Talk:Tom O'Carroll

message: "In 1981 he was imprisoned due to his published views on pedophilia"
What? That sounds terrible. Is it possible, in the UK, to imprison people for their views? Clayboy 14:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Basically, No. He was imprisoned for "conspiracy to corrupt public morals" (whether or not this is the same thing....) lmno 15:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/display.var.779431.0.police_charge_man_over_child_sex_ring.php uh, what? JayW 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added material from that source to the article. Thanks for finding it. -Will Beback 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pasted a link to his book. Already listed under 'pedophile activism', but would be stupid to leave out. --Jim Burton 04:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old posts

message: Why is it not possible to include this? It is true that the link is a personal website, but the edit was carefully worded so as not to endorse O'Carroll's account. We are only pointing out that O'Carroll has made these claims and that they can be found on this website, the website of a distinguished academic.Researcher1000 (talk) 12:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We need reliable thrid party sources, we are not interested in O'Carroll's take on things unless published in reliable third party sources, a blog simply wont do♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Researcher1000 is correct.  From WP:Verifiability: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities" (see WP:SELFPUB).  Giving O'Carroll's account (clearly labelling it as such) is perfectly fine (again, emphasizing that his take is his take, not that of a court or other legit body.)— James Cantor (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

text: James, are you seriously defending the inclusionj of a blog? We dont even have any guarantees it isnt soemone masquierading as him, you or I or anyone could easily do so, which is why of course wordpress blogs are not considered reliable sources by wikipedia; if O'Carroll published in a reliable source we could review this of course but if the website were to advocate pedophilia in any part of it it would be likely to fall foul of arbcom rulings on the subject of pro-pedophile activism links and pro-pedophila activism generally on wikipedia. Having had a look at the blog it does seem to me to be advocating pedophilia, which would be a second reason to reject the link, though that isnt required as a wordpress blog is simply not reliable♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But what this overlooks is that the website belongs to Professor Percy (you don't question that, do you?) and he obviously thinks it really is Tom O'Carroll. And again, you are still being much too free with this term 'advocating pedophilia'. I'm sure it wasn't the intention of Arbcom to ban all links to sites that suggest that under certain circumstances--which may not be realised in this society--pedophilia might be morally acceptable. That would be censorship, wouldn't it?Researcher1000 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am defending only the WP policy, which permits blogs in situations exactly like this, as noted in the policy statement I already pasted here.  You are free to want the standard to be higher, but that is a discussion for that policy page, not here.— James Cantor (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Carroll's own take on events leading to his conviction in 2006. 

message: Thisa rticle is not neutral acc our WP:NPOV policy, I have done some work but it needs a lot more. Somebody seems to have gone out of their way to make this a peacock piece in praise of O'Connell♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing the neutrality tag and my attem,pts atb neutrality looks like trolling, James Cantor, why did you do it, you didnt even bother to discuss♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To repeat, I reverted the entire set of edits; it was not my goal to remove the tag, and I have no issue with the tag being rescued from the block revert.  Squeak's presumptions about the state of my mind are his own, and there is little I can add that would not be already apparent from anyone reading this or the related talk pages.— James Cantor (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: James Cantor recently made what seems to be a well-intentioned edit to this article (see here). Unfortunately, the edit restored a violation of WP:BLP, specifically, the unsourced statement that someone suggested Carroll be placed in a mental hospital. I'd encourage Cantor and others to not restore that material. Note that removal of BLP violations does not require prior discussion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, FreeKnowledgeCreator is correct.  I have no trouble reinstating the correction to that BLP violation (and I note it's already been corrected on the main page).  Thanks for catching that.— James Cantor (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing a neutrality tag weithout discussion is not a good faith edit, this was James edit warring with someone he holds a personal grudge against from another article not a good faith edit at all and so no suprise that he re-inserted a BLP vio♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutrality tags are, in my view, appropriate only when more than one editor is disputing an article's neutrality. I'm not sure that this is the case here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP 

message: It looks to me that James cantor reverted me wholesale because he couldnt be bothered to edit in more detail, though perhaps I am wrong, still the removal of the NPOV tag without discussion makes me have to work at assuming good faith but lets discuss some of the changes anyway. I sectioned the article, why James thinks the article with no sections looks better is baffling given he is an experienced wikipedian who knows sectioning is totally normal and to revert sectioning without discussion is not good faith behaviour in a normal article, its clearly long enough to require sections. If James disagrees with the way I sectioned why didnt he do his own sectioning, or was reverting the "easy option"? I also separated out the child porn convictions from the so-called activism, why was this reverted? It seems to me perfectly logical to do this and I look forward to hearing the arguemnts as to why these two areas should be mixed together in a disorganized way. I also have concerns about the ref'd praising of this character which violates our NPOV policy, the fact that james reverted my attempts at neutrality while removing the tag is like having your cake and eating it. Why are you so right James to be able to do this; I again I look forward to hearing why this praise is necessary and why it isnt an NPOV vio♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no issue re-sectioning the page nor (as I've said) returning the tag to the page.  Do please continue listing individually whichever other changes you believe should be made/reinstated.— James Cantor (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in that case why are you reverting? Your actions defy your words here, you can easily section if you could be bothered, not saying I wouldnt still revrt making the article less POV than ever but it would be a start. And the disorganising of the two themes so they arent spearated out for the benefit of the reader. What is your objection to this? Its you who is objecting to the changes and you need to explain why. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

