Talk:Pete Townshend

message: Why does it still need to be protected? Sumbuddi (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the Superbowl thing is still ongoing, correct? and that's not countered by any need to rush to unprotect the page, as far as i know.  anyway it would be good to see the results of this good hard work last more than a couple of hours Sssoul (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware there ever was a 'Superbowl thing', given that this article was protected during the media coverage of that (seems to be the period December 29th-January 4th), which seems pretty much dead now, and given that it was protected then, we don't know if it was an issue then anyway. It's protected for a content dispute that's now resolved, at least according to the template Sumbuddi (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the template text is designed to suit various situations; my understanding is that in this case it's the "until February 10th" part that's specifically relevant. the protection was extended following a request related to the Superbowl "campaign", and the February 10th end date was specifically chosen because it's after the Superbowl – here's a diff to refresh your memory: .  is there some reason to rush to unprotect the article? i hope it'll remain at least semi-protected, and that the page can stay stable for a while. Sssoul (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict) I originally unprotected the page as the dispute appears to have been resolved for the moment. Per the protection policy, particularly WP:NO-PREEMPT, full protection is against the spirit of Wikipedia and pages should not be left on full protection for long periods due to pre-emptive concern of future vandalism or edit warring. The reason I originally fully protected the page, edit warring over the Operation Ore investigation section, now no longer applies as the dispute has been resolved above. I will be watching the page; if edit warring resumes full protection can easily be re-instated and the version pre-dating the edit war (probably the consensus version above) reverted to per WP:PREFER. Given reasonable concerns over the Superbowl issue, and the WP:BLP status of this page, I will in the spirit of compromise leave it on semi-protection until the February 10th expiry. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for the clarity, Camaron, and for the semi-protection, and for keeping an eye on the page. Sssoul (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Are more than enough on this article and need to be cleaned up. --Scieberking (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed all but his official websites and the standard allmusic/imdb stuff. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: i think some of the ones eliminated are potentially more appropriate/worthwhile than "the standard allmusic/imdb stuff".  could you undo your own edit, please, so that we can discuss on the talk page first which ones should be kept? thanks Sssoul (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to re-add those "worthwhile" links, but in a limited number. --Scieberking (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: "Townshend is the primary songwriter for the Who, having written well over one hundred songs for the band's eleven studio albums, including concept albums, and the rock operas Tommy and Quadrophenia and popular rock radio staples including Who's Next, plus dozens more that appeared as non-album singles, bonus tracks on reissues, and tracks on rarities compilations such as Odds and Sods. He has also written over one hundred songs that have appeared on his solo albums and various compilations of rarities."
Why not just say: "he wrote over a hundred songs as a member of The Who and over a hundred songs as a solo artist as well."
Doesn't it go without saying that the songs would be released in various formats and on different albums?
65.30.180.228 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Verbose Introduction?

message: This article makes a caution look like nothing, but it is the U.S. equivalent of a guilty plea with adjudication withheld. It requires a DNA sample, regular check-ins with the police and notification to the police when leaving home. It also has a condition that if the subject steps out of line again they go to court on a charge. 
[Content removed due to concerns it may violate the biographies of living persons policy.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.187.82 (talk) e 17:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There has just been a very lengthy debate over this issue, check the latest archives. I suggest you read  and come back when you've done so - if you've got anything to add to that. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I have removed some content in this section due to concerns that it may violate WP:BLP#Non-article space. While discussion on the subject is allowed please avoid making comments on Wikipedia about the subject that could be potentially libellous. Please do not restore the removed content without contacting me first. Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 10:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough coverage of guilty plea 

message: First, Townshend was emotionally rocked by the news of the death of Keith Moon. It affected him tremendously- feelings of guilt, remorse, failure, and a schizm between his family, who he felt he was failing, and his bandmates (Moon quite strongly); and that of Kit Lambert, who also died during the same period of time after Townshend relieved him of his position as co-Manager, along with Chris Stamp. I see no real mention of this, although he not only wrote of it in his book, Horse's Neck, but here is a great example of it, while he reads from it on You Tube: . I strongly feel you should listen to this, he is reading and describing first, Moon, and then Lambert, both of whose deaths propelled him to addiction. The death of Moon and Lambert are not included in the article, who had affected Townshend so profoundly, in his writing, as a lyricist, performer, and author-- Missing entirely from this article.
Second, no mention of his reaction and shock during John Entwistle's death. John had encouraged and nurtured Pete's ability to learn to play instruments and to write songs. Later, after Moon died, Entwistle continued to live beyond his means, and between the time the remaining bandmates lost Moon until 2001, they toured for only two reasons: either for charity performances, or because John was nearly bankrupt, and so they'd do a world tour, and hand him millions of dollars, only to see it gone within short time- but it had been John to propel Pete into music to begin with and he felt it a responsibility. This must be expressed in the article. It is well documented in the DVD Amazing Journey. At last, they find joy in the 9/11 performance, only to lose John at the eve of their world tour.
Last, there should be some chronological flow in this article. And the section "Religion" should be re-named "Spirituality", and placed much earlier in the article as it affected Pete as early as 1967!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you like to draft some changes for us to look at? Because of past edit wars over this article, it's open to changes through consensus only right now. Add what you want to and post it here for users to comment on. If everyone seems in agreement, then we can put it in. Pkeets (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major issues with the article 

message: I doubt the guy who made that inclusion really knows the actual definition of these two terms. Scieberking (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be me. I do know them intimately. Townshend worked on many projects with others, including David Gilmour, Mick Jagger, and other luminaries --some, with songwriting credits as with the above, and others, as with Ian MacLagen and others without much fanfare or WP editor's notice. He is a multi-instrumentalist- just glance at the various instruments upon which he was proficient, having begun his career in music playing Dixieland jazz on the banjo, picking up the guitar, and bass guitar from John Entwistle, moving on to keyboard instruments, etc. All without lessons of any formal kind.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gilmour also collaborated/ worked with Clapton, Roy Harper, Townshend, McCartney, Ringo and others. He can play a wide range of instruments including Guitar, bass, sax, keyboards, harmonica, drums, synthesizer and banjo. Jagger worked with Bowie and several others. The instruments he played include harmonica, guitar (both acoustic and electric), bass guitar, keyboards, tambourine, conga, and some other percussion. That doesn't make them "multi-instrumentalists" and "session musicians". Even Moonie played bugle, trumpet, tuba, conga and tambourine very well. The Ox could be a real multi-instrumentalist musician because he was a master of bass (one of the greatest ever), horn (i'd say a virtuoso hornist), harp, and to some extent, trumpet. Highly proficient! There's a difference between working as a "collaborator" and "session musician". Regards, Scieberking (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Session musician]]" and "[[Multi-instrumentalist]]"..... 

message: *Pete's section on the Who Tube Please use. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Enjoyed your link very much. That little dude is soooo cute- looking to the skies... and yeah, he looked like a revolutionary right from his babyhood, LOL :) Scieberking (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other references for use 

message: The development section claims that Pete Townshed was a 'bad guitarist' and 'overrated' in London. This should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.251.20.193 (talk) 05:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually a direct quote from Blackmore intended to entail Townshend's influence on the development of guitar feedback, and was added by ClashWho. BTW, Townshend himself has admitted several times in interviews that he ain't that good of a lead guitarist and doesn't belong in the same league as Clapton, Beck and Page, so that's exactly Blackmore's point. Hope that helps. Scieberking (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Development Section 

message: "At a concert in Germany, a police officer walked up to him, pointed his gun at him, and ordered Townshend to stop smashing the guitar."
According to an interview in Melody Maker (19/4/1969), the incident happened in New York. Unless it was a separate incident. The article says that the gun was actually fired about an inch from his head.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.126.233 (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threatened with a gun 

message: According to the website of AOL which I looked at tonight (March 24 2011), Townshend now regrets being in The Who, and wishes that he had played guitar solo, similar to Brian Eno. Does any one know anything about this? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ho-hum. Just another random thought from Townshend published in an interview. It's not newsworthy. Pkeets (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Regrets about being in The Who

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Petetownshend.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: My edit explaining the nature of Townshend's 2003 arrest was reverted, with a reference to a consensus reached two years ago regarding a completely different part of the article. I don't feel it's acceptable to leave the article as-is because the sentence "On 25 October 2006, Townshend declined at the last minute to do a scheduled interview with Sirius Satellite Radio star Howard Stern after Stern's co-host Robin Quivers and sidekick Artie Lange made joking references to his 2003 arrest" leaves the user wondering what he was arrested for and why he would care enough to walk out. The addition of the phrase "for purchasing access to child pornography" complies with WP:BLP and is consistent with the arrest record, the reference cited, Pete Townshend's personal statements about what he did, and said two-year old "consensus" regarding the contents of the "Operation Ore investigation and police caution" section (which is NOT the "Interviews" section). Unless compelling reasons can be provided that are consistent with Wikipedia policy, I will be restoring this edit. Alereon (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I referenced the wrong part of the article, but the debate still applies. Later investigations indicated that Townshend did not purchase access to child porn on the relevant site, which makes your addition of this material possibly libelous, regardless that your addition appears technically correct. It's also unclear what Townshend was actually arrested for. It's better to leave it out of the article. See Operation Ore. Pkeets (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember the trial and a big part of his defence was that he was supposed to be writing a book about child abuse, but for some reason no child support organisations appear to have been contacted by him, and his book never appears to have materialised. I accept that he is famous for much more than this, but then again so are figures like Gary Glitter, who even ended up the focus of a program about the reintroduction of the death penalty in the UK, yet who was a successful musician for years before his misbehaviour was publicised. The article appears to be trying to avoid mentioning too much about this as if it would somehow detract from his great works. IMHO... Lancetyrell 2.125.67.48 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First, there was no trial--no charges were ever filed, and Townshend accepted a caution instead. Next, various child abuse organizations came to Townshend's support at the time, and he presented letters and emails that he had sent them. There are recorded interviews and articles he posted online about child abuse before his arrest. Townshend's autobiography was issued last year with the material about child abuse he was apparently referring to when he said he was writing a book. The wording in the Wikipedia article has been crafted through consensus by several interested parties, and you're right that it's meant to embarrass as few people as possible. This whole thing is a can of worms best left alone. Pkeets (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning 2003 child porn arrest in Interviews section

message: I don't want to trigger an edit war by reverting the photo, but I prefer the new one (now reverted). It's a better photo and taken about the same time. Please join the discussion to review available photos and reach a consensus on what photo to use. Pkeets (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm 90% sure there's something in the MOS preferring images facing towards the text, but I've been wrong before - I'll look. I don't really have a huge problem with the other image, just maybe if it is switched, could the old one be added to the body? I don't usually do this, but the person who was gracious enough to negotiate with me for the image's release really wanted the photo in the article and I felt I should meet her wishes at the tine. – Connormah (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like flipping images is discouraged, as it changes the appearance of the subject. I understand that people are possessive of their images, but that shouldn't keep us from adding a better one. I'll wait a while for the other participant to check in on this. Pkeets (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have uploaded and placed approx. 2,000 photos (of musicians alone) in the Wikipedia. A list of those by name is here: User:Leahtwosaints/Leahtwosaints/List of uploaded musician's photos. This includes at least half of the photos for The Who and it's members and sidemen. There is no rule of any kind about which direction a photo is facing. Normally, the image placed in the infobox is either most recent or that which contains the most clarity. Then the images should reflect the text and for biography articles, that usually is in chronological order. Both the photos in question are from 2000. The reason I switched them is that IMHO the one with him in stripes makes Townshend look dogged. Frankly, I think the ideal picture is the one in the guitar section, but since it shows more of the guitar clearly, it is best served there. I'm not passionate about this one, so, keep your favorite, but please remember not to WP:OWN. Thanks. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If we move the current photo down into the article, which section would be most appropriate? Would everyone be in agreement to put it into Recent Who Work? Pkeets (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that's fine- this shouldn't be a problem. This shows more of Townshend's personality, I think: ? If you prefer the current photo and had concerns for my feelings about it, no worries. Both photos are clear and from the same date. I obviously disliked the current one of Townshend (wearing the striped sweater) so much that I found, negotiated, and uploaded a different one! However, I understand an often tenuous relationship with photographers' permissions to allow their photos to be shown in the Wikipedia. We are all also working together, right? It's not a big deal to me, and I think keeping both photos in question is the solution. Per MOS:IMAGES, maybe the confusion is that it says the infobox must be right-aligned IOW, you can't format an infobox to a position in the center or to the left of the article. BTW, Follow the photo I uploaded to it's source in Flickr and there's a whole set of photos of The Who from 2007 we may use (I have worked with the photographer before). So, can we agree on this? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks that way, and no one else has checked in with an opinion. So the decision is that we put your photo in the info box, and the old photo into "Recent Who work?"  Pkeets (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there seems to be a consensus by silence here, I'll go ahead and do it. Pkeets (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Townshend photo 

