Talk:Pete Townshend and Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond: Difference between pages

Revision as of 20:49, 18 February 2007

Revision as of 18:05, 30 June 2007

Line 1:

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#80737C;"

{{WPBiography

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''WikiProject James Bond'''

|living=yes

|-

|class=B

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center | {{shortcut|WP:007|WP:BOND|WP:OO7}} <big> '''Welcome to WikiProject James Bond'''</big>.<br>

|priority=

The James Bond WikiProject exists to help improve the encyclopedic content of [[James Bond]]-related articles, [[:Category:WikiProject James Bond articles|from novels and films to characters and gadgets]].

|a&e-work-group=yes

{| align="right"

}}

| {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/James Bond articles by quality statistics}}

{{WikiProjectGuitarists|class=B}}

|}

__TOC__

<br clear=all>

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Collaboration of the fortnight/Template}}

{{col-begin}}

<!--Template:Archivebox begins-->

{{col-2}}

{| class="infobox" width="315px"

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''Project Announcements'''

|-

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

--<!--

|-

|

# [[Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive01]]

|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

PLEASE PUT YOUR NEW INFORMATION AT THE TOP AND SIGN YOUR NAME

== Crimes committed as 'Research' ==

ownshend sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and accessed (in his words) child pornography websites (an offence under English law). He justified his activities as being "research". There is, under English law, a "legitimate reason" defence to the offences Townshend committed but he was not able to avail himself of this defence. Therefore he was not carrying out legitimate research but rather committing crimes. Where one says "''Townshend was also adamant that he had not downloaded any images '''during the research'''''" an acceptance of his claim to have been doing research is implicit, with a concomitant implication that the activity giving rise to criminal guilt was justified. With this type of wording, the article expresses POV. While we do not know why Townshend was arrested (someone argues elsewhere herein that he was arrested because his name was released to the press), we do know that the police issued a statement reading "''Inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer. It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity''" ([http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,951345,00.html Guardian article of 8 May 2003]). Thus they took pains to point out that accessing child pornography websites for ''research'' is not acceptable, presumably to discourage other people from accessing child porn under the mistaken opinion that could make themselves immune from prosecution by simply claiming "I did it to research the outrageous quantities of horrible material on the Internet". By repeatedly insisting on the "research" status of Townshend's activity ("''he had formally reported the website he discovered during that research to The Internet Watch Foundation''" and "''Townshend was also adamant that he had not downloaded any images during the research''"), this article seeks to undermine the police's intentions in publishing the statement. Is it now officieal Wikipedia policy to minimise sexual offending against children? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 14:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:You're putting this at the top of the page? What hubris. Keep grinding that axe. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 07:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:*I'm putting this at the top of the page because it is the only currently live issue of "discussion". Address the '''issue'''. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 12:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

-->

:::If you add to a talk page with the "Post a Comment" feature, it goes at the bottom. Things at the top of the page are the old issues that should be archived first. --<small>[[User:Xagent86|Xagent86]] ([[User talk:Xagent86|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Xagent86|contribs]])</small> 12:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*A new [[Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Collaboration of the fortnight]] section has been added, please contribute.

::::the "Post a Comment" feature is where? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

* Both '''Casino Royale''' and '''GoldenEye''' failed for featured article status.

* Wiki Project James Bond Up and Away on 17 April 2007.

|}

{{col-2}}

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

Obsolete discussion. Please check The Times articles that reported Landslide was only an ordinary adult porn site, and also Townshend's public statements on the subject (made before The Times articles). Townshend admitted accessing this site, but says he didn't see any child porn, which corresponds with The Times later report that there was none.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''Article Updates, Creations.'''

|-

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

<!--PLEASE PUT YOUR NEW INFORMATION AT THE TOP AND SIGN YOUR NAME-->

===Longstanding campaign against child pornography===

Cite sources detailing the actions taken by Townshend in this campaign (actions other than downloading child porn). Howcome we only got to hear of this "campaign" after the arrest? A secret campaign is hardly worth running.[[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:Hey, another one put at the top of the page. More hubris from Wiki-is-truth. First of all, there's his essay, posted on his website one year before the story broke. [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:UokraypUQacJ:www.petetownshend.co.uk/media/020120adifferentbomb.pdf+%22A+different+bomb%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a]

:Then there's his Double-O Charities, founded decades ago. There's also his support for Chicago's Maryville Academy, starting in 1997. Jerry Hall also came forward independently and spoke of Pete Townshend's "avid support" of her public and private child welfare foundations: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/13/1041990234186.html [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''More hubris from Wiki-is-truth''': reformat the talk page if you wish; but please, stop throwing up the smokescreens.

:*I asked for sources detailing Townshend's "long-standing campaign against child pornography":

::*'''Townshend's essay'' in which he says "''I knew I must NOT download anything I saw. That would be illegal. I spoke off-the-record to a lawyer. He advised me that I most certainly should not download the image as 'evidence'. '''So I did nothing.''' I mentioned this shocking internet experience to a few people close to me''". He did nothing. Hardly a campaign.

::*Townshend's Double-O charities: not anti-child porn organisations; it does not appear that they campaigned on the issue

::*'''Chicago's Maryville Academy''': not an anti-child porn organisation

::*'''Jerry Hall''' the well-known anti-child porn crusader. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*And, uhm, Jerry Hall actually said "''Pete Townshend is the least likely profile of a child abuser it is possible to construct''"... [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 04:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

* Added plot summaries to the leads of [[Goldfinger (film)]], [[On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)]], [[Diamonds Are Forever (film)]], [[The Man with the Golden Gun (film)]], [[The Spy Who Loved Me (film)]], [[A View to a Kill]] and [[Licence to Kill]]. ([[User:IzzyVanHalen|Callum J. Stewart]] 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)) EDIT: added summaries to the leads of [[Dr. No (film)]], [[Live and Let Die (film)]] and [[For Your Eyes Only (film)]] ([[User:IzzyVanHalen|Callum J. Stewart]] 22:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC))

You guys are forgetting The Times has reported that reconstruction of Landslide (the site Townshend is accussed of accessing) showed it was only an ordinary adult porn site. That makes this discussion pretty obsolete.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 16:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

* Added a plot summary to [[You Only Live Twice (film)|You Only Live Twice]]. [[User:Editus|Editus]] 1800 UTC 23.4.07 EDIT: did the same for [[Thunderball (film)|Thunderball]] 1907 UTC 23.4.07

* Overhauled the [[Octopussy]] page to resemble CR (06), still needs referenceing, but got rid of useless trivia and put in [[Talk:Octopussy]]. [[User:SpecialWindler|SpecialWindler]] 00:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

* Added the template above with the assessment statistics by quality.[[User:SpecialWindler|SpecialWindler]] 23:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

|}

If you'll actually research the subject, you'll find that Townshend ranted about the child porn subject in public interviews and essays before his arrest. These are on record and just because you didn't hear about them doesn't mean they don't exist. I agree that examples discussed above have more to do with Townshend's support of children's welfare organizations than any "campaign" against child porn.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{{col-end}}

<br clear=all>

===User template===

Add '''<nowiki>{{User James Bond}}</nowiki>''' to your user page and sign below to join this WikiProject.

{{Template:User James Bond}}

<br/><br/>

==Project Members==

===Solitary credit card access in 1999 to a child pornography website===

{| class="wikitable" width="98%"

Townshend says he accessed a site once. CNN reported that he "said he had looked at the front pages and previews of child pornography sites perhaps three or four times in 1999". Including this quotation of an independent and reliable external source as proof of the unreliability of Townshend's own statements is of great value. This incongruity appears to suggest a particular meaning to Townshend's "access".... [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 14:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

|+Members

:And here's another one at the top of the page. More hubris from Wiki-is-truth. And what "particular meaning" are you talking about, according to your overactive imagination? Pete Townshend accessed the Landslide site once, which is exactly why he was placed in the lowest tier of suspects, the ones that weren't going to be approached by law enforcement because their limited access did not fit the profile of a pedophile. The "three of four times" is clearly referring to ''other'' child porn sites that he found. The disparity between those two statements is a figment of your imagination. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

|-

:*Townshend makes a great point in his public statements that he only accessed child pornography website once. It is clear that what he means by this is he paid for access once. In actual fact, he "accessed" (using the word in its normal sense) child porn websites on four or five occasions. Whether they were the same sites or not is irrelevant.

!Member!!Date Joined!!Fav. Bond!! Fav. Film

:*If it is true that Townshend was placed in the lowest tier, then this was not because of any limited access. The list was "tiered" on the police's assessment of the risk posed to children by the suspects involved, and those in positions of trust etc were given priority in police investigations - pedophile profiles did not come into it. If it did, please demonstrate my claim to be incorrect by '''citing your sources'''.[[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

|-

|{{User|Ganfon|}}|| [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[Goldfinger (film)|Goldfinger]]

|-

|{{User|SpecialWindler}}|| [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Timothy Dalton]] || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

|{{User|23skidoo}}|| [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

|{{User|Ernst Stavro Blofeld}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]]||[[Goldfinger (film)|Goldfinger]] / [[Live and Let Die]]

|-

|{{User|Warlordjohncarter}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || ||

|-

|{{User|El Greco}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] ||

|-

| {{User|K1Bond007}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || ||

|-

| {{User|ColdFusion650}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Daniel Craig]] || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

| {{User|Chrislk02}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[Goldeneye]]

|-

| {{User|Cliff smith}} || [[April 17]] [[2007]] || || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

| {{User|Will2710}} || [[April 19]] [[2007]] || [[Timothy Dalton]] || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

| {{User|Highfields}} || [[April 19]] [[2007]] || [[Pierce Brosnan]] || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

|{{User|The Giant Puffin}}|| [[April 22]] [[2007]] || [[Roger Moore]] || [[Goldeneye]]

