledge he was being investigated before the press article was published. Therefore you can't conclude the site he referenced in his statement wasn't Landslide/Alberto.

It could have been Landslide; we just have no information on what site he meant. For further info, we can then look at the transcript of the police interview. Again, there seems to be no mention of what the "site" was, but (as discussed above), Townshend says he really doesn't remember it, which calls his initial statement to the press into question. The existence of another "site" than Landslide/Alberto is not something we can speculate on in the article, as we don't have any facts, nor should we try to slant the article to suggest it.Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from here [42] that the first Townshend knew was the Daily Mail article. No prior contact. Remember that if you had subscribed to a 'Landslide' site in 1999, it's highly unlikely that you would remember that fact. 'Landslide' was simply a payment gateway, sites were NOT branded 'Landslide'. So even if you had read the newspaper reports, there's really no way you would know whether you had been a 'Landslide' subscriber.

On the other hand, it's highly likely that if you had subscribed to a CP site you WOULD remember that fact. You might not remember what it was called, and you almost certainly wouldn't remember what the payment provider was called, but you would remember subscribing to CP, and Townshend did.

I don't find it in the least bit credible to suggest that Townshend's initial admission (prior to his arrest) was specifically to accessing Landslide, it was to paying for CP on some unstated website, 'Landslide' was meaningless.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There was another star arrested, Robert del Naja of Massive Attack, who likewise was arrested because he had paid to Landslide. It is reported that he too accessed a legal site, but one called 'Spermed'. However: "The investigations against Mr del Naja were dropped within a month due to insufficient evidence". Why didn't that happen to Townshend? Either it was because he had already admitting to paying for a cp site, or because they found some other evidence. Nobody has access to the police files, and nobody can say whether or not Townshend in 1999 had accessed a different site, which DID advertise cp.

Dal Naja made a very different statement to the press, and maybe he has a better memory. It's fairly clear that Townshend didn't handle this well. Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't an issue of handling, or 'better memory'. Clearly child pornography had been on Townshend's mind, see the 2002 blog posts above. There is no evidence it was ever on del Naja's mind. Townshend's problems are two: firstly, paying money to child pornographers encourages further child abuse, in the words of the police, and secondly, there are a number of people who don't believe his 'research' defence. As for the former, the best you can say is that he was naive when he subscribed, and as for the latter, it's a matter of presenting the facts and his statements. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to this "he admitted access to Landslide (to Alberto, not a CP site)" - there are no sources that actually state this, there are however PLENTY of sources to show this: "he admitted access to a CP site" - a rather more serious/relevant admission.

Campbell is the big exception as far as sources go. Townshend and his solicitor had no access to the Landslide hard drives to trace his IP, but Campbell did. Campbell gives the date in 1999 and the exact site. His assumption that this is the access in question isn't airtight, but pretty decent, given the police statement about the caution. We're back to whether Townshend is reliable in his statement. I understand your concerns about this kind of admission, but it would be unfair to persecute someone for a public statement if it turned out to be mistaken. We need to take that into consideration. Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it plausible that someone would say 'I paid money to a cp site' when he did not. It would be more credible if he had done so after four months of investigation and on lawyer's advice - accept the caution or it goes to court - but Townshend came out and said this on day 1, before his arrest, before the four months of police investigation. As of yet I have seen no contradiction or confusion in Townshend's statements, and while you are suggesting that Townshend's statement that he accessed an illegal Landslide site is unreliable, the problem is that Townshend never said that. So you are doubting a statement that was never made. And as mentioned before, we shouldn't suggest that Townshend is unreliable on this issue without proper cause - it is a BLP.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As for moral culpability, that should be prevented in neutral terms. First accurately describe the fact of Townshend's admitted offence, and secondly detail his prior comment on cp (the blog postings), and also justifications he gave - 'research for his book'/'seeing what was there', in order that the reader can make up his own mind.Sumbuddi (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, remembering that we need to be brief, how's this for the first sentence? Is this accurate enough?

"Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he accessed a website advertising child pornography." Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to be brief. Personally I think the context of why he acknowledged it should be included. If you don't want to include the words 'Operation Ore' I don't have a problem with that at all, but I would suggest that it start with something like 'Pete Townshend stated in January 2003 that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography in response to a newspaper report claiming that he was under investigation by the police. Townshend was arrested and bailed shortly after, and following a four month investigation, the police determined that he was not in possession of any obscene images, but issued a caution for accessing the website. ' And then continue with his justifications:

'Townshend, who had in 2002 made postings on his website expressing his horror at the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had not accessed the website for sexual gratification, but as part of his research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid made to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse.'Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, do you like the sentence as it is:

"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."Pkeets (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tired of scrolling

That has good possibilities. However, a couple of words are bit sensational, and non-UK residents won't understand the arrest and bail sequence. Also, I think a section should begin with a topic sentence that summarizes. What about this? The last sentence worries me. I know it's a from the police quote, but it's very POV and just hanging there. Could we put in Townshend's response, maybe?

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging access to a website alleged to advertise child pornography. Townshend stated in January 2003 that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography in response to a newspaper report claiming that he was under investigation by the police. Townshend was arrested and bailed (interviewed?) shortly after, and following a four month investigation, the police determined that he was not in possession of any obscene images, but issued a caution for accessing the website.

Townshend, who had in 2002 made postings on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had not accessed the website for gratification, but as part of research for his autobiography and other work, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend accepted the caution publicly, and said that he was wrong to access the site.Pkeets (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'other work' bit. If there was 'other work' it should be described. I think it can be left at 'autobiography'. Also I don't think 'alleged' is appropriate.

I'm not sure the summary is necessary, the section is not that long, and the essential facts are described inside two sentences.

Regarding the phrase 'bailed', this could be changed to 'released on bail'. Basically, they at that point suspected him of committing an offence, and felt it was ok to release him, with the only condition being that he would return to the police station at a later date for further questioning, while they progressed their investigation.

