Talk:Chris Langham

Misc.

A user added

Langham gave his name to the Langham, the stalk on top of Berets.

This will require detailed substantiation. --Phil | Talk 15:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ken Campbell (actor) told this story of Chris, which happened during the long production of Illuminatus, IIRC. The context was that Chris commented one day that a person simply has to find something that doesn't have a name and then give his name to it. He said that one day he would find something without a name and give his name to it. Some time later he announced that he had found just such an item, being the stalk on the beret, which was henceforth known as a 'Langham'. I always refer to it as such, but how many people need to use this word in this way for it to be considered substantiated? I would have thought one was sufficient.David Farmbrough 09:00 (GMT) 15 Jun 2005

This is what should be in the article. The point is that that's what he calls them. I have put some of it into the article. A source would be nice too. Tim Ivorson 15:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To follow this up, is it significant that his first wife was responsible for the popularisation of the slang expression the 'Judith' named after her appearance naked in the film Monty Python’s Life of Brian? DavidFarmbrough 14:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone else can decide where this fits in, but Dirk Maggs writes in the second volume Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio scripts that Chris (who appeared in the 6th episode of the 2004 Tertiary Phase) also played Arthur Dent in the May 1979 stage version of Hitchhiker's, directed by Ken Campbell - the famous version where all 80 members of the audience sat and rode around in an air car levitated ever so slightly above the surface. --JohnDBuell | Talk 00:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I've added it after merging the two mentions of Not the Nine O'Clock News, since it all happened around the same time. I think it all flows a bit better now, but there's still room for improvement. -- Guybrush 03:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good thought too, to put his stage appearance back in the H2G2 article! I went back and added the bit about his appearance in the last episode of the third series. --JohnDBuell | Talk 03:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The news coverage is strange...

... it referred to 'internet-related crime' first of all, but now it's changed to child porn. This doesn't sound like Chris Langham to me - perhaps it's all some ghastly mistake. The only source I have seen is the BBC news one which quoted the police as referring to 'internet-related crime'. I hope they haven't jumped to conclusions. DavidFarmbrough 12:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh come on...he's been using child porn, and there's nothing you can do about it. It's not like it really matters, anyway; it's not like he's a child murderer, as the media would probably have you believe.--CaptainSurrey talk

We can't say that for sure (innocent until proven guilty still applies), but even so it still doesn't sound like him - and yes they do give him the same treatment as a convicted child molester. cf Pete Townshend and Gary Glitter. DavidFarmbrough 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't heard enough about this case to be able to comment on it specifically, but the first thing that came to mind was the case of Massive Attack's Robert_Del_Naja, who was arrested on charges of downloading child pornography in 2003.

Now, you can decide for yourself if his (very public) criticism of the war in Iraq had anything to do with it, or if the fact that the investigation was later terminated with no charges being brought seems suspicious.... but you can probably guess what I think was behind this.

That's funny, I thought Massive Attack had decided to change their name just to Massive as they didn't want to be associated with the war in Iraq (the earlier one). Have they gone back on their principles? DavidFarmbrough 17:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

IIRC (and I may be wrong on this), this was more to do with the BBC's paranoia at the time (e.g. they didn't want to play Lulu's "Boom Bang a Bang"). Queen's "Innuendo" video didn't get played as much as it might have because it came out at around the same time, and featured war footage. Fourohfour 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Until sufficient genuine information in this case has become public, speculation is worse than meaningless. Fourohfour 16:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

