Category talk:Convicted child sex offenders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion from Categories for deletion

This category was listed for deletion on January 9, 2005. Lack of voting resulted in basically a tie. Category has been kept (for now). The discussion follows.

This category has the same function as Category:Pedophiles. One of them should be merged into the other. jguk 12:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think it serves the same functin. A child sex offender would be one who violates the laws of the locality in which they comitted sexual acts against a locality dependent definition of a child in a locality dependent definition of age of legality for sexual activity, wheras a paedophile would be a person with sexual interest and attraction in pre-pubescent children. Note "pre-pubescent" and the lack of any connotation of legality. 132.205.94.5 21:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this should not be merged with Category:Pedophiles but it should probably be merged into Category:Sex offenders.  ALKIVAR™ 01:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • ALKIVAR™ is completely right, at least in so far as English law is concerned. The category SHOULD be merged with Category:Sex offenders.... see Inclusion on a sex offenders' register below. 81.178.224.140 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convicted child sex offenders

Didn't this category used to be called "Child sex offenders"? Whoever changed it did a fantastic job, since now people who are officially classed as sex offenders in England cannot be included in this category. Whether or not the category serves a useful purpose is quite a different question, but at the moment it exists. Limiting its scope of applicability within Wikipedia so that it excludes those who are in the "real world" categorised as "sex offenders" who have committed a "sexual offence against a child" is an act of censorhip that is unjustifiable. lmno 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Read the discussion below. I think you have to make a better case for "censorship". Wikipedia also isn't a public service message board. It's the same as before; it's just now requires they had a conviction, which is the way it should be. --DanielCD 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I also don't get this. Why would you want to categorize people in such a way anyway, people who have committed "sex abuse of a child"? What would the criteria be? Broad, narrow...? What would be the use of it? This is simply not appropriate criteria for a category. How could you be listed as a sex offender without having had a conviction? If such a thing is going on, it is an incredible travesty of justice. Perhaps a category "Sex offenders in England". I don't think categories this tight serve any purpose than to POV something, as mention in the article itself is satisfactory and clogging up the pipes with so many cats of dubious nature is what we should be working to avoid.
There is simply not going to be a "general" child sex abuser category, as there is no objective criteria for it, it's asking for conflict and misuse, and potentially creates POV by overfocusing on something that is likely not the chief concern about a person. --DanielCD 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not wish to categorise anyone as a "child sex offender" - I wish to use an encyclopedia system to represent the REAL world, not the one I wish existed. For example, Pete Townshend IS a "registered sex offender", but this insistence on applying to English law concepts that are extrinsic to it means that the Wikipedia category "Sex offender" cannot be applied to Townshend. This is censorship in action. But I would say that there is no justification for having a category "child sex offender" since there is no way to distinguish a "child sex offender" from a "sex offender"; the "child sex offender" and "sex offender" categories should be merged. lmno 15:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've not gotten into that debate, and I think I'm going to stay clear. I don't think you and I have quite the same issues in mind and may be talking "apples and oranges" to an extent. --DanielCD 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Convicted only

I am adding a description of this category that restricts membership to those CONVICTED of being child sex offenders. Without the requirement of a conviction, this category is open to NPOV abuse. I will also remove anyone without a mention of a conviction in their article. -- Samuel Wantman 09:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to remove a few people from this list unless they've been convicted of a child sex offense. Cheers. Agnte 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
And done. 3 removed. Definition of Child sex offender has been clarified. Agnte 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Your are not convicted of being a child sex offender; you become a child sex offender by committing a sexual offence against a child. 81.178.200.99 14:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And who makes this definition? You? --DanielCD 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a matter of simple logic :P lmno 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Such logic leaves something to be desired, as it doesn't take into account the definitions of these things, but aims at a subjective criteria, which can be far from logical. And given the hysterical approaches a lot of people have on all sides of the issues involved here, I think it's safe to assume that subjectivity is by no means a logical criteria. Without solid definitions, people will just get on the pro/con debate merry-go-round and end right back up at square one sometime in the future.
Legal definitions can be referenced and stuck to to a large extent. They're not perfect either. But you could potentially put an untold number of people in here if the full range of definition is allowed. Plus people will misuse it, people wil dispute it, and the debate will go on and on... --DanielCD 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I just don't want muddily-defined categories as too many categories actually makes it more difficult to find things. I'd also like to see them applied where they are appropriate. --DanielCD 19:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion on a sex offenders' register

I do not think this is sufficient reason to categorise a person as a "child sex offender" since such registration (in England at any rate) applies to all sex offenders - i.e. the requirement to register applies equally to a person guilty (i.e. convicted of or cautioned for) a relevant offence against an adult as a person guilty of a relevant offence against a child. 81.178.224.140 18:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unduly vague

Hey,

I came to this category from the Pete Townshend article, to see if Townshend actually meets the criteria for inclusion here. I find the criteria for this category to be substantially vague, to the point where a reasonable person may be unable to determine whether this category applies to a given individual.

