Talk:Stephen King (paedophile)

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] Move

move page to Stephen King (child sexual abuse convict) -- Cat chi? 17:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VFD discussion

Unnotable person. Was probably added because someone felt they needed to warn people about him, or simply because his name is Stephen King. Haakon 23:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. As vile as pedophilia is, not every pedophile is notable. It happens quite often. Mike H 23:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep He is an infamous UK paedophile. He probably has no notability outside the UK, but is notable for his vile crimes in the UK. We have plenty of other pages on criminals, and plenty of other pages on people only notable in one part of the English-speaking world. Not only that, the Stephen King (writer) page disambiguates in a sensible and sensitive way, so this page cannot justifiably be said to be here to detract from him. jguk 00:15, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I can think of other people convicted of the same crime, some of them given longer sentences than this guy and I can comfortably say that not one of them deserves the notability that an encyclopedia article gives them. It may come as a shock, but not everyone who breaks the law is notable enough for an encyclopedia, and as someone from the UK who has never heard of this guy I have no qualms at all in stating that my vote is to delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Opting to err on the side of keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 04:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • From the information present in the article, there's nothing to establish why he's any more notable than any of the other millions of pedophiles in the world (or even the thousands who have been convicted). Delete unless someone updates the article to establish why we should care. Shane King 07:13, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no reason to keep this article, unless in the end we want an entry on every convicted criminal in the world. Hardly the purpose of an encyclopedia. Not to mention that I wonder how much of the motivation behind that entry was the name of that person. -- AlexR 14:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. People need to be assured that Stephen King the author is not also the paedophile. Anthony Appleyard 23:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He was notable for being a pedophile posing as a child protection expert. 1--JuntungWu 02:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • From that bbc article it doesn't seem his attempted posing was accepted by any official organizations, so it doesn't really seem very notable Kappa 02:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's sufficiently notorious in the UK.Dr Zen 02:50, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 03:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and disambiguate. Not every pedophile is notable; this one is. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. He's not notable in the UK; I can remember the case - because of the name, which led to some surreal moments during the news coverage, and also I remember his beard - but he has had no lasting impact and, nine months later, he is forgotten. Perhaps if he had bothered to actually kill somebody he might be as famous as Ian Huntley or Roy Whiting, but he didn't, and he isn't. -81.178.126.74 20:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, man, but "I remember the case" means "he is notable" quite simply because you have noted him. As Shane pointed out, there are lots of convicted paedophiles. Most of their cases do not reach the news. BTW, you will probably need to sign in to ensure that your vote counts.Dr Zen 01:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That 'delete comment was from me. To counter your argument, Wikipedia is not a newswire; are we to write articles about all the 'and finally...' stories which appear at the end of news bulletins? And are you suggesting that I personally am Wikipedia's barometer for memorability? -Ashley Pomeroy 16:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was going to say Keep because I remembered the whole "paedophile who worked with the police as an expert on paedophilia" angle, but then when I went back to read up on it, turns out the expert thing was exaggerated out of all proportion. So I say delete and I've edited the article to make the false expert claim explicit. Wouldn't have been say... the News of the World that broke this story by any chance??? AlistairMcMillan 06:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I admit I am not British and could be in error as to this person's notability, but nothing in the article suggests to me that he is. The case does not seem special or unusual in any way, so I must vote delete. Indrian 00:22, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reading the article, he doesn't strike me as notable. Just another paedophile. Thue | talk 12:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Move discussion

