Talk:Indecent photograph of a child

message: Can someone add a picture to this article?
:I would if it wasn't illegal. Skinnyweed 19:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

message: This is all OR, cites no references, and none of it is written in encylopedic style.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: OR editorializing

message: *  Discussion located at: Talk:Protection of Children Act 1978#Merge proposal --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: The fact that O'Carroll's photographs showed "child[ren] engaging in normal outdoor activity," and yet they were still deemed indecent, is relevant to the interpretation of the definition of indecency and relates the sentence to what precedes it. His status as a pro-paedophile activist and return from Qatar do not seem to be. I don't understand, then, why the former information is being replaced with the latter. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the following section notes that use of pedophile forums was deemed irrelevant on appeal, and a conviction was quashed. I don't understand selective reference to pedophile, depending on whether it suits you personally. Also, you keep deleting a cited source--that's really not ok. You may want to keep the information out, but that's not an acceptable reason. O'Carroll was convicted of taking pictures of nude prepubescent children in a developing country, and bringing them into a developed country--I think that's highly relevant, and it's in the cited source. It's misleading to say he was convicted of "children engaging in normal outdoor activity'--really leaves out a lot.-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really care if you bloat the sentence with mention of Qatar and pro-paedophile activism, but stop removing the fact that the children were not posed. That's the entire point of having the sentence. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the entire point of the sentence to you, but I really don't see the point. (What is the point?)  Meanwhile, please replace the bbc citation you have repeatedly deleted. Thanks,-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that "precedents show that nudist images may also be interpreted as indecent." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I think the point is that if a bloated first world pedophile exploits prepubescent children in a developing country by taking their pictures for his porn collection that will "be interpreted as indecent." -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Carroll

message: All these have to go--not RS. We have no way of knowing if they are altered or incomplete; they are not even primary sources, they're just on someone's website.  Also, the statement re O'Carroll comes from a lawyer's pleading in his appeal--it's not what he was officially charged with; it's the opinion of his defense attorney. The statement "nudist pictures may also be interpreted as indecent' is similarly so. Again, this is the reason secondary sources are necessary to establish anything like "precedent" or "case law"--you can't make OR assertions about primary sources (especially not ones posted in fragmentary form on geocities).-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct.  I concur the non-reliable primary sources have to be removed.  If someone locates the original court documents on a reliable website, we could consider using them with careful attention to avoid synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Geocities citations