To wit, the language "or have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register" in this category description is exceptionally broad, as the entry for Sex Offenders Register does not specify sexual offenses involving minors.

I'm going to edit the description for this category to a more reasonable scope. Please contact me here or on my talk page if you have any questions, rather than outright reverting -- I think it's evident that the current language needs to change.

Adrian Lamo 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupportable distinction

The criterion "have been placed on a Sex Offenders Register for a sexual offense involving a minor, as defined by their local law" is not supportable, at least in England. This makes a distinction that the registration process does not make and it is therefore one that "you" ascribe yourself with no evidence. In the Townshend's case, for example, the offence for which he accepted a caution is not known; it can only be one of 2 things, both of which are sexual offences against a child; but this is inference. The whole existence category is unjustified save for people in those jurisdictions where there is a clear indication of the offender's involvement in a child sex offence. Furthermore, the category serves no useful purpose and its existence therefore unfair.lmno 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to say that the category is useless; if you feel that way, you should reccomend it for deletion. I honestly have no idea whether Townshend should be categorized therein, and my edit isn't intended for the benefit of his categorization. That said, the vagaries of law in one country are not sufficiently relevant to invalidate a category all by themselves. The previous wording of the category was broken -- I think it's less broken now, but clearly not perfect, and I don't think it will ever exist in a form that all people are happy with all the time. Adrian Lamo 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cfd 2006

This category has been re-nominated for deletion. If you follow this category, you may wish to vote in the cfd.

Adrian Lamo 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As I commented in the nomination for deletion, some of the votes are vague at best. I think the same thing is probably going to happen as did the last time it was nominated, which is that no consensus is reached.

If this is the case, then it would be better to try to clarify how this category is used, rather then waste time renominating it again. Davidpdx 11:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of who should be put in this category

If there is no consensus on the CFD, we should once again look at who should be included in this category. Right now, there are some people listed in the category who have never been convicted of a sex crime.

I see the registration requirement as a moot point as this is often a requirement AFTER the conviction. It really does come down to whether the person has been convicted or not.

These are the options as I see them:

1) Include only those convicted of a sex crime (regardless of the registration requirements)

2) Include those who have been convicted or who has admitted to a sex crime (regardless of registration requirements) even if the statue of limitations has expired.

I am interested to hear whether anyone else has ideas. Davidpdx 11:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this category needs to go altogether. Convicted or not, "child sex offender" is a subjective concept and is more of a slur now than a legitimate concept. --DanielCD 16:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Is should not include people who are not primarily known for this particular crime, and as well shouldn't include people whose crimes are older than 1978 or so, when the concept first came into being. Likewise it should not be redundant with Statutory rape cat. --DanielCD 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, I kind of agree with you. But however, the statutory rape cat really should be for those convicted of a crime in terms of statutory rape. This category, could serve some purpose in terms of people convicted of crimes against younger children (under a certain age). There is a diffrence.
I also think you have to address whether to lump in people who were never convicted, but admited to what would have been a crime if they were convicted. Also there are some people on here who were catgorized in both statutory rape and this one. Like you are saying that seems inconsistant.
If you want to keep talking, I'm all ears in terms of trying to help. In the event I don't answer quickly, it just means I am really busy. Davidpdx 22:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to help nail down these categories. Next we should announce them to WP editors for general consensus. Then monitor the categories closely until the consensus is made the norm. People are playing too loose with these and other crime categories. WP could be sued for defamation or libel if we let things get out of hand.--FloNight 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Flo, yes that is definatly a problem. The main problem with changing this is how to best come up with a consensus. The last two rfd's generated very little interest. So it might be better to just go with the few ppl that we have and try to come up with an idea how formulate the category.
I think the next step after that would be to look at every person in that category and decide if they fit or not. If they don't, we need to remove them.
I already took one out, which is Neil Goldschmidt. He is also listed in Category:Statutory Rapists [1]. The question becomes should the two categories be seperate (meaning people listed in one category should not be listed in the other). Honestly this is what would make more sense to me. Davidpdx 11:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think this concept needs some closer examination, because something just doesn't smell right. Granted, this label belongs on some people. But the boundaries need a solid definition. The concept should not apply to people like Edward Brongersma, whose crimes were in 1950 and on a 16 year old. Child implies a "child"; a 16 yo is more satutory rape, but that's still beside the point. It was in 1950. We may even have to go deeper and come up with a solid definition of a "child".