|-

|{{User|Snowolf}}|| [[April 22]] [[2007]] || [[Roger Moore]] ||

|-

|{{User|IzzyVanHalen}}|| [[April 23]] [[2007]] || [[Timothy Dalton]] || [[From Russia With Love]]/[[The Living Daylights]] (tie)

|-

|<s>{{User|Editus}}</s> (old account)<br>{{User|Editus Reloaded}} || [[April 23]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery ]] || [[Goldeneye]]

|-

|{{User|AldeBaer}}|| [[April 26]] [[2007]] || [[Daniel Craig]] || [[Never Say Never Again]]

|-

|{{User|Emperor001|}}|| [[April 27]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[You Only Live Twice]]

|-

|{{User|Eric1985}}|| [[April 28]] [[2007]] || [[Pierce Brosnan]] || [[Moonraker (film)|Moonraker]]

|-

|{{User|Zerorules677}}|| [[April 30]] [[2007]] || [[Daniel Craig]] || [[Casino Royale (2006)]]

|-

|{{User|Vikrant Phadkay}}|| [[May 3]] [[2007]] || [[Pierce Brosnan]] || [[Octopussy]]

|-

|{{User|Tprosser}}|| [[May 14]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[From Russia With Love]]

|-

|{{User|Davidbspalding}}|| [[May 23]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film)|On Her Majesty's Secret Service]]

|-

|{{User| Tovojolo}}|| [[June 16]] [[2007]] || [[Sean Connery]] || [[Goldfinger (film)| Goldfinger]]

|-

|{{User|Namesbondjamesbond}}|| [[June 30]] [[2007]] || [[Daniel Craig]] || [[From Russia with Love (film)|From Russia with Love]]

|}

==Banner==

You guys are forgetting The Times has reported that reconstruction of Landslide showed it was only an ordinary adult porn site. That leaves this discussion a bit moot.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 16:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tag relevant articles as '''<nowiki>{{WikiProject James Bond|class=|importance=}}</nowiki>'''

{{WikiProject James Bond|class=NA|importance=NA}}

This banner should be used with the project's assessment criteria. Please see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Assessment|here]] for the project's assessment guidelines.

'''Comment''': Can somebody add the importance feature underneath on this template, so we can see the importance of the article without having to go to edit, (I'd do it myself but the syntex stuff too complecated??? [[User:SpecialWindler|SpecialWindler]] 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

===Formal report of child porn to IWF===

Roger Darlington (Chairmain, IWF) wrote to the Observer to point out that Townshend had made on-line reports of potentially illegal material on 24 August 2002, 19 November 20002 and 6 December 2002. All the reports came after the public was made aware in the spring of 2002 of Operation Ore. Townshend's IWF report sounds like a track covering exercise to me, thanks for making me aware of the IWF "corroboration" Davidpatrick... [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 16:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:Hey, four in a row at the top of the page! More hubris. Yeah, you're not on a vendetta at all! No siree-bob! Your speculations and innuendo about "track covering exercises" have no place in this encyclopedia. You're heading into exactly the "potentially libelous" territory that the banner at the top of this page is warning about. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''No siree-bob''': correct. Look at my changes to the article and you will see that they are minimal; this "discussion" on the talk page is driven by you.

:*'''Your speculations and innuendo about "track covering exercises" have no place in this encyclopedia''': funny, my "innuendo" is also contained in the IWF letter[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,6903,1115806,00.html] published in the Observer on 4 January 2004, which Townshend did not challenge in court. Just to make things absolutely clear, the "innuendo" is comprised by the fact that Townshend only reported child porn to the IWF in 2002 after it had become public knowledge that the sites involved were the object of police investigation. Note that Townshend accidentally found child porn in 1999... [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::*For information:

:::*1999: Townshend accidentally discovered child porn while looking for information about orphans...

:::*1999 Townshend looks at the preview section of child porn websites on "three or four" occasions

:::*1999 Townshend uses his credit card to access a child porn website "to see what was there". Insists he downloaded nothing (by which he means he saved nothing)

:::*8 Sep 1999, Landslide (the business at the heart of the incident) raided by American LEAs

:::*8 Aug 2001, US Attorney General Ashcroft announces end to Operation Avalanche

:::*20 May 2002, The first news stories about [[Operation Ore]] appear

:::*24 Aug 2002, Townshend makes first online IWF report (presumably 3 years late, or else he had accidentally found some new child porn websites)

:::*11 Jan 2003, Daily Mail claims an internationally famous musician being investiagted as part of Ore

:::*12 Jan 2003, Journalists harry Townshend at his home, he makes a statement in which he claimed to have acted "a vigilante to help support organisations like the Internet Watch Foundation"

:::*13 Jan 2003, approx 1500 GMT, Townshend arrested

:::*30 Jan 2003, IWF confirms that it had heard from Townshend in 2002. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 04:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::If you look at the bottom of the page, where all the categories are listed, it is listed there. ^{[[User:{{{User|El Greco}}}|{{{User|El Greco}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{User|El Greco}}}|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/{{{User|El Greco}}}|contribs]])} 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

*Interesting how mention of the IWF is allowed by Davidpatrick only in partial detail, in which form it can (if one so chooses) be seen to support Townshend's claim to have been carrying out research. When this spin is removed by a fuller presentation, the whole IWF episode is expunged. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 04:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

==Recognized content==

Your listing of the first couple of points corresponds to Townshend's statements, but here you depart: "1999 Townshend uses his credit card to access a child porn website "to see what was there". Insists he downloaded nothing (by which he means he saved nothing." Check what he says about the site. He says he didn't see any child porn. Later reconstruction of the site by independent experts shows there was none there. Other reports seem to indicate it was mostly a credit card fraud site, reason enough for the US Feds to bust it.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{{col-begin}}

{{col-3}}

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''Featured Articles'''

|-

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

<br><br><br><br><br>

|}

{{col-3}}

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''A-Class Articles'''

|-

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

*[[Casino Royale (2006 film)]]

*[[Thunderball (novel)]]

*[[GoldenEye]]

<br><br>

|}

{{col-3}}

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''Good Articles'''

|-

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

*[[James Bond]]

*[[Pierce Brosnan]]

*[[Sean Bean]]

*[[The World Is Not Enough (song)]]

*[[Tomorrow Never Dies]]

|}

{{col-end}}

== Open tasks ==

===More hubris from me, but this is a classic===

{{col-begin}}

At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Townshend&diff=next&oldid=108926596 01:05 on 18 February 2007] Davidpatrick made an edit with the edit summary "balance between claims by police and Townshend - and of known reported facts without POV legal interpretations". Classic! I think it makes it perfectly clear that Davidpatrick will only accept Townshend's description of the incident, and the fact that other objective independent sources have differing "interpretations" must therefore be covered up - even when Davidpatrick seeks to rely elsewhere on those same "interpretations" to support his spin on the child porn incident. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{{col-2}}

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''Major Tasks'''

|-

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

* Survey articles to make sure a balance is maintained between film and novel references where applicable; it should not be forgotten that the books came first (there are occasional articles such as [[List of James Bond henchmen]] that profess to reference the novels but only contain film-based information). Articles on characters that appear in both the novels and the films should always include information on their literary counterparts.

Not so. Enough of this. This is an article about a 61 year old artist with a 43 year career. This is an incident that spans a 4 year period. And in which there was only public activity for 5 months Jan-May 2003. The amount of detail in the article is already wildly disproportionate to the incident. Especially given that the police CHOSE OF THEIR OWN VOLITION to NOT charge Townshend. If they had and he stood trial - been found guilty - then this would be a different story. But they - for reasons that only they know - decided not to. Perhaps the facts in their statement had something to do with it. ie TOWNSHEND HAD NOT ONE SINGLE DOWNOADED IMAGE on any of 14 computers. The article as currently amended by me offers Townshend's view and the police's view. And states the legal conclusion dispassionately. Anything else is commentary. And does not belong in a fair article about his life. So enough. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 04:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

*Occasionally review all articles that have been placed on the [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Articles]] page for [[Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/Articles|recent changes]].

*Then why not say: ''In 1999 Townshend paid to access a child pornography website. This became public knowledge in 2003 after Townshend admitted it in a statement he issued. He was arrested and cautioned.'' Plenty shorter.

*Cite sources on [[James Bond]]. This will greatly help it to featured status, the current Mission of the Week.

*You continue to present the fact that the police chose to caution Townshend rather than prosecute him as if it were some kind of vindication.

|}

*The article as it currently stands does not present Townshend's crimes as though they were research and I therefore see no need to make further amendments. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 04:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

{{col-2}}

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:strawyellow; border-style:solid; border-width:3px; border-color:#000080;"

Will you folks kindly do some research on this issue? You're all going on public articles and reports that are basically opinion. If you read Townshend's public statements carefully, you'll see that he never admitted accessing a child porn site. He says he did access the Landslide site, but he doesn't remember seeing any child porn there. The Times reported afterward that reconstruction of the site by independent experts showed it was only an ordinary adult porn site. So then, what happens to the "crime"? Sounds to me like this discussion is over-reactions to erroneous hearsay.

| height="30" colspan="2" style="padding:0.2em; background:darkred; border: solid thin #80737C; color:#FFFF00; text-align:center;" | '''Minor Tasks'''

|-

Because Townshend published essays and conducted interviews on the subject of child porn, we gather that he was concerned about the issue. As stated here, his public statement include a description of accidental encounters with child porn in about 1999, and his reactions. He doesn't clearly define what research he might have done for his book, so this is an open point.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

| height="80" colspan="2" valign="top" style="padding:0.2em; background:#f9f9ff; border: solid thin #80737C; text-align:center |