15 counts of making indecent images of children

What exactly does "making indecent images" mean? Is that a legal term for downloading?Or is it actually taking photos and storing them on a PC? 172.139.59.169 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a deliberately open term, usually applied to downloading, to make prosecution easier. Technically, downloading is creating another image file; thus "making indecent images". We could get into a Foucauldian discussion here about discourse and power... The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the charge of 'making indecent images of children' suggests that he had lured them to his house with sweets, undressed and photographed them. I think that this ought to be explained in the article. It's mysterious how this co-incided with his BAFTA award. Are the police just cherry-picking high profile people? DavidFarmbrough 12:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the term is problematic and provokes dangerous misinterpreation. As far as I understand, though, "making indecent images" is the official charge -- which is what we are accurately reporting. We don't know any further details. Is there an article we could link to that discusses the complexities of the charge? The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I heard that, if convicted, he could serve 13 years upwards in jail. Nowadays that seems more than some people get for killing. Whatever anyone's views on the controversial subject of pedophilia, I find it mind-boggling that he could serve so long for merely LOOKING AT A PICTURE. This signifies the kind of out-of-proportion moral panic ridiculed by Chris Morris in Brass Eye, around the whole subject of pedophilia. Merely BEING a pedophile has become the crime, rather than any form of child-molestation. Even if you view pedophilia as an illness (dubious scientifically), this is like making schizophrenia illegal. Even when Oscar Wilde went to jail, it was for the ACT of gay sex rather than BEING homosexual or looking at pictures of naked men. 13 years for looking at a JPEG... am I the only one who finds that a bit absurd?-Neural 22:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument is based on the presumption that end consumers of commercial child pornography create a demand for material which results in the abuse of children. DavidFarmbrough 11:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the official line. It probably has more to do with people like Chris Langham being an easier target than child pornographers themselves, who almost never find themselves before a court. As for the rationale... have these extreme sentences reduced the amount of child porn floating around? By all accounts, both supply and demand are growing rapidly. Even teenagers are being arrested for sending sexual images to each other on mobile phones. I read about one 13 year old girl in America who posted naked/sexual pictures of herself on the internet - bizarrely enough, she was arrested on a charge of "making indecent images of children" and "sexually abusing herself"! Society is in a bit of a muddled panic, I do believe. I realize this is no place for my subjective observations, however, so I'll leave my comments there. Sorry everyone. -Neural 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize! You have displayed brilliant idealism and very cultured thought. Two things that seem to be lacking in this environment. --CaptainSurrey 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a comment in The Times (28th July or 4th August) that you can look up the compensation paid to victims of crime. So famous people run the risk of someone maliciously accusing them of, e.g. sexual assault by some chancer, and low risk to the said chancer. Further that the police link the two charges - sexual assault and child pornography - as, even if cleared of the former, the details of the suspect's sex life may be more likely to convince the jury that he's a pervert. matthewdjb 15:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Having organised video files of children being raped and tortured were plenty evidence to the jury that he was a pervert... --Fredrick day 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Pervert" is a very downmarket, rather immature term. Please appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and approach it with slightly more professionalism. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

what a strange statement - Pervert is a perfectly sensible and mature term to use. Unless someone wants to argue that wanting to watch children being raped is a normal behaviour. Just because downmarket papers use it in a rather loose manner does not mean it's not still a perfectly fit descriptive term. --Fredrick day 13:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Although this is a talk page, you are making publishing lots of unsourced statements on the internet. I disagree with the status of 'pervert'. It is an inherently subjective term too: although, of course, share your subjectivities. The JPS^{talk to me} 13:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If it makes people happier - I suggest we stick to "Sex Offender" - he is on the UK Sex offenders register, so he is de facto (from a legal POV) a sex offender. --Fredrick day 13:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As an objective legal term, that is preferable. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should all just be shot for downloading anything!....oh sorry, wrong meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.104.31 (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"having a langham"

Subsequently, having a langham became accepted as a term for a culpable glitter, or perve, on the internet

Assuming this is not a spoof, I think we could do with so e kind of reference here. Flapdragon 16:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is unsourced. Minglex 16:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Court case

Have removed "Langham did not attend this hearing.", which followed "The case was then adjourned again till 26 July 2006.", seeing as it's only the 21st of July now, making it somewhat impossible to have missed the hearing. Alexrushfear 22:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me if he was charged with POSESSING or CREATING these images . 90.11.230.159 13:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Read a section above. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody know what happened?

What has happened? The last I heard was that the case had been adjourned to the 30th August 2006. That date has come and gone with no news coverage whatsoever. Does anybody know whether it was re-adjourned, or whether the case is now being heard, or what? 06 September 2006.