message: I'm not certain how many editors actually view this as a priority article. In viewing photographs and considering the proper placement to reflect what is said in the text, I've been finding many, many, weasel words, and outright POV. What is unfortunate is that Townshend is so talented in a myriad of areas, he probably could have picked half a dozen careers and excelled in them all. The article is fragmented and I don't see really coherent writing or evidence of solid NPOV sources in most cases. I'm going to try a little bit of interior decorating, wording and sourcing, but please, see what I mean here. I'd rather avoid banners that too many people just tack on and nobody knows what's going on, OK? --Leahtwosaints (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really an article I maintain, but I'm fine with you tidying up. However, in editing please steer clear of the Operation Ore section and other mentions of the case. The wording for this was developed through an extensive consensus discussion that you can review in the archives if you want. Pkeets (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues and references 

message: Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a news leak that Townshend was among the subjects of the investigation, he publicly stated that on one occasion he had used a credit card to access a website advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 as part of his campaign against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet,Petetownshend.com – Pete's Diary – 8 Aug 2002Petetownshend.com – Pete's Diary – 24 Aug 2002 said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images. A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. Instead of pressing charges, the police elected to caution him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his lawyer, Townshend said, "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."
:Since there haven't been any further comments on this, I'm taking the suggestion above and referring the section to Operation Ore, which has a much fuller explanation. Pkeets (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole controversy is notable enough to be mentioned on Townshends page in more detail than just explaining it happened. I don't see anything wrong with the agreed upon version and dont see why it was removed.~EDDY (talk/contribs)</span>~ 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Read above. An editor objected to some of the references as "tabloid." I'm not going to argue about whether the section should be included. However, an objection to the sources is a problem, as these are required in Wikipedia, especially for a sensitive topic like this. Coming up with the "agreed upon version" was very time consuming, and it could be that no one has the interest to do the research over. The references will have grown very cold by now. BrianinAtlanta might be right that the best thing is to refer to the main article on the subject. It does discuss Townshend directly. Pkeets (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree that it is a significant event, but in the long term, it may not turn out to be any more significant than his arrest for assaulting a police officer. Interest in the case seems to have waned and the newspaper sources have been challenged, so it may be time to just mention it and refer to a more comprehensive treatment of the investigation. Pkeets (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I think we should give it about a paragraph in the personal life section. The event was pretty noteworthy and coverage about it can be found in the mainstream, nontabloid press. If no one else will, I will rewrite the section when I get to it. However it should not be too difficult to find reliable sources on the matter. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)</span>~ 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be okay with moving it to the personal section, and it's fine with me if you'd like to have a try at rewriting it. The editor has pointed out the problem sources in his edits--apparently The Sun and the Daily Mail, at the least. Were you one of the contributors to the agreed-upon section? As I recall, one of the main concerns was to present facts that didn't constitute possible libel and also didn't embarrass any parties to the case. It's a bit touchy to navigate. In anticipation of your rewrite, I'll move the info now. 04:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, am done. I used a pretty good quality reference to The Guardian that sums up the info on the caution and Townshend's comments as well. Pkeets (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The fanbois have made this article and the rest of Wikipedia extremely biased. While there is mention of a caution, any mention of Townshend being placed on a sex offenders register for five years (2003 – 2008) has been completely left out. I would think being place on that list would be far more notable a mention than only stating he was given a caution. Giamo456 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed upon version of the Operation Ore section 