The category is good, but it needs skepticism, and I intend to provide that and to test it to help keep things in line as much as I can. This subject is very ripe for misuse. I intend for my input to be constructive, however, and I think we need some research on the history and application of the concept. I don't want to see Wikipedia inventing history by going through the records and labelling every ancient Roman emperor a "Child Sex offender" (I mean this in an illustrative sense, as I know none was ever convicted of anything). The same goes for the people convicted of satutory rape. If the concept of "CSO" didn't exist at that point of history (i.e. is not in the law books of the time), we can't go back and pick people out of history and give them this label. --DanielCD 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's the particular blend of social stresses and information exchange of the last twenty-five to thirty years that has made what people see as the modern concept of a "Child Sex Offender". Applying it to times past may be injecting modern ideas into past places where the idea doesn't properly apply. I may be that the Internet or the media, both of which have ballooned since the early 1960s and then the 1990s, that have some involvement in the creation and tailoring of the concept. Perhaps the avaliability of pornography via these medias has also played a role in making this a problem anyway. Perhaps the more fragemented social structure, snaller families, less social support...? We can't do original research, but just an idea of the complexity involved. This is why I think the definition needs to tag closely to the legal usage of the term, and I think we should all start by trying to identify the point in time when the specific term first appears. CSO. Also Pedophile, when did this term gain widespread currency? I think it was when the Catholic priest stuff started ramping up. Would the average housewife of, say, May 1981 have any idea what a Pedophile is? A Child Sex Offender in the modern sense? --DanielCD 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"have publically admitted offenses" - What does this have to do with being convicted of a crime? It calls into question the purpose of this category and makes it nebulous in its definition. Is this category to be social or criminal the nature of its listings? --DanielCD 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, it is something to at least consider whether or not a person "having publically admitted offenses" should be included in the category. The one person that was in here that I removed was never convicted, but admited to committing the same offense in the 1970's. The article about him was also listed in the statuary rape category as well, which presented another problem.
I'm just asking should we include a person who has admitted, but not be convicted of the crime. If we say no, that's ok with me. It's just something to think about. Davidpdx 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: my questions are not meant to criticise, as people sometimes take them. I am just rather "predicting" questions that people might have who look at this category. Are they going to ask the same questions? If they do, then there's work to do in the definition department.
Also, it may be there are arguments for applying modern terms to the past. I might be wrong, and would appreciate any input in that regard. If I have a wrong idea about something, I'd like to know ('cause hey, it's my mind, and I don't wanna be wrong if I don't have to be). But please keep it civil, as I want to avoid the bickering that goes on on the talk pages of some of the sexuality-related articles. Let's put our heads together and hammer this out.

We can begin with Davidpdx's opening comments:

These are the options as I see them:
1) Include only those convicted of a sex crime (regardless of the registration requirements)
2) Include those who have been convicted or who has admitted to a sex crime (regardless of registration requirements) even if the statue of limitations has expired.

My opinion would be that the first is the core criteria. But statute of limitations still is an open idea as we have no consensus definition. Admitting to a sex crime is not illegal and no crime is involved; that's a social issue. Do we mix this social issue with the criminal issue?

Here it is:

  • Time - is there a limit? When was the term first used?
  • Definition - What is the nature of the term (legal, popular usage, etc.)
  • Social/Criminal - How do these relate and what criteria is there for a category with them together? Do we need a separate category for "admitted child sex offenders and other non-convicted child sex offenders"? That's kind of nebulous. Other ideas for cats?

--DanielCD 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure of the basis for saying that we can include only people who were convicted after the exact phrase "child sex offender" came into use. On what basis have we determined that the term came into use in 1978? It seems to me to be more valuable to have a category which includes convicted child molesters, etc, rather than a category for each era's term, or each type of sexual offense with minors. -Will Beback 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, I think the three criteria you lay out are good. What they can be described as is background information on those types of crimes. So what your talking about, is changing the information at the top of the article which describes who should be in the category.
The problem with time limit is there may be some debate as it what date to use. If your talking specifically when it was recognized by someone (ie. courts, mental health providers, child protective services) then it might work if you find a good source to back it up. Davidpdx 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to make a list of all the related categories that are already in use? "Pederasty" is one. There may be more. Also, about 6 weeks ago Jimbo made some comments about using sex crime categories. They were more in the context of living people. But, the subject of past eras came up, I think. I could find them real quick if you are interested.--FloNight 02:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that would be helpful, but go ahead if you want to. The issue here is that "pedophilia" and "pederasty" are not crimes that one can be convicted of. Child molestation, statutory rape, etc. are such crimes. Referring truthfully to a conviction is not libellous, so it should not matter even for living persons. Calling someone a "pedophile" is not so easily provable, and may be libellous when applied to living persons. -Will Beback 02:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Having information on the other categories (similar crimes) would be good. We need to make sure to differentiate this category from the others. Personally, I think this is one of the most important changes we need to implement. It will cut back on the confusion with other editors and hopefully create less conflict. Davidpdx 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I am personally interested in seeing the material on application to history. If you could give that ref, I'd like to peek at it. My concern with history is solely with the term "Child Sex Offender", as a legal term, at this moment. I looked at some stuff last night, but aside from some material on historical revisionism and comments by Michael Foucault, I didn't find much that was relevant. But I didn't look too deeply either.
As for pedophilia and pederasty, we should use care with these terms. The term pedophile has taken on different connotations and shades of meaning over the last twenty years that may be dubious when applying to the past, as well as the simple danger of libel, as stated above. As for pederast, this is an older term, and not as tricky, but still ...hmmm. Do we need these categories? Andre Gide would be someone for the category Pederast...I think. But look at de Sade. You could put him in almost every sexual devation there is. I'm curious what categories Michael Jackson is in. I'm gonna go take a look (and keep one eye closed!) --DanielCD 14:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to comments made by Jimbo regarding classifying people as criminals. [2] Encourage you to skim the thread to put them in context. He seems to take a conservative approach.
About related categories, I think we should have as few categories as possible. Less confusion for editors searching for category. IMHO, too many duplicate categories on the same article can shift towards pov, especially if the person is better known for other accomplishments. That's one reason I wanted to make a complete list. Is this broader than the scope of your discuss? If so, I don't want to take you too far off track. Unless, you want to go there.
I'm involved in an arbcom case that centers around child rape. The arbcomm doesn't address content but WP:RS is key issue in the case like it is here. Maybe they will give some indication about what is a reliable source vs original research. Is it acceptable to go back in history and reclassify these people as child sexual offender? Can we take a victims statements about a finacial settlement for sexual abuse as a reliable source for child sexual offender cat? I can see both sides of the arguement. --FloNight 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Flo, As I said above, I'm with you on this. It makes sense to have only the categories we need. Comparing them is a good idea so we can make sure there is a distinction between the diffrent categories as well. It will make it easier for other editors to us them.
Just a quick personal note, as I've stated above life is going to be really busy this next week. If I disappear for a few days, please go on without me. It looks like we have a good start. I'm changing jobs and apartments in a foreign country nonetheless, which is sometimes an absolute pain. I'll try to come back and make some comments as I can. Thanks everyone for helping! Davidpdx 17:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

By all means, I want to make as few cats as possible; I agree with the conservative route here. I'm just trying to help get the definitions in place. There's certainly no hurry though. --DanielCD 19:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Another issue I'd just like to throw on the table is relevance. Should someone be categorized like this if is is a relatively minor part of a person's life. Say, if, (hypothetically speaking, please understand this), Albert Einstein was convicted at age 19 for possessing a picture of a boy nude on a beach and serves five weeks community service...would it be right to put a cat like this on him? What about someone who is convicted in 1954 and goes on later to be knighted by the queen and receive peerage and serve in the parliament and such? Just for pondering. I think people often are overzealous to make things like this overshadow all other areas of a person's life. --DanielCD 15:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Speaking practically, if an editor insists that the information be in the article and listed in the category it probably will be. If it's verifiable and presented in NPOV manner, there is no good argument for leaving it out. Someone more notable is more likely to have more of these type of faults displayed in articles. While someone less notable might have them left out. I'm basing this on WP:BLP and discussion related to my arb comm case. --FloNight 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
K. I'm kinda going out on a limb with my nitpickyness. I guess I shouldn't get into predicting problems where I haven't found any yet, as it just creates more crap to plow through. --DanielCD 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward Brongersma

  • Both careers were interrupted in 1950, when he was arrested, tried and convicted for having sex with a 16-year-old boy.

