Talk:Tom Humphries

Untitled
Patrick Keaney, not Brian Keaney, was Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign adviser as per , ).

Sorry - you are wrong on this. PATRICK Keaney worked for Nader in Massachussets. BRIAN Keaney worked for Nader in Florida. TWO Keaneys worked for Nader in 2000. Patrick in Massachussets, Brian in Florida. Two different people, Brian was at Joeys with Tom. Patrick was at school in Boston.

MaggieMae 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This stuff about 'future editor' is nonsense and probably written by Humphries himself. I'm removing it now.
 * I agree with you. But did you really think he is the type of person (or maybe an agent did it?) to write such a thing himself? Personally, I like his writing, and can see to some degree why he would be highly sought after. On the other hand, I question whether this is the place for that kind of comment and wonder why people dare to write such things without a single citation, at least. That said, just to be clear, I fully support the change you made. Good edit! W.C. 16:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

96.231.199.143 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He detetsts the League of Ireland
Citation note #3 takes you to the Irish Times registration page and not to an article. I do not know one way or another whether he does or does not and this does not provide an answer86.46.16.83 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Privacy Policy
I'm aware that privacy policies and legal issues surround allegations about impropriety, but the allegations about Humphries are so in the public arena that surely they must be mentioned - if not simply as a record of a potential slur on his character. The relevations - whether true or not - are a matter of record and have had a considerable impact on everyone around him. It is bizarre not to at least report the fact of these allegations - particularly as they gained a high profile and moreso because they have appeared to have had a significant and possibly permanent impact on his output.

I feull endorse the right that eberyone has to privacy, but if the allegations about him are true there is a greater purpose in exposing people who have done what it is alleged that he did.

I resent the fact that he appears to have protection from wiki - a protection which appears to ignore factual happenings and which acts against the protection of people who need to be protected.

I'm at pains here not to repeat the as yet unproven allegations or the nature of them, but they are freely available all over the internet. His response appears to be (and I feel for the guy) a mental trauma of the worst imaginable type. As apologies go, I think this is a statement.

However, I reject utterly any stifling of discussion of the issue. The matter is most certainly not sub judice - there are no legal proceedings taking place. It has happened and has happened in the public arena.

There is room on this page for a reasoned and factual description of events which are now - regrettably - possibly the most significant aspect of the guy's biography. I've always loved his writing. I feel for him as he seems to be in a place of the utmost torment 5albeit self-imposed), but to refuse reasoned and well-supported inclusion of these events on his page is the equivalent of removing Bobby Moore's captaincy of the 1966 WC winning team.

The allegations have been made. There seems to be substance to them. It has caused him to break down in the most serious manner imaginable. Any account of his is incomplete without reference to them.

morrissey.niall@gmail.com is my address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.64.108.203 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, either include what he is most famous for, and the newspaper reports regarding charges, institutionalization etc., which have been published in a number of Irish papers, without counter-accusations of libel, or remove the entry for the man altogether. It's just plain silly - like having an entry for Richard Branson describing him only as a hot-air balloon enthusiast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.192.95.18 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP
February 2014 articles reporting the trial of a "prominent sports journalist" have not named him, for the good reason that it would be illegal for them to do so. It may not be illegal for Wikipedia, but it violates WP:OR and WP:BLP. jnestorius(talk) 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction
In February, I took an special enforcement action on this biography of a living person (BLP). That action was to remove content pertaining to a on-going criminal case where the accused is not publicly named by the court. While Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of Ireland, we do take biographies of living people very seriously.

In relation to BLPs, the concerns of the Wikimedia Foundation are not merely whether a statement is supported by reliable sources, or whether it is reported elsewhere, or whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction over (or can take any action against) the Wikimedia Foundation. The concerns are very much broader and more profound than that. They relate to privacy, dignity and responsibility. They relate to the spirit of BLP policy, not the letter. Therefore, utmost in our editorial concerns when writing BLPs is the possibility of harm of any kind (both to the subject, other people affected, or processes underway).

The powers available to administrators in this area have changed since February. So, for avoidance of doubt, this article under a discretionary sanction. Do not add material relating to an on-going criminal case to this article until the judge in that case allows for the defendant to be named publicly.

We are under no "deadline" to report current affairs. The article stands complete as an encyclopedia entry without the content. So, wait for the case to finish or for the subject's identity to be revealed before adding restoring the content.

--Tóraí (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Very well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdf987654 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 October 2014‎


 * Complete cop-out by Wikipedia in my humble opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

He has now pled guilty to 6 offences including "defilement of a child", so I suppose the article can be updated now Sheila1988 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC). http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/top-sports-journalist-tom-humphries-9984252 http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/sports-journalist-tom-humphries-pleads-12707866


 * The judge has now lifted reporting restrictions, and I have on that basis added brief reference to the criminal convictions, including a sources reference to the lifting of the restrictions that justified the sanction. I have attempted to maintain an encyclopedic tone in the lede, as the previous tone was a little 'scatterbox'. Obviously, the subject is essentially noteworthy for two things - his significant public career, and the fall from that career, but I've attempted to tone down the 'sensational' tone to something more clear and encyclopdic without clouding the facts. Mpjmcevoybeta (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that this is what the article looked like in 2014 before the crime section was blanked because of the restrictions. I think that added most of that content. Should this section be restored now that he has been named publicly?LM2000 (talk) 03:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sportsman supports Humphries
An anonymous sportsman gave testimony that supported him. Who is he? When we find out who he is it should be included come what may.(Mobile mundo (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC))
 * It was Donal Óg Cusack. He admitted it.(Mobile mundo (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC))