Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive 3a

Pete Townshend and the Guardian article reference that was taken out

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In regards to the paragraph reading:

'"In April 2007, an article in The Guardian stated that Townshend was "falsely accused of accessing child pornography".[23] After obtaining copies of the Landslide hard drives and tracing Townshend's actions, investigative journalist Duncan Campbell wrote in PC Pro Magazine, "Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do." Campbell states that their entire evidence against Townshend was that he accessed a single site among the Landslide offerings which was not connected with child pornography.[24]'

I think this article helps put into context what exactly happened and I think it gives due weight to specify what he was accused of, and what actually happened. I think it helps give due weight to why he was not found guilty of the crime. I'm going to look at that being put back in, as it appeared to have been removed recently and I think someone jumped to have its removal without understanding that bit's purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickens (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statement above is completely incorrect, in every possible respect, most spectacularly in the claim that he was found not guilty. Townshend in fact admitted guilt, in the form of a police caution. I suggest you review the previous discussion on this issue (see above at "Change 2"). Suffice to say, if there was any evidence that Townshend himself holds or even held the opinions expressed by Mr. Campbell, it would probably be worth mentioning, but as it's pure third party speculation from someone with no idea of the evidence or admissions made, it's not.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Constantly disrupting/ vandalizing verified content on the articles regarding The Who and Led Zeppelin, I conclude Rickens is the new incarnation of Occultaphenia. It's been proved that In So-Called Operation Ore Townshend had pleaded guilty (though later tried to rebut it) and he has admitted his bisexuality many times in interviews (though later tried to rebut it, too). This is what the "facts" (not the "fans") say or tend to say, and these "facts" have been verified by the finest newspapers and news agencies and music magazines including Associated Press, Daily Mail and Rolling Stone. --Scieberking (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite a fan, Scieberking. I can tell. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are sock puppetry concerns, it is best to report it to WP:SPI where it will be sorted out. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rickens was blocked indefinitely as a CosmicLegg sock. CL has some obsession with this article. Enigma^msg 00:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's some great news. I've been struggling against unobjective, fanboyish WP:POV. CosmicLegg and his socks Occultaphenia and Rickens among others have been causing disruption, vandalizing articles, abusing my talk page for a long time and I've helped block those indefinitely. While I'm a fan and tend to agree The Who is one of the greatest rock bands ever, I just can't stand any unverifiable WP:POV and heavy bias on Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's see you apply your ideals to pages dealing with Led Zeppelin. 98.113.216.32 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

There should be no discussion about how this supports or does not support Townshend "guilt" or whether he was "found guilty." This is not "third party speculation." This is what happened, period. Please read the references in regard to this passage. To summarize: The Operation Ore investigations/prosecutions were challenged by a group of individuals as it became obvious the UK police had made serious errors in prosecution. Based on this challenge, a group of independent investigators obtained and researched the Landslide hard drives. Landslide was alleged by the police to be be a "child porn" site, but it turned out to be a credit card fee site (with a high incidence of fradulent charges) that offered access to a number of pornography sites. With the hard drives, the investigators traced the IP addresses of specific individuals of interest to see whether they had actually accessed any child porn. Townshend's IP was traced to a website called "Alberto" which had nothing to do with child porn. The PC Pro article is technical and details the research, but The Guardian article summarizes fairly well. Regardless of the caution and the formal statement Townshend filed admitting access to the Landslide site, he did not buy or view child porn through this site. Period. His IP address was traced through Landslide to an ordinary adult porn site. The section is clearly referenced, but I gather people are not reading the references before hitting the delete button. Since there is discussion about the section, please let me know how to make it clearer. I don't want to repeat the whole of the Operation Ore article here. Thank you. Pkeets (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look now at some of the arguments above. 1) Regarding confusion in Townshend's statements: This investigation took place about four years after Townshend's access to the Landslide site, and his statements about it appear contradictory. It's not reasonable to quibble about the "truth" of his statements in regard to actual events, as they represent his thoughts, memories or opinions at the time he spoke. His quotes can be referenced, but the article and the editors should make no assessment of whether or not they represent true facts--memories very seldom are. Because this has not been an open process, it will be impossible to acertain exactly what Townshend was cautioned for or what he admitted to the police. The article can only provide the statements on file without offering opinion. 2) Because this article is entitled "Operation Ore investigation and police caution," then that is what it should address. The follow-up investigation as outlined by Duncan Campbell relates directly to Operation Ore and Townshend's purchase at the Landslide site, so it qualifies to be included in the section. Campbell's quotes are again, his opinion based on his research (referenced), and the article should make no assessment of their "truth." If some readers have concerns that Townshend's caution was based on some other website, then that should be addressed separately and referenced appropriately. Such speculation has no place under this title. Pkeets (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, just because there had been discussion on removing reference to later investigations on Operation Ore doesn't mean you have license to remove the paragraph at will. I don't see anywhere here that you have a consensus to do so. The information is material and provides a balanced view on a legal issue. You need to discuss the paragraph here instead of in the edit summary. Pkeets (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you see above. There are concerns from contributors to this page that the child pornography section should not be overlong in relation to the entire article. There is a large amount of content in relation to this incident that has been removed regarding Townshend's statements and actions to comply with this, and unless this section is very much expanded to cover more of this (which consensus is against), claims made by someone who has no access to the evidence put forward in Townshend's case by his lawyers and by the police and/or CPS do not belong. In other words, while we have this man's word (and nothing more official or reliable than that) that Townshend accessed a non-cp site on Landslide, this certainly does not justify inserting the eye-catching statement that he was "falsely accused" of attempting to access child pornography ever, given that statements made by Townshend himself (which you can find in this Talk page and its archives, and which have been removed from this article on several occasions) contradict that. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for joining the discussion, and I apologize for arriving a little bit late for it. I didn't see the Rfc above, and I thought you were just vandalizing the article. If the aim here is to shorten the section, then I would be in favor of removing some of Townshend's statements, as well. The one provided by his solicitor was only a formality required by the caution, so provides no more information than the fact that the caution was accepted. The information that Townshend recalled he was doing research at the time he encountered child abuse images might be more relevant. I would be open to further discussion of whether that materially contributes to understanding of the situation. Since Townshend was found to have accessed only an adult porn site, I'm thinking his recollections in this case were in error and confuse the issue. I could also look at shortening Campbell's statements. However, I suggest you have a look at his credentials before making posts that he is an uninformed third party. The research he's detailing was on the Landslide hard drives (evidence that Townshend's solicitor had no access to at the time of the caution) and his articles were a very important development in the Operation Ore cases. The research he outlines is now being used to challenge the prosecutions in court.Pkeets (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Townshend made a specific legal pleading, and that can be considered verifiable 'truth' for the purposes of this article. Material that calls that into question should NOT be included without good reason. Good reason would include any kind of statement by Townshend that supports what this uninvolved third party says. Townshend has plenty of opportunity to comment on what he did, and there is NOTHING from him that supports Campbell's claims. Remember that Townshend has explicitly stated "I have looked at child porn sites maybe three or four times in all, the front pages and previews," he has also published articles such as "A Different Bomb" [1] on the subject, and it is ridiculous to try and contradict the clear words and legal admission of a man who has every opportunity to defend and speak for himself, including his own website, over which he has total editorial control. The claim that "Townshend was found to have accessed only an adult porn site" is unverifiable, contradicts Townshend's own statements, and in any case Townshend was not cautioned for the access, but for paying for a website that appeared to contain child porn (which might not even have been Landslide). Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you think of this? The references present the important facts in the case and could be inserted in the general biography without any heading at all. Since this is a contentious issue, I'm in favor of cutting the whole thing down to bare bones facts and removing the quotes and explanations which can be used to damage the neutral point of view.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003.[26][27][28][33][34]Pkeets (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. A minute ago you wanted to double the size of this section by adding irrelevant content contradicting Townshend's own statements. Now you want to cut it down, presumably to present a more favourable effect. I can't agree.Sumbuddi (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor to this page I would also like to know why a factually uncontested article that had been deemed relevant for a long time should suddenly become irrelevant. I would hope that Wikipedia is not succumbing to pressures stemming from a publicity campaign. BrianInAtlanta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Eh? Unless you're somebody's sockpuppet, you've never contributed to this page before...... Sumbuddi (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article has not been contested factually. What I see in the discussion above is opinions about "truth" and "guilt" which should not enter into a neutral point of view. The purpose of the article is to present events and facts that are verifiable, not to show that Townshend is "guilty" of some offense or that he was cautioned for something that doesn't appear in a verifiable reference. Pkeets (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

i'm not sure what's meant by "a factually uncontested article ... suddenly becom[ing] irrelevant", but if the issue under discussion is why the paragraph about later investigations of Operation Ore was removed, see Talk:Pete_Townshend#RfC_closure, above: i asked an uninvolved editor to close the RfC; User:Camaron made the decision about that paragraph and will no doubt be willing to explain and/or discuss it if you ask him. hope that helps. Sssoul (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My original RfC closure can be found above. I was asked to close the debate as a person outside the dispute. When I read what had been discussed I could see no consensus on material beyond the first paragraph, so I suggested it be kept to that for the time being. There was no prejudice for adding further content but per the spirit of WP:BLP there should be talk page consensus for it first. This page is once again undergoing edit warring, so I have fully protected it. A provisional expiry of 2 weeks time has been given though it may be unprotected earlier depending on when the dispute is resolved. I think in this incidence protection would be better than alternatives such as blocks. Per WP:PREFER within the protection policy, I am allowed to revert to the version from before edit warring began, which would be without the second paragraph, and I was tempted to do that per the spirit of WP:BLP. However, given that the material of the second paragraph is not highly problematic I have decided just to leave the page on what happens to be the current version without endorsement.

Since this page seems to have had disputes on it for a while other forms of dispute resolution may be necessary. Given that the dispute currently seems to only has two main parties involved, perhaps a third opinion would be helpful. Otherwise venues such as WP:MEDCAB should be considered. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cameron. I do notice that BrianInAtlanta has checked in with a comment not in favor of the revision.Pkeets (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I noticed BrianInAtlanta (talk · contribs) had also registered an opinion. I am surprised by it as prior to editing this page the account has not been active for over 2 years. However, the previous pages edited were related to Pete Townshend and it is never too late to return to Wikipedia! Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedia people for locking it down. There is a campaign out there right now and removing the page from editing seems a rational solution. BrianInAtlanta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

I think you have missed the point. The purpose of this is not to preserve your point of view, it is to preclude edit warring. Also there is no such thing as 'Wikipedia people', you can be a 'Wikipedia person' if you want. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Locking it down would prevent vandalism. As I said, I thought from your lack of response that you were vandalizing the page. Did you have a look at my proposed change above?Pkeets (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I responded already. I don't much like this article being edited into an unthinking Townshend fanclub POV. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I thought you had proposed a change to reduce the size of the section. I normally try to respect the work of others when I propose revisions, but I agree that this section is a mess of conflicting POVs and it would be better deleted in favor of a purely factual statement, plus references. There's a similar change proposed above, I notice, but awkwardly worded, trying to preserve expository elements. In order to make the statement factual, these elements need to be removed and only the facts and the references preserved. If this isn't what you meant, then please clarify. Pkeets (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this started because you came here trying to re-add POV that has no purpose other than to present Townshend in a favourable but inaccurate light. I certainly did NOT propose reducing the size of the section from where it was before, in fact I have previously proposed adding some more detail (see previous discussion); what I did say on this occasion is that in the context of the current length, which has been suggested previously by various editors should not be made too long, including this content from Mr. Campbell would be to give this POV undue weight - and it would be similarly unbalanced in anything short of a full 'Pete Townshend and Child Pornography' article.

Saying that this sentence should not be overlong is not the same as completely removing all context down to a single sentence leaving the reader completely in the dark about what happened, for the same apparent purpose as adding the Campbell statement, viz. to present Townshend in a favourable but inaccurate light. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. My mistake. But then you're suggesting that the section should have a POV adjustment? Remember that it's not Wikipedia's purpose to present persons in either favorable or unfavorable light, but to report verifiable facts and events. The clear solution to Mr. Campbell's opinion having too much weight is to delete that section, as you say, but that leaves other elements with similar problems. Deleting all of it with the exception of the fact of the caution and attaching references seems a good solution, as it provides all the information to anyone who is interested in this particular event in Townshend's career, but without Wikipedia having to worry about libel or POV. Trying to adjust the POV of an article with conflicting statements will continue to be awkward and contentious. I'm open to other solutions if you'd like to draft something, but notice that I am a big fan of neutral POV. Pkeets (talk) 01:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Townshend's talked plenty on this subject, there's no reason to suggest there are libel/BLP issues with anything beyond a single sentence. There are significant POV issues with NOT adequately covering this topic, which is why I came to this page in the first place.Sumbuddi (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I do recall that there was a lot of coverage of his comments, but again, are these material and/or trustworthy? Transcription of every article published on the Operation Ore investigations would be fair, but once you start to pick and choose statements, then you have to be very careful to remain neutral. I personally think that his acceptance of the caution covers the subject adequately and that no attempted interpretation of the act is suitable for Wikipedia. That's bound to get into POV.Pkeets (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

As a contributor, I also feel this subject should remain closed unless new and verified facts from someone without an obvious agenda (pro or con) comes forth. Until then, the page should remain as it now stands. BrianInAtlanta (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

Analysis section

I'm going to start a new section, as it's becoming difficult to navigate in the last one. I've broken down what I think of the first paragraph. Please provide your opinion on each sentence and let's try to reach agreement on what's really important.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 (good to this point)

after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography.[26][27][28] (expository and redundant - acceptance implies acknowledgment - the site name is not required and an explanation of how it worked too long to present here)

He stated in the press and on his website that he had been engaged in research for A Different Bomb (a now-abandoned book based on an anti-child pornography essay published on his website in January 2002) and his autobiography, and as part of a campaign against child pornography.[29] (sentence is overly expository and favorable POV, attempting to provide a valid reason Townshend was at the site - unfactual - Townshend's statements about the event are conflicting and apparently untrustworthy)

The police searched his house and confiscated 14 computers and other materials, and after a four-month forensic investigation confirmed that they had found no evidence of child abuse images. Consequently, the police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." (redundant information - much if not all of this could be cut out - again, the caution indicates they found nothing to use in prosecution - favorable POV)

In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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."[30] (redundant - it's clear from the first sentence above that Townshend accepted the caution - unfavorable POV)

As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years.[31][32](redundant - this follows from the caution - unfavorable POV)Pkeets (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point of balance. Wikipedia articles contain sentences that are about favourable and unfavourable about their subjects. This in combination provides balance. Removing every such statement leaves you with pretty much nothing - as is your result here. Not a good outcome. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Then please recommend something else instead. I understand your objection to the Campbell statements, and I'd be open to leaving explanation of those investigations to another article. Explanations of the caution, what the Landslide site was and how it worked, etc. should also be covered elsewhere. I also think it will be totally impossible to unsnarl Townshend's public interviews on this matter into any sort of sense. As you say above, they call into question what Townshend admitted to the police and what he was cautioned for, but unfortunately this is in the realm of speculation. It remains between Townshend, his solicitor and the police and so is immaterial to this article.Pkeets (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you think of this: As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003.[26][27][28][29] The police offered a caution rather than pressing charges, issuing a statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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."[30][31][32][33][34]Pkeets (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested edits to this paragraph in the past, and I'm certainly not opposed to edits to this paragraph, but as the article is currently protected due to our dispute over the Campbell claims, I think that should be our priority - the article cannot be edited by anyone at the moment until this dispute is resolved.