===Phoenix survivors===

Despite bleating that the child porn episode takes up a disproportionate part of the biography section, Davidpatrick went on to add a large chunk of material lifted directly from a Phoenix survivor's statement. His refusal to allow the IWF episode to be included after it became clear that it did not serve its purpose in "exonerating" Townshend casts this Phoenix insertion in an interesting light: it too serves to exonerate Townshend. Davidpatrick appears to be using Wikipedia to engage in a campaign to have halt a "witch hunt" (which hunt is considered by every nation to be a major worthwhile policy objective). [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

At the time of Townshend's arrest, Phoenix sent an open letter to the guitarist from its spokeswoman, Shy Keenan, who said she was sold as a child prostitute and her rapes were photographed and passed around. "Those people stole a massive part of me and sold the images for profit. I have never fully recovered," she wrote. "The moment a person clicks that button, they may as well be molesting that child themselves. How can anyone find any reason at all to give child molesters money?" Obviously a principled bunch whose word is worth repeating. So once again, it isn't the crime that matters, nor its consequences, but the person committing it, and their motivation in doing so. When pedophiles do it, it's bad, when Good Ole Pete does it, that's a different matter. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Good Ole Pete didn't do it. If you guys will keep up with ongoing information about the Operation Ore investigation, then we might have a bit more reason in this discussion (see other comments about the true nature of Landslide). Regarding this: "which hunt is considered by every nation to be a major worthwhile policy objective," some sources have suggested that the true objective is to impose controls on the Internet.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Police Caution = Criminal Record ==

I clicked on the [[criminal record]] link and this is the first sentence: "A criminal record or rap sheet is a generic term used to describe a compiled record of crimes that a person has committed and been convicted of in a judicial proceeding."

This does not describe Pete Townshend's situation. He was not convicted of anything. I suggest removing the "criminal record" link. Mentioning the police caution is all that is needed.

*I '''do not agree'''. All this means is that the article on [[criminal record|criminal records]] is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Saying that Townshend has a "criminal record" describes his situation perfectly accurately. In the UK, which is the only place that counts insofar as Townshend's legal status is concerned, the fact that a person has accepted a police caution is recorded in that person's "criminal record" on the [[Police National Computer]]. [[User:Lmno|lmno]] 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Lmno|lmno]] wrote:

"''the fact that a person has accepted a police caution is recorded in that person's "criminal record" on the Police National Computer''."

Three points occur to me.

What is the definition of a "person's criminal record on the Police National Computer"? Do the UK police maintain "CRIMINAL records" on people even if they haven't been convicted of a crime? Or do the police maintain FILES on people who they encounter and have interactions with? Including those to whom they issue a caution? If so, are those files really "criminal records" or are they perhaps just "files"?

It may well be that Townshend is listed on a Police Computer because he received a Police Caution. But is that identical with having a "criminal record" in English law?

And if it is - is it misleading to have that in the article given that in many other countries the connotation of "criminal record" is that the person has been convicted in a court of law of a criminal act?

The "Webster's" definition of "criminal" is "A person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime". Townshend is neither of these.

[[User:Dendennis|Dendennis]] 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

*Yes, the police maintain criminal records on people who have not been convicted of a crime; they maintain this information on people who have been cautioned for a crime. They are criminal records. Before you express your opinion what are "just files", please do some research and apprise yourself of the situation under English law.

:# Yes, townshend is listed on a Police Computer because he received a Police Caution. That is identical with having a "criminal record" in English law.

:# Americans are citizens; people in some other countries are "subjects". Becuase it might "mislead" Americans, should we call them "citizens" anyway?

:#Websters is American; the Oxford Concise English Dictionare (11 ed) is English, and defines a criminal as "a person who has committed a crime".

:I am reverting your changes.[[User:Lmno|lmno]] 11:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

*Oh... and.... '''The "Webster's" definition of "criminal" is "A person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime".''' Townshend is the first of these. [[User:Lmno|lmno]] 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The continuing effort to include mention of a criminal record in this article seems to be more emotional than anything else. If you really must insist on a paragraph detailing this, perhaps you might do a bit more research and itemize Mr. Townshend's other run-ins with the law. I believe he was once arrested and fined for assaulting a police officer onstage during a concert, and he spent at least one night in a Canadian jail for damages The Who did to a hotel. I'm sure a bit of digging might uncover some other skeletons, as well.

Regarding insistence on his guilt in the child porn incident, the question remains whether Townshend actually did view a child pornography site. He said in public statements that he only paid to enter and read the index at Landslide, which (according to the latest reconstruction of the site) did not have illegal images posted. His own admission of guilt is insufficient as sole evidence, as he would not be considered reliable to describe in detail what he did and saw at the site several years before. Townshend also said that he encountered obscene images online by accident (and reported these to authorities), but this was common in 1999. Since then it's quite a bit less likely, as child pornography has moved to file sharing technology for distribution. [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

*'''The continuing effort to include mention of a criminal record in this article seems to be more emotional than anything else''': So it is acceptable that Wikipedia is manipulable so as to reflect partisan opinions while not reflecting legal fact? Townshend sought out (an offence under English law), paid for (an offence under English law) and accessed (in his words) child pornography websites (an offence under English law). Gary Glitter did '''less''' (it is not proven that Glitter paid for child porn) but Glitter is classed as a convicted sex offender (in a Wikipedia category which has been manipulated so that it excludes people officially categorised as sex offenders). '''If you really must insist on a paragraph detailing this, perhaps you might do a bit more research and itemize Mr. Townshend's other run-ins with the law''': Irrelevant. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

:*Gary Glitter did ''less''??? They found over '''4,000''' child porn pictures on Gary Glitter's computer. Compared to ''zero'' on Pete Townshend's. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 22:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

::*Gary Glitter did less: please read what was said; it lists the offences Townshend is guilty of (3 named offences). Glitter was convicted of one named offence ("making indecent photographs"). 1 is less than 3. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 21:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* Then I suppose you're making the laughable assertion that Gary Glitter didn't "seek out" or "access" child pornography pictures, then? I suppose they just magically appeared on his computer, eh? Four thousand times? Please. You are not engaging in an honest debate. Gary Glitter is a proven pedophile. Pete Townshend is not. Once again, Pete Townshend would not have even been arrested if his name hadn't been leaked to the press. His limited access ''did not'' fit the profile of a pedophile. Unlike the circumstances of Gary Glitter's case. You're grinding an axe. You're dead wrong. Trying to say that Pete Townshend is worse than Gary Glitter is just preposterous. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 08:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*Please make yourself familiar with that Townshend has admitted guilt for - accessing child pornography. Since the police could prove neither possession nor making, the police caution was almost certainly for "inciting another to distribute or show an indecent photograph or pseudu-photograph of a child"; an offence that, as the police describe it, amounts to "paying for children to be raped". This is the "seeking out" and "paying for". Glitter, however, was convicted of "making", i.e. accessing, which means downloading and viewing (I would take stock here, since "viewing" and "downloading" have relevance to your arguments elsewhere). '''Gary Glitter is a proven pedophile. Pete Townshend is not''': pedophile is as pedophile does; or maybe you can explain why not. '''Once again, Pete Townshend would not have even been arrested if his name hadn't been leaked to the press''': you know this... how? Actually, I suspect Townshend was arrested because he made a public admission of guilt and then tried to minimise his offence by claiming that it had been for research; in an attempt to dissuade other people from accessing child pornography and using the "research" excuse, I suspect they had to make a counterstrike against Townshend's propaganda. '''Honest discussion''': bring it on. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 23:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::* You are clearly incapable of engaging in an honest debate. You are quite obviously on a vendetta. I don't know what your problem is, and I don't care. "Pedophile is as pedophile does"? What kind of nonsense is that? Everyone who has ever looked at child pornography is a pedophile, eh? No matter what their motivation? No matter what their response to those images? You are ridiculous. Here's a scenario for you: Pete Townshend looked at those images out of outrage. He looked at them as a previously abused child who was disgusted that this filth was available on the internet. Why do you reject that scenario, Wiki-is-truth? I'll tell you why. Because you're on your little crusade. Have fun tilting at your windmill. How do I know Townshend wouldn't have been arrested? Because that's what the press reports said at the time. The Landslide suspects were arranged into tiers. The top tier suspects were those who frequently accessed those websites. Each tier below that was characterized by less and less access. Pete Townshend was in the bottom tier. To date he remains the only person in the bottom tier that was arrested. He was arrested because he was outed by the press after someone in the police department leaked Pete Townshend's name. He was victimized because he is a celebrity. Once again, you are contributing to the witch hunt. You ought to be ashamed. Go after the real pedophiles. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 10:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::*'''"Pedophile is as pedophile does"? What kind of nonsense is that?''': it happens to be a paraphrase of the DSM definition of a pedophile. '''Everyone who has ever looked at child pornography is a pedophile, eh?''': it seems that you hold a person's motivation for doing an act to be more important than the act itself. Townshend committed a "pedophile" crime and was arrested and cautioned for so doing. And please, Townshend didn't just look - he paid for the stuff! '''Here's a scenario for you: Pete Townshend looked at those images out of outrage. He looked at them as a previously abused child who was disgusted that this filth was available on the internet''': let's say Townshend was outraged by the numbers of guns on the streets of London and... what would be a valid way for him to express that outrage? Before Townshend looked for and "accessed" the child porn website there were already laws making it illegal, hence Townshend's problem. Given that there are laws prohibiting child porn throughout the world - and in particular in the country in which Townshend committed his crime, what did Townshend hope to achieve by breaking the law? '''How do I know Townshend wouldn't have been arrested? Because that's what the press reports said at the time''': if this is true, you won't have any problem in citing your sources. '''To date he remains the only person in the bottom tier that was arrested''': if this is true, you will have no problem citing your sources. '''He was victimized because he is a celebrity''': victimised by being investigated and punished for commiting a crime? What an interesting view of the world you have. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 14:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::::*You don't know Townshend paid for it. That is unknown. What is known is that he had to use a credit card to access the site. It is not known if his credit card was charged. Some sites require a credit card for access and don't charge you unless you decide to subscribe. As for the cites you ask for, these may help you out:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/74690/operation-ore-exposed.html