What category of offender does Brongersma go into? -Will Beback 20:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Is it absolute that he needs any category at all? Let's look at the actual charges and decide from there. I'm going to make a special note to look this up tonight. I'll find the actual charges; I'm sure they must be somewhere. Either way, we'll work on it until we are both satisfied. I don't want to appear to be insisting on things when the verdict is still out. Let's consider it "briefly in polite dispute"? --DanielCD 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
We have categories for all manner of crimes: Burglars, Counterfeiters, Hijackers, Perjurors, etc. Yes, there should be some type of category that includes convicted child molestors and statutory rapists. Based on our article, Brongersma appears to have been found guilty of illegal sex with an underage person. -Will Beback 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I guess the issue here pivots on my idea of using the term for a past conviction (a time before the concept of "CSO" was really solidified).
Question for me and all...Is my reason a valid one? I need to find some arguments against it, to test it.
Let's do this. If I can't back up my claim by noon tomorrow with at least one other source, I'll defer to your judgement as to whether or not to replace the category. If I do find one, we'll evaluate it together and decide from there. Fair? --DanielCD 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Per my statement above, go ahead and readd the cat if you feel it needed. I'll just consider the burden of proof on me from here out. I thought I would find something on this, but I didn't find anything directly related. I'm going to keep looking though, as I am interested to know what ppl think about the idea of projecting the modern into the past. If anyone else removes it on these grounds, and hasn't got anything to back it up, refer them to this discussion as I think it serves as a precedent (at the moment).
I still believe the category is not quite right there though; I just don't want to keep it out if I can't give a solid reason. --DanielCD 14:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I honestly think we should wait to look at each individual until we fix the category and make it more specific. Then it would make more sense to go through and see if each person fits the new critera or not. A few days isn't going to make a huge diffrence.

The other option, is remove the individual for now. Once we have the category fixed, let's reevaluate whether the person should be put back in it. Honestly, it makes sense to do it the first way, then the second but I'm ok with either. Davidpdx 17:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the decision to Will Beback. --DanielCD 19:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
If he goes into this cat, does he still belong in Cat:Category:Pederasty ?? --DanielCD 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
My first response is no, because it's a duplicate. But there may be other ideas I'm missing? --FloNight 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
As has been extensively here and elsewhere, "pederasty" is an orientation (and perhaps an activity), which "child sex offender" is a criminal deed. There are non-offending pederasts, and non-pederast offenders. Hence they do not appear to be duplicate. In the case of Brongersma, both categories seem to apply, though we don't know the precise statute he violated. He was well-known as a researcher on pederasty. -Will Beback 21:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Will Beback, I'm reading the past discussions about pederasty to understand your comment. I see that this category has been the target of pov pusher/advocay. We need to define these categories even handedly, so legitamate claims of pov can't be made by either side of this argument. --FloNight 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. POV pushing should be delt with diplomatically and with care, but also firmly. This will be most efficient if we can define things and have working definitions in place before conflict begins. Definitions will also help us when we sort out squabbles. --DanielCD 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Service Message

I'd like to point out that it is my belief there are many people wanting to use Wikipedia as a kind of "Public Service Message Board". Well, that's not useful here and can potentially be downright damaging. Categories are meant to help people find material, not to label material. This is an attempt to raise consciousness of something I haven't seen brought up much (though comments/debate may exist in some corner of Wikipedia I haven't seen).