Are we now in agreement to exclude these claims by Campbell? Sumbuddi (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarilly. I agree that the whole thing needs to be shortened, but the tone needs to be neutral. If you feel that could be accomplished by taking out the Campbell quotes, then I'll be open to it, but only if what remains sounds neutral. It needs to report the fact that Townshend was cautioned without suggesting he was either guilty or not guilty. That's what neutral means.Pkeets (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Townshend was guilty!!!! That's what a caution means. He was found to be guilty by the investigator, and he made a legal admission of that guilt, by accepting a police caution. Neutral does NOT mean saying that someone who was guilty was not...... Sumbuddi (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It just seems like yesterday this was extensively discussed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has a draft that they want to include would they offer it here for discussion, with the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is, Sumbuddi. Anyone who's read the info on cautions know that by accepting the caution, Townshend admitted guilt. I don't see that anyone has suggested that the statement about the caution should be removed. However, Wikipedia is not the place for trying to establish "guilt" or "innocence" through what quotes are included. We need to be discussing how to make this passage neutral in POV.Pkeets (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Wikipedia is not the place to establish guilt, it is the place to REPORT IT, given that guilt has already been conclusively proven. I shouldn't need to spell this out again. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proven? How? Do you have some reference not included in the article that discusses this? From what I can see in the cited articles, he admitted guilt and accepted the caution. There was no process to "prove" guilt. Pkeets (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

????? What are you disputing? There was a long investigation following which Townshend made a legally binding admission of guilt. Guilt was acknowledged by Townshend. I am not sure why you are now talking about 'proof'; if a murderer pleads guilty on day 1 of a trial before evidence is entered, nothing has been proven formally - his plea is more than sufficient: once you admit guilt there is no need for anybody to prove anything, you've proven it yourself. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the definition of "proof." Proof is a series of statements that leads to a valid conclusion--evidence, in other words, that someone did or did not break the law. There are plenty of false confessions around, so that can't be taken as clear evidence to prove anything. You see in the article that the police say they've found no evidence in the investigation. There is no public record of what Townshend admitted to the police or whether it was verified. Campbell says the later investigation shows he didn't buy any CP through Landslide. There is no evidence here, and again, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to try to establish proof. The purpose of this article is to present references that show the chain of events without suggesting guilt or innocence. Since the claims in the references are often inflammatory, I'm suggesting that most of this be cut out of the Wikipedia article to provide neutral POV. Pkeets (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate etymology with you; suffice to say, he admitted guilt, he has never disclaimed this guilt, nor has anyone connected to him, despite numerous opportunities, despite having made numerous statements on the subject, and this is more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. Townshend has never attempted to cover this up, on the contrary he has written wordy essays, discussed the subject in interviews, came out voluntarily in advance of any police investigation into him, and it's wholly irrational for you to try and reduce this section to nothing. I don't think there can be any more to say on this..... Sumbuddi (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not etymology, just definition. Are you saying this section ought to be slanted to emphasize that Townshend is guilty? You've not really discussed revision, other than saying the Campbell articles should be removed. Pkeets (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I've suggested the following: As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] This provides a statement of neutral fact, and provides all the references for further reading by anyone who's interested in this particular event.Pkeets (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Duncan Campbell testified as an expert witness in Operation Ore cases and established key facts which discredited much of the foundation of Operation Ore. Operation Ore, which identified over seven thousand suspects and led to 3,744 arrests, 1,848 charges, 1,451 convictions, 493 cautions - and thirty-nine suicides - is now the subject of a group action (class action) appeal that was just cleared to be heard in the High Court in the U.K. Since Pete Townshend was identified as part of the Operation Ore investigations, it is entirely appropriate and relevant to retain the Campbell reference in the Pete Townshend article. Indeed, omitting this information would lead one to assume that Operation Ore was a well-executed, run-of-the-mill police operation, which it most certainly was not. --Dendennis (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you'd be in favor of retaining the section as it is?Pkeets (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in favor of maintaining the section as it currently stands. --Dendennis (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All this is very interesting, but Mr. Townshend has made numerous public statements on child pornography, has access to the finest lawyers money can buy, and in the first instance came out on his doorstep and made a highly incriminating statement prior to any investigation or official contact whatsoever (plainly the credibility or otherwise of Operation Ore has no relevance to this).

Were it the case that Townshend denied any dealings with child pornography, that he had ever stated he was incorrectly treated, then the background information on Operation Ore would have relevance. As this is not the case, it is irrelevant - another famous person, Chris Langham, was investigated as part of Operation Ore, and his Wikipedia page quite rightly does not mention any doubts about Operation Ore, because illegal images were found on his PC, so the unsoundness of other convictions is totally irrelevant to him

Given that Townshend has never denied the accusations against him, instead adopting a similar 'it was research' defence as employed by Langham, it is entirely unjustifiable to try and introduce the words of an unconnected third party into this article.

As Townshend is subject to WP:BLP, I think it is only proper that we allow his words and actions to speak for him, rather than the claims of third parties with no formal or informal relationship with Townshend, given that these claims are contradictory with Townshend's own. A reader reading Townshend's own words in one paragraph "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." (as referenced in the article at [2]), and then that 'he was "falsely accused"' in the next, is left confused at best. Given that child pornography/paedophilia are some the most damaging crimes in Western society, it is important that we are careful not to undermine Townshend's claims, except where justified by the legal record - certainly not with the words of unconnected investigators with access only to a computer database, not the actual evidence available to the police and Townshend's lawyers. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Townshend was quoted to the effect that what he had done wasn't illegal at the time and that the law had been changed to prosecute the Operation Ore investigations, but that brings on a complicated discussion of the UK law and its technicalities and whether he was right or wrong, all of which has no place here. Plus, a minor point: It appears unlikely that Landslide advertised CP, so if this is the site Townshend was referring to, then his memory is faulty. If we could review the chain of events: 1) Townshend's name is presented on an FBI list taken from the Landslide databases. 2) He is arrested on this basis. 3) After an investigation, police announce that nothing was found. 4) After making contradictory statements, Townshend accepts a caution. 5) Later investigators of the Landslide database trace his IP to an ordinary adult porn site.

According to WP:BLP, biographies should be written conservatively. I understand what you're saying about undermining Townshend's claims to guilt, if in fact he has made incontrovertible claims to having willfully accessed a CP site for the purpose of consuming CP. However, we have to be equally careful not to leave the impression that Townshend is a pedophile/CP consumer if he did not, as is widely published, pay for CP through the Landslide site, or if he encountered CP by accident and reported it, or if he did research that was authorized by someone in the police department--all of which have been reported in good quality references. Unfortunately we have no access to evidence or confessions that the police hold, so we can't take that into account in presenting the references here. I'm in favor of removing anything that could be controversial from the article, but I expect the next most conservative move would be to leave the section as it is. Pkeets (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you have the chain of events wrong. First step was (1) Townshend outs himself as having accessed CP on the basis of a newspaper report and was arrested as a result of that.

This is important because Townshend precipitated his own investigation (his investigation might have followed at a later date, but that's not a given). Although there are issues with Operation Ore, they are not really relevant to Townshend - Townshend was concerned with child pornography, was plainly conscious and aware of it, and chose to come out on his doorstep with a statement, with no idea what evidence the police had on him. For this reason whether or not Landslide advertised CP or whether the site Townshend subscribed to had CP on it is really not relevant, so it's pointless introducing third party statements on this subject.

As for what is reliable, I would suggest that you look to quotes from Townshend published in reliable sources.

This: [[3]] for instance is highly reliable, given the source and that it is "Pete Townshend's statement in full".

In the context of the cp section in this article, clearly the critical part of that statement is this:

"I do not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.

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

I did this purely to see what was there.

I spoke informally to a friend who was a lawyer and reported what I'd seen.

I hope you will be able to see that I am sincerely disturbed by the sexual abuse of children, and I am very active trying to help individuals who have suffered, and to prevent further abuse."

which is an admission of a very specific action: 'using a credit card' to 'enter' a 'site advertising child porn' and also describes Townshend's motivation for doing this. They never found any images on his PC, so he was cautioned, eventually, for exactly what he came out (prior to any official contact) on day 1 and admitted.

I think it would be unreasonable to question Townshend's statement made prior to the investigation, when it concurred with his eventual caution after the investigation. While it might well be that Townshend's payment to Landslide was perfectly legal, it is quite clear that Townshend *did* "use a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn", because he said as much, has not redacted that statement. Sumbuddi (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, here was the article that preceded Townshend's statement:

"A LEGENDARY British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet.

Details of the musician - a household name on both sides of the Atlantic - have been passed to detectives dealing with an American pay-per-view porn ring.

Scotland Yard officers are investigating the star, who has a well-documented history of hell-raising, and are deciding whether to make an arrest. If he is taken in for questioning, he will become the highest-profile person to be held under Operation Ore - the largest ever investigation into online paedophilia in the UK.

...

The rock star's name, credit card details and email address were contained in a list of 7,000 people passed to British police by the U.S. Postal Service earlier this year after the pay-per-view service was smashed.

The star under suspicion, who has also been involved in major films, is married with children and lives in Britain. The Daily Mail knows his identity but is not publishing it because a top-level investigation into the man's background is continuing.

Detectives were handed details of the multimillionaire's credit card last month and believe that it was used to pay for access to the perverted images.

Their investigation into his background is expected to last for several weeks. Police are anxious to confirm that his card used had not been stolen or 'cloned' by a criminal before being used to download the porn.

They are also investigating the possibility that the card had been used by someone else.

'The high profile of this celebrity means we have to be absolutely sure before we make an arrest,' said a source.

Another reason for the possible delay is that police have had to split the list of 7,000 suspects into three categories.

They have been prioritising those contained in Category One, which consists of anyone thought to have access to children, such as teachers, doctors and social workers. Category Two is for those who hold positions of authority and public confidence, such as police officers and magistrates.

The mystery rock star would be placed in the final category, because he is not thought to be a direct risk to children.

...

Police estimate that Operation Ore could take years, not months, to complete "[4]

I tried to reference this before, to spell out exactly what caused Townshend to make his statement and go from Category Three to 'arrested the next day', but other editors said it was sensationalist to describe what happened. Anyway, the article did not give any details on the name of the website, and it included a long 'get out clause' about credit card fraud, quite plainly you would not come out and make a statement that "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." on the basis of that article if you had not ever used a credit card to enter such a site.

Like I said, it might be that the website Townshend advertising child porn was another website besides Landslide, but it's totally pointless speculation to even discuss this, because Townshend would not have had a clue what 'Landslide' was (it wasn't mentioned in the article), all he knew was that he was the subject of the article, and that he had paid to enter a site advertising cp, he didn't think 'huh, that sounds like me, but I haven't done that, I guess my card details got stolen', he thought straight away 'yup, I did that', and put out a statement. It's for this reason that I don't want to include Campbell's statements - the credibility of Operation Ore isn't relevant, because Townshend's legal problems were basically self-induced and his initial, unprompted, statement was an admission of the offence he was eventually cautioned for. Sumbuddi (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're speculating some. What we're trying to achieve here is a neutral POV, not controversy. I think everyone will agree that Townshend admitted guilt when he accepted the caution and so took responsibility for his statements. However, if you want to suggest that he actually is a willful CP consumer or a pedophile, then it's a big problem that the police investigated so thoroughly and found nothing. Also, I don't know if Campbell's statements say so much about Operation Ore as they do about the UK press which has publicized the credit card purchase so thoroughly. Landslide is the only credit card site referenced in the articles on this subject. Therefore I can't see anything wrong with Campbell's statement that Townshend was "falsely accused" in regard to Landslide and the Operation Ore investigation. That says nothing about the statements Townshend made himself. Pkeets (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not speculating at all. I don't know why you say I suggest he was a 'willful CP consumer', I said nothing of the kind - please read what I said. You said there were sourcing problems, in an attempt by you to reduce this section to nothing, so I responded by pointing out a cast iron source where he states "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn.". This is something that is an offence under UK law, and he was later cautioned for this offence.

I'm not sure what you mean about the UK press publicising this purchase 'so thoroughly', the fact was Townshend came out before he had been named/contacted/investigated and specifically stated that he made such a purchase, even though the article didn't name him and said he might have been a fraud victim. Like I said, it's completely immaterial and irrelevant what the site was, because the site was named only after he made his admission that he had accessed 'a site'.

Townshend clearly was not "falsely accused", because he himself started the story, and it's absurd to say he falsely accused himself, plainly contrary to BLP policies. Nobody had accused 'Pete Townshend' of anything. He came out and openly admitted the exact charge he was later cautioned for. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So why is Townshend the expert? The problem in referencing is that he said different things in other articles, including that he really doesn't remember and that he's reconstructing. Then Campbell participated in an in-depth investigation of the Operation Ore cases and thought Townshend had confessed to something he didn't do. Clearly Campbell thinks he was "accused."

You may be right that Townshend was cautioned for his public statements, but in that case Campbell's article would be material for casting light on whether or not Townshend was right in his initial confession. My suggestion to cut almost everything of this out of the article was to reduce the controversy (and these arguments). I just don't think the different parties will ever agree completely on what to include and what the interpretation should be. However, I'm getting the idea that most editors will think the article is balanced as it is.Pkeets (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) for the record, Sumbuddi's statement "the fact was Townshend came out before he had been named/contacted/investigated" is inaccurate. according to the sources Sumbuddi him/herself is citing, what the newspaper reported was that Townshend was being investigated by Scotland Yard, although they didn't state his name. he had however been named on the list provided to the police, and was being investigated.
meanwhile, the police do not offer cautions in cases of egregious guilt or major offences; and there are many reasons someone might accept a caution rather than elect to go through a trial. it isn't Wikipedia's place to speculate about Townshend's reasons - including speculation that his acceptance of a caution "proves" he was guilty. Sssoul (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've linked to this before, but read: [5]. It makes it very plain that any police 'investigation' had not got in contact with Townshend, and hence that this statement was unprompted by police/investigators. Not inaccurate at all.

Secondly, I am utterly mystified by suggestions that we should not say that he is 'guilty'. A police caution is an admission of precisely that - guilt of a criminal offence. Moreover, Townshend came out on the 11th of January and confessed his guilt of a criminal offence. Given that he quite plainly confessed to an offence in his initial statement "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." and subsequently made an official acceptance of that guilt in the form of a police caution, it would certainly not be Wikipedia's place to suggest anything else.

Here's yet more confirmation of that guilt - hopefully we can get over the absurd suggestion that he was 'falsely accused':[6]

"You have been arrested for the suspected possession of child pornography and inciting another to distribute child pornography. Do you understand?

'I did subscribe to that website, on that day. I felt that by using my real name I would be able to enter and research and see what was going on the website. That's what happened, and I greatly regret inciting others to do so. '"

He admited in that interview inciting another to distribute child pronography [by paying for a website he believed to contain cp]. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC) '

No one is disputing that he admitted this and that he consequently accepted a caution. The discussion is how to present it in a short section without using loaded terms or inflammatory language. When you say "guilty" then you will have to explain exactly what he's guilty of, and then you get into speculation. Note the reference you've provided is one of the cases where Townshend says he can't remember the site, but is then prompted to "explain," leading to a contradictory and likely inaccurate statement. Because of this confusion in his published statements and the lack of clear evidence in the case, it will continue to be highly speculative, and we should guard against this entering the article. However, Campbell's articles have been published in reputable media and his comment in light of this original interview seems material to me.Pkeets (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous now. Does the section include the word 'guilty'? Have I suggested it includes the word guilty? No on both counts. So why waste time discussing this? Complete misdirection.

We are here having this extended discussion because of your insistence that this claim from unconnected third party Duncan Campbell go in this article.

Now, as I have said already, it is not our place to second guess Mr. Townshend, we should follow the BLP policies, not seek to redefine him in our own image. I see no confusion in his statements - he came out, before any police contact, and made a statement, several months later confirmed that when he accepted the police caution, and further confirmed it in subsequent interviews.

If you wish to suggest that he is 'confused' you will have to prove this very carefully by reference to reliable sources, showing exactly what 'confusion' there is, being careful to follow WP:BLP and WP:NOR as you do so. Until then, his statements (as above) and actions (accepting a police caution) should speak for him - not the words of uninvolved third parties. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New Section

Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood. Here's your statement I was responding to in regard to "guilty": "I am utterly mystified by suggestions that we should not say that he is 'guilty'." I thought you wanted to discuss how to show this in the article. If you don't want to show it, then there's no need to bring it up.

In regard to "second guessing" Townshend, I've already said there is no hard evidence to support his statements, so therefore we have no gauge of his reliability. If you have anything other than his statements to provide, then please present it here. For example, continuing your quote above regarding the site he subscribed to:

PI: Did it contain child pornography?

PT: I can't remember ... it may have had images on it of children. They may have been in a state of undress. I can't really recall.

In the interview he then goes on to describe "the first images I stumbled upon" through Google, language which indicates he broke the law, but by accident. If Townshend was unsure of whether he subscribed to a pay-per-view CP site, then he was highly misdirected to publicly say he did, but his statements do not make the claim true, and we should take this into account. After researching the Operation Ore cases, Campbell has said that Townshend was an unreliable witness in his own case. It's an interesting development. I'd prefer to remove all but the one sentence, but if the whole section is to be included in Townshend's biography, then yes, I am in favor of leaving this in. There may be further developments in the future which should also be considered.Pkeets (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take on this. Given that it is verifiable that Townshend has publicly confessed his guilt about this matter on a number of occasions and accepted a police caution, the claim that he is or may be innocent looks to be an extraordinary claim. Which means we require very strong sources. Because of the BLP issues on top of this (not only with regard to PT but also the officers involved in his case, who are probably identifiable and whose competence/honesty is questioned), the sources should be very strong sources.