Townshend wouldn't have 'accepted the caution publicly' - cautioning would be done at the police station. I would go with:

Townshend, who had in 2002 made postings on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Sumbuddi (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for some other editors to check in on the topic sentence. It's an element of style, and maybe I'm not the expert. The "alleged" seems to describe the arguments and uncertainties about the Landslide site. It's questionable whether it's appropriate when you don't name the site, but we're suggesting it if we mention Operation Ore. What does released on bail mean in the UK? In the US, I think it means that charges were filed and that a monetary bond was required for release. Arrested and questioned? This is very close to suiting me. It seems to cover the ground without embarrassing anyone needlessly.Pkeets (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia page on bail that describes the bail process in the UK. "Under the current law of England and Wales, bail simply refers to the release of the accused before trial" The bail condition in this case is the requirement to return to the police station at a later date for further investigations - i.e. basically 'we are investigating you, but you can go home now, we don't think you will abscond, or pose a serious risk to the public, but you might be prosecuted at a later date'. Bail payments are not common in the UK. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks to be the US term: released on recognizance.Pkeets (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My, I missed a lot... I've tried to catch up and offer the following suggested wording. Basically I tweaked the first few sentences, and the second half of the piece is Sumbuddi's suggested wording taken from above:

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he accessed a website advertising child pornography. The issuance of the caution was preceded by a four-month investigation, after which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

Thoughts? --Dendennis (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

streamlining/copy-editing a little:

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 as part of the Operation Ore investigations. In response to a newspaper report indicating that he was under investigation by the police, Townshend had publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. The caution was issued after a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website protesting child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website while researching the issue. The police stated that "research" was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

the aims of the major changes i'm proposing are: a] i feel the news story that preceded his initial public statement is worth mentioning; b] i feel "researching the issue" is clearer than "autobiography and other works" and more accurate than just "autobiography"; c] i think "not in possession of any illegal downloaded images" is closer to what the police actually stated. the rest of the changes are i think minor, for clarity and to avoid WP:WTA. Sssoul (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my version, too. This includes the newspaper article.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003. In response to a newspaper report claiming that he was under investigation by police, he publicly acknowledged that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. The caution was preceded by a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pkeets, i gather you don't think WP:WTA is very worthwhile? i do, and i think the paragraphs we're discussing are an excellent example of situations where it's important use neutral alternatives instead of "loaded" words like "claim" and "acknowledge". and can i ask what Townshend's belief that he'd been sexually abused has to do with anything? i am cognizant that it's part of what he said, but he's said plenty of other things that we aren't including. Sssoul (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this... I think it's rather stating the obvious to say "money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse", so I omitted that part and made a few other changes based on your suggestions.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. The police cautioned him after conducting a four-month forensic investigation of his computers and determining that Townshend had not downloaded or been in possession of any illegal downloaded images.Townshend, who had had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 noting and campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that accessing such websites while undertaking 'research' was not legally permissible but elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offense. In response, Townshend accepted that he had been wrong to access the site, and reiterated that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

--Dendennis (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't think WP:WTA is worthwhile; I just think the passage sounds fine as it is. These words are describing a huge scandal, and given that, they sound fairly neutral to me. What we're looking for is a consensus, and that means something you can live with. I have no objection to any of these versions. Let's pick one that flows smoothly and reasonably satisfies all parties. If there's something you CAN'T live with, then point it out.Pkeets (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to omit the bit about inciting further acts of child abuse at all. A lot of people/groups were very angry at Townshend, and it would not be balanced to omit that while only including Townshend's defence.

As for the initial reporting, it seems to me that Townshend was on the police database, but it's far from clear he was currently under investigation.

To avoid the word 'claimed', I would start with:

'Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after Townshend publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that Townshend was on the police's Operation Ore database. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.' Sumbuddi (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suits me. How about this for the whole thing?

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that he was on the police's Operation Ore database. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". Pkeets (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) as Sumbuddi stated somewhere above: "Just for reference, here was the article that preceded Townshend's statement: 'A legendary British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet. ... Scotland Yard officers are investigating the star'" (emphasis mine). that makes it fairly clear that he was under investigation before he made his public statement.
can we drop the bit about his belief that he may have been abused as a child? i don't see (at all) what it has to do with the topic at hand. Sssoul (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. Is it important to you that we say he was "under investigation" before his admission? "In the database" is conservative. I have some concerns about the "abused as a young child" part, too, but as used here, it clarifies his motivations for research, and I believe it's covered elsewhere in the biography as part of his general artistic motivations. What's your specific objection? Would it sound better if we took the "young" out? I'm thinking that's the word that worries me. How's this? Pkeets (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that he was on the police's Operation Ore database. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that it says 'at the centre', but if you read subsequent reports it says that the police officer who told the Daily Mail this was sacked. It wasn't an official statement, and doesn't seem particularly reliable. Also Townshend was stated to be in 'Category Three' (lowest priority) for investigation. 'Under investigation' implies something a little more active than 'we'll get round to him in a few months'.

Anyway, perhaps this wording would work better: "Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that Townshend was part of the police's Operation Ore investigations."

This is a little less active than "was under investigation", but still consistent with that.

Townshend made the statement about being abused as a child, the relevance was obviously there for him. You pick your reasons why that would be (he wanted to see similar abuse for himself???), but he said it. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, with all due respect (and I do very much appreciate the fact that this has been a very civil discussion), I still fail to see what purpose is served by the "incited further acts of child abuse" reference. It's obvious that it's not a good idea to pay money to illegal pornographers, or to pay money in the pursuit of anything illegal or immoral. It obviously encourages the propagation of said business. In my opinion, this reference is not necessary. For example - we don't spell out the reasons why child pornography is an evil, abhorrent business. It's assumed that we all know why. --Dendennis (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, it's a paraphrase from the official police statement. Please see reference #31: "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." Although I was initially doubtful about it, I agree that Townshend must have said that about being abused as a child for a specific reason, possibly to explain why his autobiography would address child abuse. Without this statement, we would be left wondering.