text: Its comments like "gave high praise", "“The book,” he wrote, “is fascinating, challenging and discomfiting. Anyone wanting to understand Michael Jackson will need to read it" and "argues “persuasively” that Jackson was “almost certainly pedophilic”" whi9ch are not neutral and the last is a slur on Michael Jackson. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is little I can say beyond what would immediately apparent to anyone reading the edit history of the page: Between 1 Jan 2013 and 1 Nov 2013, there were exactly 9 edits to the page, all very minor.  That is, I think we can call that a stable page (even if a low quality one). Squeakbox then made 21 edits over three days in November, after which I made my very first edit to this page ever (reverting Squeak's changes and indicating BRD on the talk page).  That is, to any outside reader, it is clear where in the BRD cycle we are; it is up to Squeak to justify the changes to the otherwise stable page.  Squeak has misapplied several editing guidelines already.  So, I can only repeat what I've already said several times: List the changes you'd like to make (I recommend numbering them), we can likely agree on several very quickly, and we can discuss the others.— James Cantor (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: My changes

message: Some of us believe that WP:CHILDPROTECT applies here, and others that it does not.  I don't believe there is much point to the continued reverts, but the underlying issue is worth examining.  Although it is my view that WP:CHILDPROTECT does not apply here (advocating adult-child sex is distinct from writing BLPs about notable/infamous individuals who are such advocates), I cannot say I am very much invested.  It is not clear to me, however, whether such a discussion of WP:CHILDPROTECT is most appropriate here and/or at some other forum.— James Cantor (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP's comments appeared to condone pedophila. As such, they violated WP:CHILDPROTECT and had to be removed. This is an absolutely unambiguous and straightforward issue: no form of advocacy of pedophilia, whether in the form of talk page comments or in the form of edits to articles, is tolerated on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  We very clearly have differing opinions over the applicability of [[WP:CHILDPROTECT]]. 

message: In accordance with Wikipedia's new policy, I have added a 'citation needed' tag to the section about O'Carroll's most recent conviction, as the source was the Daily Mail. I don't know if there's an alternative source.TruthSerum (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears not to be, although O'Carroll's blog confirms most of the details. I have been through the reasons not to cite his website with another anonymous user above. Philip Cross (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

text: If an alternative source cannot be found, what happens then? TruthSerum (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Oh, don't worry. If an alternative acceptable source remains absent, it will have to be removed eventually. Still plenty of inevitably 'unsupportive' evidence in the article and no reason to think O'Caroll's fringe theories should have a greater outlet here. Philip Cross (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed citation of ''Daily Mail'' 

message: For some reason - and a I note there are signs of significant ownership efforts on this page - O'Carroll's criminal convictions are downplayed. This hasn't only been true in the lede - but also in suggestions that he was "temporarily" found guilty by a court, a very strange concept.  Courts make findings.  If they are overturned on appeal, then so be it. But they are not temporary verdicts or sentences. I also note that somebody has sought to play down the evidence against O'Carroll, by pointing out that there were allegedly only three photographs that were subject of charges and it was said that they might have been totally innocent if taken by a parent. That is utterly irrelevant material, evidently inserted in an effort to assist O'Carroll's image. I think other editors, and possibly the public, coming upon this page would be concerned to see efforts to soft soap someone with convictions such as O'Carroll's. Bluehotel (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "...it was said that they might have been totally innocent if taken by a parent."
This was a point apparently made in the ruling, presumably to explain why the appeal was successful, so I don't think we can regard them as irrelevant.TruthSerum (talk) 11:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of article 

message: Currently, the lead states that O'Carroll was "imprisoned for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the distribution of child pornography, and with multiple convictions for sexual crimes against children."Paedophile rights campaigner jailed for child porn distribution", breakingnews.ie, 20 December 2006.
The phrase "sexual crimes against children" was initially  in front of existing references by User:Bluehotel in February 2017, as "offences against children". Early/mid 2021, this was  to "sexual offences against children", then  to "sexual crimes with children", finally  to "sexual crimes against children". In other words, the current phrase related to child abuse has been modified multiple times, and was initially added in front of existing references. Additionally, the phrase "sexual crimes against children" is vague. Also, its wording is confusing enough that it prevents readers from questioning the reliability or factuality. Particularly because the phrase is part of an enumeration that already includes "distribution of child pornography", which infers the child abuse must have been rape. However, looking through the sources used as references, I fear the article may be imparting wrong or biased information, and that - at the very least - it is too easy to misinterpret the phrase. If he's not a serial rapist (it says "multiple convictions" for rape), isn't the phrase libellous, and shouldn't it be removed immediately? --77.162.8.57 (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in your request requires an administrator, and a general  request would have been fine. However, I  have checked what you say, and it is substantially correct, apart from the fact that "sexual crimes" doesn't necessarily mean rape. I have removed the content which is not supported by the sources cited in references. JBW (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vagueness