:*An article detailing how English police were rather uncritical in their approach to evidence; however, '''before''' his arrest, Townshend went public and admitted guilt. The police did not arrest him improperly.[[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*The police leaked his name to the press. That's just one of the many reasons why this investigation has been called a witch hunt. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/townshend.htm

:*A "Witch hunt" site. However, Wikipedia is not a suitable tool to use to carry out a campaign; it is an encyclopedia, and requires neutrality. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*From which: ''If there really is the amount of child porn out there which the detectives assure us there is, let's have a look at it.''. Nice. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 19:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.igtc.com/archives/thewho/2003/Jun/msg00028.html

:*A pronouncement by Phoenix, the text of which you also kindly provide in this talk page. You could have simply given the link in the first place. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*Of course you don't want the text of something that refutes you posted on this page. Glad to disappoint you. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*How does it refute me, exactly? '''Glad to disappoint you''': has this become your vendetta? :-) [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=03/06/03/3057579

:*Uhm, am I missing something, or is this the same thing yet again? Something does not become impartial and reliable simply because you repeat it 3 times. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the Phoenix Survivors have to say about the Pete Townshend case:

''Our new position re: Pete Townshend''

When this story first broke, we were given certain 'confirmed information' regarding this matter and asked for our comment. Based on those details, we released various robust statements regarding Mr Townshend's part in the 'Landslide' child porn web site case, known here in the UK as 'Operation Ore'. We then, as is our remit, took up for the victims.

Since then, we have received a great deal of correspondence, all polite and respectful, offering further (known) information that was not made widely available at the time and asking us 'in the name of fairness' to reconsider our position re: Mr Townshend. We have since worked to confirm this information through Mr Townshend's solicitors and as a result we do indeed wish to make a further statement :

Based on the evidence secured by the police and the facts, as we now know them, it is our humble opinion that Mr Townshend should never have been placed on the Sex Offenders Register, it is a gross injustice and a complete waste of tax payers money, let alone an unnecessary drain on the sex offender management teams woefully inadequate and precious resources. We have enough problems with actual sex offenders without stuffing it full of 'the stupid', punish 'the stupid', use the sex offenders register to manage the actual sex offenders.

We now feel, that considering everything, Mr Townshend should have been 'less publicly cautioned' and allowed a second chance. It seems that Roger Daltry's assertions of a 'witch hunt' may indeed have real substance, the law definitely needs changing in this regard. We do not believe that Mr Townshend is either a pervert or a paedophile, indeed he shows many signs of being a victim and certainly falls under the category of the 'misguided with innocent intent'. We do not think that Mr Townshend should have paid such a price for 'stupidity' and we now regret that we didn't stand up for him sooner and offer him our support.

The Phoenix Survivors http://www.phoenixsurvivors.com/

That's right, actual victims of child predators stood up in Townshend's defense because they saw that case for the misguided witch hunt that it was. So what's your problem, Wiki-is-truth? What did they see that you apparently don't? Why don't you recognize once and for all that you're targetting a man who has already paid an enormous price for his actions and doesn't deserve to be painted as a pedophile by the likes of you or anyone else. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 06:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:*Some victims of child sexual abuse form bonds with their abusers and have positive feelings for them. Does that mean that we should absolve the abusers? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 12:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*And now you're speculating about the motivations of the Phoenix Survivors. Keep your paranoid fantasies to yourself. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*No, I'm asking you a question that you failed to answer. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*Ahah! It took me a while, but there we have it: your actual motivation in using Wikiepdia is to engage in a campaign to stop the "Witch hunt" and have the current child porn laws altered. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*Your ad-hominem attack isn't worth dignifying with any more of a response than this. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*Well, since none of your other points have stood up I wouldn't expect any more response than that. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''You don't know Townshend paid for it. That is unknown. What is known is that he had to use a credit card to access the site. It is not known if his credit card was charged''': again you are talking up your case beyond the evidence. In Operation Ore, incitement charges were used to prosecute people who had subscribed to Landslide, the website involved. Charges of attempted incitement were used to prosecute people who tried to access the sites but were unsuccessful - i.e. the charge to their credit card was rejected. Townshend admitted "accessing", so - logically - the charge to his credit card must have been successful. '''Some sites require a credit card for access and don't charge you unless you decide to subscribe''': some sites may not charge, Landslide did. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*There is zero evidence that Townshend's card was charged. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*Apart from Townshend's admission..... [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 06:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly a vendetta being pursued against Mr. Townshend by a solitary individual whose only activity on Wikipedia consists of demeaning entries about Mr. Townshend on this and other articles. Whatever his/her vendetta is - Wikipedia is not the place to pursue it. He/she may pursue it by complaining to the police - who clearly failed to take the actions against Mr. Townshend that he/she wanted. (Or he/she may reflect on the fact that if the police COULD have charged a high-profile celebrity who it had arrested in such a highly publicized fashion - it certainly would have.) The police decision NOT to prosecute is what appears to be troubling this individual. But Wikipedia is not the place to express that displeasure. This article as presented has been factual. It makes clear that he received a cauton. That he accepted the caution. That he was placed on an offenders list on a statuatory basis. It presents the police statement - and it presents Townshend's claims as publicly stated. The continual insertions and revisions by the person named "wiki-is-truth" are clearly POV designed to malign Mr. Townshend. And follow a consistent pattern of behavior by this user that borders on vandalism. Further attempts by this user to use this article as a place to express his/her personal vendetta against Mr. Townshend will be referred to senior wikipedians. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''demeaning entries about Mr. Townshend''': how do my contributions to Wikipedia demean Townshend? I am simply insisting that you not be allowed to present his crimes as "research" as if that were an objectively verifiable fact. If Townshend had performed his research with prior written permission as part of (say) a part-time distance educational course under strict supervision, I might accept that it was research. In truth, a solitary man, in secret, accessed child porn for his own reasons and hid that fact from everyone until it was revealed as part of a police investigation. Hardly research. Sounds more like crime to me; and in fact, the police had the same view.

::*The article does not present his crime as "research" as if it is an objectively verifiable fact. It states that it's Pete Townshend's claim. So if that's your problem with the article, you don't have a problem. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*You are correct that when the article stops presenting Townshend's crime as research, I will cease to have a problem with it. Elsewhere on this talk page you claim to have refuted me. If I say "in your refutation you mention that " it appears as though I am admitting that you have refuted my claims. You have done nothing of the sort; wherever you make verifiable arguments (legal distinction between viewing and downloading, for example), I prove you to be incorrect. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''Whatever his/her vendetta is - Wikipedia is not the place to pursue it''': I do not have a vendetta against Townshend; I am concerned about the vulnerability Wikipedia exhibits to being used to minimise child sexual offences.

::*The article does not minimize Townshend's offense. It's an even-handed look at the issue. You want to make it one-sided and incomplete. Others do not. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* An "even-handed look at the issue" would not say that "'Townshend was adamant that he did not download any images '''during his research''''". That is spin which is best left in Townshend's own words as a direct quotation so that it is obvious that it is Townshend saying he was doing research, not Wikipedia. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''He/she may pursue [his vendetta] by complaining to the police - who clearly failed to take the actions against Mr. Townshend that he/she wanted''': what I ''wanted'' the police to do is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia and furthermore you have precisely '''NO''' idea what I would have had the police do.

::*I notice you don't wish to elaborate, however. Curious, that. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*I didn't elaborate because Wikipedia is not a soap box. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''he/she may reflect on the fact that if the police COULD have charged a high-profile celebrity who it had arrested in such a highly publicized fashion - it certainly would have''': here you demonstrate a misunderstanding of English law, which has been gone over in shall we say exhaustive detail in the past, as can be seen from the archive of this talk page. Obviosuly you choose not to "understand" it for your own reasons.

::*'''if the police COULD have charged a high-profile celebrity who it had arrested in such a highly publicized fashion - it certainly would have''': Townshend was offered a [[police caution]]. If you look up the Wikipedia entry for [[police caution]], you will find that a police caution can only be offered where there is '''evidence of guilt sufficient to give a realistic prospect of conviction''', the offender '''admits the offence''' (which would itself mean that a conviction would be a mere technicality should the opetion to prosecute be taken) and the offender understands the significance of a caution and giving informed consent to being cautioned. '''TO PUT IT IN SIMPLE WORDS, A CAUTION CAN ONLY BE USED WHERE THE POLICE COULD PRESS CRIMINAL CHARGES'''. Please stop making statements about subjects you obviously do not understand.

:::*If they wanted to press criminal charges, they would have. Apparently they thought it would be a waste of time. Maybe someday you'll realize what they realized '''four years ago'''. No vendetta, eh? [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*Please do not comment on issues that you obviously do not understand, whether through inability or wilfulness. The police are only lawfully able to caution a person where they have a reasonable belief that they would secure a conviction. It is not lawful to prosecute someone where no purpose is served by the prosecution (i.e. it would be wasting time), therefore the fact that the police cautioned him is proof that the police did not choose to take the alternative path to prosecution because they believed charging was a waste of time. If your claim is true, please contact Townshend's lawyers and explain to them that the caution was unlawful and that he may petition the police to remove it. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''The continual insertions and revisions by the person named "wiki-is-truth" are clearly POV designed to malign Mr. Townshend''': How is it POV to insist that you stop saying that Townshend was carrying out research when he was in fact committing criminal acts? Saying that bluntly in the article that, for example, "Townshend was also adamant that he had not downloaded any images '''during the research'''" makes it appear that he was in fact carrying out research rather than committing criminal offences - THAT is placing a positive spin on the episode and therefore 100% POV. Please note that I do nothing more than remove this positive spin.