How does the following wording look?

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend's statement was made in response to a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police through the Operation Ore probe. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that he was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkeets, and apologies, Sumbuddi, for my ignorance - I wasn't aware that the sentence in question was taken from the official police statement. However, (a) I still don't see why the reference to incitement is particularly necessary, and (b) I think that it's important to point out that Townshend was not charged. How about replacing that sentence with "The police stated that accessing such websites while undertaking 'research' was not legally permissible but elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offense." Other than that, I find the wording acceptable. --Dendennis (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "incited" a loaded word? Would it help to change it to "encouraged"? What about this?

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend's statement was made in response to a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police through the Operation Ore probe. It was followed by a four-month police investigation, during which the police determined that he was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. Because of this, they elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offense.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites only encouraged further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at incitement. It has specific legal meaning, and should be retained. It was also the wording used by the police, who had a quasi-judicial function in this case.

I am not aware that the police stated that the reason he was not charged was because he was not in possession of child abuse images. As such, I prefer my earlier wording - we do not know whether Townshend would have been charged had he been in possession of images, or, perhaps, following interviews, the police felt that Townshend was sincere in his 'research' motives and that the offence was therefore minor enough to be handled with a caution.

I also do not like the wording 'rather than charging him with any offense'. The correct wording would be 'caution rather than charge Townshend for the offence', as this correctly describes the fact that Townshend did commit an offence. However that wouldn't work very well in this sentence, as this sentence is about the offence Townshend did NOT commit (being in possession of obscene images) - the actual offence he did commit (accessing a website advertising child pornography) is described earlier.Sumbuddi (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your wording would work well in the first paragraph above. Comments, anyone? We'll have to discuss the "inciting" passage a bit further.

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend's statement was made in response to a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police through the Operation Ore probe. It was followed by a four-month police investigation, during which the police determined that he was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. Because of this, they elected to caution rather than charge Townshend for accessing the website.Pkeets (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a healthy consensus is starting to emerge and I commend all for working hard to achieve it. I like different elements of all the various versions being mooted. A couple of points. The newspaper in question did not name Townshend specifically. He apparently read the article and presumed it was about him and then self-identified himself to the media. That is a complex detail to relate. But the way it is been worded "a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police" is therefore inaccurate. I think that particular element of the saga can be dropped with no great loss to people on either side of this issue.

On another point, I note the fact that the police offered - as part of their statement - their POV about what they feel the effect of people paying for CP is. It's a valid general opinion. I tend to subscribe to it myself. And reporting that particular meme would be a very valid element in an article about CP. But this is an article about Townshend. And we don't precis and convey each and every point made in each and every statement by each and every participant in each and every incident covered. We choose based on pertinence. Townshend asserted that his reason for accessing was to do research. That's an important claim. Some believe it. Others don't. So we should have that assertion. But we should also have the police response to that particular point. That doing research did not mean that the action was permissible. If Townshend had publicly asserted that his transaction had not contributed to the spread of the CP industry - then there would be a reason to include the police counter-point about such an assertion. Otherwise it is a factual but inessential general observation about CP.

Here is my endeavor. Drawing the best from all the recent versions.

Arising from the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned in 2003 by the British police after publicly stating that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as research for his campaign and for his autobiography, adding that he had been sexually abused as a young child. He claimed that he had never downloaded any images. The police made clear to Townshend that accessing such websites while undertaking research was not legally permissible. After conducting a four-month forensic investigation of his computers and determining that Townshend had not downloaded or been in possession of any child abuse images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charge him with any offense. In response, Townshend accepted the caution, and said that he understood that he had been wrong to access the site. He reiterated that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". Davidpatrick (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) backing up a bit here to respond to Pkeets's question about why i want to drop the "believed he was abused" bit: it seems irrelevant to me, and sensationalistic. if it's mentioned in association with his creative work, that's because it has some relevance to the content of some of his output; here it seems just plain irrelevant, even if it is part of what he said in his initial statement after the newspaper article. i think it's clear, sufficient and accurate to say something like "Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of his research into the issue."
Davidpatrick, indeed it is tricky to convey briefly that the newspaper article didn't actually name Townshend; that's why i proposed "In response to a newspaper report indicating that he was under investigation by the police", which seems like an accurate summary of what the newspaper article asserted. (Sumbuddi, that is what the article asserted, despite your speculation that it was inaccurate.) i concede that the phrasing i proposed might be a bit puzzling to some readers who don't know the details, but i still think i prefer that to the option of omitting any mention of the newspaper article; the references are there for anyone to look into if they want more details.
meanwhile, i don't think we can assert that the four months of investigation were devoted solely to his computers, and the word "forensic" seems unnecessary. which (plus a few other minor alterations) would lead to something like this:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report indicated that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offence. The police stated that "research" was not a valid justification; Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he understood that he had been wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

sorry about that second sentence – i know it's close to being a run-on sentence, but it does manage to hang together gramatically and factually. Sssoul (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ssoul, I believe the word 'forensic' should remain, as that's precisely the kind of investigation it was. Townshend appears to have been informed by police that the investigation's lengthy time frame was driven by the time-consuming forensic testing involved. He told Uncut magazine's Simon Goddard that he did a remix of the Who's Tommy album at the time because he knew that his computers (which contained his current musical projects) would be gone for a protracted period. "I knew that I'd have to wait two or three months, because the police took 12 computers from my house. I knew that it takes them about a gigabyte a week to look through, so I just thought, 'This is gonna take f---ing forever.'" --Dendennis (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry - maybe that particular wording is not that big a deal, but the fact that forensic testing was involved doesn't mean that was all the investigation consisted of, and i don't see a reason to suggest that it was. on the other hand, "four-month investigation" doesn't imply that none of it was forensic in nature. Sssoul (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting closer.