People want things put in categories and have categories made to "Inform the Public". That's a misuse and unfair use of the system, as many of these things are POV. --DanielCD 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There can be legitamate, good faith differnces of opinion about the criminal category tags used on Wikipedia. This is an aspect of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu. I'm involved in this case and see several legitamate pov. Deciding if content meets WP:RS, WP:V, NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:BLP is a good first step. After that it involves consensus building like every thing else on WP. : ) --FloNight 16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't know about that arbitration. I'm trying to clarify this stuff in my mind so I can better respond and give advice to people, as well as improve my own ideas. I often do that by throwing something out and seeing what response there is, but I might need to start using a little more tact.--DanielCD 18:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
What's the problem? Are you concerned that articles are being created for people who have no claim to notability other than a criminal conviction? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No. The issue is actually broader; and I've spoken prematurely on it. You might see the section on this page above: Convicted only. I now think it was a mistake to bring this up. --DanielCD 18:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Important caveat regarding non-public figures

I have added a note to the category page concerning the listing of non-public figures. Non-public figures should not be listed here unless their offense is relevant to their notability. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons for more information. Thanks! Kaldari 21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow thanks. --DanielCD 21:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But those who are not public figures will not have articles surely? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, a some people can be famous for eating 1000 pies at some country rodeo, and happen to hold the world record too, but not really be a public figure. --DanielCD 21:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference between non-notable and non-public. Wikipedia includes articles on non-public figures (such as Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)), but does not include articles on non-notable figures. If Brian Chase happened to be a sex offender, it would not be appropriate to list him here as his offense is not relevant to his notability. Kaldari 21:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
AMEN. That's what I was trying to say! --DanielCD 21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's why I said above that Albert Einstein would likely have the categories, but less notable might not. He is so famous that people ask him about broad issues. Once that happens it's fair game. But other less notable people it's not the case. Means that consensus must be reached if some one pushes the issue though. --FloNight 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I think this category should be merged with Category:Statutory Rapists. Discuss! Kaldari 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How, not the same. --FloNight 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I think this has been debated. I'd need to read up to firmly say what the differences are though. --DanielCD 21:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well how about making it a subcategory of this one then? And changing the title to "Convicted Statutory Rapists"? BTW, in many jurisdictions the two terms are virtually synonymous, i.e. most types of child sex offenses are officially labelled as "statutory rape", even if it's something like consensual fondling (which doesn't exactly fit the typical definition of "rape"). Kaldari 22:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. I'm not sure I want to enter that labyrinth. --DanielCD 22:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Usually means a minor that actually gives consent but is too young by law. Differs by local law. Also, parents (or courts) can waive it in some places and allow very young people to marry. --FloNight 22:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

We may have to leave it be. But now I think I'm on more solid ground if the issue pops up again. I'm going to look and see if this has been discussed elsewhere. --DanielCD 22:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I know it has. That's why I'm sure this merger won't go through. Recently, a very active and bold admin complained about us listing statutory rape at all! --FloNight 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, re. merge. The offenses are worlds apart. I propose editing the description of this category to explicitly exclude individuals convicted of statutory rape. It'd increase the value of both categories. Adrian Lamo · 22:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we should leave it up to the person who did this vandalism, as he is clearly smarter than us all --> [3]

--DanielCD 22:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Excluding stat rape from this category is fine by me! Why have two places to debate these people. One is quite enough! --FloNight 22:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, and I'd hate to see a bunch of articles in both categories. --DanielCD 23:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Statutory rape does not exist by that name in the UK, but the sexual offenders register does. Luckily we've got rid of Gary Glitter (Cut off his goolies!) for the time being... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Good luck trying to separate the two. You'll have to become an expert on the nuanced legal definitions of both terms in 50 separate state jurisdictions and who knows how many countries. The definition of statutory rape in particular varies considerably depending on where you are. There is no legal consensus (across the US) on what the term actually means. That's one reason I would prefer to get rid of that category and just use this one instead. Kaldari 00:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you guys misunderstand what I'm suggesting. I would like to remove the statutory rape category altogether (as it is problematic for several different reasons). If there are any people listed in that category that aren't already in this one (which is doubtful), I would like to merge them over (provided they fit the definition of this cat as well). Sorry if I didn't explain my proposal very well. If the merge fails to gain consensus, I will be nominating the other category for deletion instead. I just wanted to take the less contentious route if possible. Kaldari 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of these categories are broken and divisive. I don't feel they're helping Wikipedia, but it's pretty much impossible to get consensus on anything involving them. Someone bold should just up and merge it all into Category:Sex offenders and delete the rest; consensus and process are not a mandate to let broken things lie just because nobody can agree on them. Adrian Lamo ·· 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on merge proposal

After cleaning out innapropriate listings from Category:Statutory Rapists, the category is now completely a subset of this category, i.e. every article listed in that category is also listed here. That being the case, I would like to propose the following courses of action. Please vote on which one you think is the best solution. If you support more than 1 option, feel free to vote for more than 1.