That we haven't heard anything suggests, I think, that the proceedings are now underway. --81.103.216.19 22:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dubious reference

I also think Retuers is encyclopaedic, but I'm unconvinced about this rather informal souce. The JPS^{talk to me} 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - I've replaced it with a link to a news story in The Daily Mirror --J2thawiki 08:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Law lesson

Anyone else thing the "Arrest" section is overlong? There's very little we know of, we don't really need a blow-by-blow account of each hearing: the dates of when he was arrested, charged, and will be tried, and on what charges, would suffice. Further, I am unsure the value of several long paragraphs describing the law exactly. Morwen - Talk 14:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and had just come here to make the same two points. -- Beardo 06:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

what?, you think that that is too much information. I think that it is good to have a source of information for what is going on for Langham.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.200.186 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 15 February 2007 UTC

I've shortened it a bit by removing some of the court appearences where he was just rebailed. I also removed the "law lesson"; although it was well written and referenced it belongs on pages for the offences rather than here.--J2thawiki 17:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the term 'Buggery' is either a legal term or a particularly pleasant one, regardless as to whether it is properly referenced. Any suggestions as to an alternative?

"Buggery" is a legal term in the UK, as you will see if you follow the wikilink. Lou.weird 08:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that is true, but actually, if you follow the wikilink, things become very unclear, to say the least. The article on buggery cites only two laws in which the term "buggery" was used, the Buggery Act and the Offences Against the Person Act. Following the wikilink to the Buggery Act, we discovered that "the United Kingdom repealed its buggery laws". Following the link to the OAPA, we discover that sections 61 and 62 dealt with buggery, but that they have been "repealed" too. We further discover that almost all sexual offences are now contained in the Sexual Offences Act, but the article about it doesn't mention the term "buggery". -86.142.109.209 21:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rfemoved it for WP:BLP concerns, if he were to be convicted it would be different, SqueakBox 21:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly did you remove it? It is what he's been charged with - you left in the other charges, and now the article is incomplete. 82.35.59.204 15:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Writing credits

Langham appeared in and wrote for Spike Milligan's Q series, yet there's not a mention of it...

Reorganisation of arrest and trial

Now that the verdicts are out, I thought it appropriate to merge and reorganise the arrest and trial sections. I have heavily cut the description of the charges for which he was acquitted. --Peter cohen 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

HE was made to sign the sex offenders register by the judge before he left court tonight. The artuicle should make reference to the fact that he is a registered sex offender.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.35.133.150 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 3 August 2007.

"Convicted paedophile"

Many people have strong feelings about Langham but this does not mean that we should expose Wikipedia to a possible libel action. Langham, through his lawyer, made a statement stating he was not a paedophile but trying to purge his own demons. Neither the professional assessors who saw him pre-sentence nor the judge who sentenced him expressed the opinion that he was a paedophile. He was convicted of downloading child pornography: this is an offence, whatever the reason behind it (clinical research, curiousity, prurience etc). It is not necessary to speculate about his motives: people will form (and have formed) their own judgement. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 18:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

leaving aside the fact that he'd never attempt such a lawsuit or indeed win such a lawsuit I'd broadly agree - he was never convicted of being a paedophile as such an offense does not exist, he was convicted on the basis of downloading child pornography - this is covered in the second lead paragraph and has it's own headlined section - it's covered, it's in there - we have the fact, we are reporting the facts, what more need to be said. --Fredrick day 18:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We've got no idea what he might do or what, with the benefit of psychiatrists' reports, a libel judge might decide. Langham has no savings, no pension and his career's ruined so he might try it to "clear his name". The nationals were exceedingly circumspect in their reporting (the closest they got was references to "paedophile pornography"). But, yes, Wikipedia's role is to report the facts, not to attach sensational labels. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia's role is to present a factual article. Putting sensational labels on him is both unfair and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. As far as litigation is concerned, he may not have the money, but others may help him to find it. Wallie 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so wouldn't it be best to leave the reporting until the facts have been clearly defined? --andreasegde 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I thought they had been clearly defined. Wallie 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Although paedophilia is not a criminal offence in itself, it it used to describe people who download child pornography among other things. Quote "The term pedophile is also used colloquially to denote an adult who is sexually attracted to adolescents or youths below the local age of consent,[2] as well as those accused or convicted of child sexual abuse or child pornography related offences". Therefore Chris Langham is a convicted paedophile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.139.84 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The colloquial use is imprecise. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and, as such, aims to use words precisely and clearly. A paedophile is someone whose primary sexual orientation is towards children, although the definition of what a child is, or at least the age of consent, varies from country to country. Langham may or may not be a paedophile, but he is not a convicted one. He is a convicted downloader of paedophilic pornography. Many people convicted of such offences are paedophiles, but not all are. Not all child sex abusers are paedophiles. And conversely there are people who are paedophiles who are horrifed and ashamed of their sexual urges and suppress them. So, child sex offenders and paedophiles are two overlapping groups neither of which is a subset of the other. --Peter cohen 10:22, 30 September 2007