What we have is two sources by one author, both of which are basically op-eds (we can rely on them to states plain facts in a neutral manner less than we could in the case of a news story). The Guardian story only carries a passing reference to Townsend, and the claim "falsely accused" is plainly false when compared to other sources. Townshend confessed to a crime. "False accusation" (as opposed to "mistaken", for example) is a strong claim to make against living persons, and we cannot reproduce this claim based on that one article IMO, particular since the article itself offers no further explanation.

The PC Pro article is a little different. IMO it is a valid RS allowing us to suggest that there are (attributed) doubts as to the strength of the evidence against Townshend. However, the suggestion in the source that Townshend did not commit the offence seems highly extraordinary, and the source again does not offer an explanation. It seems that there is a big leap of logic between weak police evidence and Townshend not committing the crime, particularly since he has confessed.

So in summary, "false accusation" and "appears to have confessed to something he didn't do" are both too extraordinary, IMO, to be included based on passing, unexplained mentions in single op-ed sources. --FormerIP (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe other publications also carried this story, but are less neutral and reliable than Campbell's articles. These are a little more than Op-Ed pieces. Campbell gives his credentials and provides supporting details in his PC-Pro article, including the exact name of the website Townshend accessed through Landslide. It's unfortunate that this case does reflect on the police handling of the investigation. However, it does seem to have gone wrong right from the beginning when the list of names was leaked from the police department to the press. Once it's become a public issue, then everyone has lost control. It would have been much better handled discreetly.Pkeets (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I also noticed that the phrase "it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images" is unsourced. Also, I think it is unclear what exactly is meant. Does it mean that no porn was found or that no hardcore porn was found. IMO all child porn constitutes child abuse, but I think the article should be 100% clear about what was found.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears both quotes come from reference #31. If you think the sourcing is unclear, I'd be fine with you adjusting it once the protection is lifted. This is part of the official statement from the police as reported by the press, and unfortunately there is no more information about what was found. We have discussed this lack of evidence above. Because the published evidence on the case is limited, I've suggested cutting out everything but the statement of the caution and the references. Pkeets (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pkeets, I think you are reading far too much into Campbell. His views are not corroboration by any other sources, do not appear to be based on any evidence and run completely contrary to statements by Townhend himself.

A credible claim that Townshend may be an unreliable witness would indeed change things a bit. However, Campbell doesn't even appear to make such a claim. It look more like you interpreting his words, and over-reaching. --FormerIP (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that I'm interpreting there. However, I'm not suggesting that my interpretation be added to the article. I'd prefer to cut almost all of this section out as controversial and inflammatory.Pkeets (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was not charged with possession or downloading any child porn, he accessed a web site that had child porn on it. If they had found any downloaded child porn pics on his computer he would have been charged with that crime, he was cautioned for entering the site. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to my previous comments, the police had very little on Townshend - they found no indecent images after months of investigations. As a result he was not charged with possessing indecent images, he was cautioned only for the paying to access an indecent site - the same thing he admitted to doing in his initial statement. As this really wasn't an evidence-based case, sources casting doubt on the evidence are of scant relevance - the charge that Townshend was cautioned for is what he himself admitted to doing, and therefore it is Townshend's own words (plus the fact of his police caution) that should be reported.

The minimum facts would be to state that Townshend admitted paying to access a website "advertising child porn" and was given a police caution for that. Extending the section beyond that I guess is an issue of balance - Townshend provided justifications for his behaviour but certainly a number of organisations were on record as saying there can be no excuse, so I guess some care needs to be taken with that. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This is pretty much what I've been saying. However, there are a couple of issues with what you've written above. 1) How do you know what he was cautioned for? Note that you have repeated the standard "accusation" that Campbell has commented on. 2) How do you know Townshend accessed a site "advertizing" child porn? There is nothing in the references that show this.Pkeets (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus here. In that case does the majority vote rule? More editors have voted to leave the article as it is now than anything else.Pkeets (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) You can find out what he was cautioned for by checking any of numerous sources. [7] "At 12.00 today the musician Pete Townshend was formally cautioned for accessing a website containing child abuse images in 1999. " (Scotland Yard statement.)

I see nothing there that says he paid. Your post: "he was cautioned only for the paying to access an indecent site." You have repeated the standard "accusation" that Campbell commented on.

Look down.

(2): "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn. ". Sumbuddi (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing here that says this is what he was cautioned for. We've agreed that he may have been cautioned for saying it, but not that anyone presented evidence that he did it.Pkeets (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Campaign to ban Townshend from performing at the Super Bowl

{{editprotected}}

A recent, relevant news report. I think this fact could be included:

Child advocacy group wants Townshend pulled from Super Bowl: A Florida-based child abuse prevention organization is pushing the NFL not to allow Pete Townshend to perform with his band the Who at the Super Bowl halftime show because of Townshend’s 2003 arrest for accessing a child-porn website in 1999.

More links for verification:

• http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6966965.ece
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239024/Pete-Townshend-treated-sex-offender-The-Who-play-Superbowl.html
• http://www.nydailynews.com/gossip/2009/12/28/2009-12-28_pete_townshend.html

Sincerely. --Scieberking (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not a news report. This is unworthy of reporting at present, perhaps if this campaign by the Florida Child abuse group succeeds or even becomes particularly notable then we could include, but we are not here to advertise not notable campaigns by groups such as this. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I think they are at this point of no consequence. More interestingly, I see they are (indirectly) the source of the current dispute. Check: [8] where pkeets asks his fellow fans to "help me keep an eye on this. It seems the passage that proves Pete innocent is annoying to some readers, who want to delete it." 'BrianInAtlanta' (above, ironically suggesting that people with agendas should steer clear) is also there.

Pretty hard to get things done when you have 'defenders of the faith' being drafted in from a fansite. It should be clear from that thread that there is NO chance of a balanced article when you have those kind of views.Sumbuddi (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? BrianinAtlanta already mentioned the campaign above. When something like this is going on, then vandals always sweep through Wikipedia. I've removed links to these websites from several Wikipedia articles in the last few days, and I already apologized to you for assuming you were a vandal (as indicated in the quote above). I'm here attempting to preserve neutral language in the article, and I don't see that there has been any influx of "defenders of the faith."Pkeets (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any vandals, only fans trying to promote an inaccurate point of view. You said above 'Unfortunately it doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus here. In that case does the majority vote rule? More editors have voted to leave the article as it is now than anything else' but it doesn't work like that, especially not when you've called people out on a fansite. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Fans didn't vandalize various articles with links to websites. I've not intended to call fans out of a website to promote an inaccurate point of view, only to keep an eye on Who related articles, especially this one. I do know that articles are vandalized when a campaign is going on, and I'd recommend that this one stay frozen until after the Superbowl which is on February 7.

At that point, maybe you'd like to resume the discussion? It's been interesting, and I respect the points brought forward. These arguments have been going on for years, though, and I do think the best plan is what I've proposed above. There will never be an agreement on balanced language. Pkeets (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are well positioned to determine the best wording for this article. As a Who fan, you have an understandable aversion to anything linking Townshend to child pornography.

This is quite a problem, as this article will naturally attract Who fans, rather than netural observers, and that's why I requested outside input from an uninvolved third party. The result of that here: [[9]] was to remove the Duncan Campbell, per User:Camaron.

Similarly, my request today for outside input resulted in User:FormerIP passing comment - again he has had no past involvement with this topic. His conclusion was the same - remove the content.

I don't see this changing, it's clear to me, and has been confirmed twice now, that the neutral perspective is not to include this, and no number of Who fans (biased by definition - and naturally attracted to this page) is going to change that. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

re: "that's why I requested outside input from an uninvolved third party": for the record: i believe it was someone else who pursued that, after suggesting it to you a couple of times Sssoul (talk) 06:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need to point-score on this, but I started the RFC, which was listed for third-party attention on the rfc/biographies page,[10] and also again, more recently on a different page: [11] Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, let's record this website regarding the media campaign. See http://uspoc.org/ for an example of what might be appearing in this and related articles. Pkeets (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I admit to being a casual fan of The Who, enough so that I was aware of the campaign referenced above. I think you'll find this whole article has been written by Who fans, but I'm the one requesting neutral language.

You've apparently mistaken my suggested edit. I've not come out in favor of the Campbell paragraph, but in favor of removing most of the language as slanted and unfactual. I've offered two suggestions: 1) Remove all but a statement of the caution and references. 2) Remove all but a statement of the caution and official quotes related to it. My feeling is that you've brought up the discussion of the Campbell material.Pkeets (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason for this protracted discussion is that this article is protected from editing precisely because you added in the Campbell material. That is the only reason it is protected - because you and I were warring over this Campbell paragraph.

If that has changed, and you no longer think this content should be in the article, it should be removed immediately, then we can move on to other things. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Users "clashwho" and "jenlennon" at the Official forums sound familiar? These names are very similar to the banned socks of CosmicLegg... BTW, I'm a fan also but The Who aren't the same without The Ox and Moonie, but their own cover band. --Scieberking (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Scieberking, this is coming across as a bit uncivil, and possibly disparaging to other editors. I don't know those people, but similar isn't the same. I gather you're a big Pete Townshend fan? Pkeets (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm declining the protection request for the time being as there does not appear to be consensus for such additions, and adding material to a protected page can be very controversial and should only be done with clear consensus. The page was fully protected due to edit warring, if this is no longer going to happen and the dispute is close to being resolved then the page should be unprotected. Pages are very rarely left on full protection on grounds of vandalism, general disruption, sock puppets e.t.c. If this is a concern the page could be left on semi-protection for the time being. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I put in a request at WP:RFP to have the page fully protected until after the Superbowl because of the media campaign and vandalism to related articles and it was granted. Note that the template has changed on the front page. Therefore we have some time to consider this and maybe we can come to some resolution.Pkeets (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much support for my suggested edits. Let's look at the Campbell section again. "so it's not really surprising that when he thought he had been caught looking at child porn, it turned out that the site they'd found was one he had looked at but wasn't in fact a child porn site." Sumbuddi, checking above, this appears to be your first reaction to the Campbell quote. My feelings are that this is why it's an interesting addition to the article. What concerns have you developed since?

Also, I think the sentences are poorly edited that describe Townshend's research. Would someone like to suggest a re-write for this?Pkeets (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well given that the Superbowl is very much related to the dispute at hand then an extension may be appropriate, and I was probably going to have to extend the protection beyond the original 13 January expiry. However a month plus is very long time to leave a page fully protected, and full protection goes against the spirit of how Wikipedia operates. I will see how things go, with the protection shortened and extended as necessary, with talk page consensus playing a key part. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cameron. I suspect the page would still bear watching until after the Superbowl, but if we can work out some consensus, then maybe it will cut down on the possibility of vandalism.Pkeets (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any vandalism of this page. There was dispute over this reference from Campbell, that was the only reason this page was/should be protected.

As far as I can see, that dispute is now over, the reference should be removed and the page should be unlocked so people can contribute to this article. I have no objections to edits to the remaining content, but I think we should put this particular discussion/dispute/protection to bed first of all. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the following for a re-write of the paragraph in question:

Townshend was interviewed by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend claimed that this access was related to research for his previously reported campaign against such internet sites (he had posted the anti-child abuse essays 'A Different Bomb' and 'A Different Bomb-Revisited' on his web site the previous year), and categorically denied having downloaded any images. Police searched Townshend's home and business addresses and confiscated 14 computers and other materials for forensic examination. In May 2003, Police issued the following statement: "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." Townshend was informed by police that he would face no charges, but would instead receive a caution. In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, Townshend was entered on the Violent and Sex Offender Register for five years.

Obviously I'll need to add references. Just wanted to get the text out there now for everyone's review. --Dendennis (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, have you changed your mind about the Campbell content?Pkeets (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you've missed the context on why he made this statement. He didn't 'acknowledge' this for no reason.

I would start with something like 'In 2003, a newspaper article was published claiming that Townshend was being investigated by the police as part of the Operation Ore investigation into child pornography. Townshend responded to the article by issuing a statement stating that he had "on one occasion" "used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn". '

Do you have a reference for the claim that he 'categorically denied having downloaded any images'?

As for the police statement, I don't see any reason to include that police quote rather than these:

"At 12.00 today the musician Pete Townshend was formally cautioned for accessing a website containing child abuse images in 1999. "

"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."

I would go with "The police searched Townshend's house and after a four-month investigation stated that he was not in possession of any child abuse images, but had been cautioned for the offence of accessing a website advertising child pornography in 1999. As a statutory consequence of accepting the caution, he was entered onto the Sex Offender Register for five years." Sumbuddi (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any support for removing that content at the BLPN, I would suggest accepting it and unlocking the article. Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The only response to my posting at BLPN was by FormerIP, above, who said that it should be removed. Sumbuddi (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Are these serious comments, Sumbuddi, or are you trying to make some unstated point? I agree that there should be a reference for the denial statement. Regarding this quote above: "At 12.00 today the musician Pete Townshend was formally cautioned for accessing a website containing child abuse images in 1999," are you sure you want to use this part? It does highly suggest that Townshend was cautioned for access to the Landslide site in 1999, which, according to Campbell's articles, was not an access to CP. As FormerIP stated above, this will be an embarrassment to the police. Pkeets (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would my comments not be serious? I think they are quite straightforward - Dendennis' proposal is ok, but needs to include the reason for Townshend's statement, and also the section on the police statement/actions can be cut down - I don't want to use the police statements I quoted, I was just suggesting that the police statement is rather selectively quoted at present. You can see what I prefer, it is in the next paragraph 'I would go with' - and includes none of the police statement, which I think is better than a single very selective quote.

While the identification by the police of the site access as having occurred in 1999 would be consistent with an access to Landslide, we cannot know whether the site in question was Landslide, because the police never said it was. Whether or not there was mistaken identity (as in 'hey you robbed that bank', 'no, I robbed the bank across the street' - i.e. he accessed a different illegal site from the one they thought) cannot be proven from the sources, and I certainly cannot see there is any proof of police error (the charge might have followed from the Landslide database evidence, from Townshend's credit card statements, or from his initial admission of law-breaking). It is certainly far from unlikely that after a four month investigation they found different evidence, and they are hardly likely to put out a statement saying "Initially we thought he accessed the site 'LusciousLolitas.com', but actually it was 'Childporn.ru'".Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Campbell says it was 'Alberto.' This may be Alberto Rey, who is still an online porn star. Pkeets (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, thank you for putting something forth. I, at least, am going to be civil enough to consider it.

