Talk:Ian Lake

Untitled
I am interested as to why persons or person keeps removing the information pertaining to Mr Lakes conviction for child abuse. For some of us this is very important and goes directly to the character of the man. If the information causes offence or hurt I would consider modifying the post but I would need to know why. Thanks and regards Lucasbensam (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Because there is no source to verify the assertion. You need to read WP:RS and WP:BLP.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He doesn't appear to be a living person, so strictly speaking WP:BLP doesn't apply. Nevertheless, as Nomoskedasticity says, we can't include information of this nature unless a reliable source is included. And even then, its inclusion should not unbalance the article, per WP:N. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the Independent obit (from which much of an earlier version of the article was copied) writes only the very unspecific "Ian Lake's later years were clouded by a conviction for sexual offences in 1995." That's still not enough for the more specific accusations leveled in the comments, but given the existence of an actual conviction it seems likely that actual sources exist. On the other hand, even if this content can be sourced, it shouldn't be added in such a way that it dominates the article: he may have been a sexual offender of some sort, but he seems not to have been a notable sexual offender. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many apologies, i wasn't aware that there were different grades of sexual offenders (ref 'notable' or otherwise). The sources used were the persons wife and the London College of Music. The conviction was posted in local newspapers but was done before any electronic or soft versions were made available. I am unsure as to how best represent this as the original article shows the man as a person of some note with accolades and points which appear to dominate the portrayal of a creative albeit it minor genius. Unfortunately the reality was much darker than this and so for perpsectice I believe that if there is to be an article on this person then the dominant feature has to be his crimes and conviction. I have spoken with the author of the obit (John White) and this persons wife, both have given and confirmed the details as presented. I feel I was balanced as I could have written a lot more (also verifiable through correspondence with the Court system in the UK). I personally would rather see this entry removed as it does not speak accurately to the man that was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.156.141 (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sexual offenders can range from baby-rapers to people who got caught pissing in public. The sources we have don't tell us where on that range he falls. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)