[edit] Delete Category:Statutory Rapists

[edit] Make Category:Statutory Rapists a subcategory of this category

[edit] Leave them as completely separate categories

[edit] Merge both categories with Category:Sex offenders

  1. lmno 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (Bahh boring)
    Question: Since articles cannot be listed under both a category and its subcategory, how would you suggest that a convicted statutory rapist be categorized under this scenario? Under Category:Sex offenders or Category:Rapists (which is a subcat of Sex Offenders)? Or would you suggest also merging Category:Rapists with Category:Sex offenders to avoid the problem? Kaldari 01:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please review problematic entries

I have reviewed all of the articles listed in this category. The vast majority are obviously appropriate. Four were questionable (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons). Please review these four:

  • Eric Smith (murderer) - 13-year old who murdered a four-year old (and killed a cat). Was not charged with any sexual offense. After he had beaten and killed the victim, he poured Kool-aid over the body and "sodomized him with a small stick".
  • Alex Laurier - Canadian children's entertainer during the 70s. Only the last sentence of the article mentions his conviction for sexual abuse. Is he notable for the sexual abuse or is it just a footnote? Needs more research.
  • Jefferson Poland - Another article which only mention the sex abuse conviction in the last sentense. Is he notable for the sexual abuse or is it just a footnote? Needs more research.
  • Peter Sotos - Convicted only of possession of child pornography. Does that count as a child sex offender?

Kaldari 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Convicted only of possession of child pornography. Does that count as a child sex offender? In the UK, yes. lmno 11:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think simple possession can be reasonably be called a child sex offense. Trading or distributing, yes, but merely posessing, I don't think it is. But that's just my opinon. --DanielCD 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we discuss Peter Sotos here or on article talk? I think on his talk page so others can add their comments. We need a record of how we came to consensus. --FloNight 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Yea, I think that's a good idea. --DanielCD 18:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be a matter of "coming to a consensus". As a person convicted of possessing child porn in the United States, would he be classed as a "child sex offender" there? It is a matter of fact, not our opinion on what his status should be. lmno 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
We need to show a RECORD of our discussion so future editors will understand why. Is that better. ; ) --FloNight 22:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I have removed Peter Sotos for now. I couldn't find Sotos listed in any Sex Offender Database, nor could I find any source which labels him a "sex offender" (other than Wikipedia). In cases like this, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution. I think there may be a case, however, for including Graham Rix, although I would say it is borderline. Kaldari 23:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I started out think Graham Rix was borderline until I found the newspaper articles. He is very notable because of his conviction and the clubs decision to hire him. Anyway, sports figures are fair game. Their absence from the public eye in order to go to prision is very notable. It changes the team make-up or a team loses it's coach. This is widely discussed by fans. IMO, leaving it off would be whitewashing in his case. I'm also adding sentences on the topic to article. I want to re-read the newspaper articles first, though. --FloNight 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this means --> "Rix was unable to claim any silverware as skipper."

I'm kinda in the middle here regarding the sex offender cat. I don't think he needs to be in, but I'm not going to make an effort to keep him out either. As it's already publicised, so I'd say go ahead and leave it in. --DanielCD 02:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Also: In articles like this that are so link dense, I think the exhaustive year linkage should be axed. --DanielCD 02:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Keith Tucker

John Keith Tucker admitted to multiple counts of statuatory rape (which in Oklahoma is second-degree rape), although the victim claims it was rape by force and fear (first-degree rape). Despite this, he was not prosectuted, and won custody of one of the children resulting from the rape, and child support from the mother. (For more detail see article and its references.)

I do not believe he belongs in this category, one of the key points of his notability being that he was unconvicted. However, I was wondering if any of you knew of similiar cases? Also, would anyone be willing to take a look at the article (especially for WP:POV and WP:BLP considerations)?

Thanks!

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GG Allin

GG allin was a child molestor in his own words see GG Allin and should be added to this list. Also is there a tag that can be put on the bottom of pages to show that a person is a child molestor? Potters house 14:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fred and Larry

I think both Fred and Larry might be. They said Michael Jackson was. He likes fondling and buttfucking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.102.108.66 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Category_talk%7EConvicted_child_sex_offenders_7cb4.html"