Talk:Christopher Paul Neil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] 'Mr.' title

Why is he called by the title of 'Mr.', as in 'Mr. Neil'? He does not deserve this respect. He is clearly guilty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.207.69 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eyewitness account of the day before he left Korea

His co-workers at the Kwangju Foreign School, where he had worked at for six weeks, saw the coverage about the unknown pedophile on the news and joked with him that they had seen him on the news, without of course realizing that he was in fact the culprit. The next day he didn't show up for work, apparently on his way to Thailand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.91.230.116 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic

This is a case where a pic would be particularly welcome, SqueakBox 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of pictures of him on the Interpol website here: http://www.interpol.com/Public/THB/vico/Default.asp Not sure of their copyright status though... Terraxos 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
That is the problem, ideally something from the US gov but as they are not involved I don't know the status of interpol pics, SqueakBox 18:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have created an image demonstrating the technique used, can someone more competent please make it fit better in the articl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That might not be such a good idea unless the person on the picture has agreed to it. I know I wouldn't like to be assosiated with this page in such a way. Is that you on the picture? --Kvaks 09:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't me, but the person involved has given their consent. You can email them at <email removed to protect person> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As a reader, when I saw that picture I did expect it to be of Neil himself, and had to do some reading and clicking to figure out exactly what was going on with it. Would it make more sense to swirl and unswirl something that isn't a photo of a human, and particularly isn't of a young white man? If it was a painting, graphic or a picture of an inanimate object there won't be the moment of confusion where the reader thinks they're viewing a second picture of Neil. It probably wouldn't be quite as effective a demonstration of the reversibility of swirl transforms, but how convincing does the article need to be? Thayvian 14:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the other pic, it is a BLP vio and an email simply isn't enough to prove otherwise given the case itself and the extreme sensitivity with which we need to approach ped articles. We have a pic of Neil and that is great, I certainly agree that a picture of a cat or dog would be appropriate but that of a male subjec t is utterly inappropriate as indeed is one of any human being, SqueakBox 15:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Check facebook, chap definitely exists. 81.149.250.228 16:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Interpol has several pictures of Neil with and without the twirl. Check out the twirled picture and the unmasked picture. I'm guessing it has the same copyright as the other pic of Neil. Zouavman Le Zouave 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What copyright is that? There is no licence for the pic we have and we really need some cl;arification of Interpol copyright if we are to continue to even use the current pic, SqueakBox 16:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It makes no odds, we cannot use it as it is a BLP vio, please make one of a cat or dog, SqueakBox 16:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't a BLP violation, as that's supposed to protect people with biographies (right?). This guy doesn't need protection, as he's quite happy for the image to be there. In fact, he finds it quite amusing if anything. 81.149.250.228 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. BLP covers all living people, now please desist as your behaviour is becoming disruptive, SqueakBox 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But it is there to protect people, isn't it? The whole point is that he doesn't need protecting. 81.149.250.228 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
How do we know you're not just making this all up - making it look like the guy is consenting to have his picture used, just for the sake of inserting a picture of someone into an article about a pedophile as a prank or or attempt to damage his reputation. Use an animal as previously suggested and there's no chance of this happening. Happy? EditorInTheRye 20:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
No. 81.149.250.228 13:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, may have been a bit flippant there. It's not what I would prefer tbh, but I can see that the current situation is a fair compromise. And yes, the picture was a joke on a friend, but a consenting one... The details I gave were correct. 81.149.250.228 16:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the picture of a person unconnected with the case, it should be replaced with one of a non-human subject if the swirl technique is to be illustrated. DuncanHill 12:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I still think a human subject better illustrates the technique in question. If the editor here can get in touch with the person in the image and prove their consent then I definitely believe the image should stay. For the time being I'll leave things as they are. Meanlevel 12:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Mona Lisa twirl looks like a good compromise to me, human subject, but very dead and highly unlikely to be mistaken for a living innocent person. DuncanHill 13:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The Mona Lisa is perfect, a recognisable face of a long dead subject with no relation to pedophilia. Good job. I don't believe we can display a living subject even if we could be sure that person had given their permission, SqueakBox 17:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no way whatsoever, that the person, a 'Managing Director' at a major investment bank, would want themselves illustrating an article on the world's most notorious accused child abuser. Delete with extreme prejudice, or just use a picture of Neill himself. 82.31.164.67 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The original and now unused image Image:N36905321 33975157 1507.jpg is up for deletion. Thayvian 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I'm not sure the category is right (Category:Lists of suspected criminals), since it seems to be a category for lists and not individuals. --DanielCD 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] picture on the left

That doesn't seem to be him. Haven't seen this picture on the interpol page either? Avlan 07:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Look like the same person to me, but I can't find the picture on interpol either ? 81.149.250.228 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
In fact they're obviously the same person. 81.149.250.228 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the glasses are confusing you mate. Show me the picture from Interpol or any other official site before you add the picture of an innocent man to an article as serious as this. Avlan 12:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too fussed tbh, it wasn't me that added them in the first place so I'll leave it to the uploader to prove their claim. 81.149.250.228 13:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As commented on AN/I, the problematic images were of me, taken from my mySpace profile. The JPStalk to me 19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we remove any controversial pic and then ask questions, and not worry at all about 3RR in such a case. Perhaps semi-protect? SqueakBox 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this section is talking about Image:Interpol Christopher Paul Neil.jpg. If so, multiple sources say that photo is of him: Interpol, AFP, Globe and Mail and many others. Copyright is a different story! Thayvian 05:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, we're talking about different images of a different person. The JPStalk to me 08:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse swirl transformation section

This whole section contains original research. As the article says, "computer experts at the Federal Criminal Police Office were able to reconstruct the original picture, using techniques which they have not revealed but are believed to have been as simple as running the transformation in reverse." Should we really have an entire section based on speculation? As for an example of the technique, what's wrong with displaying the photos released by interpol. I've noticed the security cam shot from Thailand is on here... are the interpol 'swirled' and 'unswirled' photos not allowed under fair use? Rawr 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If the speculation is sourced and notable in the sense of being generally known about (eg appearing in lots of different media sources) then it is fine. There is only speculation about the death and location of the body of Hitler but we don't thus ignore the issue. So I think you arer mistaken in seeing this as OR, SqueakBox 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] globe and mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071027.neil27/BNStory/National/home —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjaaa (talk • contribs) 09:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strongly suggest deletion of swirl section

Any info that's going to help pedophiles hide themselves does not belong on wikipedia. No, I don't know what specific policy that falls under, but we do have some minimal standard of ethics here, don't we? Interpol doesn't want to discuss how they did it, we should respect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.72.182 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If we were posting instructions on finding child pornography, or children to molest, I would agree. As it is, this is an interesting technical discussion. 81.149.250.228 15:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact, on reflection, this probably sends out the message that one won't get away with it. Is anyone else not surprised that a lot of people involved are german? 81.149.250.228 15:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


And what is that supposed to mean? 140.203.12.243 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This information does not help paedophiles hide themselves, otherwise there wouldn't be an article on this individual. I am not surprised it is German technology as Germany is one of those countries with an excellent reputation for developing innovative technology. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] something wrong with the references at the mo

At the moment if you click on the refs, it doesn't do anything, and there's not a section listing them at the end. Merkinsmum 02:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)