::*Go ahead and remove the bolded portion. Or call it "alleged" research. I have zero problems with that. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*I have attempted to do this on a number of occasions. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''Further attempts by this user to use this article as a place to express his/her personal vendetta against Mr. Townshend will be referred to senior wikipedians''': I am not using Wikipedia to express a vendetta; I am using it to prevent you expressing a point of view. Please get these "senior wikipedians" involved ASAP, and get them to explain how preventing a criminal offence being presented in a positive light is vandalism. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Several people have tried without success to engage this person in reasoned dialogue. This person does not edit any other topics on Wikipedia. His/her agenda is fixated on attempting to do what the police decided NOT to do - namely give the impression that Mr. Townshend was charged and convicted of a crime. The police considered the evdence and elected NOT to charge Mr Townshend. This decision by the police 4 years ago is still agitating this individual for reasons undetermined - and more properly addressed by a medical professional. He/she is most apparently engaged in pursuing a vendetta against Mr. Townshend. I recommend that we do not waste further time engaging in a one-sided dialogue with this person. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 15:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

*The only "reasoned dialogue" that has been entered into is documented on this talk page; anyone without a POV to push examining this talk page will see that that I am doing is stopping you placing a positive spin on Townshend's activity. '''This person does not edit any other topics on Wikipedia''': so? '''His/her agenda is fixated on attempting to do what the police decided NOT to do - namely give the impression that Mr. Townshend was charged and convicted of a crime''': what the police did or did not do is no concern of mine. However, what THEY DID do was caution Townshend for accessing child pornography. This means that THEY thought he was guilty of the offence, had evidence to prove it and reasonably believed that they could secure a conviction in a court of law. True, Townshend was not convicted, however this is a mere legal technicality: he admitted guilt. Since the police can only offer a caution where they believe they could secure a conviction, Townshend's lawyer(s) presumably advised him that he could not successfully defend a charge OR Townshend actually really truly honestly accepted and admitted guilt and would have done so in a court of law. '''more properly addressed by a medical professional''': what medical condition do you propose I seek treatment for? Pneumonia? Arthritis? Adhominem? '''I recommend that we do not waste further time engaging in a one-sided dialogue with this person''': then you openly admit that your arguments (uhm, where are your arguments exactly) cannot convince me of your position ''and that you cannot disprove my claims'' (actually I make no claims, I only question YOUR claims)... you openly admit that you will not engage in discussion and cannot defend your... uhm... POV. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*Of course they thought he was guilty of the offense. Pete Townshend admitted to the offense. The offense is accessing a child pornography website. The article is clear on that. There is zero white-wash involved. You're just upset that the article isn't a black-wash, because you're on a vendetta. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*How can I be engaged in a vendetta against Townshend when I make no claims whatsoever concerning Townshend but instead merely remove the spin present in the article (which presents Townshend's offending in his own terms rather than as determined by a lawfully elected Parliament)? The article is not clear that Townshend was not engaged in research since it on at least 2 occasions in its own text and not in direct quotation of Townshend states that Townshend was engaged in research. I simply removed the spin. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

=== Police Caution = Criminal Record ===

I direct your attention to [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97050--n.htm#113 section 113 of the Police Act 1997], which provides ''intera alia'' that...

::(3) A criminal record certificate is a certificate which-

:::(a) gives the prescribed details of every relevant matter relating to the applicant which is recorded in central records, or

:::(b) states that there is no such matter.

::(5) In this section-

:::"central records" means such records of convictions and '''cautions''' held for the use of police forces generally as may be prescribed;

- Good. This gets to the essential point. A caution DOES lead to a criminal record, for the simple reason that the accused admits the criminal offence that he/she was accused of. Police cautions are ONLY received by people who admit the offence. Peter Townsend was guilty (he did not deny this) and he accepted the caution to avoid the publicity, and risk of a more severe sentence, that a trial would have entailed.

And it must not be forgotten that Pete Townshend was tipped off by the media, who learnt that he was one of the individuals affected by Operation Ore. There was no element of surprise when police visited his home. Townshend, his lawyer, and most importantly his computers, were expecting them.

* You obviously know nothing of computer forensics if you think such files can simply be deleted. After a four month investigation, if there had ever been images, they would have been found. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 11:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:A) you are '''wrong'''; material CAN be removed from a computer disk so that it is either impossible or unreasonably difficult to retrieve it;

::If the computers had been scrubbed they would have known it. There was no evidence the computers had been scrubbed. There were simply ZERO child pornography images on his computers. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*The police issued a statement reading "it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images". You are reading far more into that statement than it bears. What evidence do you base you claim that Townshend's computer had not been scrubbed? Actually, Townshend '''himself''' publicly made a statement with the implication that '''child pornography should have been found on his at least one of his computers'''. In 'A Different Bomb', Townshend described how "''within about ten minutes of entering my search words I was confronted with a "free" image of a male infant of about two years old being buggered by an unseen man''". If that is not a child pornography image, I do not know what is; and if Townshend saw it on one of his own computers, the fact that it was not discovered by the police amply demonstrates that his computer was "scrubbed". [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 12:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*Saying the computer was "scrubbed" is another potentially libelous accusation from you. The banner at the top of this page is warning against precisely that. Not finding child porn images on Pete Townshend's computers does not mean they were scrubbed. It means he hadn't saved any images to his hard drive, or "downloaded", as he said in his press statements at the time. It means the images he saw were temporary internet files that are overwritten constantly on computers. But, of course, you immediately leap to the most nefarious conclusion, because you're on a vendetta. A libelous vendetta. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*You attempted to say that Townshend's computers had never contained child porn images and that this was proven by the fact that none were ever found: you said "if there had ever been images, they would have been found". There were images, but they were not found. Saying that temporary internet files are "overwritten constantly" is wrong and therefore misrepresentation. Such files are occasionally (with a frequency controllable by the user) removed from the cache, and then the space freed is reused. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:B) Townshend '''formally admitted guilt by accepting a [[police caution]]''' and this admission is accepted by the legal authorities in England as being equivalent to a conviction in many respects; how does computer forensics impact on this ''at all''? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

::It impacts on whether he's a pedophile or not. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::*In what way is that remotely relevant? It is not illegal to be a pedophile but it is illegal to commit pedophile acts because such acts have harmful consequences. You seem to be arguing that child pornography offences are only relevant when committed by pedophiles. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 14:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*The crime Pete Townshend committed is '''in the article'''. There is zero white-wash going on. The article is attempting to relate the incident fully and accurately, something '''you''' are opposed to, due to your vendetta. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 00:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*Pete Townshend was arrested because his name was supplied to UK police in the information supplied by American authorities which they then used to initiate [[Operation Ore]]. Any mention of [[Operation Ore]] has been removed by people who are (apparently) trying to present an objective, even-handed look at the "incident". Given such an omission, the article's "look" at the incident cannot even approach being full and accurate.[[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

* Keep grinding that axe, bud. We know Pete Townshend admitted to viewing child porn on the internet in 1999, when viewing was not even a crime. Only downloading was. There is ''zero'' evidence that Pete Townshend downloaded any such images. We do, however, know that Pete Townshend contacted an Internet Watch foundation to report what he had found. We also know he campaigned against the proliferation of child pornography on the internet. These facts are relevant and should be part of the bio. You seem to want to paint this episode in Pete Townshend's life as negatively as possible. Why? What is your problem? Has it ever even occurred to you that you may be castigating a man who was motivated by ''outrage'' when he visited that website? Why do you want to stand in the way of an objective and fair look at his arrest that acknowledges that there is more to the story than just the arrest? By wishing for only the arrest and caution to be mentioned, and none of the extenuating circumstances, you're doing nothing more than demonstrating that you want this to be a black stain. Pete Townshend wouldn't even have been arrested if someone in the police hadn't leaked his name to the press. His limited access simply didn't fit the profile of a pedophile. But the tabloid frenzy forced their hand. You're contributing to the witch hunt. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* Perhaps you would like to explain how someone can view an image on-line, without downloading it? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 11:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

::::* Sure. In 1999 there was a distinction made between ''viewing'' pictures on the internet and deliberately saving them to your hard drive. The latter was called "downloading". With PCs it involved right clicking on the image and selecting "Save Image". I'm surprised you were unaware of this. You must be relatively new to the Internet. Hope this helps. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::*Quit the sarcasm, and kindly provide a citation for this remarkable and appsarenlty legally binding "distinction". [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::*[[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] is thinking of the decision in [[R v Bowden (1999)]], in which a conviction for "Making an indecent photograph of a child" based on downloading an image from the Internet was upheld. Unfortunately, [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] is mistaken as to the implications of this decision. It definitely does not mean that "viewing" was not illegal before 1999, nor does it imply a distinction between "downloading" and "viewing". The Court of Appeal ''clarified'' the law to make it clear that downloading (and therefore viewing) '''was''' an offence (which means it had been an offence since 1984, when the "making" provision was inserted by that year's Criminal Justice and Public Order Act). [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 21:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

* Here's a couple links for your edification, Andy: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1162820129956 and http://www.wiredsafety.org/resources/editorial/0002.html Clearly, there is an ''obvious'' distinction between viewing and downloading. I'm surprised you're having so much difficulty with this. Hope this helps. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 13:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

:*I've already asked you to quit the sarcasm. Perhaps you could now explain the relevance of Philadelphia law. as described in your first reference, to a case in England? In any case, neither example to supports your assertion. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 15:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

::* Actually, they attack the very crux of your issue - that there is supposedly no distinction between ''viewing'' online and ''downloading'' the images. There is. Obviously. That's clear to anyone who can read. Hope this helps. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 04:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* ''Actually'', your unverified and vague assertions regarding a distinction apparently made only in US law don't help at all. Your abusiveness does you and your arguement no credit. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 09:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