This is longer than what I had proposed and includes more detail. However, it does have the advantage of cutting out all mention of Operation Ore, a likely source of controversy given the action group challenge, and the highly disputed Campbell articles. Do you mean to suggest a different title? One point about clarity: what do you mean by "previously reported campaign"? Pkeets (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

what is the advantage of sidestepping mention of Operation Ore? the investigation of Townshend was part of Operation Ore. (for the record, i'm not convinced it's appropriate to eliminate all mention of Campbell's assertions.)

i agree that the newspaper article that prompted Townshend's statement needs to be mentioned and that "his previously reported campaign" is unclear. also, as far as i know a police caution is offered and accepted or rejected; saying "Townshend was informed by police that he would ... receive a caution" sounds like he had to accept it.

also, please see WP:WTA regarding the use of "claim". "assert" and "state" are neutral alternatives Sssoul (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re campaign see [12], dated 21 October 2002, [13] dated 24 August 2002, [14] dated 8 August 2002, [15] dated January 2002. I'm not sure 'previously reported' is entirely accurate, he made some blog postings on his website, but they didn't get any media coverage. Regarding the 'research' claim, this initially emerged in a statement made on his doorstep: [16] ""I have been involved in a campaign against paedophilia on the Internet but it fizzled out. " "I think I may have been sexually abused as a child and I was doing research into it. I've been writing my life story and the research is for a book. "

I don't get the preoccupation with the faults with Operation Ore. It's quite clear from all of this that Townshend did break the law, he said he was doing 'research', and as the police said 'research' is not an allowable activity. The very clear admission of law-breaking by Townshend means that this article should not place any doubt in the readers mind as to whether he broke the law. It really doesn't help Townshend's case to say basically, 'although he broke the law, the police didn't actually have any evidence to prove it until he came out and admitted it'. The fact of the law-breaking should not be mitigated against - OTOH, Townshend's justifications for his actions also constitute a form of mitigation and should be fairly reported. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ps: Sumbuddi, you stated above that "The only response to my posting at BLPN was by FormerIP, above, who said that [the paragraph about Campbell's assessment of Operation Ore] should be removed." could you provide a link to the posting you're referring to, please? the only one about Townshend that i see on the BLPN is this one here, where two editors clearly state "keep the material". Sssoul (talk) 06:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The posting was made by FormerIP on this Talk page (see above somewhere), in response to my request for outside input, he was the only new contributor to actually read this page and post a reasoned response. You can find it by doing Ctrl+f in your browser, please forgive me if I don't take the anon IP saying 'People are trying to force The Super Bowl not to let the Who perform at half time on the grounds that Townsend has been accused, whether he was found guilty or not.' too seriously. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, Sumbuddi, yes I do have a reference regarding the statement that PT 'categorically denied having downloaded any images'. It's the charmingly entitled 'Cops Can Come and Get Me', an article by Dominic Mohan in The Sun, 13 Jan 2003. Pete told Mohan, "...I have only entered once using a credit card and I have never downloaded." And Pkeets, I think that the Campbell comments are contingent on the mention of Operation Ore. So I'd have to see what the final draft of the reworded piece looks like before making a decision on that. I'll have to address other suggestions, etc., later as I have to go to work now!! --Dendennis (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it wasn't actually my view that the Campbell material should be removed. I felt that it could be used to say that a journalist had looked at the police evidence and found it to be weak. However, I do not think it should be used for claims that Townshend might be innocent, even though the source says that, because that would count as an extraordinary claim and (1) the argument put forward by Campbell does not appear logical (ie it says he might be innocent on the basis that the evidence is weak, but this ignores the fact that he confessed); (2) the only source for this claim of innocence is one journalist, whose claim seems to contradict what has been said by Townshend himself. The whole issue of innocence is also slightly complicated because it seems a reasonable POV that Townshend may be more technically guilty than he is morally culpable.

I especially don't think the phrase "falsely accused" should be used, since this is potentially libellous against police officers involved in the case, IMO.

If there is doubt as to whether Townshend really did confess, as expressed by Dendennis, that might be another matter. But we should treat newspaper stories printed at the time the story was developing with caution. If he denied it then admitted it (which I think is likely to be the case), then the important fact is still that he admitted it. --FormerIP (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe he did ever admit than deny it. Dendennis' quote states that he 'entered once using a credit card'. This is an admission of the same offence he was eventually cautioned with - making a payment to a child porn site.

I'm not sure there are any references where he states that he *did* download from these sites, and indeed neither was he ever charged with that, the police said they found no downloaded images, so it doesn't appear there are any contradictions or changes to his story in that sense either.

The Campbell sources claim that he never made the payment, which does indeed seem rather incredible. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As Sumbuddi says, he seems to have admitted it from the beginning, although what the Campbell sources mean is that he may have been in error as far as the Landslide site goes, not that he didn't make a payment to this site. As far as I can tell, he admitted access to Landslide (to Alberto, not a CP site), to running across CP by accident, and then researching the problem of CP, which may or may not have entailed actual entry to CP sites. There were verified emails that he sent to the Internet Watch Foundation regarding this last. In 1999, pornography was everywhere on the Internet and it was easy to blunder into it by accident, or even receive it as spam, and a certain proportion of it was certainly CP. Ironically, the best thing to do legally was to pretend it didn't exist.

This does seem to be the central issue: "The whole issue of innocence is also slightly complicated because it seems a reasonable POV that Townshend may be more technically guilty than he is morally culpable." The question is how to present this so it satisfies the various factions here.

Campbell didn't address all Townshend's statements, only the one about Landslide, the site apparently mentioned in the caution. Here's what Campbell says: "Under pressure of the media filming of the raid, Townshend appears to have confessed to something he didn't do." A team working for the action group traced Townshend's IP and credit card charge to the Landslide site in 1999 and found he went to the site 'Alberto,' which was an ordinary adult porn site.Pkeets (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend came out before he had been contacted by the police, and said that he had paid to access a cp website. If Campbell's claims are true, and the Landslide-powered site Townshend subscribed to was perfectly legal, then the cp site Townshend paid to access was not a Landslide site. Clearly Townshend did not admit to accessing a Landslide site on the 11th of January - he admitted to accessing some totally unspecified cp website.

You've listed faulty premises for your conclusion above. 1) Landslide and Operation Avalanche were widely covered in the US press. 2) It's clear from his published statements that Townshend had contacts at the police department, so it's possible he had knowledge he was being investigated before the press article was published. Therefore you can't conclude the site he referenced in his statement wasn't Landslide/Alberto.

It could have been Landslide; we just have no information on what site he meant. For further info, we can then look at the transcript of the police interview. Again, there seems to be no mention of what the "site" was, but (as discussed above), Townshend says he really doesn't remember it, which calls his initial statement to the press into question. The existence of another "site" than Landslide/Alberto is not something we can speculate on in the article, as we don't have any facts, nor should we try to slant the article to suggest it.Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from here [17] that the first Townshend knew was the Daily Mail article. No prior contact. Remember that if you had subscribed to a 'Landslide' site in 1999, it's highly unlikely that you would remember that fact. 'Landslide' was simply a payment gateway, sites were NOT branded 'Landslide'. So even if you had read the newspaper reports, there's really no way you would know whether you had been a 'Landslide' subscriber.

On the other hand, it's highly likely that if you had subscribed to a CP site you WOULD remember that fact. You might not remember what it was called, and you almost certainly wouldn't remember what the payment provider was called, but you would remember subscribing to CP, and Townshend did.

I don't find it in the least bit credible to suggest that Townshend's initial admission (prior to his arrest) was specifically to accessing Landslide, it was to paying for CP on some unstated website, 'Landslide' was meaningless.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There was another star arrested, Robert del Naja of Massive Attack, who likewise was arrested because he had paid to Landslide. It is reported that he too accessed a legal site, but one called 'Spermed'. However: "The investigations against Mr del Naja were dropped within a month due to insufficient evidence". Why didn't that happen to Townshend? Either it was because he had already admitting to paying for a cp site, or because they found some other evidence. Nobody has access to the police files, and nobody can say whether or not Townshend in 1999 had accessed a different site, which DID advertise cp.

Dal Naja made a very different statement to the press, and maybe he has a better memory. It's fairly clear that Townshend didn't handle this well. Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this isn't an issue of handling, or 'better memory'. Clearly child pornography had been on Townshend's mind, see the 2002 blog posts above. There is no evidence it was ever on del Naja's mind. Townshend's problems are two: firstly, paying money to child pornographers encourages further child abuse, in the words of the police, and secondly, there are a number of people who don't believe his 'research' defence. As for the former, the best you can say is that he was naive when he subscribed, and as for the latter, it's a matter of presenting the facts and his statements. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

With regards to this "he admitted access to Landslide (to Alberto, not a CP site)" - there are no sources that actually state this, there are however PLENTY of sources to show this: "he admitted access to a CP site" - a rather more serious/relevant admission.

Campbell is the big exception as far as sources go. Townshend and his solicitor had no access to the Landslide hard drives to trace his IP, but Campbell did. Campbell gives the date in 1999 and the exact site. His assumption that this is the access in question isn't airtight, but pretty decent, given the police statement about the caution. We're back to whether Townshend is reliable in his statement. I understand your concerns about this kind of admission, but it would be unfair to persecute someone for a public statement if it turned out to be mistaken. We need to take that into consideration. Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it plausible that someone would say 'I paid money to a cp site' when he did not. It would be more credible if he had done so after four months of investigation and on lawyer's advice - accept the caution or it goes to court - but Townshend came out and said this on day 1, before his arrest, before the four months of police investigation. As of yet I have seen no contradiction or confusion in Townshend's statements, and while you are suggesting that Townshend's statement that he accessed an illegal Landslide site is unreliable, the problem is that Townshend never said that. So you are doubting a statement that was never made. And as mentioned before, we shouldn't suggest that Townshend is unreliable on this issue without proper cause - it is a BLP.Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As for moral culpability, that should be prevented in neutral terms. First accurately describe the fact of Townshend's admitted offence, and secondly detail his prior comment on cp (the blog postings), and also justifications he gave - 'research for his book'/'seeing what was there', in order that the reader can make up his own mind.Sumbuddi (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, remembering that we need to be brief, how's this for the first sentence? Is this accurate enough?

"Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he accessed a website advertising child pornography." Pkeets (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to be brief. Personally I think the context of why he acknowledged it should be included. If you don't want to include the words 'Operation Ore' I don't have a problem with that at all, but I would suggest that it start with something like 'Pete Townshend stated in January 2003 that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography in response to a newspaper report claiming that he was under investigation by the police. Townshend was arrested and bailed shortly after, and following a four month investigation, the police determined that he was not in possession of any obscene images, but issued a caution for accessing the website. ' And then continue with his justifications:

'Townshend, who had in 2002 made postings on his website expressing his horror at the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had not accessed the website for sexual gratification, but as part of his research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid made to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse.'Sumbuddi (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, do you like the sentence as it is:

"As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging a credit card access in 1999 to the Landslide website alleged to advertise child pornography."Pkeets (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Tired of scrolling

That has good possibilities. However, a couple of words are bit sensational, and non-UK residents won't understand the arrest and bail sequence. Also, I think a section should begin with a topic sentence that summarizes. What about this? The last sentence worries me. I know it's a from the police quote, but it's very POV and just hanging there. Could we put in Townshend's response, maybe?

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after acknowledging access to a website alleged to advertise child pornography. Townshend stated in January 2003 that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography in response to a newspaper report claiming that he was under investigation by the police. Townshend was arrested and bailed (interviewed?) shortly after, and following a four month investigation, the police determined that he was not in possession of any obscene images, but issued a caution for accessing the website.

Townshend, who had in 2002 made postings on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had not accessed the website for gratification, but as part of research for his autobiography and other work, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend accepted the caution publicly, and said that he was wrong to access the site.Pkeets (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'other work' bit. If there was 'other work' it should be described. I think it can be left at 'autobiography'. Also I don't think 'alleged' is appropriate.

I'm not sure the summary is necessary, the section is not that long, and the essential facts are described inside two sentences.

Regarding the phrase 'bailed', this could be changed to 'released on bail'. Basically, they at that point suspected him of committing an offence, and felt it was ok to release him, with the only condition being that he would return to the police station at a later date for further questioning, while they progressed their investigation.

Townshend wouldn't have 'accepted the caution publicly' - cautioning would be done at the police station. I would go with:

Townshend, who had in 2002 made postings on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Sumbuddi (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll wait for some other editors to check in on the topic sentence. It's an element of style, and maybe I'm not the expert. The "alleged" seems to describe the arguments and uncertainties about the Landslide site. It's questionable whether it's appropriate when you don't name the site, but we're suggesting it if we mention Operation Ore. What does released on bail mean in the UK? In the US, I think it means that charges were filed and that a monetary bond was required for release. Arrested and questioned? This is very close to suiting me. It seems to cover the ground without embarrassing anyone needlessly.Pkeets (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia page on bail that describes the bail process in the UK. "Under the current law of England and Wales, bail simply refers to the release of the accused before trial" The bail condition in this case is the requirement to return to the police station at a later date for further investigations - i.e. basically 'we are investigating you, but you can go home now, we don't think you will abscond, or pose a serious risk to the public, but you might be prosecuted at a later date'. Bail payments are not common in the UK. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks to be the US term: released on recognizance.Pkeets (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My, I missed a lot... I've tried to catch up and offer the following suggested wording. Basically I tweaked the first few sentences, and the second half of the piece is Sumbuddi's suggested wording taken from above:

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he accessed a website advertising child pornography. The issuance of the caution was preceded by a four-month investigation, after which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

Thoughts? --Dendennis (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

streamlining/copy-editing a little:

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 as part of the Operation Ore investigations. In response to a newspaper report indicating that he was under investigation by the police, Townshend had publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. The caution was issued after a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website protesting child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website while researching the issue. The police stated that "research" was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

the aims of the major changes i'm proposing are: a] i feel the news story that preceded his initial public statement is worth mentioning; b] i feel "researching the issue" is clearer than "autobiography and other works" and more accurate than just "autobiography"; c] i think "not in possession of any illegal downloaded images" is closer to what the police actually stated. the rest of the changes are i think minor, for clarity and to avoid WP:WTA. Sssoul (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add my version, too. This includes the newspaper article.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003. In response to a newspaper report claiming that he was under investigation by police, he publicly acknowledged that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. The caution was preceded by a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pkeets, i gather you don't think WP:WTA is very worthwhile? i do, and i think the paragraphs we're discussing are an excellent example of situations where it's important use neutral alternatives instead of "loaded" words like "claim" and "acknowledge". and can i ask what Townshend's belief that he'd been sexually abused has to do with anything? i am cognizant that it's part of what he said, but he's said plenty of other things that we aren't including. Sssoul (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this... I think it's rather stating the obvious to say "money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse", so I omitted that part and made a few other changes based on your suggestions.

As part of the Operation Ore investigations, Pete Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003 after publicly acknowledging that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. The police cautioned him after conducting a four-month forensic investigation of his computers and determining that Townshend had not downloaded or been in possession of any illegal downloaded images.Townshend, who had had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 noting and campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that accessing such websites while undertaking 'research' was not legally permissible but elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offense. In response, Townshend accepted that he had been wrong to access the site, and reiterated that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

--Dendennis (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I don't think WP:WTA is worthwhile; I just think the passage sounds fine as it is. These words are describing a huge scandal, and given that, they sound fairly neutral to me. What we're looking for is a consensus, and that means something you can live with. I have no objection to any of these versions. Let's pick one that flows smoothly and reasonably satisfies all parties. If there's something you CAN'T live with, then point it out.Pkeets (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's reasonable to omit the bit about inciting further acts of child abuse at all. A lot of people/groups were very angry at Townshend, and it would not be balanced to omit that while only including Townshend's defence.

As for the initial reporting, it seems to me that Townshend was on the police database, but it's far from clear he was currently under investigation.

To avoid the word 'claimed', I would start with:

'Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after Townshend publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that Townshend was on the police's Operation Ore database. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.' Sumbuddi (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suits me. How about this for the whole thing?

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that he was on the police's Operation Ore database. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a young child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". Pkeets (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) as Sumbuddi stated somewhere above: "Just for reference, here was the article that preceded Townshend's statement: 'A legendary British rock star is at the centre of a police inquiry into claims that he downloaded child pornography from the Internet. ... Scotland Yard officers are investigating the star'" (emphasis mine). that makes it fairly clear that he was under investigation before he made his public statement.
can we drop the bit about his belief that he may have been abused as a child? i don't see (at all) what it has to do with the topic at hand. Sssoul (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. Is it important to you that we say he was "under investigation" before his admission? "In the database" is conservative. I have some concerns about the "abused as a young child" part, too, but as used here, it clarifies his motivations for research, and I believe it's covered elsewhere in the biography as part of his general artistic motivations. What's your specific objection? Would it sound better if we took the "young" out? I'm thinking that's the word that worries me. How's this? Pkeets (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that he was on the police's Operation Ore database. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that it says 'at the centre', but if you read subsequent reports it says that the police officer who told the Daily Mail this was sacked. It wasn't an official statement, and doesn't seem particularly reliable. Also Townshend was stated to be in 'Category Three' (lowest priority) for investigation. 'Under investigation' implies something a little more active than 'we'll get round to him in a few months'.

Anyway, perhaps this wording would work better: "Townshend made his statement in response to a newspaper report that Townshend was part of the police's Operation Ore investigations."

This is a little less active than "was under investigation", but still consistent with that.

Townshend made the statement about being abused as a child, the relevance was obviously there for him. You pick your reasons why that would be (he wanted to see similar abuse for himself???), but he said it. Sumbuddi (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, with all due respect (and I do very much appreciate the fact that this has been a very civil discussion), I still fail to see what purpose is served by the "incited further acts of child abuse" reference. It's obvious that it's not a good idea to pay money to illegal pornographers, or to pay money in the pursuit of anything illegal or immoral. It obviously encourages the propagation of said business. In my opinion, this reference is not necessary. For example - we don't spell out the reasons why child pornography is an evil, abhorrent business. It's assumed that we all know why. --Dendennis (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, it's a paraphrase from the official police statement. Please see reference #31: "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." Although I was initially doubtful about it, I agree that Townshend must have said that about being abused as a child for a specific reason, possibly to explain why his autobiography would address child abuse. Without this statement, we would be left wondering.