(UTC)

If Langham does not have a sexual interest in children then why did he have those pictures ? The jury did not believe his story about research because if they did then he would be found not guilty. There are lawful reasons to have photographs of naked children but the jury decided he was not acting lawful. Now if he was not acting lawful and his reasons were rejected, what are we left with? He said he was looking at the images for two reasons, for research and to understand better what had happened to him !! This situation calls for a balance of probabilities. Who would have thought looking at the most serious grade of explicit pictures would help you understand anything ? Also it was not he who was playing the part he was researching, it was Paul Whitehouse playing the "pedro" part. I hope you do not sit on a jury.

It's WP:OR and novel synthesis - we do not do either of those at wikipedia - that's the start, middle and end of it. --Fredrick day 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"The jury did not believe his story about research because if they did then he would be found not guilty." This is not the case. Possession of indecent images of children is a 'strict liability offence'. That means that there is never ANY excuse for having such material. So you could legitimately view child porn for 'research purposes', looking after it for a friend, etc., and still be committing an offence. DavidFarmbrough 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll be glad to hear that I've got a jury summons for the week after next. Now please stop making comments that impugn my character.--Peter cohen —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Making an appeal against gaol term

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7027554.stm - needs adding to article, I'm a bit busy at the moment, so am bringing it to the attention of others. --Fredrick day 10:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Source needed for substance addiction

I removed the following, potentially libellous statement from the article pending sources.

'Langham already had problems with addiction to cocaine and alcohol and his sacking worsened this situation.

- Hadrian89 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

How about an official BBC press release? http://www.bbcprograms.com/pbs/catalog/peoplelikeus/docs/presskit_PeopleLikeUs1.pdf

If he sounded the worse for drink throughout most of the press interviews he gave in the Seventies and Eighties, that's probably because he was."... Langham's lifestyle was pretty much all over the place at the time, which may not have helped engender a spirit of unity with the rest of the cast, but that final blow soon after his removal from the show he said,"I was shattered; to this day no one has told me why" – sent him even closer towards the edge. He finally checked into rehabilitation and cleaned himself up, which resulted in subsequent successes like two series of Kiss Me Kate with Caroline Quentin for BBC TV.

His alcoholism has been well covered in the mainstream press too, often as part of interviews, with direct quotes of him openly discussing his former addiction. See:

"My career was being a drunk and work was something I did if I had a spare five minutes," he said."I was self-destructive. It wasn't just the drinking, it was the mindset: you don't like yourself if you are an alcoholic and other people don't like you either, because your behaviour is appalling. You are dishonest, disloyal, full of self-pity." Langham sought counselling for alcohol and cocaine addiction and still undergoes therapy once a week. Daily Mail - Profile:Chris Langham

and also:

"He became an alcoholic and a cocaine addict, and was fired after one series. His marriage to his first wife, with whom he had three children, became another casualty of his addictions. "I used to say, 'Of course I drink and take drugs, I'm in the entertainment industry. It goes with the territory.' But that was convenient justification for what I was doing" The Guardian - Gareth McLean talks to Chris Langham

Really this information is certainly notable and belongs in the article - his addictions were a huge part of his life and career in the 80s and 80s. Little Professor (talk)

The section detailing Langam's conviction is far too long. 195.217.128.36 (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

POV section on prosecutions - ridiculously pro-Langham

The section on his conviction is clearly POV, written from a pro-Langham stance. No mention is made of the fact that a police officer concerned with the case "told reporters outside [the court], "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile"." [ref http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/25/chris-langham-interview]; no evidence is presented to counter the information in the article that Langham doesn't consider himself a paedophile (plenty of people mentioned in the press reports do); no mention is made that he downloaded 15 videos on four separate occasions; no mention is made that his friend Paul Whitehouse appeared as a witness for the prosecution and said that Langham's defence was nonsense and that you don’t need to do that sort of research for a comedy show. [ref http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044463/Chris-Langham-Weeping-tears-self-pity-denying-hes-paedophile-TV-pariah-plotting-comeback.html?ito=feeds-newsxml]