I don't think that the newspaper story "indicated". There were no clear clues to readers who it was referring to. Perhaps "implied" covers that better? I offer a solution on the "forensics" point - which I think is important. The police apparently spent 4 months doing forensics on all his computers - that helps explain the police decision - which according to their statement was based on their not finding any images. Which means they had to have been looking intently for images. The word research when it appears should not be in quotation marks as in that context it can be construed as commentary rather than factual. Anyway - grammatically it's not needed. The words "not a legal justification" seem cumbersome. More aptly - Townshend had been seeking to MITIGATE his actions by asserting research. The police, quite correctly, stated that that did not make his action permissible. I've tried another way to convey that. Here's my latest - working on Sssoul's text.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation (including forensic examination of all his computers) during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offence. The police stated that undertaking research was not a mitigating factor for such an action; Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he now understood that he had been wrong to access the site, and reiterated that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". Davidpatrick (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, the wording would need to be something like "for the offence" rather than "with any offence". Townshend was legally guilty of an offence, which was entered onto his record, and the wording should not imply that he didn't. Something like "Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead offering a caution for the payment to the website."

I do not like 'mitigating factor', in fact it appears that the 'research' claim may indeed have been a mitigating factor, given that Townshend was dealt with by a low-level remedy. A mitigating factor implies something that makes an offence less serious (but nonetheless still illegal), where as a 'defence' would be something that makes an action legal. I would go with "The police stated that 'research' was not a defence to his actions and that 'inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer'. Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he had been wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

I think it's important for NPOV to include the police's words as a very brief summary of the position/strength of feeling against Townshend. I think it also works well with the chosen quote from Townshend in the next sentence, that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time" - it expresses the problem: money to child pornographers, and then immediately afterwards that Townshend's opposition to that.Sumbuddi (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another New Section

One comment about the press article: It was followed by the press camping out on Townshend's lawn and pressuring him for a statement, so it wasn't a matter of him just reading the article and assuming it was about himself.

I think this is a bit cumbersome: "Following a four-month investigation (including forensic examination of all his computers) during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images." The average reader won't understand the fine points of the term "forensic," and it might be better to insert it as an adverb (see below).

I agree with this: "I think it's important for NPOV to include the police's words as a very brief summary of the position/strength of feeling against Townshend." I don't know that it will provide NPOV, but it will provide something of balance. This section has been a point of contention for some years, and it's possible that including this will cut down on the argument. I like your original wording that implies Townshend might have paid, but doesn't directly say so, as follows: "The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time." It's unclear to me, despite his statement, that Townshend actually ever paid to enter a CP site. Could we further address that point? I'd also like to suggest "an offense" which covers the possibility that it was some other offense that Townshend was cautioned for than accessing the Landslide website. As discussed above, it may well have been for his public statements. [User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined forensically that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him for an offence. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.” Pkeets (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was not dermined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, in fact at some point he definitely did, he described inadvertently stumbling on an image of a Russian (?) child being abused. What was determined was that he was not in possession of any ilegal images at the time the police conducted their investigation.

My preferred wording:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had paid to access a website advertising child pornography as 'research'.

Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for paying to access the website. The police stated that 'research' was not a defence to his actions and that such payments led to 'young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer'. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not as balanced, as it removes Townshend's justification for his actions, and putting the quotes around "research" implies this was only an excuse for gratification. It completely removes any weight from the final statement that Townshend "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time."

Also, would you consider substituting "access" for "payments"? This is from the police statement and would cover the eventualities more completely, removing the argument of whether Townshend had actually paid to view CP. It's not just payments that encourage pornographers. They have means to collect income through hits on their site, just like anyone else. Reportedly the "Click here for child porn" ad thought to be on the Landslide site was a temporary third party advertising banner, in other words, a method to generate income based on the number of hits to the site, aside from subscriptions.

I agree with you here: "Actually it was not dermined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images." Townshend denied downloading, but he was probably unaware of the technical issues involved, that computers download temporary copies of images which appear on the screen. To avoid this technical argument, we should use the "possession" wording. Pkeets (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined forensically that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him for an offence. The police stated that 'research' was not a defence for such an action, and that any access to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.” Pkeets (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All points read and noted. We are closer.

I think the fact that the police conducted a forensic examination of all his computers is a vital point. I am happy to change mitigation to convey that the police did not regard research as a valid defense rather than a mitigating factor. (BTW we need to determine British vs American spelling of certain words). Research should not be in quotes. Two new "sentiments" have crept in to this paragraph in this recent time - which were not here before. In very crude terms - one of those sentiments tends to be favored by those who think that Townshend is treated too leniently in this article. The other sentiment tends to be favored by those who think the reverse. I have a simple solution. Neither sentiment was expressed in this article for the longest time. Neither is essential. Delete both of them. Balance preserved. The text about the police POV on what CP access does is generic and not specific to Townshend. It may have been said as part of the police's statement. But so were a lot of other things. The quote from Townshend about not wanting CP to be on the internet is also self-serving and generic. Anyone would say the same thing publicly. So - just delete both sets of text. Keep it balanced - and you end up with this:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue and that he had not downloaded any images. Following a four-month investigation (including forensic examination of all his computers) during which it was determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offence. The police stated that undertaking research was not a valid defence for such an action. Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he now understood that he had been wrong to access the site however innocent his motive. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"An offense"? "The offense"? I agree that Sumbuddi has posted a valid objection to "any offense." If this is a legal error in the text, then it will generate argument. Also, "with an offense" may be an American term.

I think American spellings are preferred, although I see plenty of uncorrected British spellings in numerous articles. We can fix it when we've agreed on something.

