Talk:Pete Townshend
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because of their lengthiness, previous discussions on this page have been archived. See Talk:Pete Townshend/Archive01.
Contents |
[edit] Police Caution = Criminal Record
I clicked on the criminal record link and this is the first sentence: "A criminal record or rap sheet is a generic term used to describe a compiled record of crimes that a person has committed and been convicted of in a judicial proceeding."
This does not describe Pete Townshend's situation. He was not convicted of anything. I suggest removing the "criminal record" link. Mentioning the police caution is all that is needed.
- I do not agree. All this means is that the article on criminal records is inaccurate and/or incomplete. Saying that Townshend has a "criminal record" describes his situation perfectly accurately. In the UK, which is the only place that counts insofar as Townshend's legal status is concerned, the fact that a person has accepted a police caution is recorded in that person's "criminal record" on the Police National Computer. lmno 12:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
lmno wrote:
"the fact that a person has accepted a police caution is recorded in that person's "criminal record" on the Police National Computer."
Three points occur to me.
What is the definition of a "person's criminal record on the Police National Computer"? Do the UK police maintain "CRIMINAL records" on people even if they haven't been convicted of a crime? Or do the police maintain FILES on people who they encounter and have interactions with? Including those to whom they issue a caution? If so, are those files really "criminal records" or are they perhaps just "files"?
It may well be that Townshend is listed on a Police Computer because he received a Police Caution. But is that identical with having a "criminal record" in English law?
And if it is - is it misleading to have that in the article given that in many other countries the connotation of "criminal record" is that the person has been convicted in a court of law of a criminal act?
The "Webster's" definition of "criminal" is "A person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime". Townshend is neither of these. Dendennis 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the police maintain criminal records on people who have not been convicted of a crime; they maintain this information on people who have been cautioned for a crime. They are criminal records. Before you express your opinion what are "just files", please do some research and apprise yourself of the situation under English law.
-
- Yes, townshend is listed on a Police Computer because he received a Police Caution. That is identical with having a "criminal record" in English law.
- Americans are citizens; people in some other countries are "subjects". Becuase it might "mislead" Americans, should we call them "citizens" anyway?
- Websters is American; the Oxford Concise English Dictionare (11 ed) is English, and defines a criminal as "a person who has committed a crime".
- I am reverting your changes.lmno 11:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh... and.... The "Webster's" definition of "criminal" is "A person guilty of, or legally convicted of, a crime". Townshend is the first of these. lmno 15:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The continuing effort to include mention of a criminal record in this article seems to be more emotional than anything else. If you really must insist on a paragraph detailing this, perhaps you might do a bit more research and itemize Mr. Townshend's other run-ins with the law. I believe he was once arrested and fined for assaulting a police officer onstage during a concert, and he spent at least one night in a Canadian jail for damages The Who did to a hotel. I'm sure a bit of digging might uncover some other skeletons, as well.
Regarding insistence on his guilt in the child porn incident, the question remains whether Townshend actually did view a child pornography site. He said in public statements that he only paid to enter and read the index at Landslide, which (according to the latest reconstruction of the site) did not have illegal images posted. His own admission of guilt is insufficient as sole evidence, as he would not be considered reliable to describe in detail what he did and saw at the site several years before. Townshend also said that he encountered obscene images online by accident (and reported these to authorities), but this was common in 1999. Since then it's quite a bit less likely, as child pornography has moved to file sharing technology for distribution. Pkeets 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Police Caution = Criminal Record
I direct your attention to section 113 of the Police Act 1997, which provides intera alia that...
-
- (3) A criminal record certificate is a certificate which-
- (a) gives the prescribed details of every relevant matter relating to the applicant which is recorded in central records, or
- (b) states that there is no such matter.
- (3) A criminal record certificate is a certificate which-
-
- (5) In this section-
- "central records" means such records of convictions and cautions held for the use of police forces generally as may be prescribed;
- (5) In this section-
[edit] Disputed status of Landslide
Folks, I'm not sure where to add this into the discussion, but you might want to know that a group in the UK has challenged the police characterization of the Landslide site as a child porn operation and have brought charges against some in the police force for manufacturing evidence and coercing confessions during the Operation Ore investigations. You might also want to review the difference in the US and UK approach to the investigations and the resulting number of successful prosecutions. For more info check at http://obu.2truth.com/ Pkeets 19:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] picture?
this article had a picture that seems to have been taken down. someone should upload a new one. Joeyramoney 22:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this article badly needs a picture. MrC 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Discography question
I notice that the article divides Townshend's recordings into just two categories. "Solo Discography" and "Compilations and EPs" Is this a satisfactory delineation?
Perhaps it should break down his record releases into the following categories:
Original albums
Singles & EPs
Compilation albums (all Townshend material)
Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations
Any thoughts about this idea?
Davidpatrick 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Davidpatrick wrote:
"Perhaps it should break down his record releases into the following categories:
Original albums
Singles & EPs
Compilation albums (all Townshend material)
Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations
"
I agree that this area could be cleaned up somewhat. I would add an area (perhaps a sub-section under "Soundtracks and multi-artist compilations") for devotional recordings, under which would be listed Townshend's Meher Baba Association recordings, his work on Raphael Rudd's 1996 album "Awakenings", etc.