The giveaway is the 'however' in the section "Whitehouse stated that he was unaware that the character was intended to be a paedophile, nor was he personally aware of Langham obtaining such material for the development of the programme's script. However, a script was read out in which Pedro ogles young women and says: "God sent these young girls to me as temptation and I failed."." The "however" shows that this has been edited from a pro-Langham point of view, as if to "correct" the anti-Langham evidence cited. Too much weight is placed on trying to clear Langham's name even thoughh he was convicted of the crime of possessing child pornography. 86.134.91.83 (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Guardian interview make clear that the judge did not consider Langham a paedophile, and that the police officer decided to ignore that judgment and made a statement that the right-wing press obligingly followed? Paedophilia is slightly more complicated than name-calling by some tabloid journalist. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

'Expert witnesses testified that he was not a paedophile, and appeared to convince the judge, who told Langham: "Paedophilia is not an issue in this case. You are not a sexual predator." But a police officer told reporters outside, "I am satisfied that he is a paedophile," [...]' [1] The JPS^{talk to me} 18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

From the Appeal Judge's summary in R. v Langham (Christopher) [2007] EWCA Crim 3004 (emphasis added): "You claimed that you down loaded these images for the purpose of research. You knew that did not give you a defence. You asserted in your evidence that your reason for contesting this case was that you did not wish to be labelled a paedophile. I made it absolutely clear to both you and the jury at your trial that that was never the issue the jury had to consider. On the evidence before me, it is right that I should make this observation, that there is nothing in the papers before me to indicate that you are a sexual predator, in the sense that it is ordinary used. You accept it in your evidence that you had been arrogant in thinking that you were above the law in downloading these images. With that sentiment, I wholeheartedly agree." 87.112.4.40 (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

I agree with the post above, this has been written as a defence of what he did. Can we add this to the section please: The graphic footage, downloaded on four separate occasions, contained Level Five child abuse - the most severe end of the scale. It was so repulsive that during his trial a juror was physically ill after viewing it. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044463/Chris-Langham-Weeping-tears-self-pity-denying-hes-paedophile.html

(Dave006 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

I have added the details of the pictures being level 5 and of none-consensual acts (ie rape) I believe this is an important part of the reason he was jailed, if they were level 1 or 2, it would have been unlikely that he would have gone to prison. It is also important to balance this correct leagal statement "(a legal term actually meaning to download and store abuse/indecent images as distinct from the act of photography" by explaining that the children in the pictures are victim's, and because of people like Chris Langham downloading them their is a market for it, and that their actions feed the demand for such pictures. Source: http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/aug/03/crime.broadcasting1 (Dave006 (talk) 14:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC))

Daily Mail

Not only is the source [[WP:RS|not reliable] - per many, many discussions - but the claim by a policeman is not of encyclopedic value and probably violates WP:BLP as well. It should stay out. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

@Nick Cooper: you said "Plenty of actors have convictions for plenty of things, but we don't roll them into the opening sentence." However, this ended his career, and he was jailed obviously. So the lead sentence is misleading without mentioning it. Any reason why it shouldn't be restored? zzz (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It is covered sufficiently in the lead. It is not a notable occupation. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Still an actor?

12 years since acted in anything at all. Time to state as former actor? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 18:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Has he said he has retired though? He was in Vengeance (2020) [2] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, will leave until anotheer 12 years pass! Thanks for the findGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

On "making"

I put back information removed on the meaning of "making" in these edits [3], also adding a source. However, having done so, I see we also have a wikilink to a page that describes making, so perhaps it is redundant to have the parenthetical comment too. I am thus opening here for discussion on that point. Readers are better served if they understand what the legal term means, but there is no need to labour the point, of course. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I see this working as simply there to make the offences committed lesser. Not by you obviously. Seeing as none of the sources actually states this claim it should not be on the page. This smacks of OR I am afraid, so I have removed it again. If anyone can find relevant sources that back this claim please add it back, but until then wiki just states what the sources say Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 11:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy thank you for adding the source, but as the source is obviously not about this actual subject it can not be included. That would be OR IMHO? Wiki states what the charges and conviction actually was, it doesn't try to explain the difference between other offences that the subject wasn't actually charged with Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 11:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not OR, it is simply the meaning of the word! Now, my concern: I do not think your edits adhere to WP:NPOV. Why are you trying to hide the fact that the offence was downloading indecent images? Are you trying to make the crime seem worse than it was? Wasn't it already bad enough? The term "making" has a legal definition that is not the natural meaning. If you ask someone with no background in this what it means to "make an indecent image" they will assume it is to take a photograph, or perhaps to draw one. Here the sources are all quite clear that Langham did not take the photographs, he downloaded them. We should say that, because that is educational, true, and yes - it is in the sources. I have added a Guardian source that makes this very clear. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Wiki is supposed to state what the sources say. He was charged with an offence. That is what should be stated, not amended because you feel it needs to be explained better in your opinion? I am not trying to cause offence here, but the article should state what he was charged with? He was charged with "making" images, so that is what should be stated. To state further really is OR imho Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