How does the following wording look?

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend's statement was made in response to a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police through the Operation Ore probe. Townshend's caution for accessing the website followed a four-month investigation, during which the police determined that he was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Pkeets, and apologies, Sumbuddi, for my ignorance - I wasn't aware that the sentence in question was taken from the official police statement. However, (a) I still don't see why the reference to incitement is particularly necessary, and (b) I think that it's important to point out that Townshend was not charged. How about replacing that sentence with "The police stated that accessing such websites while undertaking 'research' was not legally permissible but elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offense." Other than that, I find the wording acceptable. --Dendennis (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is "incited" a loaded word? Would it help to change it to "encouraged"? What about this?

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend's statement was made in response to a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police through the Operation Ore probe. It was followed by a four-month police investigation, during which the police determined that he was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. Because of this, they elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offense.

Townshend, who had in 2002 posted essays on his personal website complaining about the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of research for his autobiography, adding that he believed he had been sexually abused as a child. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites only encouraged further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".Pkeets (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at incitement. It has specific legal meaning, and should be retained. It was also the wording used by the police, who had a quasi-judicial function in this case.

I am not aware that the police stated that the reason he was not charged was because he was not in possession of child abuse images. As such, I prefer my earlier wording - we do not know whether Townshend would have been charged had he been in possession of images, or, perhaps, following interviews, the police felt that Townshend was sincere in his 'research' motives and that the offence was therefore minor enough to be handled with a caution.

I also do not like the wording 'rather than charging him with any offense'. The correct wording would be 'caution rather than charge Townshend for the offence', as this correctly describes the fact that Townshend did commit an offence. However that wouldn't work very well in this sentence, as this sentence is about the offence Townshend did NOT commit (being in possession of obscene images) - the actual offence he did commit (accessing a website advertising child pornography) is described earlier.Sumbuddi (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your wording would work well in the first paragraph above. Comments, anyone? We'll have to discuss the "inciting" passage a bit further.

Townshend was cautioned by the police in 2003, after he publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend's statement was made in response to a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police through the Operation Ore probe. It was followed by a four-month police investigation, during which the police determined that he was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. Because of this, they elected to caution rather than charge Townshend for accessing the website.Pkeets (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a healthy consensus is starting to emerge and I commend all for working hard to achieve it. I like different elements of all the various versions being mooted. A couple of points. The newspaper in question did not name Townshend specifically. He apparently read the article and presumed it was about him and then self-identified himself to the media. That is a complex detail to relate. But the way it is been worded "a newspaper report that he would be investigated by the police" is therefore inaccurate. I think that particular element of the saga can be dropped with no great loss to people on either side of this issue.

On another point, I note the fact that the police offered - as part of their statement - their POV about what they feel the effect of people paying for CP is. It's a valid general opinion. I tend to subscribe to it myself. And reporting that particular meme would be a very valid element in an article about CP. But this is an article about Townshend. And we don't precis and convey each and every point made in each and every statement by each and every participant in each and every incident covered. We choose based on pertinence. Townshend asserted that his reason for accessing was to do research. That's an important claim. Some believe it. Others don't. So we should have that assertion. But we should also have the police response to that particular point. That doing research did not mean that the action was permissible. If Townshend had publicly asserted that his transaction had not contributed to the spread of the CP industry - then there would be a reason to include the police counter-point about such an assertion. Otherwise it is a factual but inessential general observation about CP.

Here is my endeavor. Drawing the best from all the recent versions.

Arising from the Operation Ore investigations, Townshend was cautioned in 2003 by the British police after publicly stating that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as research for his campaign and for his autobiography, adding that he had been sexually abused as a young child. He claimed that he had never downloaded any images. The police made clear to Townshend that accessing such websites while undertaking research was not legally permissible. After conducting a four-month forensic investigation of his computers and determining that Townshend had not downloaded or been in possession of any child abuse images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charge him with any offense. In response, Townshend accepted the caution, and said that he understood that he had been wrong to access the site. He reiterated that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". Davidpatrick (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) backing up a bit here to respond to Pkeets's question about why i want to drop the "believed he was abused" bit: it seems irrelevant to me, and sensationalistic. if it's mentioned in association with his creative work, that's because it has some relevance to the content of some of his output; here it seems just plain irrelevant, even if it is part of what he said in his initial statement after the newspaper article. i think it's clear, sufficient and accurate to say something like "Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, stated that he had accessed the website as part of his research into the issue."
Davidpatrick, indeed it is tricky to convey briefly that the newspaper article didn't actually name Townshend; that's why i proposed "In response to a newspaper report indicating that he was under investigation by the police", which seems like an accurate summary of what the newspaper article asserted. (Sumbuddi, that is what the article asserted, despite your speculation that it was inaccurate.) i concede that the phrasing i proposed might be a bit puzzling to some readers who don't know the details, but i still think i prefer that to the option of omitting any mention of the newspaper article; the references are there for anyone to look into if they want more details.
meanwhile, i don't think we can assert that the four months of investigation were devoted solely to his computers, and the word "forensic" seems unnecessary. which (plus a few other minor alterations) would lead to something like this:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report indicated that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offence. The police stated that "research" was not a valid justification; Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he understood that he had been wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

sorry about that second sentence – i know it's close to being a run-on sentence, but it does manage to hang together gramatically and factually. Sssoul (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Ssoul, I believe the word 'forensic' should remain, as that's precisely the kind of investigation it was. Townshend appears to have been informed by police that the investigation's lengthy time frame was driven by the time-consuming forensic testing involved. He told Uncut magazine's Simon Goddard that he did a remix of the Who's Tommy album at the time because he knew that his computers (which contained his current musical projects) would be gone for a protracted period. "I knew that I'd have to wait two or three months, because the police took 12 computers from my house. I knew that it takes them about a gigabyte a week to look through, so I just thought, 'This is gonna take f---ing forever.'" --Dendennis (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry - maybe that particular wording is not that big a deal, but the fact that forensic testing was involved doesn't mean that was all the investigation consisted of, and i don't see a reason to suggest that it was. on the other hand, "four-month investigation" doesn't imply that none of it was forensic in nature. Sssoul (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting closer.

I don't think that the newspaper story "indicated". There were no clear clues to readers who it was referring to. Perhaps "implied" covers that better? I offer a solution on the "forensics" point - which I think is important. The police apparently spent 4 months doing forensics on all his computers - that helps explain the police decision - which according to their statement was based on their not finding any images. Which means they had to have been looking intently for images. The word research when it appears should not be in quotation marks as in that context it can be construed as commentary rather than factual. Anyway - grammatically it's not needed. The words "not a legal justification" seem cumbersome. More aptly - Townshend had been seeking to MITIGATE his actions by asserting research. The police, quite correctly, stated that that did not make his action permissible. I've tried another way to convey that. Here's my latest - working on Sssoul's text.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation (including forensic examination of all his computers) during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offence. The police stated that undertaking research was not a mitigating factor for such an action; Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he now understood that he had been wrong to access the site, and reiterated that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time". Davidpatrick (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, the wording would need to be something like "for the offence" rather than "with any offence". Townshend was legally guilty of an offence, which was entered onto his record, and the wording should not imply that he didn't. Something like "Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead offering a caution for the payment to the website."

I do not like 'mitigating factor', in fact it appears that the 'research' claim may indeed have been a mitigating factor, given that Townshend was dealt with by a low-level remedy. A mitigating factor implies something that makes an offence less serious (but nonetheless still illegal), where as a 'defence' would be something that makes an action legal. I would go with "The police stated that 'research' was not a defence to his actions and that 'inciting others to distribute these images leads to young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer'. Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he had been wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time".

I think it's important for NPOV to include the police's words as a very brief summary of the position/strength of feeling against Townshend. I think it also works well with the chosen quote from Townshend in the next sentence, that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time" - it expresses the problem: money to child pornographers, and then immediately afterwards that Townshend's opposition to that.Sumbuddi (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Another New Section

One comment about the press article: It was followed by the press camping out on Townshend's lawn and pressuring him for a statement, so it wasn't a matter of him just reading the article and assuming it was about himself.

I think this is a bit cumbersome: "Following a four-month investigation (including forensic examination of all his computers) during which it was determined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images." The average reader won't understand the fine points of the term "forensic," and it might be better to insert it as an adverb (see below).

I agree with this: "I think it's important for NPOV to include the police's words as a very brief summary of the position/strength of feeling against Townshend." I don't know that it will provide NPOV, but it will provide something of balance. This section has been a point of contention for some years, and it's possible that including this will cut down on the argument. I like your original wording that implies Townshend might have paid, but doesn't directly say so, as follows: "The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time." It's unclear to me, despite his statement, that Townshend actually ever paid to enter a CP site. Could we further address that point? I'd also like to suggest "an offense" which covers the possibility that it was some other offense that Townshend was cautioned for than accessing the Landslide website. As discussed above, it may well have been for his public statements. [User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined forensically that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him for an offence. The police stated that 'research' was not a valid justification, and that money paid to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.” Pkeets (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it was not dermined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images, in fact at some point he definitely did, he described inadvertently stumbling on an image of a Russian (?) child being abused. What was determined was that he was not in possession of any ilegal images at the time the police conducted their investigation.

My preferred wording:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had paid to access a website advertising child pornography as 'research'.

Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for paying to access the website. The police stated that 'research' was not a defence to his actions and that such payments led to 'young children being seriously sexually assaulted to meet the growing demands of the internet customer'. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not as balanced, as it removes Townshend's justification for his actions, and putting the quotes around "research" implies this was only an excuse for gratification. It completely removes any weight from the final statement that Townshend "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time."

Also, would you consider substituting "access" for "payments"? This is from the police statement and would cover the eventualities more completely, removing the argument of whether Townshend had actually paid to view CP. It's not just payments that encourage pornographers. They have means to collect income through hits on their site, just like anyone else. Reportedly the "Click here for child porn" ad thought to be on the Landslide site was a temporary third party advertising banner, in other words, a method to generate income based on the number of hits to the site, aside from subscriptions.

I agree with you here: "Actually it was not dermined that Townshend had not downloaded any illegal images." Townshend denied downloading, but he was probably unaware of the technical issues involved, that computers download temporary copies of images which appear on the screen. To avoid this technical argument, we should use the "possession" wording. Pkeets (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 in connection with the Operation Ore investigations. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue. Following a four-month investigation, during which it was determined forensically that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him for an offence. The police stated that 'research' was not a defence for such an action, and that any access to child pornography websites incited further acts of child abuse. Townshend said that he was wrong to access the site, and that he "did not want child pornography to be available on the internet anywhere at any time.” Pkeets (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All points read and noted. We are closer.

I think the fact that the police conducted a forensic examination of all his computers is a vital point. I am happy to change mitigation to convey that the police did not regard research as a valid defense rather than a mitigating factor. (BTW we need to determine British vs American spelling of certain words). Research should not be in quotes. Two new "sentiments" have crept in to this paragraph in this recent time - which were not here before. In very crude terms - one of those sentiments tends to be favored by those who think that Townshend is treated too leniently in this article. The other sentiment tends to be favored by those who think the reverse. I have a simple solution. Neither sentiment was expressed in this article for the longest time. Neither is essential. Delete both of them. Balance preserved. The text about the police POV on what CP access does is generic and not specific to Townshend. It may have been said as part of the police's statement. But so were a lot of other things. The quote from Townshend about not wanting CP to be on the internet is also self-serving and generic. Anyone would say the same thing publicly. So - just delete both sets of text. Keep it balanced - and you end up with this:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue and that he had not downloaded any images. Following a four-month investigation (including forensic examination of all his computers) during which it was determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him with any offence. The police stated that undertaking research was not a valid defence for such an action. Townshend accepted the caution, stating that he now understood that he had been wrong to access the site however innocent his motive. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"An offense"? "The offense"? I agree that Sumbuddi has posted a valid objection to "any offense." If this is a legal error in the text, then it will generate argument. Also, "with an offense" may be an American term.

I think American spellings are preferred, although I see plenty of uncorrected British spellings in numerous articles. We can fix it when we've agreed on something.

This is not neutral POV: "stating that he now understood that he had been wrong to access the site however innocent his motive," as it clearly states he had innocent motives. Maybe we should go back to the quotes currently in the article, as they address the caution more centrally.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper report implied that he was one of the subjects of investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had accessed a website advertising child pornography as part of his research into the issue, but that he had not downloaded any images. The police conducted a four-month investigation including forensic examination of his computers and elected to caution Townshend rather than charging him for an offence. They stated, "After four months of investigation by officers from Scotland Yard's child protection group, it was established that Mr Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Pkeets (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ with you on this point you raise: "as it clearly states he had innocent motives". What my text presented was that TOWNSHEND claimed to have innocent motives. Which is different from the article stating it. Anyway, regardless of that - I think your suggestion is quite a good one. And - while I am still advocating my own version - yours would probably be acceptable to me. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, your text clearly does not present an NPOV. We do not really know what Townshend's motives were. Obviously he claimed innocent motive, after the fact, but the use of 'claimed' is problematic, as discussed above, so we can't say 'claimed'. And what his motives were when he looked at the site, we cannot know. So it is best to omit any reference to his motives. The word 'innocent' is also problematic. Sumbuddi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Spellings, see WP:ENGVAR. American spellings are definitely not preferred - neither are British, there is no policy preference. However where there is a clear link to Britain or the US, that version should be used. In this case, English law, English star, in England - use British English.

Your latest version duplicates the police investigation, no real point in doing so.

I don't like 'as part of his research into the issue' - 'as research' is shorter and covers the two types of research (for his autobiography, and for online child pornography) without prejudice towards either one. Hence my earlier wording (omitting the quote marks, as that seems to be a problem):

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly stated that he had paid to access a website advertising child pornography, as research.

Continuing with (a slight clarification of the 'forensic' issue, and the less emotive ending currently in the article):

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 12 computers, during which it was determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for accessing the website. The police stated "it is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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."

I have retained 'paid to access' in the introduction, since that is consistent with the source, but dropped it in description of the caution - likewise consistent with the source.Sumbuddi (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to move forward - I can accept a lot of your changes - including "paid to access". Prior to the investigation, Townshend was adamant that there were no images on any of his hard drives. The police statement was unequivocal that there were no images on any of his hard drives. So that offers us some clarity and a better way to express that. (BTW - I believe that it was 14 computers not 12) And here's where it all leads:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly acknowledged a solitary paid access for research of a website advertising child pornography. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 14 computers, after which the police confirmed the veracity of Townshend's claim not to have been in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for having accessed the website. The police stated "it is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'Solitary' seems like unnecessary emphasis to me. Try publicly acknowledged a paid access to a website advertising child pornography, saying it was for research

I am not entirely keen on the 'cops come and get me' reference, because The Sun are known to take terrible liberties with quotes, and there's no direct quoting from Townshend. But anyway I would omit 'veracity', if this is included, it seems like a POV word:

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 14 computers, the police confirmed Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. The police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for having accessed the website. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We are now extremely close.

1) 'Solitary' seems like unnecessary emphasis to me.

I note that that's what it seems like to you. However - with all due respect - it is factually what he publicly acknowledged. It isn't unnecessary emphasis to convey an essential element of what Townshend said. He didn't say that he had multiple paid accesses. He said that he had one. So either "solitary" or "single" if you prefer.

2) But anyway I would omit 'veracity', if this is included, it seems like a POV word:

Again I note what you say. But that word is there not to advance any POV. It is there because of syntax and grammar. The phrase "the police confirmed Townshend's claim" is not grammatically correct. The police didn't confirm his claim. They confirmed the veracity of his claim.

The police of course go on to make clear that research was not a defence.

So - here it is again. A genuine collaboration by everyone acting in good faith. We've all given up a few bits of text we thought important. And this is better for the give and take.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, publicly acknowledged a solitary paid access for research of a website advertising child pornography. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his 14 computers, after which the police confirmed the veracity of Townshend's claim not to have been in possession of any illegal images, the police elected not to charge Townshend, instead cautioning him for having accessed the website. The police stated "it is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict there. Here's what I had to suggest, David. I'll have a look at yours now.