* That's odd, Andy. Your initial question to me hinged on the erroneous idea that viewing online and downloading were the same thing. I have demonstrated, unequivocally, that there is a distinction between the two. Your refusal to acknowledge that sadly implies that you are not here to engage in an honest debate. There is a difference between viewing online and downloading images. My deepest apologies for not being able to find a UK specific article for you. But UK law is exactly why Pete Townshend was adamant in saying over and over in the press at the time that he had not downloaded. Yet he admitted to viewing. He admitted to viewing what was there out of outrage at the proliferation of child pornography on the internet and to inform his book on the subject. So, clearly, there was a distinction in his mind between downloading and viewing and I remember reading articles at the time that stated that UK law also made a distinction between viewing online and downloading at the time of Pete Townshend's offense. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you. And I have not been sarcastic. I continue to sincerely hope this helps. Have a nice day. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 07:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

:*As far as English law is concerned, "viewing online" and "downloading" might not be exactly the same things, but both acts amount to the commissioning of exactly the same offence, namely "making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child". Each is an example of the more specific "offence" of "causing an indecent photograph to exist". Please see [[R v Bowden (1999)]]. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

:*'''"Your refusal to acknowledge that sadly implies that you are not here to engage in an honest debate"''': .... it was said. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]]

::* Of course I've acknowledged that. So has Pete Townshend. So your point is lost on me. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 08:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:::*Obviously. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

===Disputed status of Landslide===

Folks, I'm not sure where to add this into the discussion, but you might want to know that a group in the UK has challenged the police characterization of the Landslide site as a child porn operation and have brought charges against some in the police force for manufacturing evidence and coercing confessions during the Operation Ore investigations. You might also want to review the difference in the US and UK approach to the investigations and the resulting number of successful prosecutions. For more info check at http://obu.2truth.com/ [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

===Whitewash===

This article is distinctly [[POV]] - it utterly whitewashes a major episode in Townshend's life. The removal of this material - completely sourced and thoroughly documented in the UK media - from Wikipedia is an example of why Wikipedia is utterly unreliable as a work of reference. The edit history of this article serves as complete documentation of the vulnerability of Wikipedia to partisan editors.

I '''would''' mark the article as POV, if it were not for the obvious fact that the material documenting Townshend's paedophile crimes has been removed as a result of the normal article editing process and reflects the "consensus". [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 07:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

* Looks accurate to me. I don't know what you're complaining about. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 11:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

:*Try reviewing its history.... [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 02:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles from the news media accusing Townshend are hardly reliable as sole sources. They should be balanced by Townshend's public statements on the subject and other articles attacking the reliablity of the Operation Ore investigations.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== picture? ==

this article had a picture that seems to have been taken down. someone should upload a new one.

[[User:Joeyramoney|Joeyramoney]] 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this article badly needs a picture. [[User:MrC539|MrC]] 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

==Discography question==

I notice that the article divides Townshend's recordings into just two categories. "Solo Discography" and "Compilations and EPs" Is this a satisfactory delineation?

Perhaps it should break down his record releases into the following categories:

Original albums<br />Singles & EPs<br />Compilation albums (all Townshend material)<br />Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations<br />

Any thoughts about this idea?

[[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] wrote:

"''Perhaps it should break down his record releases into the following categories:

Original albums<br />Singles & EPs<br />Compilation albums (all Townshend material)<br />Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations<br />''"

I agree that this area could be cleaned up somewhat. I would add an area (perhaps a sub-section under "Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations") for devotional recordings, under which would be listed Townshend's Meher Baba Association recordings, his work on Raphael Rudd's 1996 album "Awakenings", etc.

Other areas which need to be addressed are Townshend-produced recordings and films. Any ideas?

[[User:Dendennis|Dendennis]] 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're asking for information on where to find this information, the Internet Movie Database is a good reference for Mr. Townshend's films: http://www.imdb.com/ [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

== New Work ==

Pete Townshend recently published his novella "The Boy Who Heard Music" which he said was originally titled "Ray High and the Glass Household" online in blog format. http://boywhoheardmusic.blogspot.com/ See also: http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/projects/ He's started work on an audience participation musical project called The Method which is linked to the previous page. With The Who, he's planning to issue a mini-opera called "Glass Household" in June and follow up with a full new Who album. [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

== New Tour ==

Is it true there is a new tour and if so where are they going to tour --[[User:Aaronpark|Aaronpark]] 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

See Pete Townshend's official site for the tour schedule. They're expected to tour the UK an Europe in the summber, the US in the fall of 2006 and continue a world tour in 2007.

http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/projects/thewho/main/diary/display.cfm?id=306&zone=news[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

== so was pete a pedo or not? ==

yes or no?

No. If you'll read the article, you'll see that he has been involved with child abuse issues and charities since the sixties. Experts say pedophilia is nearly impossible to hide through an investigation and Mr. Townshend was cleared by the police probe. Anyone who was online during 1999 had to be aware of the growing problem of Internet child pornography, and it was clear at the time that Mr. Townshend was concerned, as he complained about it in both interviews and published articles. Whether the Landslide site was actually a child porn site or a credit card fraud site is now being fought in the courts.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And if it was a child porn site, he was only there to research for his book AGAINST child porn.--[[User:Alexrules43|Alexrules43]] 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

'''YES''' and '''NO''': According to the applicable legal definitions, Townshend is a "registered sex offender", and will cease to be one in 2009. Townshend was NOT cleared by the police investigation, he was given a police caution. This article used to include only the facts, now it whitewashes them. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 10:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong, Wiki-is-truth. "Pedophile" is a clinical and psychological term. Pete Townshend has not been diagnosed as a pedophile. So your saying "Yes" to that is libelous. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 03:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

:*Uhm... well, common public usage would have it that a person who commits a "sexual offence against a child" is a "pedophile". However, if you want to get technical, according to the DSM-IV definition of pedophilia, a person could only be classified as a "pedophile" if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning" (to himself!). Given this... Glitter was (apparently) committing pedophile acts (downloading child pornography) but was not distressed; Townshend was committing pedophile acts (accessing child pornography) and it caused him great distress. Using the technical definition, Townshend is the pedophile and Glitter is not. Don't think you will like that :-) [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

::You have just made it abundantly clear that you are willfully engaging in dishonest discourse. No one has diagnosed Pete Townshend as a pedophile. Gary Glitter has been. And your assertion that Gary Glitter wasn't ''distressed'' is ludicrous. You're wasting my time. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::*'''Dishonest discourse''': Dishonest, ''adjective'', characterized by lack of truth, honesty, or trustworthiness : '''unfair''', '''deceptive'''. Everything I have brought to this "discussion" is true and what I am insisting on is the barest presentation of the objectively verifiable facts with the least amount of "spin". While I am not claiming that Townshend is a kiddy-fiddler or even a pedophile, neither am I claiming that he is a child-saving hero-knight dressed all in gold and shining bright, valiantly battling the scourge of child pornography even though he doesn't need to since there are already many many laws against possession, distribution, showing, producing etc, and police and other NGOs worldwide devote huge amounts of energy to the same end. '''No one has diagnosed Pete Townshend as a pedophile''': common usage would have it that a person who commits a "sexual offence against a child" is a pedophile; Townshend has committed such an offence... we do not need a psychiatric diagnosis to give a word its common usage. '''Gary Glitter has been''' (diagnosed as a pedophile): sources please. '''And your assertion that Gary Glitter wasn't distressed is ludicrous''': in what way was Glitter distressed by his pedophilic offending (i.e. downloading and viewing child porn?) Sources please. '''You're wasting my time''': it appears, then, that you have rather more time than you need. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* And now you're trying to have it both ways, claiming that you're not calling Pete Townshend a pedophile on the one hand and doing exactly that on the other. Like I said, you are engaging in ''dishonest'' discourse. As for sources on Gary Glitter, try Wikipedia. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*I do not claim Townshend is a pedophile. In particular, I am talking about my edits to the article, where I simply remove a sping on the way in which the child porn episode is presented. I do not replace that spin with any claims that Townshend did anything or is anything. Whether or not the word pedophile can be used to describe Townshend is a smokescreen. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 12:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::*It's not a smokescreen, it's the entire crux of the issue. Calling Pete Townshend a pedophile is libelous. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 01:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::*In what way is it the crux of the issue? And anyway, I do not call Townshend a pedophile. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:''Mr. Townshend was cleared by the police probe.'' - Nope, He accepted a police caution, which means that both he and they accepted that he was '''guilty of the offence'''. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

:: And what offense is that? Accessing child pornography online. No one is refuting that. So what exactly do you think you're proving? The question is not whether he accessed that website or not, the question is what his motivations were. The question is whether or not he is a pedophile. So, out with it, Andy. Where do you stand on that issue? You think you know better than his wife of twenty years? Let's hear it. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 10:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Your questions are "straw men", and (in other recent comments) your tone is increasingly unacceptable. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::: Your non-answer is noted. I find your non-answer to be a cowardly response. I expected better. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*'''You think you know better than his wife of twenty years?''' Townshend's wife is a psychiatrist? Is it ethical for her to make diagnoses about her own husband? :o [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::*Ask the police, since one of the first things they do in the investigation of a pedophile suspect is ask the wife. You are ridiculous. It is so laughably obvious that you are on a vendetta when you post nonsense like the above. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::*I say that it is common usage to use the word pedophile to describe someone who has committed a pedophile crime, to which your response is that pedophilia is a psychiatric category; if only a clinical diagnosis can be accepted before the word "pedophile" is used, then the wife's opinion is irrelevant.

::::::*So what you are saying is that, when a man has been found to have abused his children over many years, the wife must have known that he was a pedophile? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::*The law does not require Townshend to be a pedophile before it can find him guilty of accessing a child pornography website; all that is required is proof or admission - and he admitted it. The concept of pedophilia is fairly vacuous at the best of times, but you reduce it to nothingness with your insistence that Townshend, while guilty of "pedophilic" activities, is not a pedophile; what would actually make him one? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::* Once again, we know Pete Townshend accessed that website. We know he's guilty of accessing a child porn website. He admitted it. The concept of pedophilia is not vacuous at all. It's very clearly defined. It's a condition in adults of being sexually aroused by children. Your ludicrous claim that the concept of pedophilia is somehow vacuous is just the latest example of you engaging in dishonest discourse. Until you have evidence that Pete Townshend is sexually aroused by child porn, rather than disgusted by it, you have no legitimate standing in claiming he is a pedophile. You're just wasting time with your misguided crusade. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

::::*Townshend accessed a child pornography website, thereby committing a sexual offence against a child. Does this make him a pedophile? You would have it that it does not on the ground that he is not a pedophile. So, since committing a sexual offence against a child is insufficient to be a pedophile, one must (presumably) self-describe as a pedophile before one can be said to be one. As for vacuity, the technical definition of a pedophile is interesting: A) Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger); B) the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning; C) the person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. The 2000 definition further requires that the person '''acted''' on his sexual feelings or they cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. Townshend '''acted''' by accessing a child porn website. Since we do not know his motivation for doing so (you take it on faith that the motivation was research), we are unable to declare that he is a pedophile... despite the fact that he committed a pedophile crime. How more vacuous can the definition be? What it - and your argument - boils down to is that a pedophile is a pedophile not because they commit pedophile acts, but because they are pedophiles. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 13:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::* More nonsense. No, it does not make Townshend a pedophile. It makes him a law breaker. Responding to child porn with disgust is not pedophile behavior. Responding to it with lust is. A pedophile can be self-confessed or diagnosed by a professional. Neither of those scenarios apply to Pete Townshend, so drop your '''libelous''' crusade. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 01:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::*Did I say Townshend is a pedophile? No, I said the concept is vacuous. Townshend found child porn by accident. If he had reported this to the IWF then, and then campaigned publicly and used every opportunity (interviews etc) to make make sure that the availability of child porn on the internet, then you might have a point. What actually happened is that the man then "looked at" child porn sites on "three or four" occasions in 1999 and then paid to access its content. The man had (allegedly) taken legal advice after accidentally finding images and yet he '''paid for access''' subsequent to the accidental find. This sounds less and less like "responding with disgust"...

::::::*Committing a pedophile offence makes Townshend a law-breaker. True. Since the problem addressed by the law is the harm caused by pedophile offences and not the psychiatric state of an individual, why should it matter whether or not Townshend can be classed as a "pedophile" and, moreover, why is the diagnosis more important than the crime? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::*'''A pedophile can be self-confessed or diagnosed by a professional''': you say whether or not Townshend is a pedophile is the crux of the matter... is this because pedophile crimes are only of concern when they are committed by pedophiles? [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 03:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[Outdent: General point] Whether or not Townshend is a paedophile is irrelevant, since this article does not assert that he is. He is, though, a person who admitted an offence relating to child pornography, and who was thus placed on the Register of Sex Offenders. It is right and proper to report this as part of his biography. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 11:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Read Townshend's public statements carefully. He admits to accessing the Landslide site, but says he didn't see any child porn there. The statment taken as a "confession" is carefully worded and only admits accessing the site; it does NOT admit to paying to view child porn. The Times has reported that independent reconstruction shows Landslide was only an ordinary adult porn site.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Biography a muddled mess ==

The biography should be broken up into sections like you see for most every other person on Wikipedia. i.e., the child pornography incident should have its own section along with many other parts within that giant load of text.

---The above comment unsigned - was by user 67.190.61.6 ---- (please remember to sign comments)

Thank you for posting an opinion on this. There are no hard and fast rules for how to structure a biographical article. Some are better with multiple sections - others not. This article has been through many incarnations and I think the present article (which has been in this shape for a while now) works fairly well. It follows a good chronological arc rather than having multiple sections in the main body. Then has sections appropriate to his life underneath the overview. There is a proportionality to the so-called child pornography incident. Had he been charged in a court of law and convicted then that would obviously have warranted a separate section. The police's eventual acknowledgment that he had not downloaded any images and their consequent decision to not press charges - obviously placed the matter in a different light. The issue was discussed on these pages extensively - and unanimous agreement was reached that the article should deal with the incident within the body of the overall chronology of his life. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Pete is one of my favorite artists, displaying perhaps musical genius with The Who and in his solo work. I must ask, however, if a statement from the biography section of this article isn't a bit vague and arguably not really accurate. From the top 3rd of the biography section, a sentence credits Pete with "...the introduction of the synthesizer as a rock instrument." The article on The Who says of the 1971 album "Who's Next" that it "became one of the first successful rock albums to heavily feature the synthesizer." What is not mentioned however, in the Pete article or The Who article, is that progressive rock had just come into its own around this time. Keith Emerson of the supergroup Emerson, Lake & Palmer (ELP) was breaking new ground with his use of the synthesizer and keyboard as the feature instrument in rock music. ELP's first album, self titled, included the hit "Lucky Man", featuring Keith's work on synthesizer. The statement that credits Pete (and The Who in their own article) with introducing the synthesizer to popular rock immediately made me stop and wonder how this claim could be considered an accurate and generally acknowledged truth among fans of rock of that era. The sentence that relates this is so matter-of-fact that it doesn't even offer room for the reader to consider the subjectivity or veracity of it. As such I would recommend that this statement be elaborated upon, and an explanation of its acceptance cited. For readers who would not agree with this statement, the current presentation may detract from the credibility of the rest of the article.[[User:Psripley|peterr]] 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

:A better wording would be "the introduction of the synthesizer as a rhythm instrument." ELP weren't the introduction of the synthesizer to popular music, either. The Monkees claim that one. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Incorrect Info ==

There is some incorrect information in the article...

''From this beginning they moved on to The Detours, a [[skiffle]] band fronted by then sheet-metal welder [[Roger Daltrey]] and with [[Keith Moon]] on drums, which, under Townshend's leadership, would metamorphose into The Who.

The Detours were a band lead by Roger Daltrey. Daltrey asked John Entwistle to join, Entwistle managed to get Townshend to be the rhythm guiatarist (after their original rhythm guiatrist drowned---I think). The Detours renamed themselves The Who in early 1964, after Daltrey switched from lead guiatrist to lead vocalist/harmonica player (when their lead vocalist quit). This switch left Townshend to became the band's only guitarist. Keith Moon was never a member of the Detours. By the time he joined (after the departure of drummer Doug Sandom) the band was called The Who. They were briefly renamed The High Numbers, but within a few months had reverted back to calling themselves The Who.

To put this in simpler, less confusing terms Doug Sandom was the drummer for The Detours (and briefly the early Who), Keith Moon was only a member of The Who (AKA High Numbers, briefly).--[[User:Bappzannigan|Bappzannigan]] 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

==The Child Pornography Incident Edit War==

That was getting way out of hand. I have chopped this section down massively. It's now relatively concise and non-POV. Leave it at that. [[User:Clashwho|Clashwho]] 07:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:Let's not - the PoV as you left it was yours. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 11:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::A concise description of the incident would read "''In 1999 Townshend paid to access a child porn website and he was [[police caution|cautioned]] for this as an [[Operation Ore]] suspect in 2003.''". [[User:81.179.116.2|81.179.116.2]] 12:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::This might be consise, but I think it should be qualified. Because of the reconstruction of the Landslide site and ongoing legal efforts to establish the truth of the accusations brought by Operation Ore, the statement "paid to access a child porn site" is in question. If the site was an ordinary adult porn site as is now reported, then the whole thing is a mistaken accusation.

:::BTW, I've reported on this reconstruction, these article and the legal challenge to Operation Ore before without seeing any acknowledgement of them. Are you guys purposely ignoring the issue?[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 17:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::If we focus on the known, reported FACTS as distinct from opinion or interpretation of English law.... And if we place this incident in a proportion that is appropriate for a biographical article in an encyclopedia - we arrive at this:

:::::'''In 2003, Townshend came under suspicion of downloading child pornography from a solitary access to a website in 1999. Police confiscated all 14 of his computers and investigated for 4 months but found no evidence to support the allegation and decided not to charge him with any crime. However, because Townshend publicly volunteered having accessed a website that placed him in breach of the law - he was issued and accepted a [[police caution|caution]].'''

::::This reports that he was under suspicion. And does not sugar coat what the suspicion was about. It reports that the police investigated the matter for which he was under suspicion. That the police did not find any evidence to support the charge. (A fact declared in the official police statement concluding the entire matter.) And that they elected to not charge him, That Townshend made a public acknowledgment (in the statement issued by his solicitor) that he had accessed a website that it was wrong for him to access. And that as a consequence of that admission - he accepted a police caution. Those are all undisputed facts. Not opinion, interpretation or conjecture.

::::[[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 17:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:::::This describes the sequence of events without establishing proof of the accuracy of the charge; thus you can't say it's a fact Townshend accessed a child porn site. I agree that it's a fact the police caution was issued, but Townshend's statements on the child porn issue are open to interpretation. Read these carefully and omit the media commentary. Townshend admits paying to enter the Landslide site, but does not admit to viewing or accessing child porn there. The police caution is based on the premise that there was child porn on the site, that it was easily accessed and that all visitors to the site viewed it. As resported in The Times and elsewhere, independent reconstruction of the site indicates it was only an ordinary adult porn site. This calls the legality of the police caution into question. Although I haven't heard that Townshend is pursuing this in court, others accused and prosecuted under Operation Ore are doing so in an attempt to establish their innocence and restore something of their reputations. The site reconstruction is a definite blow to the police case. If anyone wins in court against the police, then the whole thing will fall apart.[[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] 18:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::Valid point re knowing exactly what he accessed. But the text doesn't say what he DID access. It simply reports that he came under suspicion of having downloaded something relating to "A" website. (without delineating the type of website - for which there is no clear evidence.) We have no knowledge of whether he is challenging the unerlying issue - and cannot allow that to affect the reporting of what DID happen in 2003. That would be added as and when... This wording reports that there was initial suspicion - and the fact that the police found no evidence etc. And the fact that he was offered and accepted a caution for what Townshend acknowledged (in your view perhaps erroneously) what was a breach of the law. If it subsequently transpires that no law was broken, that the caution was improperly offered and needlessly accepted - then that info would be be added later. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 18:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

::::::''you can't say it's a fact Townshend accessed a child porn site.'' Why not? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2648987.stm He did]! [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 18:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Because his statement did not specify a "child porn site" but "a site advertising child porn."

ie it could have been - as Pkeets has indicated - an ADULT porn site which was ADVERTISING child porn - but transpired not to actually be a "child porn" site.