You will note that the Guardian writers in the source I added also felt it needed to be explained better. The article does tell us what he was charged with, and it explains what that means. That is what the article should do. Why don't you want it to do that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously, I understand what you are saying. It DOES need to be explained better, I agree. But the sources do not say what you want to state? Therefore it should not be worded like that. I hope I am explaining this well enough, I'm not the best at that I am afraid! IMHO, stating further explanation by yourself is the very definition of OR, I hope you can see that? The fact that you say "the article should do" is OR, it really isGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

This source used in the lead says "possessing" that may be a better way to phrase this. Thoughts? https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/aug/02/ukcrime.media Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

There are two sources against that in the lead. The Telegraph is paywalled so I can't see the online version. Instead I searched it out on Newspapers Online. The 14 November online article can be found in the 15 November printed copy of the Newspaper on page 13. It reads:

The disgraced comic actor Chris Langham was freed from jail yesterday after he won an appeal to have his 10-month sentence for downloading child pornography reduced.

It does not say "possessing". Neither does it mention level 5. That is a "verification failed". The Guardian article is longer. It also doesn't mention level 5, but it does say "possessing" once but then it says downloading and making. The reason the article write mentioned possession was not because of the charge, but because of a statement made by the prosecution after the trial:

After the verdict, Ken Goss,a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman, said the defence was baseless. "Chris Langham thought that he could possess, download, and view indecent images of children," he told reporters. "His defence was it was only research. That was clearly wrong."

The conviction, according to the article, was for the making offence (downloading). Now it is clear that he possessed the images on his computer, but the actual offence is making, because that is the intentional causing of a copy to be made (by downloading or printing). The article does state that. Saying "possessing" in our article is less accurate. He was convicted of downloading the images (per the Telegraph and the Guardian in those lead citations). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"The actor and writer Chris Langham was today found guilty of possessing child pornography and warned he could be sent to jail" The Guardian source has this right at the top?

Re the level 5, the source for the telegraph opens fine with no paywall and says this "Many of the images found on Langham's computer were of the worst, level 5 category, it emerged during his trial" - so level 5

The BBC source states this "Award-winning comedian Chris Langham has been charged with 15 counts of making indecent images of children, Kent Police have confirmed" - So he was charged with making and possession. We state what the sources say. I dont understand the claim that the article is less accurate for stating what the actual sources actually say? This is the very definition of OR, the fact that you want the article to state something different from what the sources state. I want it to say what the sources say, nothing more or less Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 13:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You have added a second telegraph article, that does open for me without a paywall. That is Telegraph 02 August 2007. This one does not mention level 5. The other article I mentioned above (Telegraph 14 November 2007) still has a paywall, and the accompanying newspaper article does not verify. However I do believe that the information is correct, which is why I have not removed it. Nevertheless a better source is needed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I will leave for a time for others to contribute and/or other sources to be provided that may state different charges the subject was convicted of. But unless these are found, this needs to be stated as the actual charges in the sources and nothing moreGiant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources say "making" and "downloading". Because, per our other sources, that is what making means here. We are not reaching a conclusion that is not found in the sources. It is in the sources. And again, why don't you want the readers to know this? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We state what the sources say, not what you want to say? I am not trying to be difficult here, I am sure you know the rules of wiki. Adding your extra interpretation of it is OR. We state what the subject was convicted off, nothing more. So unless you can provide a source that states the extra details in the actual conviction, I am removing the extra working? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 12:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The source that you want to use to add extra working for (but that is not actually stated in the source) also says this: "The crown prosecution service said some of the videos and photographs found on Langham's computer contained images of sadism and non-consensual sex between adults and children" - Is it OK to add this info as well? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We state what the sources say, not what you want to say? I am not trying to be difficult here, I am sure you know the rules of wiki. I know them, and I understand what needs to be referenced when in academic work too. But do you understand them? Because Adding your extra interpretation of it is OR is a mis-statement of the rule. The particular type of OR you claim is happening here is synthesis. See WP:SYNTH which says:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.