  • Oppose. There should be a disambiguation page, of course, but this should stay here. Why move from the specific "paedophile" (since the originator chose the British spelling, we have to go along with it) to the more generic "sex offender?" Call a spade a spade. --Jpbrenna 29 June 2005 23:32 (UTC)
  • Oppose All King's sex crimes are with children. He is a convicted paedophile. As Jpbrenna says, we should call a spade a spade. The British spelling is there because King is British, jguk 30 June 2005 05:23 (UTC)
  • Support, "paedophile" is not a synonym for "sex offender" and whether or not he was a pedophile is unverifiable. I don't want this moved because of the British spelling, I want it moved because the word "paedophile" is unverifiable and improper in this context -- if we had several Rosy O'Donalds would we call her page Rosy O'Donald (homosexual)? 24.224.153.40 30 June 2005 12:14 (UTC)
    • He's been gaoled for the systematic abuse of 3 girls aged between 9 and 13. It's quite clear that he's a paedophile: it's already been verified. The reason we have "paedophile" in brackets after his name is to distinguish him from the writer and because he is notable because of the vile and disgusting nature of his crimes. I don't know who Rosy O'Donald is, but if we had lots of them, we'd put in brackets a description of what she is best known for. My guess is, not as a homosexual, jguk 30 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)
I think he means Rosie O'Donnell, an American comedienne who has a daytime talk show. She came out as a lesbian a few years ago. I fail to see what she has to do with this. There is only one notable Rosie O'Donnell, so we don't need to disambiguate. She is best known for her acerbic-tongued comedy, then for her talk show, then for her Bush-bashing politics & anti-firearms advocacy. Her lesbian activism is relatively recent. She has not been accused, let alone convicted, of molesting children.
This Stephen King fellow, on the other hand, is most notable for molesting little girls. The other Stephen King is best known for writing scary novels. The latter Stephen King is the better known of the two, and has been a notable public figure for much longer. So we leave his name unmodified, and add "paedophile" to this one. He's been convicted, so how is it unverfiable? --Jpbrenna 30 June 2005 18:37 (UTC)
It's unverifiable because pedophilia is not a crime so it is not possible to be convicted for it. Raping little girls doesn't make someone a pedophile, it makes them a sex offender. 24.224.153.40 2 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
Also, I don't think we should disambiguate by one's sexual orientations. Isotalo, perhaps it is POV to believe that pedophilia is not a wild deviation, but it's also POV to believe it is. By using Blah (pedophile) and not Joe (heterosexual) or Suzy (homosexual) Wikipedia is asserting that it is. 24.224.153.40 2 J,
  • Comment. "Pedophile" is not a valid disambiguationuly 2005 20:09 (UTC)
Pedophilia is a crime if acted upon as I see it. I'm not too happy about making the XXX (homosexual) comparison since it is based on the very POV:ed assumption that all sexual preferences and practices except basic heterosexuality are just slightly differing perversions, but it is certainly applicable. This guy should be disambiguiated based on occupation or something. So it should be Stephen King (plummer) or something similar. /Peter Isotalo July 2, 2005 11:30 (UTC)
Acting on pedophilic feelings is usually a crime, whereas (adult) homosexuality & other orientations and practices generally are not, at least in the Western world. (One exception is usually bestiality --- don't feed the bears, and definitely don't f*** them). "Pedophile" is commonly used in English to denote active practicioners of child love in contravention of published statutes, not just those "oriented" towards children. I don't have a problem with "child sex offender" or "child rapist," or "child sexual abuser," but "sex offender" is just too general. A peeping-Tom can be a "sex offender" --- see sex crime. Watching a 21 year old woman change is not the same as the forcible rape of pre-pubescent girls. This guy is in a special class, he's been convicted, it's verifiable, and we should call a spade a spade. If he were noted for his plumbing, he'd be in the phone book under "Plumbers & Steamfitters," not in a Wikipedia article. --Jpbrenna 3 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)
I don't care about your opinions on pedophilia. "Watching a 21 year old woman change is not the same as the forcible rape of pre-pubescent girls."? Every time I discuss this with a pejorative mind it always circles around to one thing: "sex with children!!1 oh noes!" -- you don't get it. Ever. Pedophile is not a synonym for child molester! Child molestation has about as much to do with pedophilia as raping has to do with heterosexuality. Very few pedophiles act on their feelings, and quite a few child molesters are not pedophiles, in that they are not primarily attracted to children or that they are not attracted to children at all -- there is too often other motives for molestation. Here, I see no reference to a psychological report which deemed that he was a pedophile. So, are we just guessing here? Let's go with the facts: He was a sex offender. We don't know if he was a pedophile. 24.224.153.40 3 July 2005 14:44 (UTC)
  • "Child rapist" or "child sex offender" shouldn't be used as they are ambiguous terms - is a child rapist a rapist who is a child or a rapist who has raped a child. "Paedophile" is entirely unambiguous, jguk 3 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)
    No, they're not. The terms "child sex offender" is very widely used and you'd have to be an idiot to think it meant something other than it does. Are you suggesting we should rename our article on Child pornography to Pornography which features a child or something of the like?
    • Dear anon, please refrain from making personal attacks, jguk 3 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
      I did not make any "personal attacks". Stop calling me anon. 24.224.153.40 3 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
      • You are anon as you do not have a logged in account - I recommend you get a logged in account - or at least give a name you are to be known by - until then you are anonymous. On the personal attacks front, calling someone an "idiot" and implying they are incapable of reading do constitute personal attacks. On WP, personal attacks are seriously frowned upon (ask any regular user and they'll tell you this). WPians disagree frequently, but try not to resort to attacks. It is clear that you do not like Category:Pedophiles. The way to deal with it is to list the page on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, together with your rationale, and let the community decide whether it should go. You shouldn't go depopulating the category. For now I will restore them all - pending any decision that may be taken on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Please do not revert them, the categories for deletion page will only take 10 days, jguk 3 July 2005 19:38 (UTC)
The Wikipedians who wrote the pedophilia article and members of the Childlove movement may not equate "child molester" and "pedophile" but most people do. That being said, I won't object to him being called Stephen King (UK child molester) instead. I still definitely oppose the vague, euphemistic "sex offender." By calling him that, you are euphemizing in a pretense at "neutrality." As I have said, a peeping-Tom can be a "sex offender." Forcible sodomy upon a child is much more serious than that. --Jpbrenna 3 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • Support The word "pedophile" is not synonymous with child molester, although it is commonly misused as such. Many, many people are exclusively pedophile and never lay a hand on a child (what should we call these if you insist on equating "pedophile" with "child molester"?). Furthermore, many of those who lay hands on children are not of a pedophile orientation. I support changing the name of this article to "Stephen King (UK child sexual offender)", or in the alternative, "Stephen King (UK child molester)". I agree that "sex offender" is too generic for his crimes. Haakon 5 July 2005 18:21 (UTC)
    • Two points. King is a paedophile. Noting that others aren't paedophiles or that some paedophiles aren't sexual offenders is not relevant: King is notorious because he's a paedophile. Second - there's no reason to add "UK" to the description as we do not need to distinguish between him and a US paedophile, or an Australian paedophile, say, of the same name: at present we only need to disambiguate him from a writer and a conservationist. Kind regards, jguk 5 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
      • Re "King is notorious because he's a paedophile." I would say that he is notorious because he has sexually molested children, not because he is of a pedophile orientation. If he had not molested children, he would not have been notorious. But if he is, as you claim, a pedophile, he would still have been a pedophile if he had not molested children. Secondly, I agree that the "US" is not needed. Haakon 5 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)
In common parlance, the two are synonymous. If you don't want to call him a paedophile, call him a child molester, child sexual abuser, child rapist (and pace JG, but I think people will know we mean a rapist of children, not a child who rapes) - but don't give him the "sex offender" label, which is just too vague. --Jpbrenna 7 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)
I can't see any consensus for this move. The result is not moved. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion with the author?

Is there really any serious concern that readers could confuse this Stephen King with the author (or indeed any other Stephen King)? Personally I think not, and would like to delete this phrase. Readers will find this page either through the "rapists" category, or through the "Stephen King" disambiguation page, which makes it clear he is not the author. Also, the name of the page is "Stephen King (paedophile)". Comments? jguk 20:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google Search

I tried searching Google for "Stephen King". Our page on the author was the seventh result. I got bored searching for our page on the paedophile after the 300th results. YMMV slightly. I don't think there is any worry about people finding the paedophile entry while looking for the author. Please see PageRank for more on why this isn't likely to be a problem. AlistairMcMillan 02:26, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] adding Otherpeople|Stephen King

I'm going to add this tag (for the second time) at the top of the article. If it's removed again, I will not add it once more. But please consider: I found this article through recent changes page, so another reader could too. (Also, the article can be found by searching Stephen King on Wikipedia and comes out third). Since the only Stephen King I knew (and cared) is the author, after seeing it was about a "Paedophile's double life" and it was a relatively recent event, I DID confuse the two persons for a moment. Please also note that in the vfd discussion up there, there is a conditional keep "People need to be assured that Stephen King the author is not also the paedophile.". Also, the tag is at the top of the article about the author, why not here too? Actually, it need not be there but should be here. Note that what I'm trying to do is to keep the paedophile thing away from the author. Regards. Tkalayci 15:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another move discussion

Is there any reason why this should stay at it's current name? 24 at 18:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

