Talk:Christopher Paul Neil/Archive 1

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)

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  —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)

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 JPS talk 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 JPS talk to me  08:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pedophiles don't like girls, but there are statements in the news to say that he socialised with girls, and that he liked girls. So just what is his orientation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.10.96 (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He liked the Korean tabang girls, and the Korean tabang girls liked him. Tabang girls in Korea are usually very cute girls who drive around on a motorcycle (moped,autobike) delivering coffee, or juice. There is the potential for the girls to engage in prostitution, and many (though not all of them) do. Anyway he was curious about the service, so I ordered two coffees. When the girl (about 22yrs, and quite cute) showed up with the coffee, his face lit up. Girl thought he was handsome too, and she raised her top so Neil could touch her. She had no bra on of course, and he very gemtly massaged her nipples, and ran his hand down below her waist. Girl beamed in dlight. Ticked me off, because I never got such preferential treatment. The son of a gun tried to hustle her for a date to go sing in a norebong, and she of course said yes. he rushed off to get a pen to get her details. Don't know if he did take her to a norebong, but my gut feeling says that he did.

Now you can imagine my shock and surprise when I read what he was accused of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.10.96 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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)
 * That's a great point Squeak, in fact, what it does is show people who make these videos expecting to be anonymous, that they can't bet on that. Albeit, it doesn't seem like an incredibly difficult task to reverse swirl something, because it is a rather silly form of obscuration to use. What this would do, rather than enable sex criminals to hide themself, is it will discourage them to make child pornography. Of course, this does nothing at all to stop them from continuing to commit sex crimes, and in fact, without putting evidence of these crimes on the internet, it will be much harder for police and other concerned citizens to find the criminals and stop further crimes from happening.Tyciol (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, technology used to hide can be used by anyone, pedophile or non-pedophile. This is not an issue here, because Christopher Paul Neil is accused of commiting sex crimes and creating child pornography. Pedophilia is a separate case. I am not aware if a doctor has diagnosed him as one yet, so you should not in the absence of that. A lot of people in this thread are making that mistake. Tyciol (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed the reverse twirl wheel section since it is not cited and is different topic from the subject. Maybe a separate article can be created for it. Cablespy (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'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)
 * Because using 'Mister' is not given out of respect, it is used to replace their first name. If you just called him 'Neil' it would seem like it was his first name instead of his surname. Anyway to expand upon this 'Mister' title, where did the Mister Swirl term described in the introduction originate? ED calls this guy 'Swirlface' because he swirled the image of his face. Isn't that a more accurate nickname than 'Mister Swirl' which is nonspecific and adds an unnecessary title, because after all, 'Swirl' has no first name that 'Mister' is replacing, right? Tyciol (talk) 05:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

even if he is called mr and proven guilty so what? he deserves respect, he used an orginial effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.176.105 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Christopher Paul Neil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tvscripts.edt.reuters.com/2007-10-08/15006313.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverse swirl
I went ahead and added a concise version of "reverse swirl" rather than "undisclosed methods" back to the page. First of all, the source does explain that a "reverse swirl" was applied, though without further details. So "undisclosed" is simply wrong. A previous version of the page went into great detail of how to do this, which I agree is unnecessary, but saying it is "undisclosed" is equally wrong. By simply mentioning reverse swirl, it more closely matches the source cited. Qed (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Christopher Paul Neil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080512170135/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5ihdJN2nIYzrjz1j1Du098W-BCe9gD90I19S80 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihdJN2nIYzrjz1j1Du098W-BCe9gD90I19S80

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)