Other areas which need to be addressed are Townshend-produced recordings and films. Any ideas?
Dendennis 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're asking for information on where to find this information, the Internet Movie Database is a good reference for Mr. Townshend's films: http://www.imdb.com/ Pkeets 19:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Work
Pete Townshend recently published his novella "The Boy Who Heard Music" which he said was originally titled "Ray High and the Glass Household" online in blog format. http://boywhoheardmusic.blogspot.com/ See also: http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/projects/ He's started work on an audience participation musical project called The Method which is linked to the previous page. With The Who, he's planning to issue a mini-opera called "Glass Household" in June and follow up with a full new Who album. Pkeets 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Tour
Is it true there is a new tour and if so where are they going to tour --Aaronpark 01:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
See Pete Townshend's official site for the tour schedule. They're expected to tour the UK an Europe in the summber, the US in the fall of 2006 and continue a world tour in 2007.
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/projects/thewho/main/diary/display.cfm?id=306&zone=newsPkeets 16:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] so was pete a pedo or not?
yes or no?
No. If you'll read the article, you'll see that he has been involved with child abuse issues and charities since the sixties. Experts say pedophilia is nearly impossible to hide through an investigation and Mr. Townshend was cleared by the police probe. Anyone who was online during 1999 had to be aware of the growing problem of Internet child pornography, and it was clear at the time that Mr. Townshend was concerned, as he complained about it in both interviews and published articles. Whether the Landslide site was actually a child porn site or a credit card fraud site is now being fought in the courts.Pkeets 14:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And if it was a child porn site, he was only there to research for his book AGAINST child porn.--Alexrules43 19:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Biography a muddled mess
The biography should be broken up into sections like you see for most every other person on Wikipedia. i.e., the child pornography incident should have its own section along with many other parts within that giant load of text.
---The above comment unsigned - was by user 67.190.61.6 ---- (please remember to sign comments)
Thank you for posting an opinion on this. There are no hard and fast rules for how to structure a biographical article. Some are better with multiple sections - others not. This article has been through many incarnations and I think the present article (which has been in this shape for a while now) works fairly well. It follows a good chronological arc rather than having multiple sections in the main body. Then has sections appropriate to his life underneath the overview. There is a proportionality to the so-called child pornography incident. Had he been charged in a court of law and convicted then that would obviously have warranted a separate section. The police's eventual acknowledgment that he had not downloaded any images and their consequent decision to not press charges - obviously placed the matter in a different light. The issue was discussed on these pages extensively - and unanimous agreement was reached that the article should deal with the incident within the body of the overall chronology of his life. Davidpatrick 13:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Pete is one of my favorite artists, displaying perhaps musical genius with The Who and in his solo work. I must ask, however, if a statement from the biography section of this article isn't a bit vague and arguably not really accurate. From the top 3rd of the biography section, a sentence credits Pete with "...the introduction of the synthesizer as a rock instrument." The article on The Who says of the 1971 album "Who's Next" that it "became one of the first successful rock albums to heavily feature the synthesizer." What is not mentioned however, in the Pete article or The Who article, is that progressive rock had just come into its own around this time. Keith Emerson of the supergroup Emerson, Lake & Palmer (ELP) was breaking new ground with his use of the synthesizer and keyboard as the feature instrument in rock music. ELP's first album, self titled, included the hit "Lucky Man", featuring Keith's work on synthesizer. The statement that credits Pete (and The Who in their own article) with introducing the synthesizer to popular rock immediately made me stop and wonder how this claim could be considered an accurate and generally acknowledged truth among fans of rock of that era. The sentence that relates this is so matter-of-fact that it doesn't even offer room for the reader to consider the subjectivity or veracity of it. As such I would recommend that this statement be elaborated upon, and an explanation of its acceptance cited. For readers who would not agree with this statement, the current presentation may detract from the credibility of the rest of the article.
peterr 03:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect Info
There is some incorrect information in the article...
From this beginning they moved on to The Detours, a skiffle band fronted by then sheet-metal welder Roger Daltrey and with Keith Moon on drums, which, under Townshend's leadership, would metamorphose into The Who.
The Detours were a band lead by Roger Daltrey. Daltrey asked John Entwistle to join, Entwistle managed to get Townshend to be the rhythm guiatarist (after their original rhythm guiatrist drowned---I think). The Detours renamed themselves The Who in early 1964, after Daltrey switched from lead guiatrist to lead vocalist/harmonica player (when their lead vocalist quit). This switch left Townshend to became the band's only guitarist. Keith Moon was never a member of the Detours. By the time he joined (after the departure of drummer Doug Sandom) the band was called The Who. They were briefly renamed The High Numbers, but within a few months had reverted back to calling themselves The Who.
To put this in simpler, less confusing terms Doug Sandom was the drummer for The Detours (and briefly the early Who), Keith Moon was only a member of The Who (AKA High Numbers, briefly).--Bappzannigan 23:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)