Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pronunciation of the name[edit]

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[edit]

(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[edit]

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. (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. (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. (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 (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Floss, Townshend's Upcoming Rock Opera[edit]


(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 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


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[edit]

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. (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. (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. (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. (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[edit]

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)


Change 1[edit]

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. (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? (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. (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[edit]

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. (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. (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. (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? (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[edit]

'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".[16] The reference was sufficiently specific [17] 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." [18], 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. (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. (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: [19]. 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? (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like bullshit to me. [20] "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[edit]

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)


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)


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

RfC closure[edit]

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 [21]. 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[edit]

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.

Please use another citation to prove your point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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[edit]

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 (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.

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

My second proof:

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (talkcontribs)

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 [22], 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: - does that sound familiar to anybody?
meanwhile, re "I believe the link is actually a copyvio of [23]": 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 (talkcontribs) 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 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[edit]

This reference ( 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 ( and, 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:
( and
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 (talkcontribs)
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 link is a personal essay, and is not reliable. The link seems fine to me. The 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 and 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[edit]

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 [24] 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: [25] 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. [26] The article's 'star' was sufficiently identifiable [27] 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." [28], 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.[29] 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[edit]

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:
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.BBC "I'm no paedophile, says Who star" BBC News, 12 January 2003
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".[30] The reference was sufficiently specific [31] 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." [32], 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[edit]

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)


Watch out this "Associated Press/ The Free-Lance Star - Nov 8, 1990" news report:,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 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,[33] [34] 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. (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Few more sources that pass WP:RS and show Townshend was/is Bisexual

1- Daily Mail: 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: 2- 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 --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: (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: 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

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


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

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:

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)


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

Full protected for a day[edit]

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

References, archives, etc[edit]

This was a little hasty, wasn't it? I didn't sign off on the references. I said above that I would have to review them.Pkeets (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

i gather you mean the change was implemented and the discussion was closed overhastily, not that the protection level was changed too hastily. apologies for having missed that your approval was conditional on review of the refs – i reacted to Davidpatrick's suggestion that someone should make the edit request. we can of course continue to discuss it. the previous discussion is now the entire Archive 4, and there's a link at the top of this page, so it's easy to access it if necessary, but the refs are more easily accessible from the article itself.
for everyone's information: the admin who added the revised paragraph for us set the talk page to auto-archive threads older than 31 days. that might be a bit too frequent for the normal traffic on the page, but i guess we can try it. by that criterion the recent consensus discussion should technically stay on the current page a few more weeks - or should we should just leave it preserved as Archive 4? Sssoul (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
It's fine as Archive 4. You've pointed out where it is to anyone interested in the discussion.Pkeets (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)