Could we use Townshend's wording in this case: "On one occasion I used a credit card to enter a site advertising child porn." He implies that he paid because he used a credit card, and elsewhere he says he thinks it was about $5, but some sites at the time only required a credit card for identity verification, and five dollars seems too low for a subscription--the word "paid" might therefore provoke argument. Also, we'll have to reference just about every sentence in the paragraph, so it will be simpler if we stick close to the wording in the sources.

Some of the sentences are sounding a bit labored, so could we simplify? Remember that we're attempting to reach a consensus and to eliminate elements that will cause later arguments, not to promote a particular POV.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he did this on one occasion for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his fourteen computers, the police confirmed Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they offered a caution for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Pkeets (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In response

1) Could we use Townshend's wording in this case:

Good idea. fine by me.

2) Some of the sentences are sounding a bit labored, so could we simplify?

Agreed. Worth trying.

3) I have changed "protesting" to "campaigning against". Which Townshend was. As he says in a recent interview - around that time he had become a dinner-party bore on the topic - because he was constantly talking about his website campaign against CP. And if you read the posts - they are actively campaigning not passively protesting.

4) I will drop my push for "veracity of". I think "verified" is more correct in syntax and grammar than "confirmed"

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he did this on one occasion for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his fourteen computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they offered a caution for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Davidpatrick (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this. Anyone else?Pkeets (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely 12 computers, not 14 btw.

Re the 'claim he was not in possession', I found the full article: [18]. There is quite a long series of prose from Townshend, after the initial tabloid 'Cops Can Come And Get Me', what he actually says is "I have not heard from the police yet. I am anxious that they can discriminate the man I am today from the young tearaway I used to be." This is not 'Pete Townshend claimed he was not in possession of any images', not even close to it. So just omit that bit entirely, the fact that the police found he was not in posession of the images is quite sufficient. Re terminology, 'child abuse images' is the phrasing used by the police, rather than 'illegal images'. Also I would tend to go with 'cautioned' rather than 'offered a caution', I'm not aware that Townshend had any choice about it.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research.

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his twelve computers, the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's good. I would prefer "illegal" to "child abuse," even if that's what the police said. Pkeets (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Definitely 12 computers, not 14 btw.

I note your belief. Let's look for sources for the number of computers. I will go with whichever number has best sources. For now I am going with your "twelve"

2) Re the 'claim he was not in possession', I found the full article: [43]. There is quite a long series of prose from Townshend, after the initial tabloid 'Cops Can Come And Get Me', what he actually says is "I have not heard from the police yet. I am anxious that they can discriminate the man I am today from the young tearaway I used to be." This is not 'Pete Townshend claimed he was not in possession of any images', not even close to it. So just omit that bit entirely, the fact that the police found he was not in posession of the images is quite sufficient.

With respect - not so. The following quotes are also in the Sun article - plus a sentence with reported speech from Townshend who the paper clearly had an exclusive interview with. That Townshend has never refuted or claimed had not taken place.

"Who star Pete Townshend last night told The Sun he wants cops to come into his home and check his computer for child porn."

“I have only entered once using a credit card and I have never downloaded."

“I was not breaking the law at the time. This was in the winter of 1996/1997. It was then illegal to download, which I did not do, not to search and view.

"I did not think using a credit card was illegal either at the time."

"It is important that the police are able to convince themselves that if I did anything illegal I did it purely for research."

By these quotes - and others that Townshend gave at the time and later - the text that I've presented convey Townshend's claim that he had not downloaded and had no images. Something that the police investigation verified. This is a major point for me.

3) Also I would tend to go with 'cautioned' rather than 'offered a caution', I'm not aware that Townshend had any choice about it.

How about the words in Townshend's statement "I have accepted the caution that the police have given me"? With a caution you are offered the caution and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't the police theoretically can make a charge. So the caution had to have been offered. And then accepted or rejected.

But I will compromise and go with your wording as long as there is proper clarity in relation to the word "charging" by adding the words "with an offence".

So taking the best of yours, mine and Pkeets:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his twelve computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him with an offence, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Davidpatrick (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

He didn't say that he wasn't in possession, he said that he did not 'download', a distinction he appears to have made through ignorance of the technical workings of web browsers. If you view child pornography, there will most likely be traces on your PC, and you will therefore be 'in possession' of it. It is not at all necessary to download/save it, simply viewing the images is sufficient. Also, if you are a paedophile and logon to a website for sexual gratification, it doesn't really make any difference whether you have 'downloaded' or not. So your major point basically amounts to the fact that Townshend thought it was (more) acceptable to look at child porn, as long as you didn't save the files to a folder on your hard drive. IMO this should be omitted.

The 'Who star Pete Townshend last night told The Sun he wants cops to come into his home and check his computer for child porn.' quote is just tabloid BS, it's not a quote from Townshend. Even if you believe it represents something Townshend says (not plausible in view of the tone of the comments), it doesn't actually say he wasn't in possession of it. It just says 'come and check'.

And I don't think adding 'with an offence' makes things clearer, it seems designed to do the opposite, as it implies that he did not commit an offence. A 'police caution' is basically a guilty plea with a low-level punishment (this is where the offer/acceptance language comes from, if you don't want the caution, they will charge you, but it probably shouldn't be presented as an 'offer', when a caution is a very low-level sanction). If you wanted to include 'an offence' anywhere, it should be like so: 'Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for the offence of accessing the website'. Someone who is charged is not necessarily guilty of an offence (and the libel laws indeed would show that) - someone who is cautioned is. Although that's probably better left out too, as it implies that it was a caution/charge decision for the website access, whereas there was also the possible possession charge to consider. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

yet another compromise proposal

first off, i've tried to reformat the discussion in the section above to keep it clear who posted what – if i got any of it wrong i apologise, and hope people will correct their posts themselves. please let's all try to indent all the paragraphs within any given post in a consistent manner, so that readers have a chance of working out who wrote what, okay? thanks.
now on to the content: the police statement said Townshend "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images", correct? i understand that viewing an image technically means downloading it, and i reckon Scotland Yard's forensic investigators understand that too. do we have any basis for second-guessing what four months of investigation established?
and yes, of course one has the option of being charged/tried rather than accepting a caution, and there are many reasons why someone might choose one option over the other. and while it's worth emphasizing that being offered a caution is not the same as being charged with an offence, it is also not equivalent to being cleared of any wrongdoing, so how about something like The police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging or clearing him as a balanced statement of fact?
re "protesting" vs "campaigning": i don't understand what "passively protesting" means. for me the distinction between "protesting" and "campaigning" is mainly a question of scale, and one person posting on their personal website doesn't sound like a "campaign" to me. it's not a big deal, it just sounds overblown to me.
a bigger deal (for me) is the verb for what the newspaper article did: if you don't buy indicate and i don't buy imply, how about suggest?
all of which leads to this proposed compromise, based on several of the above suggestions, with the WP:WTA and some of the laboured-sounding sentences smoothed out:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper article suggested that Townshend was under investigation, he publicly stated that he had once used a credit card to enter a website advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 protesting the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had accessed the site for research purposes. A four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. The police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging or clearing him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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."

oh and: please see WP:ENGVAR regarding the preference for UK English in articles about UK subjects. Sssoul (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses to Sumbuddi and SSsoul

1) He didn't say that he wasn't in possession, he said that he did not 'download', a distinction he appears to have made through ignorance of the technical workings of web browsers. If you view child pornography, there will most likely be traces on your PC, and you will therefore be 'in possession' of it. It is not at all necessary to download/save it, simply viewing the images is sufficient.

4 months of forensic investigation by an investigative body under public and media scrutiny (arriving for the collection of the computers with a TV crew in tow filming the event for a documentary) and thus motivated by the most basic of human instincts - to not appear foolish or vindictive - will find those traces if they exist. According to the police statement - they found not one single image. If they had they would have charged him. And quite rightly.

2) Also, if you are a paedophile and logon to a website for sexual gratification, it doesn't really make any difference whether you have 'downloaded' or not. So your major point basically amounts to the fact that Townshend thought it was (more) acceptable to look at child porn, as long as you didn't save the files to a folder on your hard drive. IMO this should be omitted.

I totally disagree. In any event, the usage was not about your - or my opinion. It is about accurately conveying what the person under suspicion thought the law was. Whether he was correct or incorrect.

3) The 'Who star Pete Townshend last night told The Sun he wants cops to come into his home and check his computer for child porn.' quote is just tabloid BS, it's not a quote from Townshend. Even if you believe it represents something Townshend says (not plausible in view of the tone of the comments), it doesn't actually say he wasn't in possession of it. It just says 'come and check'.

Neither you nor I know whether it is BS. It was presented as reported speech by a paper that in the same article presents multiple quotes in an exclusive interview that Townshend has never refuted. In any event - the other direct quotes from him repeat the basic meme.

4) And I don't think adding 'with an offence' makes things clearer, it seems designed to do the opposite, as it implies that he did not commit an offence. A 'police caution' is basically a guilty plea with a low-level punishment (this is where the offer/acceptance language comes from, if you don't want the caution, they will charge you, but it probably shouldn't be presented as an 'offer', when a caution is a very low-level sanction). If you wanted to include 'an offence' anywhere, it should be like so: 'Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for the offence of accessing the website'. Someone who is charged is not necessarily guilty of an offence (and the libel laws indeed would show that) - someone who is cautioned is. Although that's probably better left out too, as it implies that it was a caution/charge decision for the website access, whereas there was also the possible possession charge to consider.

This is a point that was gone over endlessly in the past. The subtle distinctions - and interpretations - of one nation's laws on a website that is international and read in many of the world's other 200 nations that don't have equivalent distinctions. Our wording must be clear to all.

5) so how about something like The police elected to caution Townshend rather than charging or clearing him as a balanced statement of fact?

Not balanced. They also didn't clamp him in irons, buy him a fancy dinner, apologize for arriving at his house with a TV camara crew or do a lot of things. But we present what the alternatives were in the circumstance of Townshend having publicly announced a single transaction. Charge or caution.

6) "protesting" vs "campaigning": i don't understand what "passively protesting" means. for me the distinction between "protesting" and "campaigning" is mainly a question of scale, and one person posting on their personal website doesn't sound like a "campaign" to me. it's not a big deal, it just sounds overblown to me.

I accept that you don't understand. And that that's what it sounds like to you. Neither you nor I are major entertainers with (at that point 40 years of public prominence and therefore a large following who reads our blogs). It was confirmed by multiple sources including members of the police and internet watchdog organizations that Townshend had been making an aggressive noise about the issue for quite some time. He was not an anonymous blogger in his pyjamas typing one or two blogs in a forest where no one heard the trees fall down. He was a public figure who long before the incident had a long paper and cyber trail of campaigning against CP on his website, to watchdog organizations and police officials.

7) a bigger deal (for me) is the verb for what the newspaper article did: if you don't buy indicate and i don't buy imply, how about suggest?

The problem - with all the words is that the article didn't put clues as to his identity beyond that readers would know his name if they heard it. So we should convey that.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. After a newspaper report speculated that a well-known (but unnamed) rock musician was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had accessed the site as part of his research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him with an offence, the police elected to caution Townshend for having accessed the website stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to sound labored again. We can't explain all the fine points in a short section. However, we can link to references or to other articles for the benefit of readers who want more information, and I suggest we do this rather than try to pack too much into the sentences.

I vote for "implied" as the best word we've come up with for the newspaper article, as it describes the suggestion that it was someone in particular without mentioning his name. Recall that the reporters followed up with camping on his lawn, thus letting everyone know exactly whom the article implicated.

"Rather than charging or clearing him" suffers from the same labored phrasing. I suggest we link to the article on "caution" and let the readers follow up. As I understand the situation, Townshend had a choice between a caution or charges and a trial, so I prefer the simpler "caution rather than charging him." If "with the offence" is a point of argument, perhaps we could leave that phrase out.

I don't have a preference for either "protesting" or "campaigning." "Campaign" implies a greater level of organization than "protesting," but we have few references to judge Townshend's level of organization in this effort.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Pkeets (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the last version posted by Sssoul is perfect. No further changes. Sumbuddi (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I might go with it. The sentence with "charge or clear" is awkward, and it will confuse US readers, but the rest of it suits me. Pkeets (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

'prosecuting or dropping the charges'? Sumbuddi (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I thought there were no charges filed, and because of Townshend's statement that the option was charges/trial or caution but not "cleared". As I understand the US system, the police don't make an arrest unless they have sufficient evidence to prosecute successfully; that's why the US Operation Avalanche solicited the names on their list to buy child porn and arrested only those who did. They had to have "probable cause" before they could get a warrant to search and make an arrest. Charges are routinely filed on arrest, but may be dropped later. I think the US term for Townshend's arrest and interview would be "brought in for questioning."

There is no "caution" in the US system, although there are citations (usually punished by a monetary fine, community service, etc.) and warnings (no punishment) that involve no formal charges. If formal charges are filed in a case, then the defendant has the option to plead "nolo contendere" (no contest) and accept the court's punishment instead of pleading "guilty" or "innocent" and going to trial. This means that the defendant does not admit nor deny the charges, but will accept the penalties for the offense without protest. I think US readers might draw a parallel between the UK caution and the US citation, as there is only an option to accept the punishment or to go to court if in disagreement. A caution also sounds something like nolo contendere. The difference between is whether or not formal charges were filed, so this is a central point for readers to use in translating the caution into US terms. Pkeets (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The police could have dropped the case entirely. People commit offences every day - a minor confrontation in a bar, excess speed when driving, and if they think it's appropriate they can drop the charges entirely, even though, technically speaking, an offence might have been committed.

The term 'charges' might be misleading. Townshend was arrested because the police had reasonable grounds to suspect he was committed an offence.

After investigation they might either have found no evidence that Townshend committed the offence, in which case nothing further would have been done, or they found that there was evidence that he committed the offence. Having found evidence, they would either decide:

• technically an offence, but trivial, perhaps an abusive argument between neighbours, drop case
• minor offence, suspect needs a formal warning at a minimum (e.g., first-time possession of marijuana) - offer the suspect a caution, which will go on his record, and will be taken into consideration in the event of a future offence (say further possession of drugs). If the suspect doesn't want the caution, because he thinks he didn't do it, then the police would:
• pass the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service ('charge the suspect'), who would ultimately decide whether or not the case would go to court (based on whether there is a realistic chance of conviction, and whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the person or not) Sumbuddi (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way to condense this into a sentence? From your description, it looks like the caution would be more like the US warning, as a US citation almost always has a mandatory fine attached.

This doesn't cover "charge the suspect"? "Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating..."Pkeets (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent, after edit conflict with Pkeets) it's clearly not the job of this article to clarify what a police caution is, beyond providing the link, but a caution is different from either charging someone or letting them off entirely, and i still think we can make that point without distorting things or indulging in speculation. sorry if the sentence i proposed sounds laboured to some of us – is this any better?

Instead of charging Townshend or dropping the case, the police decided to caution him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity."

in Davidpatrick's and Pkeets's versions the phrase "verified Townshend's claims" is getting into WP:WTA territory again. the crux of the matter is surely the fact that no illegal images were found, regardless of what he did or didn't "claim". doesn't this cover it?

A four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.

i'm not happy with the idea of calling that newspaper article a "report"; and unfortunately i'm less and less comfortable with that "implied". the paper didn't "speculate" either - it blared, even though it omitted his name. alternate wordings aren't springing vibrantly to mind, though, so ... so i'll sleep on it. Sssoul (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong note. The English and US legal systems have many differences. Indeed there are multiple differences among all legal systems. Wikipedia is truly international. There is no sure-fire way - and certainly no succinct way to express the differences and vaguaries of different legal systems and translate them so that different measures are universally understood. That is beyond the scope of individual articles. It is one of the many reasons that we must be very careful in such matters. By way of example - John Lennon's immigration battles in 1972-1976 were finally settled when a US court determined that the English conviction he had from 1968 would never have passed muster in a US court. Different levels of due process. So - we cannot go there.

There is sometimes a danger of splitting hairs and atoms ad infinitum. What Pkeets came up with is fine with me. Let's now ask some other editors who have not been in on this most recent drafting look at Pkeets last version.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's claim that he was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Davidpatrick (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend certainly asserted that he had never downloaded - and ergo he could not possibly be in possession of any illegal images. Leave aside geekly definitions of whether viewing an image is technically a form of downloading. Townshend was referring to the popular conception of downloading. ie making a conscious choice to proactively download an image. It doesn't matter either way for two reasons. Reason #1 - this is what he asserted - not what may or may not have actually happened. If he HAD pro-actively downloaded - he would have been revealed as a liar. Either way the reference is not to what was actual - just to what he asserted. Reason #2 if he HAD downloaded in any way - pro-active popularly understood way - or geeky technical interpretation - it is highly probably that a 4-month forensic investigation by the unit of the police that specializes in these matters would have uncovered at least one single frame. But the police stated unequivocally that they didn't - thus confirming that Townshend's claim - however improbable as it may have seemed to some people at the time - was actually verified by the police. The police statement that there were no images confirmed/verified what must have seemed an unlikely claim by Townshend at the time. However, the police view about research not being a valid defense is still quite rightly presented. As it should be. Townshend's claim about images was truthful - but his defense was not valid in legal terms. Balance and NPOV is preserved. Let's have some fresh eyeballs on the last Pkeets versionDavidpatrick (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang another edit conflict! Here's what I was trying to post:

David said above that it's a major point for him that the section include Townshend's public denial of being in possession of any images, so we're trying to come up with some wording. "Claim" really is the word we need, but maybe "denial" would work as well?

Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's denial that he was in possession of any downloaded illegal images.

Would this work for the charge sentence? It has the advantage of parallel verb construction.

Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, the police chose the option of cautioning Townshend, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity."

It's also difficult to express the actions of the press briefly. What do you think of this?

Following a leak that Townshend was slated for investigation and a consequent press furor, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography.

If these are all accepted, then it will read like this:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a leak that Townshend was slated for investigation and a consequent press furor, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police verified Townshend's denial that he was in possession of any downloaded illegal images. Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, the police chose the option of cautioning him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Pkeets (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, Townshend denied 'downloading', the police found no 'possession'. If we are going to report technical legal findings, we should not conflate them with different cases. Townshend was not in posession of any child porn - that shows to the reader that he did not have any on his PCs. And that is a positive thing, albeit he did have advance warning of the police coming. Per, Scotland Yard's ex-head of paedophilia above: "attacking police delays in carrying out the investigation, he said there had been “adequate time and warning” to get rid of any evidence.".....

Anyway, I don't see the point of posting inaccurate descriptions of what Townshend says. If it's really important to describe that, Townshend's words should be expressed separately from the police:

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a leak that Townshend was part of the investigation, and subsequent media attention, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on one occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had previously stumbled upon child pornography, which he had viewed but not downloaded, and that he made the payment for the purpose of research. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, the police determined that Townshend was not in possession of any downloaded illegal images. Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, the police chose to caution him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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. Sumbuddi (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the point about charges. I'll leave what you've proposed above for David and Sssoul, as the other issues are theirs.Pkeets (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Townshend possessed either 12 or 14 computers that were searched. It is possible, we don't know, that one or more of those were not currently in use but were simply old computers dating back to 1999 and before. (For example, I myself have 4 or 5 discarded PCs lying around. I suspect I'm not alone in that.) The police are rightly very proud that their forensic searches are capable of recovering data from hard drives that people are convinced they have pro-actively deleted. I do not denigrate or doubt the ability of the police to achieve that.

2) If 12 or 14 computers were removed from Townshend's home - are we to speculate that he had more computers that he suddenly disposed of because the police were coming?

3) Of course if Townshend was lying about making one solitary paid access in 1999 and was in fact accessing CP sites all the time - up till he became aware that the Sun had run a story about him, there would probably be rather more images on his PCs than whatever might have been there from his solitary access in 1999. But despite the 4 months of the police's forensic search of his 12 (or 14) computers - they found not one single image.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a newspaper report (based upon a leak by a police employee who was subsequently sacked for his illicit action) implying that he was under investigation, Townshend publicly acknowledged using a credit card on a solitary occasion to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for the purpose of research and that he had not downloaded any illegal images. Following a four-month investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, the police confirmed that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. Instead of charging him, they cautioned him for having accessed the website, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) thanks for the recasting of the sentence about the newspaper article - we need to use (and probably link) the term news leak, but Pkeets's & Sumbuddi's versions are closer than "implied", certainly. until further notice, i reckon we do have a reliable source that establishes that the leak included Townshend's name, and not just a "legendary musician", right? if not, we could go back to something like one of Davidpatrick's earlier suggestions:

After a newspaper article asserted that a famous musician was being investigated, Townshend publicly stated that he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography.

the news story itself would suffice as a source for that version.

the bit about the police employee being sacked seems overlaboured and of marginal relevance; nor do i see why the wording "previously stumbled upon child pornography, which he had viewed but not downloaded, and that he made the payment for the purpose of research" would be preferable to the simpler, clearer, more readable "Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes". (i'm not ignoring what Pkeets wrote about Townshend's statement that he hadn't downloaded anything being important to Davidpatrick; but i couldn't find where Davidpatrick said that or why it might be important.)

i agree that we can't undertake "translations" of what the police caution might represent in other legal systems, but "[i]nstead of either bringing charges or dropping the case" accurately states the options to a caution within the UK system. stating both options helps clarify a major point that frequently and unfortunately gets misrepresented in this whole saga: he was neither charged nor let off.

and yes, the task at hand is to finetune the language of this paragraph. calling other editors' concerns "splitting hairs" might sound rather dismissive, although i assume it wasn't meant that way.

all that, plus concerns about WP:WTA and about overassumptions about the way the caution was worded, plus a few instances of plain old stylistic preferences, would lead to:

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes. A four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images. Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, 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 solicitor, 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."

and i agree that defamatory speculation about living persons is inappropriate, even on a talk page. see WP:BLP#Non-article_space. Sssoul (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But you must admit that's totally logical on the other hand. --Scieberking (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

People should not be speculating about defamatory uncited claims on the talkpage, please be aware BLP protection still operates here, any such defamatory possibly libelous comments can and should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have received some concerns that speculative contentious claims about Pete Townshend are being made here. I am glad that productive discussion on solving this dispute has been happening, however please do remember that WP:BLP does apply in the article space, and that speculative suggestions about living people should be avoided. Please stick to what the sources say. Camaron · Christopher · talk 14:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Soldiering on with the spirit of compromise always in mind...

Note that the police did not have the option of not charging a person who had very publicly confessed via the media to an infraction of such a law however unwitting or minor the infraction may have appeared to be. (Or not as one may think.) The infraction had to be addressed with a consequence. Charge or caution. The police have that discretion. And for reasons that it knows (and that we don't know) elected to caution.

Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a news leak that implied Townshend was among the subjects of the investigation, he publicly stated that he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes. A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. The police elected to caution him instead of charging him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Still another new section

I'm happy with the sentence on charges now; I think this will be understandable to US readers. Thanks for checking over the text above; however, because of the edit conflict, there are two different versions. How's this for the new edit?

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had never downloaded any images. A four-month investigation, including forensic examination of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal images. Instead of either bringing charges or dropping the case, 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 solicitor, 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." Pkeets (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whew. I'm looking for articles on the police leak, and it's an interesting search now--I'm getting conspiracy theories right away. There were some very good news stories about the leak online, and the ensuing investigation and hearings, but I'm have a problem coming up with them right now. Anyone else?Pkeets (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/27/child_porn_list_leaked/Pkeets (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that it's necessary or appropriate in this article to go further into the police leak - absent concrete evidence of pertinence to the main issue. Though it is very interesting that there was a leak that may have triggered the incident - and it is noteworthy that the police apparently dismissed a member of the police force for having leaked information illegally. On the paragraph - we're getting there. See my notes above for the reasons for slight variance from what you have just posted. Also note correction of tenses. At the time that the police were examining his computers Townshend could not be in possession of anything on his computer (as the police had possession) so grammatically the wording needs to be "had not been in possession" rather than "was not in possession". Other similar tweaks - eg the word "never" doesn't apply to the single access that Townshend was referring to in the first part of that sentence. So if the two claims by Townshend are in one sentence - it has to be his denial in respect of that occasion rather than his global denial about never having downloaded in general. That may disappoint some who are proponents for Townshend, but I think it is more precise.

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had not downloaded any images. A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the incident of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please remember to indent each new paragraph of your response.Sumbuddi (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this version. Another note from the quick search for "leak" references: the editor of The Sun admitted to paying for the info.Pkeets (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your wording implies that Townshend was never in possession of child pornography, which clearly the police could not verify.

If you are concerned about accuracy, may I suggest "established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images at the time of his arrest". This is 100% accurate and does not imply anything not justified by the sources. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We do need a good reference if we insert the "news leak." Will the one above do? Pkeets (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Townshend was arrested on January 13th. That leak reported above is a leak of the whole list, not the selective leak of Townshend's name that was done a couple of weeks or so earlier.Sumbuddi (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Was the selective leak of his name ever discussed in something we can reference?Pkeets (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

points taken on board. "at the time of his arrest" is redundant. But to accommodate your point I have changed "that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images" to "that Townshend had no illegal images on any of his computers"

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had not downloaded any images. A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, established that Townshend had no illegal images on any of his computers. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the incident of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reads fine, I think however that the 'including forensic examination of all his computers' is now redundant: "A four-month police investigation established that Townshend had no illegal images on any of his computers." tells us the same thing without the repetition - 'forensic examination' really doesn't tell us anything about the specific techniques used, and the 'four month' text makes it clear that the investigation was (a) thorough and therefore (b) firmly established that there was no cp on PT's pcs. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Point noted. If we truncate as per your suggestion (which I don't oppose in principle) I think the word forensic still needs to be there and that it was a police investigation. How about this:

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had not downloaded any images. A four-month forensic investigation by the police established that Townshend had no illegal images on any of his computers. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the incident of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's what appears to be a reputable source that mentions the leak after the fact, and also that the police officer who leaked it was sacked. Would this be suitable? http://news.scotsman.com/petetownshend/Pete-Townshend-considered-suicide.2490213.jp Pkeets (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a source that there was a leak and that the policeman was sacked. But it is an indirect reporting of that matter. In any event - I think it is tangential for this article to go into the details of how the story was leaked and the fact that a policeman was subsequently sacked. An interesting insight into this incident but tangential. I think our focus should be on finalizing the new paragraph. Which we are so close on. Everyone contributing has compromised a little - which is a healthy sign. I think what we have arrived at is excellent. It's now time to try and "bring the plane in for a landing"... Davidpatrick (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

SEE MORE RECENT EXCHANGES ABOUT THE REVISED TEXT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE THESE TWO COMMENTS

"A four-month forensic investigation by the police established that Townshend had no illegal images on any of his computers." Shouldn't we mention his other effects here? Video tapes, magazines, etc.?Pkeets (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They did seize video tapes also. I suppose "A four-month forensic investigation by the police established that Townshend was not in posession of any illegal images." could work. Sumbuddi (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"A four-month forensic investigation by the police - including all of his computers - established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images" Davidpatrick (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"A four-month forensic investigation by the police established that Townshend had no illegal images on any of his computers or other effects." Pkeets (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) "A four-month forensic investigation by the police - including all of his computers - (striking overhasty agreement - see below) "established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images" works for me. the "or other effects" sounds too laboured. Sssoul (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sssoul not to include "or other effects". FWIW - I can live with "laboured" text if it conveys something that needs to be conveyed. But this is too tangential. So our civil discourse and spirit of compromise has got us to here:

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had not downloaded any images. A four-month forensic investigation by the police - including all of his computers - established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the incident of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's okay with me, then. Are the dashes UK usage? I would use commas there. Pkeets (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This latest version looks good to me, too. When we establish a final version, I'd be happy to go through and add the references. --Dendennis (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The dashes are unorthodox punctuation by me! Here's the grammatically correct version.

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had not downloaded any images. A four-month forensic investigation by the police, including all of his computers, established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the incident of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So are we all in agreement now and ready to insert the references? Should we wait through the week-end to see if anyone else checks in?Pkeets (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would hurt to have a version ready into which the various references have already been added. As a preparation.

BTW - I have just noticed that there is a conjunctive that needs to be changed. It crept in a few versions back and I hadn't noticed it. It's a "but" that should be an "and". "said that he had entered the site for research purposes but had not downloaded any images." The conjunctive should be "and". ie "said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images."

Here's the corrected version:

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a site advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images. A four-month forensic investigation by the police, including all of his computers, established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the incident of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dendennis, I guess that means you can go ahead with the references.Pkeets (talk) 03:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed the phrase 'incident of access'. I am a litle uncomfortable with 'incident', as it implies something less serious than an 'offence'. Like if I shout at my child in the street, a passing policeman might have a word with me, but I have (probably) not committed any offence, and he would not therefore be able to caution me.

Substituting 'offence of access' would make that clear to the reader, who perhaps does not understand that a caution is a sanction imposed by the police for a criminal offence.

I see that at some point you've reverted to 'had not been in' (implying ever) without any qualifying words. Further to the discussion above, I think that your argument that 'At the time that the police were examining his computers Townshend could not be in possession of anything on his computer (as the police had possession) ' is rather specious. It is quite clear to the reader what is meant by 'was not in', they are not going to be thinking 'ah, but of course he wasn't - the police had taken his PCs away'. I would just stick with police wording, as used by the newspapers, I would stick with it. Accordingly, a referenced version: _{note: this post appears to be by User:Sumbuddi, and continues into the next section Sssoul (talk) 09:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)}

A Referenced Version

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 he had once used a credit card to enter a website advertising child pornography. Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 deploring the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images. A four-month forensic investigation by the police, including all of his computers, established that Townshend "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images." The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the offence of access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Sumbuddi (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi - You are to be thanked for assembling the references to be used in whatever is the eventual text. No disrespect but I don't agree with the changes you have made to the version that Pkeets, Dendennis and I had accepted. Compromises have been made by all of us. I'm still prepared to work on this Davidpatrick (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we have. Care to offer any explanation for your rejection? I made three changes, to accurately quote the police statement, to accurately use the word 'offence' as opposed to the euphemistic 'incident', and to use the verb 'deplore' meaning 'strongly condemn', rather than 'campaign' meaning 'carry out activities to achieve a goal'.

To expand on the police issue, we should prefer to report the accurate words of a legal body rather than some paraphrased words that do not accurately describe what they said. In particular, the concern of the police investigation was whether Mr. Townshend was a child abuser or a paedophile. 'Illegal images' is a rather meaningless phrase, given that it might have different meaning depending on the context. A lot of consenting adult pornography might be deemed 'obscene' ('illegal') by a jury - the basis of the police investigation was child pornography, not whether Townshend had some other images that might or might not be 'illegal'. Sumbuddi (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

1) as opposed to the euphemistic 'incident'

In a spirit of compromise I have taken out the word "incident" and referred just to the "access" -

2) to use the verb 'deplore' meaning 'strongly condemn', rather than 'campaign' meaning 'carry out activities to achieve a goal'

On reflection, you are correct that the reference to campaigning is not adequate as worded. Though Townshend's website postings do campaign against CP - by limiting the reference to his postings, the sentence doesn't convey his documented campaigning work in contacting an internet watchdog organization and senior police official about the issue - so I am re-wording to address your point.

3) the concern of the police investigation was whether Mr. Townshend was a child abuser or a paedophile.

I don't know that we can definitively say what "the concern of the police investigation was" It could be said that their concern was whether Townshend had paid for an access, whether he had downloaded, whether he possessed illegal images.

4) we should prefer to report the accurate words of a legal body rather than some paraphrased words that do not accurately describe what they said.

A considerable amount of Wikipedia consists of paraphrased words rather than direct quotes. The key is whether the essence is conveyed. I believe it is. We do quote the police position on the topic of why research is not a defence

5) 'Illegal images' is a rather meaningless phrase,

I disagree. The second and third sentences in the paragraph includes the words "child pornography". No one is likely to be unaware of what "illegal images" the police were looking for. "illegal images" is an accurate paraphrase of the essence of the quote. Davidpatrick (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Revised version - awaiting insertion of references

In a spirit of compromise I have removed the words "incident of" from my last version - so that it is now just "rather than charge him for the access". That compromises between the two suggested texts of this phrase. I think that this version is now deserving of having references added so that we can see how it looks with those references inserted.