This is not neutral POV: "stating that he now understood that he had been wrong to access the site however innocent his motive," as it clearly states he had innocent motives. Maybe we should go back to the quotes currently in the article, as they address the caution more centrally.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue, but that he had not downloaded any images. The police conducted a four-month investigation including forensic examination of his computers and elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him for an offence. They stated, "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, 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." Pkeets (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you on this point you raise: "as it clearly states he had innocent motives". What my text presented was that TOWNSHEND claimed to have innocent motives. Which is different from the article stating it. Anyway, regardless of that - I think your suggestion is quite a good one. And - while I am still advocating my own version - yours would probably be acceptable to me. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, your text clearly does not present an NPOV. We do not really know what Townshend's motives were. Obviously he claimed innocent motive, after the fact, but the use of 'claimed' is problematic, as discussed above, so we can't say 'claimed'. And what his motives were when he looked at the site, we cannot know. So it is best to omit any reference to his motives. The word 'innocent' is also problematic. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Spellings, see WP:ENGVAR. American spellings are definitely not preferred - neither are British, there is no policy preference. However where there is a clear link to Britain or the US, that version should be used. In this case, English law, English star, in England - use British English.

Your latest version duplicates the police investigation, no real point in doing so.

I don't like 'as part of his research into the issue' - 'as research' is shorter and covers the two types of research (for his autobiography, and for online child pornography) without prejudice towards either one. Hence my earlier wording (omitting the quote marks, as that seems to be a problem):

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had paid to access a website advertising child pornography, as research.

Continuing with (a slight clarification of the 'forensic' issue, and the less emotive ending currently in the article):

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 12 computers, during which it was determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for accessing the website. The police stated "it is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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."

I have retained 'paid to access' in the introduction, since that is consistent with the source, but dropped it in description of the caution - likewise consistent with the source.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to move forward - I can accept a lot of your changes - including "paid to access". Prior to the investigation, Townshend was adamant that there were no images on any of his hard drives. The police statement was unequivocal that there were no images on any of his hard drives. So that offers us some clarity and a better way to express that. (BTW - I believe that it was 14 computers not 12) And here's where it all leads:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly acknowledged a solitary paid access for research of a website advertising child pornography. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 14 computers, after which the police confirmed the veracity of Townshend's claim not to have been in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for having accessed the website. The police stated "it is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'Solitary' seems like unnecessary emphasis to me. Try publicly acknowledged a paid access to a website advertising child pornography, saying it was for research

I am not entirely keen on the 'cops come and get me' reference, because The Sun are known to take terrible liberties with quotes, and there's no direct quoting from Townshend. But anyway I would omit 'veracity', if this is included, it seems like a POV word:

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 14 computers, the police confirmed Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. The police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for having accessed the website. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We are now extremely close.

1) 'Solitary' seems like unnecessary emphasis to me.

I note that that's what it seems like to you. However - with all due respect - it is factually what he publicly acknowledged. It isn't unnecessary emphasis to convey an essential element of what Townshend said. He didn't say that he had multiple paid accesses. He said that he had one. So either "solitary" or "single" if you prefer.

2) But anyway I would omit 'veracity', if this is included, it seems like a POV word:

Again I note what you say. But that word is there not to advance any POV. It is there because of syntax and grammar. The phrase "the police confirmed Townshend's claim" is not grammatically correct. The police didn't confirm his claim. They confirmed the veracity of his claim.

The police of course go on to make clear that research was not a defence.

So - here it is again. A genuine collaboration by everyone acting in good faith. We've all given up a few bits of text we thought important. And this is better for the give and take.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly acknowledged a solitary paid access for research of a website advertising child pornography. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 14 computers, after which the police confirmed the veracity of Townshend's claim not to have been in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for having accessed the website. The police stated "it is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict there. Here's what I had to suggest, David. I'll have a look at yours now.

Could we use Townshend's wording in this case: "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." He implies that he paid because he used a credit card, and elsewhere he says he thinks it was about $5, but some sites at the time only required a credit card for identity verification, and five dollars seems too low for a subscription--the word "paid" might therefore provoke argument. Also, we'll have to reference just about every sentence in the paragraph, so it will be simpler if we stick close to the wording in the sources.

Some of the sentences are sounding a bit labored, so could we simplify? Remember that we're attempting to reach a consensus and to eliminate elements that will cause later arguments, not to promote a particular POV.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he did this on one occasion for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his fourteen computers, the police confirmed Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they offered a caution for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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." Pkeets (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In response

1) Could we use Townshend's wording in this case:

Good idea. fine by me.

2) Some of the sentences are sounding a bit labored, so could we simplify?

Agreed. Worth trying.

3) I have changed "protesting" to "campaigning against". Which Townshend was. As he says in a recent interview - around that time he had become a dinner-party bore on the topic - because he was constantly talking about his website campaign against CP. And if you read the posts - they are actively campaigning not passively protesting.

4) I will drop my push for "veracity of". I think "verified" is more correct in syntax and grammar than "confirmed"

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he did this on one occasion for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his fourteen computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they offered a caution for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Davidpatrick (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this. Anyone else?Pkeets (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely 12 computers, not 14 btw.

Re the 'claim he was not in possession', I found the full article: [43]. There is quite a long series of prose from Townshend, after the initial tabloid 'Cops Can Come And Get Me', what he actually says is "I have not heard from the police yet. I am anxious that they can discriminate the man I am today from the young tearaway I used to be." This is not 'Pete Townshend claimed he was not in possession of any images', not even close to it. So just omit that bit entirely, the fact that the police found he was not in posession of the images is quite sufficient. Re terminology, 'child abuse images' is the phrasing used by the police, rather than 'illegal images'. Also I would tend to go with 'cautioned' rather than 'offered a caution', I'm not aware that Townshend had any choice about it.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research.