message: This site has rather been taken over by fans. I find it odd to have no real mention of probably the most significant event of the man's life over the last 25 years?
I'm not one to get hysterical on such subjects, but I'm not for censorship
80.254.158.4 (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a significant event, but in the long term, it may not turn out to be any more significant than his arrest for assaulting a police officer. Interest in the case seems to have waned and the newspaper sources have been challenged, so it may be time to just mention it and refer to a more comprehensive treatment of the investigation. Pkeets (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I think we should give it about a paragraph in the personal life section. The event was pretty noteworthy and coverage about it can be found in the mainstream, nontabloid press. If no one else will, I will rewrite the section when I get to it. However it should not be too difficult to find reliable sources on the matter. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)</span>~ 03:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be okay with moving it to the personal section, and it's fine with me if you'd like to have a try at rewriting it. The editor has pointed out the problem sources in his edits--apparently The Sun and the Daily Mail, at the least. Were you one of the contributors to the agreed-upon section? As I recall, one of the main concerns was to present facts that didn't constitute possible libel and also didn't embarrass any parties to the case. It's a bit touchy to navigate. In anticipation of your rewrite, I'll move the info now. 04:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, am done. I used a pretty good quality reference to The Guardian that sums up the info on the caution and Townshend's comments as well. Pkeets (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The fanbois have made this article and the rest of Wikipedia extremely biased. While there is mention of a caution, any mention of Townshend being placed on a sex offenders register for five years (2003 – 2008) has been completely left out. I would think being place on that list would be far more notable a mention than only stating he was given a caution. Giamo456 (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I'm removing the interviews section from the article and posting it here. It is poorly written, poorly sourced, and frankly does not seem all that important. Perhaps at a later date some of it can be incorporated in the body of the article, but for the time being it seems pretty pointless. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)</span>~ 02:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interviews section 

message: I think these are appropriate for the article. Notability requirements only apply to the subject of the article and not to his or her activities as described in the article. I agree that the section might be revised, but I disagree with removing it entirely. Pkeets (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of charitable activities 

message: Pete said according BBC in 2012: "I don't particularly want to do a Tom Jones. I love Tom, I think he's a great man and performer, but I don't know if I want to be doing that." Can someone tell which of Jones' actions Townshend is referring to? Thx in adv. --85.179.82.163 (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What means "to do a Tom Jones"? 

message: I'm not sure where (if?) this should be mentioned but I thought I'd point it out to everyone... Face to Face performance from 1986 to be released on DVD/CD.  †Dismas†|(talk) 17:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Face to Face release announced 

message: In Pete Townshend's info box, it says that Townshend only plays vocals and guitars as the instruments he plays. I was considering adding keyboards/organs to the info box as it's proven that Townshend does actually create the keyboard parts for The Who's songs (most notably 'Baba O'Riley' and 'Won't Get Fooled Again')http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=1529http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/gear/guitar/lowrey.html.
I am thinking of adding the proposed information, however I was worried it would taken down as "original research". I was told a while back, when editing a musician's info box, only include instruments that the musicians contributed themselves, even though Townshend does contribute keyboards to The Who's song. Does anyone agree or disagree to include that information?
Rotten Tardises (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article might include information about keyboards, but the infobox should only include what he is most known for because the infobox is very brief. He is not well known for playing keyboards. Most successful musical artists at some point have played a variety of instruments, but we don't include all of them in the infobox. Sundayclose (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Instruments

message: I'm just curious as to whether on not Townshend should be added to the "English sex offenders" category. As mentioned in the article and here on this page Townshend was never convicted of any offences, but he was placed on the sex offenders register. Is that category for people placed on the register or for people who were specifically convicted of offences? I ask because if it's the former then I feel it's an important fact about Townshend and a category that he should probably be placed in, but if it's the latter then it could be potentially libelous. Thanks. 86.17.253.118 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm worried that adding that category might run afoul of our policy on how we write about living people. That and from what I've read on a (reliable?) source was that he was cleared of the charges in 2013 thus we probably shouldn't mention it via categories. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 20:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'll leave it then unless someone with a high enough authority gives it the all clear. Better safe than sorry. Would be interesting to hear more about that source on him being cleared if you have it as I don't think it's mentioned in the article and I hadn't heard about that. 86.17.253.118 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the source that I found it in. I'm not sure it counts as reliable though so I'm not going to post it to the article though. Others can use it if they think that it will pass our policy on both reliable sources and reliable sources for living people. Sakuura Cartelet Talk 01:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex offender?

message: This stub doesn't seem like it passes WP:GNG, but it can probably be mentioned here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The link between this and the forthcoming novel and musical The Age of Anxiety might change this, but for now  Klbrain (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Floss (musical)]] 

message: Could someone please explain in what way the phrase "many of his father's closest friends were Jewish" is relevant to PT's early life and education? It seems out of place here. Perhaps in a biography of PT's father it would be more relevant.Personne générique (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early life and education: relevant vs irrelevant information 

message: The claim that PT was the first to use feedback did not include a date, but John Lennon used feedback at the opening of "I Feel Fine" on Rubber Soul, released in US in December, 1965.  Lennon claimed his was the first recorded use of feedback. 2601:647:4300:1960:318F:2FA8:EEF0:652D (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback