Talk:Dante Arthurs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Flag
Portal
 Dante Arthurs is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian crime.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Inappropriate and perhaps impedes upon right to fair trial

Strongly suggest you reword or remove this article. This article should be removed until such time as the outcome of the trial (if so ordered) is determined. Otherwise, strong wording should be used to show that he has only been charged, has not been ordered to stand trial and no verdict has been reached.

I would strongly rebuke the author of this article for what, is in my opinion, an article that is inappropriate at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.46.35 (talk • contribs)

I claim principal authorship. I acknowledge your rebuke. I never said that he was guilty. I presume him innocent. If others presume his guilt, I can't stop them. The only plausible reason why he shouldn't be included is for lack of notability. - Richardcavell 23:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That is fine. The initial article required substantial rewording to show that he had merely been charged with offences and guilt had yet to be determined. Furthermore he was classified in a category with convicted criminals which is inappropriate. You should be mindful of Australian laws as to prejudicial comment on people awaiting trial - in Australia the right to a fair trial is not just written in some amendment to an document that people do not uphold in practice but is a real requirement of the criminal justice system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.207.165 (talk • contribs)

Does anyone agree that describing him as a 'child sex offender' is appropriate? The term would be used in a reliable newspaper like the Sydney Morning Herald and that's what he is after all.

58.152.161.213 (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed line

I removed this line from the article several times, but Pocoloco keeps reinserting it:

However, since organisations are legally prohibited from disseminating any information that may lead to Thompson's new identity being revealed as per the permanent anonymity order, the veracity of the denial, from a non-legal perspective, is debatable.

I don't know what you think this line says, but it adds nothing to the article. It's just personal conjecture that the "veracity" of the denial is debatable. What do you mean "non-legal perspective"? Who's doing the debating? Australian "organizations" would not be affected by an order issued in the UK, no matter what the debators might think. The line is confusing and unverifiable, and does not belong here.--Cúchullain t/c 19:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Arthurs is Thompson, for this to be confirmed would require admission by authorities in the UK, not Australia, that Arthurs is Thompson under a new alias. If Australian authorities ask the UK authorities, "is Arthurs really Robert Thompson?" and the UK authorities, choosing to adhere to the demands of the permanent anonymity order, state that it isn't him, does not mean than from a non-legal perspective ie. one that ignores the permanent anonymity order, that the UK authorities are telling the "truth"? I have not labelled any party as being liars because from a legal perspective they aren't lying as it is possible that the UK is simply acting under the auspices of the PA order. To ignore this as a possible obstacle to the "truth" from a moral, non-legal perspective is dangerous as it suggests that in cases where PA is involved, PA individuals have the right to commit future crimes without their criminal history coming into consideration when being sentenced as they are protected by the justice system that have granted them PA. Elpocoloco 13:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said on your talk page, this line is just your conjecture. It adds nothing to the encyclopedic quality of the article; it is confusing and uninformative. It doesn't even have anything to do with Arthurs per se, it is just your criticism of permanent anonymity.--Cúchullain t/c 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Not to worry. He'll be going to trial in Oct and based on the plethora of evidence has a snowball's chance in hell of escaping a long sentence. That's when the real questions will be raised and will be included here without the protests of "fair trialists" posing an obstacle. Elpocoloco 15:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

This article will be protected from editing if the current state of edit warring persists. Please use the talk page to dicuss changes rather than constantly reverting each others edits in the roundabout fashion that's been occuring. Please make an attempt to identify problems with the state of the current article and work them out here rather than the main article space thanks. Also, be mindful of the official policies against reversions, in particular, the Three revert rule. -- Longhair 01:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Does anybody else feel some of the references used in this article do not meet the guidelines as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources? -- Longhair 07:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you alluding to the forum links? I believe they're relevant as the case is not as cut and dried as the government and media would like it to be. The discussion continues and the community raises points that have been denied an airing here. It is false to assume that the phenomenon does not exist. It is as factual as anything else referenced in the article Elpocoloco 10:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Longhair. They need to be looked over, and some of them (yes, the forum links) need to be trimmed out. This is not a place for people to advance their views.--Cúchullain t/c 20:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the forum links in particular - I've marked them by not referencing them in the cite.php format. I;m having troubles viewing the Hansard PDFs so if somebody can assist with correctly linking those references until I can work out why I can't view them, it'd be great. -- Longhair 01:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Just checked the hansard pdf links and they're opening fine. Elpocoloco 15:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I grabbed an Adobe update and the PDF's now work fine. Thanks. -- Longhair 11:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snopes coverage

FWIW, Snopes has updated its' page on the Bulger incident to refer to the recent email circulating concerning Arthurs. See here. -- Longhair 01:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What is Snopes worth exactly? What does it cover that has not already been covered here other than adding a "FALSE" stamp? I recommend that your link to Snopes be removed. Given the sensitivity of the rumour, common sense would dictate that it cannot be conclusively proven as false at this stage with the trial still in progress.

[edit] Further information about Dante Arthurs' past

Now that the trial is over, does anyone know if restrictions placed on the press about this convicted murderer have been removed? There doesn't seem to be any further public informaton on his background that has since been released such as accounts of his behaviour and personality from past empolyers, teachers or fellow pupils.

If not, there doesn't seem to be any public explanation given. I don't believe that Dante Arthurs is the same child murderer used to be called Robert Thompson. However, authorities should give an explanation as to why such information is still not available if they are going to consign this conspiracy theory to history.

(58.107.195.184 10:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC))


There's some info. on his wayn.com profile: http://www.wayn.com/waynprofile.html?member_key=231852

58.107.189.40 (talk) 13:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)