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his twelve computers, the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good. I would prefer "illegal" to "child abuse," even if that's what the police said. Pkeets (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Definitely 12 computers, not 14 btw.

I note your belief. Let's look for sources for the number of computers. I will go with whichever number has best sources. For now I am going with your "twelve"

2) Re the 'claim he was not in possession', I found the full article: [43]. There is quite a long series of prose from Townshend, after the initial tabloid 'Cops Can Come And Get Me', what he actually says is "I have not heard from the police yet. I am anxious that they can discriminate the man I am today from the young tearaway I used to be." This is not 'Pete Townshend claimed he was not in possession of any images', not even close to it. So just omit that bit entirely, the fact that the police found he was not in posession of the images is quite sufficient.

With respect - not so. The following quotes are also in the Sun article - plus a sentence with reported speech from Townshend who the paper clearly had an exclusive interview with. That Townshend has never refuted or claimed had not taken place.

"Who star Pete Townshend last night told The Sun he wants cops to come into his home and check his computer for child porn."

“I have only entered once using a credit card and I have never downloaded."

“I was not breaking the law at the time. This was in the winter of 1996/1997. It was then illegal to download, which I did not do, not to search and view.

"I did not think using a credit card was illegal either at the time."

"It is important that the police are able to convince themselves that if I did anything illegal I did it purely for research."

By these quotes - and others that Townshend gave at the time and later - the text that I've presented convey Townshend's claim that he had not downloaded and had no images. Something that the police investigation verified. This is a major point for me.

3) Also I would tend to go with 'cautioned' rather than 'offered a caution', I'm not aware that Townshend had any choice about it.

How about the words in Townshend's statement "I have accepted the caution that the police have given me"? With a caution you are offered the caution and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't the police theoretically can make a charge. So the caution had to have been offered. And then accepted or rejected.

But I will compromise and go with your wording as long as there is proper clarity in relation to the word "charging" by adding the words "with an offence".

So taking the best of yours, mine and Pkeets:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his twelve computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him with an offence, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Davidpatrick (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't say that he wasn't in possession, he said that he did not 'download', a distinction he appears to have made through ignorance of the technical workings of web browsers. If you view child pornography, there will most likely be traces on your PC, and you will therefore be 'in possession' of it. It is not at all necessary to download/save it, simply viewing the images is sufficient. Also, if you are a paedophile and logon to a website for sexual gratification, it doesn't really make any difference whether you have 'downloaded' or not. So your major point basically amounts to the fact that Townshend thought it was (more) acceptable to look at child porn, as long as you didn't save the files to a folder on your hard drive. IMO this should be omitted.

The 'Who star Pete Townshend last night told The Sun he wants cops to come into his home and check his computer for child porn.' quote is just tabloid BS, it's not a quote from Townshend. Even if you believe it represents something Townshend says (not plausible in view of the tone of the comments), it doesn't actually say he wasn't in possession of it. It just says 'come and check'.

And I don't think adding 'with an offence' makes things clearer, it seems designed to do the opposite, as it implies that he did not commit an offence. A 'police caution' is basically a guilty plea with a low-level punishment (this is where the offer/acceptance language comes from, if you don't want the caution, they will charge you, but it probably shouldn't be presented as an 'offer', when a caution is a very low-level sanction). If you wanted to include 'an offence' anywhere, it should be like so: 'Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for the offence of accessing the website'. Someone who is charged is not necessarily guilty of an offence (and the libel laws indeed would show that) - someone who is cautioned is. Although that's probably better left out too, as it implies that it was a caution/charge decision for the website access, whereas there was also the possible possession charge to consider. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

yet another compromise proposal

first off, i've tried to reformat the discussion in the section above to keep it clear who posted what – if i got any of it wrong i apologise, and hope people will correct their posts themselves. please let's all try to indent all the paragraphs within any given post in a consistent manner, so that readers have a chance of working out who wrote what, okay? thanks.
now on to the content: the police statement said Townshend "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images", correct? i understand that viewing an image technically means downloading it, and i reckon Scotland Yard's forensic investigators understand that too. do we have any basis for second-guessing what four months of investigation established?
and yes, of course one has the option of being charged/tried rather than accepting a caution, and there are many reasons why someone might choose one option over the other. and while it's worth emphasizing that being offered a caution is not the same as being charged with an offence, it is also not equivalent to being cleared of any wrongdoing, so how about something like The police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging or clearing him as a balanced statement of fact?
re "protesting" vs "campaigning": i don't understand what "passively protesting" means. for me the distinction between "protesting" and "campaigning" is mainly a question of scale, and one person posting on their personal website doesn't sound like a "campaign" to me. it's not a big deal, it just sounds overblown to me.
a bigger deal (for me) is the verb for what the newspaper article did: if you don't buy indicate and i don't buy imply, how about suggest?
all of which leads to this proposed compromise, based on several of the above suggestions, with the WP:WTA and some of the laboured-sounding sentences smoothed out:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper article suggested that Townshend was under investigation, he publicly stated that he had once used a credit card to enter a website advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had accessed the site for research purposes. A four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. The police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging or clearing him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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."

oh and: please see WP:ENGVAR regarding the preference for UK English in articles about UK subjects. Sssoul (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses to Sumbuddi and SSsoul

1) He didn't say that he wasn't in possession, he said that he did not 'download', a distinction he appears to have made through ignorance of the technical workings of web browsers. If you view child pornography, there will most likely be traces on your PC, and you will therefore be 'in possession' of it. It is not at all necessary to download/save it, simply viewing the images is sufficient.

4 months of forensic investigation by an investigative body under public and media scrutiny (arriving for the collection of the computers with a TV crew in tow filming the event for a documentary) and thus motivated by the most basic of human instincts - to not appear foolish or vindictive - will find those traces if they exist. According to the police statement - they found not one single image. If they had they would have charged him. And quite rightly.

