Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:57, 3 September 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. British crime (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Tom O'Carroll be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Old posts

"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)

• 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)

This article contains a statement from O'Carroll which seems to concern the Sun article referenced, and it is copyrighted 2003 (but can only be found in the Internet Archive in 2005.) JayW 22:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've added material from that source to the article. Thanks for finding it. -Will Beback 20:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Response to a proposal to remove/delete this item on O'Carroll from Misplaced Pages (18 Nov., 2013)'Italic text

Alternative view:

It is this idea of resistance (a self understanding Tom O'Carroll has offerred about how he wants to position himself in relation to his critics) that carries special import for a sociological gaze. It can be argued a concern for a sociological perspective involves what C. Wright-Mills talks of as the process where one has to "translate private troubles into public issues" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/C._Wright_Mills). According to this guide Tom O'Carroll certainly qualifies as a person of considerable interest, and helps a wider society look sociologically at the issue of pedophilia.

Consistent with this point is how the Collins Internet-linked Dictionary of Sociology (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collins-Internet-Linked-Dictionary-Sociology/dp/0007183992) writes about deviance. One can view deviance as involving various responses to such a label, two of which are 'disavowal' or a 'career' response. In Tom O'Carroll's case it is the second way of seeing the person that appears to be in play. Career deviancy The Collins Dictionary writes (p.154), is where "the individual comes to accept the deviant 'self-identity,'...".

To assess Tom O'Carroll simply from the viewpoint of whether he does or does not have a criminal conviction for Child porn is reductionist because it leaves out so much. This view is consistent with a number of the people cited above. First, barrister in the 1981 court case where O'Carroll was convicted for 'conspiracy to corrupt public morals', Peter Thornton, later a QC and senior circuit judge is cited above as saying "O'Carroll had been convicted on little evidence". Second, D. Franklin who had edited Paedophilia: The Radical Case, again sited above. Third, Alan Watkins who stated in The Observer, that O'Carroll had been penalised effectively for nothing more than campaigning to change the law.. These individuals all argue there is a bias and a failure to be balanced in how judgements had been made in the past about Tom O'Carroll. The point here is that a witch-hunt is not a good path to take when dealing with a person like O'Carroll, in the end the attackers only convince a thoughtful reader a situaiton shaped by prejudice is attempting to rule the day.

The view that all individuals convicted of sex offences against children should be errased from history would remove the possibility of a sociological gaze. Sociology is a way of looking that plays a significant role in the world of the social sciences and critical thought. That critical attitude of accademic openness is what sits behind the more recent response of J. Michael Bailey, professor of psychology at Northwestern University to Tom O'Carroll's texts cited above .

Comment: This text is positioned here rather than in the main body of the item since the norms governing such articles would suggest this is a better location for the points offered. --Peterhoo56 (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhoo56 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

References

1. Alan Watkins, "Conspiracy, morals and lynch law", The Observer, 22 March 1981
2. http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/JMichael-Bailey/articles/MJOCarrollReview.pdf

O'Carroll's own take on events leading to his conviction in 2006.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Link to O'Carroll's blog

From my reading of Misplaced Pages policy, it seems to me that this link qualifies as an 'official link', so I have restored it. Researcher1000 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Its a blog so it doesnt qualify and it advocates pedophilia, two reasons not to have it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of an 'official link'

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

• The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Misplaced Pages article.
• The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

The site clearly qualifies on these criteria. Note that the 'no blogs' rule doesn't apply when the link is an official link. Researcher1000 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

But its not an official link, its a blog written by the subject of the article which is very different from an official link, and also you havent addressed the issue of the arbcom banning sites which promote pedophilia from appearing on wikipedia♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I very much appreciate Squeak's desire to prevent the promotion (or the potential perception of promotion) of pedophilia on wikipedia. However, it is my experience that Squeak can sometimes be overzealous in that regard. Squeak's comments on other pedophilia-related pages suggest that we differ in basic ideology here, and that Squeak's input often opposes or disrupts the consensus rather than facilitates it. I suggest, therefore, skipping the drama and asking for otherwise uninvolved input from WP:RS/N or other appropriate noticeboard.— James Cantor (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Err claiming that you and I differ in ideology (as if I would bring ideology into ANY[REDACTED] article I edit, sigh) and then that your ideology is the consensus smacks of something not quite right. And I dont agree that RS is exactly the place to go cos its an official site link not a reliable source link, and indeed the link would obviously fail as a reliable source. Getting consensus to include a pro pedophile activism link is going to be tricky, I hope James isnt though claiming the consensus he talks about includes to have pro pedophile activism links in[REDACTED] cos if he were claiming such a thing I would have to say IMHO he is wrong. I also hope James doesnt think the consensus was that this puffed-up peacock piece was in any sense of the world neutrasl a day or two ago. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The blog doesn't promote paedophilia. If you understand the word 'paedophilia' in terms of a disposition or preference then the idea of promoting it wouldn't make any sense. If instead you understand it in terms of actually having sex with underage people, you'll see it doesn't promote that if you read the blog.

