Talk:Peter Sotos

Sex offender?

This guy's crimes may go a little beyond simple possession. --DanielCD 18:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

DanielCD, I'll read up on this fellow, after I finish reading about Graham Rix. Could you look at the debate on talk of Graham Rix. It needs more editor comment. Sotos could go either way. Probably would use category label since it is interesting encyclopedic information that might be missed without the category. Need to read more to be sure. --FloNight 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find Sotos listed in any Sex Offender Database, nor could I find any source which labels him a "sex offender" (other than Wikipedia). In cases like this, I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution. Falsely labeling someone a sex offender could have serious ramifications. Kaldari 22:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with that. The policy says "do no harm" with on-the-edge cases. And the man is still living (I assume). There's not really enough info here to make a call the other way (IMHO). Would he fit in the Child Porn cat? That would be saying he's related to the topic...or am I wrong?

Am I interpreting the policy right here: Even if someone is convicted, if the conviction is not the principal thing they are known for, it's not necessary to list it (and would this even apply here)? --DanielCD 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the conviction is relevant, in so far as the conviction relates a lot to his work, and the articleoi makes clear that he is not a paedophile. Indeed, in his aterword in Ian Brady's book "The Gates of Janus" makes clear his revoltion of child abuse, in an unequivocal and emotive way.

I've never edited one of these pages before so I apologize if I'm doing it wrong. The last line of the article refers to Sotos having been "falsely labeled a pedophile." This seems a stretch. You don't have to be convicted of child molestation to be called a pedophile - any ongoing sexual interest in children by an adult constitutes pedophilia. I'm sure Sotos would be the first to admit that he's aroused by children on a regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.30.152 (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Buyer's Market

I wanted to ask why "Buyer's Market" isn't included on this page. It's an album released by Sotos, I think it was in 1996 and it consists of soundbytes from court trials, talk shows (you can hear Geraldo and Oprah on some of the tracks), media coverage etc.

It wasn't Whitehouse, it was a Sotos project. It has five tracks

01) "Children" (people and children talking about getting molested/raped.murdered) 17:52 02) "McMartin" (kids, parents, the McMartins, people involved commenting on the case) 9:03 03) "Trash" (more people talking/testifying about being raped, family members being murdered) 11:24 04) "Bundy" (family members of the victims and other people (including Bundy's mother) talking about Bundy and the murders) 10:04 05) "Victims" (in the same vein as "Trash") 13:23

I downloaded this off Soulseek and have only been able to find a few references to it online. One note of "intrest" is that Sotos supposedly claimed that he would masturbate while listening to this record. Again, all I really have is the album in mp3 form and a few hits on Google, so could someone who knows more about this Buyer's Market add it to the article?

In his defense.

-The only crime sotos has ever comitted as far as we are concerned is owning child pornography at one point in time. There is absolutley nothing illegal about his writing.

- Labeling him as sexual offender based soley on his writing is slanderous and ignorant.

-Even if he was a sexual offender there would be nothing illegal about him writing books.

It is both hilarious and terrifying that the first thing people do upon coming across his work, is go to the sexual offenders data base.

In Reply

- A sex offender can be defined as a person who has committed a crime of a sexual nature. I would argue that owning child pornography is a sex crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.248.4 (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order

Recently I put the article in chronological order: Pure first, then Whitehouse, then his books. Mgordo3 has reverted the change. Mgordo3, can you explain why? It's conventional for biographical articles to be in chronological order; it seems very peculiar to me to do it the other way around. SethTisue (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Description of contents of Pure

Material describing the contents of Pure has now been removed several times and I'd like to know why. I agree that an earlier description of the contents (not written by me) wasn't NPOV and needed improvement, so after it was deleted I supplied the following replacement:

In addition to offering many details about the crimes of serial killers and Nazis, the text in the magazine praises them, describing them using such terms as "genius", "glorious", "exemplary", and "illustrious". A short manifesto introducing the first issue says the magazine "satiates and encourages true lusts."

which was removed by Mgordo3 with an edit comment saying "restructured for relevance", which doesn't explain the removal. I don't think the text I added has any POV problems, so I'm at a loss to understand why it was removed...? SethTisue (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No response, so I am restoring the deleted text. SethTisue (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

sorry seth, this site is run by morons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.156.111 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Age of Peter Sotos

I did some digging in the archives of the Chicago Sun Times, and have confirmed that Sotos was 25 at the age of his arrest (1985). Further dated articles from the paper confirm this age - unfortunately all are pay-per-view, so I can't link to them - so I see no reason to leave the question mark after his birthdate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.124.59 (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Works featuring Soros error linking

The first link in this section "Pornocracy" is broken/wrong? It seems to lead to a historical term instead of the work it's referring to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.251.127 (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Pornography redundant

The pornography issue is covered twice. I copied and pasted both sections below. And we are talking about something that happened according to the Wikipedia page in 1985, 32 years ago. It also says it was only a suspended sentence. Since then, according to the works section he has had over 20 books published. Why is this given such prominence? He also was in the band Whitehouse for 20 years and there are only 3 sentences regarding this yet 2 separate sections regarding the book Pure and child pornography.

"A photocopy from a magazine of child pornography was used as the cover of issue #2 of Pure which led to Sotos pleading guilty to possession of child pornography, receiving a suspended sentence. A copy of the magazine was found by Scotland Yard in Edinburgh, in the home of a suspect in a series of child abductions, murders and grave robbings, which led to Sotos' arrest.[1]"

"Child Pornography[edit source] In December 1985, Sotos was found and arrested under charges of possession and redistribution of child pornography. The publication, Pure, detailed "the pleasures of child abuse, torture and murder in pornographic detail" and that "child abuse is a sublime pleasure". The last issue of the magazine, about the murder of Melissa Ackerman,[18] was never released due to the arrest. Sotos was never accused of taking any pictures or having direct contact with children.[19]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Prate1 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Sotos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717033919/http://denniscooper.blogspot.fr/2006/07/peter-sotos-day.html to http://denniscooper.blogspot.fr/2006/07/peter-sotos-day.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute - updated version of article keeps being reverted

Hello! I'm posting here today because I've tried to update the article, adding new citations and necessary information in order to have a full picture of the article's subject, as well as an improved layout. Overall, an improvement to the article.

However, despite this version of the article specifically addressing the flaws in the old version of the article, it's been reverted consistently to the old version of the article by @Gordom53/@Douger1936, with both accounts saying "NPOV" without any added context - and although I specifically went back and re-edited the article to sound more neutral during the first reversions, it's gotten reverted again and again without any added context despite my asking them to provide such despite me and @VastV0idInSpace0 both reverting their attempts to revert to the old version without any real explanation.

I really don't think this is worth an edit war, so I want to ask either of the accounts reverting the article to the old version to please explain their reasoning as to why they're doing so and why they feel the entire version of the article constitutes as violating NPOV. And it'd be nice to have opinions from others about this and about the current version of the article as well, if anyone else wants to give their opinion. CarterLennon (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

You have written something that emphasizes an arrest from 40 years ago. He's had over 30 books published and was in a band for 20 years. That is not neutral. Douger1936 (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I edited the article to emphasize his band in the beginning line as well as adding context to his work as an author.

I disagree with your notion that it's not neutral. Not only is his arrest both directly related to his work as both an author and a musician given what he writes about, it's where he gained notoriety as well as it being a major talking point of the subject. It is mentioned secondary to him being an author and a musician, and given that his work is directly related to what he was arrested for as well as his arrest being something that he is well known for and is something that gained him his notoriety in the beginning of his career - there's only so much I can do without feeling as if I'm downplaying his arrest's importance i.e. being unneutral.

But regardless of my opinions on the neutrality of it, if your problem is one line that is in the beginning paragraph, it's possible to change that without reverting the entire article. CarterLennon (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not one line. This guy has been an artist for 40 years and you want to make it all about 40 years ago. I didn't hear about him from his arrest. I wasn't even born. Douger1936 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly not NPOV. Why post a picture from 1985? He's been speaking and doing readings for 40 years. Douger1936 (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

CarterLennon what you wrote is clearly not neutral. You have a point of view but that is not the point of an encyclopedia. You even quote his brother for some reason. Gordom53 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't "want" to make it all about anything - what takes priority in the article is his work, and I made sure of that by mentioning (and citing) his friendship with Steve Albini, by adding more information about his writings and his publisher (with citations) and mentioning in the opening line that he was a member of the band Whitehouse - something that wasn't even mentioned until far down in the article prior to the current version of the article.

And that's perfectly fine that you weren't born yet, but Wikipedia articles are meant to encapsulate their entire career and notability - not just their current career. His arrest is what made him notable at the beginning of his career, and is something that relates to the subject of most of his work and the majority of discussion related to him. I'm not seeing how it's unneutral to mention it.

I assumed your problem lied in the line "He gained notability following his 1985 arrest on child pornography charges related to his zine magazine Pure, which made Sotos the first person charged with child pornography in Chicago, Illinois." - I'm not sure what else you could have an issue with. The image is because that is the only image of the subject available for use on Wikipedia. If you have a more recent image that is free to use on Wikipedia, please, feel free to share - but adding an image of the subject of the article is most always an improvement, and the photo Wikipedia has of the subject should be used if a better one doesn't exist. I mention and quote his brother because he is mentioned in the article citation and I felt it fit the personal life section (given that he does have a brother), but I am fine removing it if you wish.

But again I assure you, I don't have a point of view. My edits to the article are solely to better the article and to address the problems with the previous version of the article. CarterLennon (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You definitely have a point of view. You said the article should be about his work but you quoted his brother from 40 years ago and posted a picture from 40 years ago. He's not notable because he was arrested. He's notable because some people admire his work. You think he's notable because of his arrest. Which is why you focus on it. Gordom53 (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think he's notable just because of his arrest, but I don't believe it's an irrelevant part of his career either given that it relates to his most of his work and is where he first gained notability. I'm not entirely sure why you're hung up on the picture - it's a picture of him as a young man, because that is the only photo we have available of him here on Wikipedia.

I quoted his brother because that is a quote that is citable and available, and I just told you that I'd be willing to remove that part of the article if you'd like. The arrest was what first brought him notability, and the reasoning for his arrest is both directly related to his work and discussion related to him.

And I don't appreciate being told that I "definitely have a point of view" when I'm not being accusatory towards you in any way. CarterLennon (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not hung up on the picture. It's just an example of how you are hung up on 1985. You don't appreciate it because it is obviously true. You don't have a neutral point of view. It's an encyclopedia. As you said you think and you believe. it's supposed to be neutral. Not about your thoughts or beliefs. Gordom53 (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying "I think" and "I believe" because you're trying to state for a fact what is or is not relevant, and I'm doing my best to be considerate and open to discussion. But I'm not going to continue trying to have a discussion if you just continue to accuse me of not having a neutral point of view and not knowing the purpose of Wikipedia. I personally don't believe that stating for a fact that he's "notable because some people admire his work" is neutral.

And again, I'm not hung up on 1985 - I've already explained my reasonings as to why it relates to him and his career, and you haven't explained your reasonings as to why it shouldn't be mentioned - despite it having proper citations - outside of accusing me of not being neutral. CarterLennon (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

My dude. Your thoughts and beliefs are littered with what you write. And you are hung up on 1985. You quoted his brother from 1985. You posted a picture from 1985. You "think" he's notable because he was arrested in 1985. By the way I didn't write anything. I just said you don't have a neutral point of view. You said that you "think" his arrest in 1985 is equal to his 40 years of 30 published books and being in a band for 20 years. You even called 40 years of being an artist his "current" career. Gordom53 (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The version that you changed had more words written about his arrest than any other section. But you changed it and elevated it because of your thoughts and beliefs. That's goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) Gordom53 (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I quoted his brother because he has a citable quote. I posted a picture because that is the only picture that is allowed to be posted on Wikipedia. Because you're hung up with me saying the words "I think" due to me being open to your thoughts on the article, but given that you seem to not like that, I will be straightforward from now on.

He is notable in part because of his arrest, both due to it being when he first became notable and due to it's relation with the topic of his work. I never said that it is equal, which is why I made sure that him being an author and a musician is the first sentence of the article - I said that it is notable. Both to him, to the topic in which his work is centered around, and to his early career. And all I stated was that Wikipedia articles are meant to encapsulate their entire career.

I put it in the header due to the charges relevance towards his work (with his work being largely related to the crime he was charged with), as well as its relevance to his career and it being part of what he is known for. It's very common in articles to mention a subject's early life and how they first became notable, after the line stating who they are and what they are specifically known for. It is properly sourced, and nothing in the article is stating an opinion or is otherwise unneutral. CarterLennon (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

After taking a minute, I think I may have realized where the debate has risen from - you seem to have liked the previous version of the article which listed his works first above all else, but Wikipedia is not meant to be a list of works above all else. It's supposed to be a biography for the person. Look at featured articles such as J.K. Rowling and Michael Jackson, which both list their works as the last thing and mention their controversies as it is something that relates to them. It doesn't mean those articles are not being neutral - it means those articles are being specifically neutral and accurate to the subject. CarterLennon (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the photo is what has led to this debate. It looks like a grainy, photo copy and gives the page a different look than is normal. While adding a photo is meant to be an improvement this one doesn't do that. It adds emphasis to 1985 the time of his arrest which already dominates his page. Douger1936 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This photo should be deleted. Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively. Also no evidence of permission Tompom2323 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

After Sotos was charged with manufacturing, distributing and possessing child pornography in 1985, his brother defended him and described him as a "compassionate and good person."

Peter Sotos was never officially charged with manufacturing or distributing, child pornography. Those charges were dropped immediately. This sentence and article should not appear on his page. 216.165.95.177 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed the sentence, primarily due to my concerns of potential harassment towards his brother. The person I was talking with throughout this talk page dispute turned out to be an unneutral sockpuppeteer, so hopefully we can put this entire dispute behind us. CarterLennon (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

All of this talk of NPOV, it's a complete myth anyway. Neutral POV on Wikipedia is a complete farce/falsehood. How is blatantly asserting that Sam Hyde and the Million Dollar Extreme comedy collective hes a part of is all blatantly nazi/white supremacist/racist stuff at all NPOV? And all the IP editors who tried removing it and insisted it's not NPOV kept getting reverted/silenced and ended up having the page protected? How is asserting that Kiwi Farms is some horrible stalking forum that convinces its topics to kill themselves (it doesn't) NPOV either? How is saying Sanctioned Suicide also tells its users to kill themselves NPOV either? (It doesnt). The personal feelings/beleifs on so many articles is very very apparent. Saying "this isn't NPOV" as an argument is very flimsy cuz it quite literally does not exist on Wikipedia, you are very much able to get away with prejudice/biased writings as long as a source agrees with your sentiment. Second Skin (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)