(Subsequently adjusted to take account of an issue flagged by Sumbuddi)

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 he had on one occasion used a credit card to enter a site 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, said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images. A four-month forensic investigation by the police, including all of his computers, established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images. The police elected to caution rather than charge him for the access, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." In a statement issued by his solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 07:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

first another formal plea: can we PLEASE all indent all the paragraphs of all our posts? it's a complicated discussion anyway, and for readers coming in later the inconsisent indentation (plus the very odd decision to start a new section mid-post) is a real barrier to navigation. it's not hard or time-consuming for each of us to check our own indentation and fix it; leaving it for someone else to clean up is not okay. thanks.

on to the content: since when do we have a reliable source to cite for exactly what the caution was for? "Instead of pressing charges the police elected to caution him, saying, 'It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity'" is accurate, nonspeculative and sufficient. (another problem with "charging him for the access" is that it sounds too much like "requiring him to pay for it".)

and i see i myself agreed earlier to characterizing the entire investigation as "forensic", which is very dubious - i was in a hurry, and concentrating on the tense used, not the placement of the adjective. the version i would agree to is "A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all his computers, established that Townshend had not been in possession of any illegal images."

other than that, the Davidpatrick's version just above (timestamped 7:42 16 january) looks good. Sssoul (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

with links and references, that would be:

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 he had once used a credit card to enter 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, 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 had not been in possession of any illegal 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 solicitor, 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."

(i've omitted the reflist on purpose, since it doesn't indent nicely; they're the same refs Sumbuddi provided above, as you can see in edit mode). Sssoul (talk) 10:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(Hoping that this is indented properly!) Sssoul's points are well-taken. (1) I agree that we don't have a reliable source on what the caution was for - so a change on that is appropriate and has been well reworded. (2) The rewording on the investigation is better than we had and much more precise. (3) A minor point but there is a subtle difference between "he had once used a credit card" and "on one solitary occasion he had used a credit card". The latter is more precise. And it reads better. A small price to pay for just two additional words. So taking Sssoul's improvements into account - plus the other note - we end up with:

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 solitary 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, 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 had not been in possession of any illegal 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 solicitor, 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."

I did think were were considering only two wordings for Townshend's postings: "campaign" or "protesting," the difference being the matter of organization, which we have difficulty judging at this point. Besides what you mention above, there are also some TV interviews on record where he talks about the subject. There are some press articles that discuss his "vigilante" actions, which would suggest a campaign rather than a protest. However, I'd be okay with either word. Introducing a new wording now requires more consideration. I agree that we don't have a reference indicating what he was cautioned for; there is a lengthy discussion above where we established this. Therefore I'm more comfortable with how the paragraph reads above or using "an offense", rather than "the offense." I'm also hoping we can come up with some slightly more academic references at this point. In US usage, "Internet" should be capitalized, BTW. Pkeets (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'campaign' warning is worse than before. If Townshend had been campaigning against cp in 2002, we should be able to find some report of that. So I have instead added in an extra sentence to describe what he said he did.

And why have you added 'solitary' back again? It is not necessary, and it is misleading. Regarding the wording used, it should be "child pornography", not "illegal images".

And again, it is inaccurate to say that Townshend had not been in possession, "you were in possession of child pornography not just if you actively downloaded it, but if it appeared on your computer screen at all." (see interview with Townshend in December 2003, which I have added in below). So indeed Townshend had been in possession, at some point.

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 attacking the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images. He said that he had been "involved in a campaign against paedophilia on the internet" that had "fizzled out", and that he had been in contact with the Internet Watch Foundation and Scotland Yard about the issue. A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any child pornography. 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 solicitor, 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." Sumbuddi (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to come down on the side of the simple "campaign." What makes Townshend's actions seem like a campaign is that there is a record of more than just his website postings. Press articles state that the Internet Watch Foundation confirmed emails from Townshend complaining about online porn, and at least one of the interviews where he discussed this prior to his arrest was online. I also believe he received confirmation from a retired police officer that he had called to discuss the problem with the police. If you want to verify all these, we can start up a search for further references. I don't think it's necessary to explain use of the word, however; just saying "campaign" and supplying the references should be sufficient. Pkeets (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I note all Sumbuddi's points. I will go along with "solitary" changing back to "on one occasion". I think "illegal images" is preferable to "child pornography" a phrase that already appears twice in the paragraph but I am open to discussion on it. I prefer the version on the research that I suggested. I don't believe there is a need to add the inserted sentence. If others disagree - I would be open to it. The opening words would need to change from "He said that he had been..." to "He also noted that he had been..." Davidpatrick (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I can accept campaign. I think 'child pornography' is better however: we dont need to provide variation for the sake of it. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't propose "illegal images" for the sake of variety - but because the words "CP" have been used twice before and there is by this point in the paragraph - clarity on that point. Moreover - if the police had found illegal images on any of his computers or other materials - they would have been obligated to act in respect of possession of the illegal images. The police did not. This leads us to the following:

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 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images. He also noted that he had been "involved in a campaign against paedophilia on the internet" that had "fizzled out", and that he had been in contact with the Internet Watch Foundation and Scotland Yard about the issue. A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal 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 solicitor, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The police are not 'obligated' to do anything. If you get caught speeding, they do not have to give you a ticket. If you have horse porn on your PC, who knows what they would do. We do not know what their priorities are on other forms of 'illegal image', whatever that is supposed to mean, except that child abuse is the highest priority, and the UK filtering system Cleanfeed ONLY filters child pornography, and NOTHING else. I did some Googling, and could find no reference to UK arrests/charges for any other kind of illegal image than CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

And why have you added and changed the sentence I proposed when you said there was no need for it? If it is included, there is no need for 'campaign' in the previous sentence.Sumbuddi (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Would "protesting" be acceptable then, instead of campaigning? Is there some particular reason to change to "deploring?" It's not an active word. Without mention of his other activities, it suggests he only posted the articles and took no further actions.Pkeets (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

OK 'campaigning' it is. But then it is not necessary to include the sentence I inserted about it 'fizzling out'. Sumbuddi (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I didn't see that it really added anything to the article. Here the last posting without it:

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 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, 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 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 solicitor, 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." .Pkeets (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Slight rearrangement, as I think that the description of the punishment should follow the description of the offence - the wording above follows 'he didn't have any cp' with 'the police cautioned him', which is a little confusing.

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 campaigning against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet, 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 his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any child pornography.

In a statement issued by his solicitor, Townshend said, "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law". Instead of pressing charges for this, the police elected to caution him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity." Sumbuddi (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're taking the police statement out? I disagree. Pkeets (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he was taking the police statement out. He re-sequenced its position. Which I don't agree with. The statements should follow the sequence in which they were issued. Davidpatrick (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

In the ongoing spirit of comity and compromise, I will go along with Sumbuddi's and Pkeets' point about the sentence referring to the other research - so I'm okay with losing the sentence that was added. I will also go along with Sumbuddi's wish to describe what was not found as "child pornography" rather than as "illegal images". I have included one more line from Townshend's official quote acknowledging his wrong-doing. I have changed "solicitor" to "lawyer" as the word "solicitor" in the USA is not understood as a lawyer but as one who solicits (eg seeking charitable donations at airports) and does not bring to mind a person's attorney or legal representative. The word lawyer appears to be understood as such in the UK and elsewhere. The sequence of quotes should stay as it is. It follows the logical chronology of the statements. The police quote accompanied the caution that was issued. The Townshend statement (issued immediately afterwards) was (by its wording) clearly in reaction to having received the caution.

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, 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 had not been in possession of any child pornography 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, "The police have unconditionally accepted that these were my motives in looking at this site and that there was no other nefarious purpose, and as a result they have decided not to charge me. 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." [19]Davidpatrick (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why have you expanded Townshend's statement? It was fine as it was. We should not use the offender's statement as a source on what the police thought or felt.

And why have you gone back to 'had not been', when the meaning of 'was not' is perfectly clear?

And on a minor point 'all of his' [computers] would be better expressed as 'his'.Sumbuddi (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Why have you expanded Townshend's statement? It was fine as it was. We should not use the offender's statement as a source on what the police thought or felt.

Nothing in the presentation in the paragraph asserts that it is a source on what the POLICE thought or felt. It is a sourced quote on what TOWNSHEND states was his understanding was the reason that he was not being charged. Followed by his acceptance of this wrong-doing and acceptance of the caution. It is a direct quote by the subject of the article. It was of course entirely the police's right to respond and refute Townshend's statement if they thought he was erroneous or had mis-stated their position. The police most categorically did not respond to this widely published statement by Townshend. No refutation was made. What the police did wish to do was to state that Townshend's reason for access was not a defence. And that - quite rightly is there. As is Townshend's acknowledgment of wrong-doing.

2) And why have you gone back to 'had not been', when the meaning of 'was not' is perfectly clear?

I don't understand what part of "had not been" you don't follow. This is an issue of tense. The statement by the police was issued in May 2003. At that point they were clear that he had not been in possession of - and this was my compromise to you - any child pornography. (I still feel that it should be "illegal images" - but I have compromised in your direction.)

3) And on a minor point 'all of his' [computers] would be better expressed as 'his'.

Is there a reason to not state "all" when the sources indicate that all of his computers were removed - in a raid that was filmed by a documentary crew following the police and shown on British TV. Reports have stated variously 12 or 14. We should either have the number or the word "all" Davidpatrick (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Absolute nonsense. There were a large number of statements made in criticism of Townshend reported by reputable media organisations by police sources, child abuse charities and others, and indeed this criticism continues today. We have failed to report any of this. Accordingly, we are most definitely NOT in need any more soft soaping of Townshend by including his representations of what the police position was.

I don't know how you think the police work, but they are in the business of investigating and preventing crime, not responding to PR wheedle. On this topic, however, the police filmed in the Operation Ore BBC documentary were surprised/amused at the brazenness of Townshend putting out a statement that he had 'invited the police' to come around, when in fact they had obtained a search warrant and were coming around to arrest him, whether he liked it or not. That these police comments were reported was only by circumstance of the BBC film crew filming the Operation Ore investigations - like I said, the police do not spend their time responding to PR by suspects. They issued a statement, then Townshend gets to have the last word, or indeed as many words as he likes, that's really not their concern any more.

Townshend's tenuous grasp on the reality of the offence he committed is made abundantly clear in the December 2003 interview [20] - he says 'Although I'm at the lowest status, and it's a technicality, and I didn't commit a crime', to which the journalist accurately adds the comment: "Which, of course, is a crime, not a technicality. Throughout the interview, perhaps unsurprisingly, Townshend does seem to have some trouble accepting this. He says more than once that the credit-card incident he was cautioned for was not a crime when he did it in May 1999, but became one subsequently when the law was changed. This, in the words of John Carr, internet adviser to the children's charity NCH, is 'the realm of total fantasy'. Carr points out that the current legal framework governing the viewing of child pornography was established in 1988. "

So please, let us not add any of Townshend's dubious claims about what the police did or didn't do. We can use him as a source for his own actions, NOT those of the police.

(2) Again, it is incorrect to state that 'Pete Townshend had not been in possession', because he had, at the point he viewed the image(s) he described viewing. If you are really concerned about the grammar, there is a simple solution, which I proposed above, which is to add "at the time of his arrest".

(3) The police in the documentary state 12. But sources state 13 and 14 too. Whether Townshend had other computers at any other address or elsewhere, we do not know. I don't think it matters particularly, we can just use 14, as the largest number that does not imply anything unnecessarily. Sumbuddi (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"soft soaping of Townshend" "PR wheedle" "Townshend's tenuous grasp on the reality of the offence he committed" "Townshend's dubious claims"

First of all thank you for being so candid about your personal feelings about Pete Townshend and this issue. It is helpful that you are not disguising your personal opinions about the person or the topic. Now - to respond to the opinions you have proffered:

1) "Pete Townshend had not been in possession" vs "Pete Townshend was not in possession"

I disagree with you - but yet again I am prepared to compromise in favor of your position. So if you are prepared to match my documented compromises by agreeing the version everyone (including you) has worked so hard to reach - then I personally will accept your preference that it reads "was not in possession"

2) "all his computers" vs "we can just use 14"

Again I disagree with you. I think "all his computers" is better. But yet again I am prepared to compromise in favor of your position. So again I state: if you are prepared to match my documented compromises by agreeing this latest version - then I personally will accept your preference that it reads "his 14 computers"

3) "We can use him as a source for his own actions, NOT those of the police.''

"We can use him as a source for his own actions". I couldn't agree more. Thank you for agreeing with this very important principle. You are quite correct. This is an article about Townshend. Not an article about the police. Or an article about the entire incident. One of Townshend's actions that has been puzzling to many people is WHY Townshend chose to accept the caution. What was HIS understanding of the situation that led him to the action of accepting the caution? It is very pertinent indeed to read in his own unalloyed words the reason for his action in accepting the caution. He may have been misguided. He may have misunderstood. He may have been wrong in his cognition. Or he may have been entirely correct. We do not know. It is not for us to speculate or judge. But we can and we should - to use your words "use him as a source for his own actions". That is why this direct quote by Townshend needs to be in the article. And why its inclusion is valid in an article about the person in question. It is his own explanation in his own words of a very important action that he took.

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, 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 his 14 computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any child pornography. 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, "The police have unconditionally accepted that these were my motives in looking at this site and that there was no other nefarious purpose, and as a result they have decided not to charge me. 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." [21]

It will be interesting to read the views of other editors now. Davidpatrick (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

the spirit of compromise marches on

i agree that expanding Townshend's statement to include his take on what the police thought is unwarranted – the police statement ("research is not a defence") is enough.
if the sources disagree about the number of computers, we shouldn't say it was 14. to me "including forensic investigation of his computers" means all of them, but if it's important to someone to explicitly say "all of his computers", i won't object.
as for what he was found not to have been in possession of, i hesitate to propose using the investigators' exact words, which were apparently: "was not in possession of any downloaded child abuse images" – i'm afraid "child abuse" would confuse a lot of readers. that's why i still prefer "was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images".
if those compromises satisfy everyone, here's what we'll have:

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, 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 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." Sssoul (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this. I'll have to have a look at the references, though. I've not had time to go through those. Also, I thought Dendennis was going to submit some.Pkeets (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I still like my last version and reserve the option of going back to argue for the quote from Townshend that explains WHY he chose to accept the caution. However - as this talk page shows I have made several compromises from my preferred positions over the past few days and I'm prepared to do so again. My sole change would be to change "examination of his computers" to "examination of all his computers". If Sumbuddi would continue this process of compromise and sign off on the above Sssoul text (plus my one minor tweak) - a version that is extremely close to Sumbuddi's last version - then I would agree it. And this very lengthy saga of finding a resolution - that takes ALL of us to compromise - will have succeeded. Davidpatrick (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pkeets, I did offer to get all references in order, however I believe Sumbuddi jumped in and added them to the draft at that time. I'd be more than happy to do this once again, but I think we all need to agree on the proposed wording first, which has proven rather elusive! However, we're getting much closer. Adding my vote after looking through the most recent offerings, I find Davidpatrick's most recent proposal perfectly acceptable. Understanding that this process requires compromise, I have no major quibbles with Sssoul's most recent proposal either. --Dendennis (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sssoul's text works for me.Sumbuddi (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

As per my earlier note above, I wrote that if Sumbuddi would "sign off on the above Sssoul text (plus my one minor tweak)" - then I would too. And I am very happy to agree to it. With Sumbuddi, PKeets, Sssoul, Dendennis and myself all in agreement - I think that is an achievement that all of us can be proud of. We worked together to find consensus without acrimony or ad hominem attacks etc etc. We could now go about the process of placing this on the page. According to the protection template: "You may use the editprotected template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus." Would someone with experience of doing that like to go ahead? Thanks everyone.

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, 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." Davidpatrick (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok sure, I believe however the next step is to get the article unprotected, as it was originally protected due to edit warring over this issue that we have now agreed upon. Sumbuddi (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since I commented on this previously...the above summary looks fine to me, and accurate based on my limited knowledge of the case. I previously said that it would not be wrong to mention that a journalist had looked into the case and concluded that the initial evidence was weak. I still think that would be okay, but it is equally okay to exclude that information. I still do no think that the article should say "falsely accused" (in particular - NB this is still currently in the article and - if nothing else - I feel this should be removed) or "admitted to something he did not do". Provided those phrases or similar are absent, then this looks good. I think outlining precise factual detail is always preferable to quoting the opinion of a commentator. --FormerIP (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) thanks everybody; and to Sumbuddi: no, the page doesn't need to be unprotected at this point. i've initiated the edit request below. Sssoul (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) ps: i'd also like to mark the whole discussion above as closed, so that a record of the consensus reached is preserved. Sssoul (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

edit request

{{editprotect}} consensus has been reached (above) to replace the current "Operation Ore and police caution" section of the article with this:

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, 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."

thank you Sssoul (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.