You haven't justified your claim that this is a 'puffed-up peacock' piece. It may be that the wording could be made slightly more neutral in places (though these would very fine matters of expression), but every point made is backed up with a credible, reliable source. There are no grounds either for deletion or for substantial change.Researcher1000 (talk) 04:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the blog promoting pedophila. Unlike say the Virtuous pedophiles the only thing o'Carroll claims is wrong with child sexual abuse is that it is illegal. Selective use of reliable sources is never an excuse to violate our NPOV policy, which is required for all articles, we cant make Barak Obama into a brilliant hero so we cant with O'Carroll either♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The comment above is rather off the point. A source can be perfectly acceptable for supporting statements about its own author's views, but still unacceptable for other claims. The reference in the comment above about selectively using RS's is similarly irrelevant---I am pointing only out that Squeak's claims contradict WP:V (as shown in my quoting of the policy).

Just for the record: O'Carroll is no friend of mine. We dislike many of each others' opinions, we have had harsh words about each other on listservs, and he certainly has not had anything kind to say about me on his blog. (That is, if I had a bias here, it would be to help Squeak invisibilize O'Carroll and O'Carroll's statements.) However, it is the WP policies that matter, whether Squeak or I like it or not.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I have restored this link. It does not 'promote pedophilia', as you will see if you read it with any care. I doubt that there actually exist any blogs that do this. They wouldn't last more than a few days. As I said before, this link qualifies as an official link. And purely in terms of usefulness, it is well worth having, as readers are bound to be curious about what O'Carroll is up to these days. Taking it out is pure censorship, as far as I can see.Researcher1000 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You are claiming it doesnt advocate pedophilia but I dont agree and as a blog it isnt an official link either. I agree wioth James we need to stick to[REDACTED] policies so I have removed the link♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Squeak is free not to agree, but not free to enact his beliefs over the consensus. Moreover, despite Squeak's repeated challenge regarding the "officialness" of O'Carroll's blog, there is no such "officialness" requirement, in either WP:BLOGS or WP:SELFPUB. Indeed, the word "official" never appears in either. In general, where the word does appear, it is very clearly referring to corporate or other collective entities wherein an "official" identification is need to know which of potentially multiple sites is the citable one. This does not apply to an individual person expressing his own opinion on his own site. I am restoring the link on the main page, and I would urge Squeak to seek other input from other relevant talk pages and to establish a consensus rather than to engage in an revert war.— James Cantor (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In looking over the whole set of edits from the past day or so, they are a mix of legit and illegit (IMO) changes (plus several for which I am neutral). I have reverted the whole set, so that each may be discussed here to establish a consensus first. I also reiterate my point that a productive discussion will be better had by recruiting folks from other relevant pages.— James Cantor (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to discuss not reverrt, James Cantor. The arrogance of removing the NPOV tag without discussion or any attempt at making the article neutral staggers me as does your undoing good formating and restoring highly unneutral edits. As wi9th other articles you are acting as if you own the article but I am happy to discuss any changes you would like to see happen♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

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)

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)

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)

BLP

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)

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)

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)

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)

My changes

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

SqueakBox, please discuss changes on the talk page instead of edit warring. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We very clearly have differing opinions over the applicability of WP:CHILDPROTECT.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Linking to O'Carroll's self-published account

Information about O'Carroll's most recent conviction has recently been added with a Daily Mail article used as the source. I also created a link to this section of O'Carroll's blog. The latter link was removed by Philip Cross, who (on his talk page) cites a section of Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLPSELFPUB) in support of the reversion. The section concerns the use of self-published sources, which is generally allowed provided certain conditions are met, the two relevant ones being:

1. It is not unduly self-serving; 2. It does not involve claims about third parties;

Philip maintains that these conditions are violated in the present case. I am not so sure.

That the account is not unduly self-serving is shown by the fact that O'Carroll concedes that it was wrong of him to violate the law. He now realises that this can be damaging to children in the long term even when (as in the present case) no trauma appears to be experienced at the time of the sexual activity. Because of this, the account comes across as an honest, balanced one.