2) Also, if you are a paedophile and logon to a website for sexual gratification, it doesn't really make any difference whether you have 'downloaded' or not. So your major point basically amounts to the fact that Townshend thought it was (more) acceptable to look at child porn, as long as you didn't save the files to a folder on your hard drive. IMO this should be omitted.

I totally disagree. In any event, the usage was not about your - or my opinion. It is about accurately conveying what the person under suspicion thought the law was. Whether he was correct or incorrect.

3) The 'Who star Pete Townshend last night told The Sun he wants cops to come into his home and check his computer for child porn.' quote is just tabloid BS, it's not a quote from Townshend. Even if you believe it represents something Townshend says (not plausible in view of the tone of the comments), it doesn't actually say he wasn't in possession of it. It just says 'come and check'.

Neither you nor I know whether it is BS. It was presented as reported speech by a paper that in the same article presents multiple quotes in an exclusive interview that Townshend has never refuted. In any event - the other direct quotes from him repeat the basic meme.

4) And I don't think adding 'with an offence' makes things clearer, it seems designed to do the opposite, as it implies that he did not commit an offence. A 'police caution' is basically a guilty plea with a low-level punishment (this is where the offer/acceptance language comes from, if you don't want the caution, they will charge you, but it probably shouldn't be presented as an 'offer', when a caution is a very low-level sanction). If you wanted to include 'an offence' anywhere, it should be like so: 'Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for the offence of accessing the website'. Someone who is charged is not necessarily guilty of an offence (and the libel laws indeed would show that) - someone who is cautioned is. Although that's probably better left out too, as it implies that it was a caution/charge decision for the website access, whereas there was also the possible possession charge to consider.

This is a point that was gone over endlessly in the past. The subtle distinctions - and interpretations - of one nation's laws on a website that is international and read in many of the world's other 200 nations that don't have equivalent distinctions. Our wording must be clear to all.

5) so how about something like The police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging or clearing him as a balanced statement of fact?

Not balanced. They also didn't clamp him in irons, buy him a fancy dinner, apologize for arriving at his house with a TV camara crew or do a lot of things. But we present what the alternatives were in the circumstance of Townshend having publicly announced a single transaction. Charge or caution.

6) "protesting" vs "campaigning": i don't understand what "passively protesting" means. for me the distinction between "protesting" and "campaigning" is mainly a question of scale, and one person posting on their personal website doesn't sound like a "campaign" to me. it's not a big deal, it just sounds overblown to me.

I accept that you don't understand. And that that's what it sounds like to you. Neither you nor I are major entertainers with (at that point 40 years of public prominence and therefore a large following who reads our blogs). It was confirmed by multiple sources including members of the police and internet watchdog organizations that Townshend had been making an aggressive noise about the issue for quite some time. He was not an anonymous blogger in his pyjamas typing one or two blogs in a forest where no one heard the trees fall down. He was a public figure who long before the incident had a long paper and cyber trail of campaigning against CP on his website, to watchdog organizations and police officials.

7) a bigger deal (for me) is the verb for what the newspaper article did: if you don't buy indicate and i don't buy imply, how about suggest?

The problem - with all the words is that the article didn't put clues as to his identity beyond that readers would know his name if they heard it. So we should convey that.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper report speculated that a well-known (but unnamed) rock musician was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had accessed the site as part of his research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him with an offence, the police elected to caution Townshend for having accessed the website stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to sound labored again. We can't explain all the fine points in a short section. However, we can link to references or to other articles for the benefit of readers who want more information, and I suggest we do this rather than try to pack too much into the sentences.

I vote for "implied" as the best word we've come up with for the newspaper article, as it describes the suggestion that it was someone in particular without mentioning his name. Recall that the reporters followed up with camping on his lawn, thus letting everyone know exactly whom the article implicated.

"Rather than charging or clearing him" suffers from the same labored phrasing. I suggest we link to the article on "caution" and let the readers follow up. As I understand the situation, Townshend had a choice between a caution or charges and a trial, so I prefer the simpler "caution rather than charging him." If "with the offence" is a point of argument, perhaps we could leave that phrase out.

I don't have a preference for either "protesting" or "campaigning." "Campaign" implies a greater level of organization than "protesting," but we have few references to judge Townshend's level of organization in this effort.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Pkeets (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last version posted by Sssoul is perfect. No further changes. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I might go with it. The sentence with "charge or clear" is awkward, and it will confuse US readers, but the rest of it suits me. Pkeets (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'prosecuting or dropping the charges'? Sumbuddi (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought there were no charges filed, and because of Townshend's statement that the option was charges/trial or caution but not "cleared". As I understand the US system, the police don't make an arrest unless they have sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully; that's why the US Operation Avalanche solicited the names on their list to buy child porn and arrested only those who did. They had to have "probable cause" before they could get a warrant to search and make an arrest. Charges are routinely filed on arrest, but may be dropped later. I think the US term for Townshend's arrest and interview would be "brought in for questioning."

There is no "caution" in the US system, although there are citations (usually punished by a monetary fine, community service, etc.) and warnings (no punishment) that involve no formal charges. If formal charges are filed in a case, then the defendant has the option to plead "nolo contendere" (no contest) and accept the court's punishment instead of pleading "guilty" or "innocent" and going to trial. This means that the defendant does not admit nor deny the charges, but will accept the penalties for the offense without protest. I think US readers might draw a parallel between the UK caution and the US citation, as there is only an option to accept the punishment or to go to court if in disagreement. A caution also sounds something like nolo contendere. The difference between is whether or not formal charges were filed, so this is a central point for readers to use in translating the caution into US terms. Pkeets (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The police could have dropped the case entirely. People commit offences every day - a minor confrontation in a bar, excess speed when driving, and if they think it's appropriate they can drop the charges entirely, even though, technically speaking, an offence might have been committed.