As Pkeets wrote:

''As resported in The Times and elsewhere, independent reconstruction of the site indicates it was only an ordinary adult porn site.

''

I don't know. Neither do you. So neither of us can - or should speculate. We can write something based on what Townshend said which was:

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

No reference to paying. No reference to it being a "child porn site" per se.

But there is a reference to "a site advertising child porn" So let's revise

* Resolve the issue of [[Casino Royale (1967 film)|Casino Royale (1967)]] being considered an unofficial Bond film by adding applicable sources to this and related articles, preferably books or media coverage.

:::::'''In 2003, Townshend came under suspicion of downloading images from a solitary access to a website advertising child porn in 1999. Police confiscated all 14 of his computers and investigated for 4 months but found no evidence to support the allegation and decided not to charge him with any crime. However, because Townshend publicly volunteered having accessed a website that placed him in breach of the law - he was issued and accepted a [[police caution|caution]].''' <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] ([[User talk:Davidpatrick|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Davidpatrick|contribs]]){{#if:18 February 2007|&#32;19:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

|}

{{col-end}}

<br clear=all>

== Categories ==

::''his statement did not specify a "child porn site"'' He has also said "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me." [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,6903,1115806,00.html]. Accessing a site which ''advertises'', but does not contain, child-abuse images is not illegal. Pkeets has yet to provide any evidence that the site referred to by the Times is the one which Townshend admitted accessing. Your suggested wording omits the fact that the police chose not to release him; the fact that acceptance of a caution is an admission of guilt; the fact that his multiple reports to the IWF post-date the case and the fact that he is on the register of sex offenders. Those are all undisputed facts. Not opinion, interpretation or conjecture. Yet you have recently reverted sourced additions of these facts as "completely out of hand". Also, how does one "use" a credit card to access a site, without paying? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 19:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

* [[:Category:Films]]

<categorytree>James Bond</categorytree>

==Films==

<center>{{tl|Bond movies}}</center>

{{Bond movies}}

"The police chose not to release him" ??? What are you talking about? The fact that the police chose not to CHARGE him.

==Characters==

It is also an undisputed fact that Townshend spoke to the press in January on a Saturday morning. That he wore a dressing gown. That the police station was in Surrey. There are lots of undisputed facts. Encyclopedias have to determine what is essential to include. This is an article about a person - not the detailed blow-by-blow anatomy of a case. Not every detail is included about every incident in every person's life. The salient facts are included in my revision. You may be baffled and/or irritated - as some people are - that the police did not charge him. But wikipedia is not the place to attempt to tar the reputation of a person who the police DECLINED to charge. A caution is not nothing. It's not the same as nothing having happnened. But neither is it the same as someone being charged with a criminal offence. It necessitated a considered decision by the police NOT to charge him. Neither you nor I can know definitively WHY the police did not charge him. (Though the police statement that there was no evidence of images provides a good idea.) Ultimately this incident - which did not result in charges or conviction - cannot and will not be overstated in wikipedia out of proportion to its significance. There are other avenues to pursue your displeasure with Mr. Townshend. You do not have free rein over wikipedia to impose your POV about this small incident. [[User:Davidpatrick|Davidpatrick]] 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

<center>{{tl|James Bond characters}}</center>

{{James Bond characters}}

:*Wow. I must admit, I am seriously impressed by such a brazen attempt to use Wikipeida's rules and policies to spin a story... Wikipedia is not a soap box, nor is it a suitable tool for carrying our a campaign - its own policies are supposed to protect it from such abuse, but of course they do not.

:*'''Because of the reconstruction of the Landslide site and ongoing legal efforts to establish the truth of the accusations brought by Operation Ore, the statement "paid to access a child porn site" is in question''': the normal procedure for establishing the truth of an accusation is a criminal trial. Townshend admitted guilt and chose not to take this path. Wikipedia is not a soap box nor a campaigning tool.

:*'''If we focus on the known, reported FACTS''': then Townshend paid to access a child porn website in 1999, was arrested in Jan 2003 as part of Operation Ore and was cautioned in May 2003. This is not "opinion" nor is it "interpretation of English law".

:*'''Police confiscated all 14 of his computers''': source please

:*'''found no evidence to support the allegation''': but elected to caution him anyway. If there was NO EVIDENCE then the caution was unlawful. Contact Townshend's lawyers if you must and get them to petition the police to remove the caution, but do not use Wikipedia to effect a campaign.

:*'''and decided not to charge him with any crime''': they cautioned him. Before the police can issue a caution they must be happy that criminal charges could be brought with a good chance of securing a conviction. Please read the information on police cautions, get someone to explain it to you if necessary.

:*'''However, because Townshend publicly volunteered having accessed a website that placed him in breach of the law - he was issued and accepted a caution''': citation please. The police cautioned him because he '''broke the law''': plain and simple. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 20:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

==Books==

===Townsend accessed a site containing child pornography===

<center>{{tl|Bond books}}</center>

Reliably sourced news stories stating that Townshend accessed a child porn website:

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2648987.stm 12 January 2003], BBC, I'm no paedophile, says Who star: '' Rock legend Pete Townshend has admitted paying to view a child pornography site on the internet but said he did so "just to see what was there"''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2650519.stm 12 January 2003], BBC, Townshend 'wrong' over child porn: '' Mr Townshend admitted he had paid to see a child porn website, but insisted he had done so for research and was emphatically not a paedophile''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2651871.stm 14 January 2003], BBC, Who star Townshend bailed: ''Rock star Pete Townshend has been released on bail by police after he admitted accessing child pornography websites''.

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2727153.stm 5 February 2003], BBC, Online child porn arrests total 1,600: Townshend ''says as an anti-paedophile campaigner he was accessing the sites purely for research.''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3008101.stm 7 May 2003], BBC, Caution lifts clouds over Townshend: ''Admitting to accessing a child porn website for research has left a black mark on the glittering career of a surviving rock legend''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3057923.stm 11 July 2003], BBC, Townshend speaks of 'tough' year: ''Rock artist Pete Townshend has said his police caution for viewing child pornography did "great good" in showing he was not above the law''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3352099.stm 28 December 2003], BBC, Who star 'suicidal' after arrest: ''Rock star Pete Townshend has said he contemplated suicide after confessing to viewing child pornography''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3514950.stm 16 March 2004], BBC, Child porn crackdown nets results: Townshend ''was arrested in January 2003, cautioned and had his name put on the sex offenders' register after he admitted accessing child porn''

*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3625603.stm 4 April 2004], BBC, UK probe into online child porn: Pete Townshend ''was arrested in January 2003, cautioned and had his name put on the sex offenders' register after he admitted accessing child porn''

{{Bond books}}

And, in conclusion and as proof that Townshend himself admits paying $5 to access a child pornography website, from an [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,1113014,00.html interview with Townshend] by Sean O'Hagan in the [[The Observer ]] on Sunday December 28, 2003, in '''Townshend's OWN words''', not from the journalists observations and paraphrases:

:'''Townshend''' (on viewing a newsgroup): "''Then I saw sight of this thing - now I'm reconstructing this a bit, I have to confess, because I just vaguely remember this - but I saw sight of this thing that said, "Avoid this site - it's an FBI sting." I remember the name Alberta or the name Landslide. That was in May 1999.''"

:'''O'Hagan''': You actually saw this warning on one of the listings, I say, and yet you took out your credit card and accessed the site?

:'''Townshend''': "''Yeah. I was really, really curious, and I think that's the mistake I made. 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. I told them, "Well, actually, I don't remember." This is one of the problems - I don't really remember it very well, because I did a lot of searches. I was just meandering around generally. I'd done a fair bit of that, but this was exciting to me - the FBI was running a sting. This is maybe where the naivety set in. I can't remember my state of mind but, looking back, it was stupid and it was wrong. I think I made a terrible mistake.''"

And... it's interesting. He specifically states that the site to which he subscribed, in full expectation that it was a sting being run by the FBI and therefore likely to contain child porn, '''did not advertise child pornography'''. Another discrepancy in Townshend's story. But proof that Townshend accessed a child porn site. [[User:Wiki-is-truth|Wiki-is-truth]] 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

==PageUser protectedTemplates==

{{main|Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond/User Templates}}

Due to the obvious edit war going on here I am locking this page down temporarily. Let us look for consensus before making any further edits to this obviously controversial section. Although the tag says February 20, I will extend the protection beyond that date if needs be. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 15:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

:I'd be interested to know how you think that consensus might be possible, while a couple of PoV warriors insist on removing cited, factual references, and one even removes text which supports his PoV, and which he's previously supported, once it's been tagged <nowiki>{[fact}}</nowiki>. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

== Parent projects ==

I don't know if there's a simple answer, but the fact is this edit warring is not helpful to the article, is probably in violation of some aspect or other of [[WP:BLP]] and all it's doing is getting people pissed off. Back in late 2005 another admin did this same thing (probably over the same issue) in order to give people a cooling off period. And that's what I'm doing now. [[User:23skidoo|23skidoo]] 20:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film]]

* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels]]

|}

[[Category:WikiProject James Bond]]