As far as condition 2 is concerned, while it is true that claims are made about third parties, their real names are not revealed, so that there is no danger of any embarrassment being caused. Since it was presumably to avoid such dangers that this clause was included, we can regard the rule as having been honoured in spirit at least.

The cited source for the story is the Daily Mail. Tabloid newspapers are not ideal sources, though they may of course be used in some cases for want of anything better. In this case, O'Carroll does not dispute the facts presented, but if we believe him, a lot has been left out, much of which gives an interesting new perspective. If court records were readily available, then they would provide the obvious solution, but they are not. Researcher1000 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Court records, if they were publicly available, would count ass WP:PRIMARY, and could not be used. The Daily Mail source needs replacing, if possible. Tabloid sources are not supposed to be used when they are the only source available. Philip Cross (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

We agree that the use of the Mail reference on its own is unsatisfactory, but do you still reject the use of O'Carroll's blog and if so do you have any further arguments against it? Researcher1000 (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. My emphasis.

This article is not itself about paedophilia, a criminal activity pursued by a small minority of men with fringe arguments for its acceptability. Philip Cross (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the link is included, there will still be more weight given to the bare facts of the case as reported in the Mail, as the material in the blog will not actually appear in the article.

'This article is not itself about paedophilia, a criminal activity...' Paedophilia is a sexual attraction, not a criminal activity, though it does lead some individuals to perform illegal acts. True, the article is not about paedophilia per se. It is about Tom O'Carroll, but the same applies to the web page linked to. Its relevance to the subject-matter of the article is indisputable.Researcher1000 (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to come back at me on this or are you OK with the link being restored? Researcher1000 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading past discussion of this issue, it is worth noting that I am not the only editor who objects. It would be best if you desisted, Researcher1000, from restoring a link to O'Carroll's blog. Since it may not have been pointed out before, you should read the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest article. You also appear to be pushing an agenda, so I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Child protection as well. Philip Cross (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading past discussion of this issue, one might have got the impression that the matter was settled in favour of those wanting to broaden the article in the ways suggested rather than the reverse. But in any case, you still haven't answered my point about WP: UNDUE. The purpose of linking to that particular page of O'Carroll's blog was not to promote 'the views of a tiny minority' but to throw light on some questions of fact by linking to an account that is just as likely to be true as anything appearing in a tabloid newspaper with certain axes of its own to grind (mainly to do with attacking the Labour party). Note that the statement in the article didn't say it was true, just that it was another perspective. The Mail account still gets more weight by having its actual statements reproduced in the article. Researcher1000 (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Removed citation of Daily Mail

In accordance with Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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

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)

Balance of article

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)

"...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)

Paper in Sexuality and Culture

I don't understand why this was reverted. It's verified and written in a neutral way. It's also notable as it is a paper in a peer-reviewed journal but has been released on an open access basis, as stated in the edit. Why was it removed?Anotherultimatename (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC) Could we maybe have a discussion about this?Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The article deals with an interesting subject, but I'm skeptical about the importance of something that was apparently only published online rather than in an actual print publication. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

'Sexuality and Culture' also exists in print form, as shown by this page.Anotherultimatename (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the journal exists in print form, but I see no evidence so far that the article we are discussing was ever published in print. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Anybody purchasing a print copy of the relevant issue of the journal would necessarily purchase this article along with all the other articles. It would have been subject to exactly the same peer review process as the others. (Of course this article happens to be open access and therefore free on-line and so hardly anyone would bother to buy the issue in print form just to have this article, but that's beside the point.)Anotherultimatename (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You said in the comment accompanying your latest reversion that 'no clear reason has so far been established why that particular paper by the article subject should be mentioned here'. Now clearly one would not wish to mention just anything that O'Carroll has published. There may well be minor pieces in non-peer-reviewed publications that do not deserve inclusion. But books by major publishers, such as his first book Paedophilia: The Radical Case (which is already mentioned), as well as any papers published by major publishing organisations that have been subject to peer review surely do belong here. The article in question is one such paper. Anotherultimatename (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Anotherultimatename (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, are you still there? Anotherultimatename (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm still "there" yes, but this discussion is going nowhere. There is no agreement to add mention of the paper, and I doubt there will be. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

In your view, what would make a paper notable enough to be worth mentioning in this article?Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Anotherultimatename (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there is really a need for me to make any comment here except to note that trying to force through a controversial change on a pedophilia-related article despite disagreement from other editors is a terrible idea. Given the nature of this topic, it is by far best to simply accept that there is not going to be consensus for your agreement and move on. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles
• Low-importance Ireland articles
• Start-Class Ireland articles of Low-importance
• Ireland articles needing infoboxes
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of Ireland