That is what you are trying to summarise, yes? But I have highlighted the word “conclusion” there, because that is key here.

There is a whole explanatory essay about SYNTH. See WP:NOTSYNTH. This essay explains the issue well, and I would draw your attention to the section: WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION which states:

SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources.

Okay so far?

Now scroll down to the heading “SYNTH is not presumed”, which reads:

If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources.You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

So a couple of points. Firstly, you need to get a consensus here before removing this. The burden of proof lies with you to show that there is SYNTH. Thus far you have stated your belief that there is SYNTH but you have not demonstrated it, nor has any editor agreed with you.

Secondly, a question: what is the new thesis here? We have sources that say he was charged with "making", sources that say he was charged with "downloading" (referring to the same charges) and a source that says that the act of making means making a copy, as happens in downloading or printing. It is not a new thesis that Langham was convicted of downloading. Sources literally say that. It is not a new thesis that he was convicted of making. Sources literally say that too. It is not a new thesis that making is a legal term that means downloading or making a copy - sources literally say that as well. So, what is the synthesis? What is the new thesis that is synthesised from these sources? There is none. The text is fine. I would highly recommend you read the whole of WP:NOTSYNTH carefully.

And once again, because you have repeatedly refused to answer this question: Why don’t you want the reader to know that “making” here means downloading? Do you deny it means downloading? Are you trying to make it sound like Langham created new images that did not previously exist? Because he didn’t do that. Why do you want to mislead the reader? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont need consensus to remove OR, or remove claims in the article that simply are not in the sources. The article should state what the charges were, not what you want them to show. Sorry, that is OR. And to answer your question, I do want the readers to know what he was charged with, that is literally what I am doing here. The other working is not telling the readers the charges, it is your opinion of what it should say. I will ask more experienced editors to take a look when they have the time, but please do not add back statements that are not in the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giant-Dwarfs (talk • contribs) 10:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You do need consensus that there is any OR to remove. Your reversion is edit warring. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding statements that are literally NOT in any of the sources you use is OR. Please review. Again, if you have better sources that back what you want in the article please use them and add back, I have no problem at all with that? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The statements are in the sources. Except you removed all the sources they are in! Let's review:

• BBC 11 May 2006 - Primary source - Only says "making". This is the only source you left in.
• Huskinson, Lucy; Waddell, Terrie (27 November 2014). Eavesdropping: The psychotherapist in film and television. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-57704-1. - Secondary source. - Only says "downloading". You reverted this one out in this edit [4] with an edsum including "what the sources say"!!
• Guardian 3 Aug 2007 - Primary Source - Headline says "downloads" and repeatedly uses "downloads" and "downloading" but once refers to "making". I replaced this one with the above secondary sources, but when you reverted the secondary sourcing, you chose only to revert back in the BBC primary source and not this one. So at that point you cherry picked your source. And it is primary.
• Telegraph 15 Nov 2007 (discussed above. Paywalled online article refers) - Primary Source - won an appeal to have his 10-month sentence for downloading child pornography (my emphasis)
• Guardian 2 Aug 2007 - Primary Source - has "downloading" and 1 use of "making" and also, confusingly, "possessing".
• Guardian 25 Sep 2011 - Arguably a secondary source but elements are primary - "downloading".

I'll stop there. The point is that this information very literally is in the sources, except you have now cherry picked the only (primary) source that does not use the term downloading. This is not neutral. You came into this article unaware that Langham was still working and complaining that explaining the term "making" meant downloading was "trying to defend the subject". I have patiently shown you why this is wrong, but at this point what we are dealing with is the cognitive bias of belief revision intransigence.

I have posted a notice at the BLP noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Requesting eyes on Chris Langham. You are welcome to join the conversation there as well as here, but do note what Bon courage has already said there. We should not be using "making" in wikivoice at all in articles, and certainly not without explanation. Note also that BLPs must use secondary sources. The secondary source I added says "downloading". The writers of that book clearly agreed on this point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The term "making" has a very precise meaning in this legal context, which the average reader cannot be expected to know about. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Career update

This section is a jumbled mess. I propose splitting this into decade sections. And then anything after subjects release into another section at the end of the article. Will look and read much better. I will wait to see if anyone has thoughts and/or objects before doing this. I will not be adding or removing anything, just redoing it Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Your edits didn't make it any less jumbled. You changed "discussed" to "claimed" and added a couple of headings. I disagree with those headings, which I believe show that you are not approaching this BLP neutrally. You appear to wish to highlight information about his conviction and to make it much more prominent than anything else in his career. I suggest that if you continue to wish to assert your edits, you may want to consider WP:3PO to get a third opinion, or to post an a noticeboard to bring in more eyes on this article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, again, assume good faith. I literally just started these new sections. And there is obviously a break in career when the subject was convicted. If you can suggest a better way to break this and a title please do so? Most other articles have a section for career after release? I will post as you suggest and get other opinions, thanks for that. But OR is still not allowed. The sources state what he was convicted of, you want to change that to what you want to state, that is OR. Please do not revert until a source is found that states the subject was convicted of the working you want Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy for what its worth, I totally agree with your opinion on these edits being slightly imbalanced. TALLPAUL713713 (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

Giant-Dwarfs, you are repeatedly edit warring to remove sourced factual content from this article. Neither, per the above section, is it SYNTH. You will not answer why you don't want the reader to know what the legal term "making" means, and you have reverted all reformulations. Your initial edsum has wtf is this added to defend the subject? which, coupled with your edits on other pages of figures with similar convictions, suggests to me you are approaching this subject with a (perhaps unacknowledged) POV. You are here because you want to write about the conviction (as per your latest edits that showcase it). Wikipedia will not brush the conviction under the carpet, and the information on the page is good information, but this is still a BLP and not a place to showcase such information or name and shame. This is not a newspaper report, it is a neutral encylopaedic treatment of the subject as a notable actor. I suggested ways you could build consensus but instead you simply reverted again. As such, this page is no longer neutral. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Giant-Dwarfs, I raised an issue this [5] months ago. I should have removed it then. As per the edsum, I removed it because it contravenes WP:BLPPRIMARY. Have a read of that. We can't have primary sourced opinions about the subject in an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Your reversion of the information back in is a BLP violation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. It its sourced correctly. I note that there are many, many similar sources used (just in that section alone) that you see no problem with? Can I ask why you want the readers to form a more positive opinion of the subject and their convictions? Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Look, I understand that you don't have a lot of edits to Wikipedia, and so not a lot of experience with BLPs. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and guidelines and it is hard to get your head around them all, but please do read WP:BLP very carefully. This is a contentious topic area, and you should definitely not be reverting back in the opinion of one person about the page subject, sourced to a primary source (which is what that news report is. It is literally reporting the words and opinion of a single person). You say there are similar sources that I don't see a problem with... but if you check the article history, you will find it was I who placed the "primary sources" template on that section some months ago. I do have a problem with all the primary sourcing, but I didn't remove it all, because the only sections I felt needed to come out now, per WP:BLPPRIMARY were those that were clear and egregious violations of the wording and spirit of BLPPRIMARY. And I notice that you restored the one that places the subject in a bad light but left out the one that quotes court record to place him in a better one.

Again, your editing is not neutral. You are not approaching this subject encyclopaedically and you appear to be pushing a POV narrative based on your perceptions regarding his conviction. This is perhaps why you also removed the secondary source I added today and reverted back in primary sourced information, which you are also misquoting. BLPs need secondary sources. Do not remove secondary sources in favour of primary sources.

Even the primary sourcing says he was convicted of downloading. A word you have repeatedly removed despite the fact it is in all the sources.

Your editing is not neutral. It may not be intentional on your part, but it is not. An article like this is a minefield. You might want to spend your time on something that is not so contentious to get a bit of experience. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not edit waring at all, I have made less edits and reverts than you? Please, again, assume good faith. All accusations you make against me, could just as easily be boomeranged back to you. I am not doing any of the actions you claim, I am simply making sure the convictions, sources and other points are actually supported by the sources. And it is not a neutral encyclopaedia, far from it. Not in the way you claim. It shows what sources state, and that is all. Please stop accusing me because you dont agree. That's normal. There is no ownership here. I have stated many times, if you have sources that state what you want to put in the article then use them. Until that time please dont add OR and POV to the article Giant-Dwarfs^Talk 22:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)