The term 'charges' might be misleading. Townshend was arrested because the police had reasonable grounds to suspect he was committed an offence.

After investigation they might either have found no evidence that Townshend committed the offence, in which case nothing further would have been done, or they found that there was evidence that he committed the offence. Having found evidence, they would either decide:

• technically an offence, but trivial, perhaps an abusive argument between neighbours, drop case
• minor offence, suspect needs a formal warning at a minimum (e.g., first-time possession of marijuana) - offer the suspect a caution, which will go on his record, and will be taken into consideration in the event of a future offence (say further possession of drugs). If the suspect doesn't want the caution, because he thinks he didn't do it, then the police would:
• pass the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service ('charge the suspect'), who would ultimately decide whether or not the case would go to court (based on whether there is a realistic chance of conviction, and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the person or not) Sumbuddi (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to condense this into a sentence? From your description, it looks like the caution would be more like the US warning, as a US citation almost always has a mandatory fine attached.

This doesn't cover "charge the suspect"? "Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating..."Pkeets (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent, after edit conflict with Pkeets) it's clearly not the job of this article to clarify what a police caution is, beyond providing the link, but a caution is different from either charging someone or letting them off entirely, and i still think we can make that point without distorting things or indulging in speculation. sorry if the sentence i proposed sounds laboured to some of us – is this any better?

Instead of charging Townshend or dropping the case, the police decided to caution him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity."

in Davidpatrick's and Pkeets's versions the phrase "verified Townshend's claims" is getting into WP:WTA territory again. the crux of the matter is surely the fact that no illegal images were found, regardless of what he did or didn't "claim". doesn't this cover it?

A four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

i'm not happy with the idea of calling that newspaper article a "report"; and unfortunately i'm less and less comfortable with that "implied". the paper didn't "speculate" either - it blared, even though it omitted his name. alternate wordings aren't springing vibrantly to mind, though, so ... so i'll sleep on it. Sssoul (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong note. The English and US legal systems have many differences. Indeed there are multiple differences among all legal systems. Wikipedia is truly international. There is no sure-fire way - and certainly no succinct way to express the differences and vaguaries of different legal systems and translate them so that different measures are universally understood. That is beyond the scope of individual articles. It is one of the many reasons that we must be very careful in such matters. By way of example - John Lennon's immigration battles in 1972-1976 were finally settled when a US court determined that the English conviction he had from 1968 would never have passed muster in a US court. Different levels of due process. So - we cannot go there.

There is sometimes a danger of splitting hairs and atoms ad infinitum. What Pkeets came up with is fine with me. Let's now ask some other editors who have not been in on this most recent drafting look at Pkeets last version.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend certainly asserted that he had never downloaded - and ergo he could not possibly be in possession of any illegal images. Leave aside geekly definitions of whether viewing an image is technically a form of downloading. Townshend was referring to the popular conception of downloading. ie making a conscious choice to proactively download an image. It doesn't matter either way for two reasons. Reason #1 - this is what he asserted - not what may or may not have actually happened. If he HAD pro-actively downloaded - he would have been revealed as a liar. Either way the reference is not to what was actual - just to what he asserted. Reason #2 if he HAD downloaded in any way - pro-active popularly understood way - or geeky technical interpretation - it is highly probably that a 4-month forensic investigation by the unit of the police that specializes in these matters would have uncovered at least one single frame. But the police stated unequivocally that they didn't - thus confirming that Townshend's claim - however improbable as it may have seemed to some people at the time - was actually verified by the police. The police statement that there were no images confirmed/verified what must have seemed an unlikely claim by Townshend at the time. However, the police view about research not being a valid defense is still quite rightly presented. As it should be. Townshend's claim about images was truthful - but his defense was not valid in legal terms. Balance and NPOV is preserved. Let's have some fresh eyeballs on the last Pkeets versionDavidpatrick (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang another edit conflict! Here's what I was trying to post:

David said above that it's a major point for him that the section include Townshend's public denial of being in possession of any images, so we're trying to come up with some wording. "Claim" really is the word we need, but maybe "denial" would work as well?

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's denial that he was in possession of any downloaded illegal images.

Would this work for the charge sentence? It has the advantage of parallel verb construction.

Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, the police chose the option of cautioning Townshend, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity."

It's also difficult to express the actions of the press briefly. What do you think of this?

Following a leak that Townshend was slated for investigation and a consequent press furor, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography.

If these are all accepted, then it will read like this:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a leak that Townshend was slated for investigation and a consequent press furor, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's denial that he was in possession of any downloaded illegal images. Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, the police chose the option of cautioning him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Pkeets (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Townshend denied 'downloading', the police found no 'possession'. If we are going to report technical legal findings, we should not conflate them with different cases. Townshend was not in posession of any child porn - that shows to the reader that he did not have any on his PCs. And that is a positive thing, albeit he did have advance warning of the police coming. Per, Scotland Yard's ex-head of paedophilia above: "attacking police delays in carrying out the investigation, he said there had been “adequate time and warning” to get rid of any evidence.".....

Anyway, I don't see the point of posting inaccurate descriptions of what Townshend says. If it's really important to describe that, Townshend's words should be expressed separately from the police:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a leak that Townshend was part of the investigation, and subsequent media attention, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had previously stumbled upon child pornography, which he had viewed but not downloaded, and that he made the payment for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded illegal images. Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, the police chose to caution him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." 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. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha. I had always wondered why anyone would expect to find tracks in 2003 for an access made in 1999 when the average computer is out of date in six months. There were some pretty huge increases in available RAM and storage capacity between these two dates, and as someone who uses computers in his work, it's likely Townshend had replaced most of his 12-14 computers in the meantime, regardless of whether he meant to dispose of evidence. Thank you for considering the point about charges. I'll leave what you've proposed above for David and Sssoul, as the other issues are theirs.Pkeets (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)