We need to disambiguate this Stephen King from the writer and the conservationist, so we need something in brackets. This guy is noted for his paedophile crimes, he advised on paedophile issues, was convicted as a paedophile after an investigation by the Met Police's Paedophile Unit and we have a quote from a senior officer in that unit calling King a paedophile. There's no reason to do anything other than call a spade a spade. King is notorious because of his paedophile crimes, so we disambiguate with Stephen King (paedophile), jguk 18:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
How is child molestion a "pedophile crime"? And we can put "child molester" in the brackets. It's completely pov to consider child molestation a "pedophile crime". So, we have a quote of some person calling him a pedophile? That's their pov. Their pov is not necessarily correct. We do not take other people povs and present them as correct on Wikipedia, we present their povs as opinions and present only factual, verifiable information as correct. How is this verifiable? He advised regarding pedophiles. This does not make him a pedophile; and neither does child molestation. There is no verifiable source that has been pointed out thusfar concluding that he is, indeed, a pedophile, so therefore we are trying to present someone's opinion as fact. Stephen King is a child molester. We do not cite any sources which provide evidence for pedophilia of any kind. We have random cop's opinions that we are presenting as fact by including "pedophile" in the title. Stephen King (child molester) is a far more accurate, NPOV, and verifiable title.
Please cite a scientific source stating that Stephen King was primarily attracted to prepubescent children. I can provide you plenty of citations that King was a molester. 24 at 19:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree "Stephen King (child molester)" is a more accurate/verifiable, less POV disambiguation than 'paedophile'. Niteowlneils 19:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:24ip is a self-confessed nonce and apologist for paedophilia, and his request is based around his desire to downplay the evil of paedophiles. It is not only entirely verifiable that King is a paedophile, it has conclusively been proven in a court of law and attested to by experts in paedophilia in the Metropolitan Police. King is not noted as a child molester per se (we would not have an article on him for a minor molestation crime), he is noted precisely because of his paedophilia, jguk 20:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of paedophilia is "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object", which refers to people's desires, not their actions. A person can be a paedophile without ever sexually abusing a child, and a person can sexually abuse a child without being a paedophile. There may be something better than "child molester", but I still believe it should be based on the actions he was convicted of committing, rather than what is believed to be his motivation. Niteowlneils 21:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you were warning me about personal attacks before, why are you participating in them now? I didn't even know what "nonce" meant until now, but the nonce article says: "In the UK, the term nonce is a slang word used to refer to a sex offender, especially paedophiles, and thus as an insult." This is slander and a personal attack then. I am not not a sex offender. Also, how does who I am related to this? Whatever my motivation (I'm certainly not trying to downplay a non-existant evil), I'm presenting this nomination for valid reasons. 24 at 21:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Or maybe "nonce" has another meaning? 24 at 00:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd quite agree with what WP says there. Presumably it mentions the criminal element as it originated as prison slang, but it's not a term that is referring to a criminal record, it is referring to perverted sexual preferences, such as being sexually attracted to children, which you have already freely admitted. So, yes, you are a self-confessed nonce, jguk 05:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
No, I have never acknowledged having any "perverted sexual preferences"... I have only articulated that I am attracted to some female children... therefore I am not a self-confessed "nonce". Furthermore, who I am has absolutely nothing to do with my proposed move. As far as I can see, your only motive for saying that is to try to encourage people to knee-jerk against me. 24 at 15:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
You say you are sexually attracted to children - that is most definitelt a "perverted sexual preference". If you don't believe me, tell your friends and acquaintances (particularly those with young girls) about your sexual predilection and see what the response is, jguk 15:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. For reasons given in the previous voting round (basically, "child molester" is more precise and more relevant than "paedophile"). Haakon 19:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, what is to become of this vote? We never once refer to Mr. King as a "paedophile", except for in the title. We refer to him as a child molester, and have categorised the article in "Child sex offenders" and "Rapists". The disambig page refers to him as a "child sexual abuser". In sum, the article name is out of sync with the article content. Can we move it back to Stephen King (child molester)? It seems to have taken no debate to move it from there, so why do we need vote after vote and angry debate over whether to move it back? Haakon 14:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's very nice to call people "paedophile" or "child molester", especially on the article title. How would you like if your name was here and it had "paedophile" in brackets next to it? Skinnyweed 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely right. This article should be moved to "Stephen King (UK)" or something as neutral as that. The point is to disambiguate him, not to pass judgement on him. --Haakon 08:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It may not be 'nice' to call someone a child molester, but this person has been convicted of just that, so it is accurate, which is more important. Yes, I would be horrified if I were labelled as a child molester, but then, I don't molest children. And we don't need to "pass judgment" on him; the judicial system has taken on that responsibilty. And yes, being sexually attracted to children (even "some" children) is definitely, in this society, very strongly considered "perverted."

Support, he was famous for his child molestation, which is the legal term, as opposed to 'paedophile', which would still be very odd even if he was noted more for his activity in the PIE. --Jim Burton 04:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. As mentioned by many others, paedophilia is a medical condition (if not a sexual orientation), and there is no proof that King satisfies the medical definition of it. Don't say "but they are so and so in common parlance." In common parlance, many people say that Venus is a star. --Acepectif 22:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

For the record, I did not revert this page. As I've stated on a previous version of User:24.224.153.40, this (24.224.153.40) is shared IP and computer. "24ip" wanted to fix something on the Main Page, which is protected, so I let him use my account. Apparently he didn't log out... Cheers. ✏ OvenFresh² 20:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)