Talk:Shawn Christian (mayor)

Categorisation

Christian is the Mayor of the British Overseas Territory of the Pitcairn Islands and a convicted sex offender. His nationality is British, in accordance with the British Overseas Territories Act 2002. Christian was convicted under the British Sexual Offences Act 1956 I therefore think it is appropriate for the following categories to be included:

• Category:British politicians convicted of crimes
• Category:British people convicted of child sexual abuse
• Category:British rapists
• Category:British sex offenders
• Category:Prisoners and detainees of the United Kingdom

User:Number 57 disputed this but failed to provided a substantive policy-based reason. Under WP:COP I cannot find a reason these categories would not be appropriate. I would appreciate input from other editors. AusLondonder (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I provided a perfectly reasonable reason when this was previously discussed on my talk page, which I'll regurgitate here: Although he may hold a British passport, under any reasonable definition, Christian's nationality is Pitcairn Islander, as it is a separate jurisdiction to the UK. I believe the British categories are specific to people from the UK and not places like Pitcairn, Gibraltar etc.

If AusLondonder is insistent that these categories are required, the sensible solution would be to create Pitcairn versions of the respective categories, which would sit within the main Pitcairn category tree, the "in Oceania" tree (as the UK tree is limited to being "in Europe" and one for British Overseas Territories. Number 57 16:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your position. According to our article, "Nationality is the legal relationship between a person and a state". Pitcairn Island is not a sovereign state. It is therefore, under international law, a part of the United Kingdom. It is part of the British state. Presumably you are suggesting the categories is restricted to British people from the mainland UK? AusLondonder (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious that I'm stating that. Pitcairn is not part of the UK – it is owned by it, which isn't the same thing. Number 57 07:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You're being pedantic here. Pitcairn is not part of the United Kingdom in the sense of the Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom. Irrespective, these categories are about British people not people from the United Kingdom. Do you have any policy/guideline which supports your view of the applicability of these categories AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not part of the UK, otherwise it would elect members of the UK parliament. And I've already made the point that the "British" categories are specifically for people from the UK itself – this is not a debate that policy or guideline-based reasoning comes into.

What is the problem with creating specific Pitcairn categories here? Number 57 09:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you tell me when and where the community decided that categories titled "British" are only for people from the mainland United Kingdom rather than people of British nationality? Also, your logic that Pitcairn is not part of the UK because it does not elect MPs to the House of Commons is faulty. Evidently you believe the Pitcairn Islands are terra nullius. AusLondonder (talk) 10:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe there's been a discussion previously, but it seems quite reasonable that this is the case based on the fact that Pitcairn isn't part of the UK (and trying to make out that I'm saying it's terra nullis is just bizarre). You still haven't answered the question of having separate Pitcairn categories, which I've suggested three times now. Number 57 10:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

In the case what gives you the right to impose your will? So Pitcairn is not part of the UK. What sovereign state is it a part of then? I don't believe separate categories are necessary or appropriate for an island of 50 people. Why not have separate categories for London? AusLondonder (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

And what gives you the right to impose your will? We work on the principle of WP:BRD. Pitcairn is not part of any sovereign state – it's an overseas territory (I'm sure you must be aware of this if you're editing in the subject area). We wouldn't have a separate category for London because it's part of the UK. Number 57 11:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Despite our differences on a separate matter, I agree with Number57 on this one. Pitcairn is a British Overseas Territory. It is not part of the UK. AusLondonder: not every piece of land on earth is part of a sovereign state. Many overseas possessions of the UK, France, etc. are not actually part of the parent country. Pitcairn Island citizens hold a "British (Pitcairn Islands) passport". This is different from an ordinary British passport: people from the UK proper are called "British citizen" inside their passport, whereas people from Pitcairn (and others) have "British Overseas Territories" written instead. Pitcairn Islanders do not have right of abode in the UK, and people from the UK do not have right of abode in Pitcairn, you have to go through an immigration process with visas etc. Also, Pitcairn Islanders are not EU citizens (neither are people from the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, etc.), and thus do not have free movement in the EU. So it is possible to hold a British passport while not being a full British citizen.--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Steve Christian's Wikipedia page calls him a politician and sex offender. Why shouldn't his son's?Aresef (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Concerning this current mayor

I know that the facts are listed and all, but how did this guy become a mayor after raping children? I think that may warrant a bit of digging. And, in other countries (cough, U.S.), child rape is not something that one walks away from (a normal US sentence would be at least thirty, not three, years). The feasibility of it is curious. MgWd (talk)MgWd —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I totally agree! It's absolutely astounding that he and other convicted sex offenders in his family can hold political office. Equally as disturbing is the fact that certain editors are regularly visiting this page and deleting and attempting to conceal any reference to this person's status as a child rapist. Maybe like the well-known professional Russian internet trolls, there is a Pictairn rapist sympathisers' headquarters somewhere where people are constantly monitoring Wikipedia and deleting any accurate references to this piece of worthless filth. Very worrying. Regards, MorbidStories (talk), 14:20 UTC, 30 November 2017

Deletion of undisputed facts

Looking through the history of this page, I have noticed that User:Number 57 has frequently reverted edits relating to the true, accurate and indisputable fact that this person is a convicted child rapist. They deleted a mention I made of this, labelling it "highly inappropriate" to state this. Do you have a vested interest in concealing this information? His status as a child rapist is surely a more pressing concern to be aware of than his status as Mayor. Regards, MorbidStories (talk) 14:20 UTC, 30 November 2017

Given that I wrote the article and it includes the text "was found guilty of two counts of child rape and one count of aiding or abetting a rape", I'm not sure why you think I'm trying to conceal anything. Your comments about vested interest are bizarre. Number 57 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

There does seem an element of ownership going on here. Any editor who edits relating to Christian's convictions is being immediately reverted. His convictions are highly relevant to his notability. See Paul Golding for an example of a politician in a similar situation. AusLondonder (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not ownership, it's serious concerns about WP:BLP compliance. By all means raise this at WP:BLPN if you think it's appropriate to mention it in the lead. Number 57 17:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP concerns "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" - it is not and never has been an excuse to whitewash and censor. Are you suggesting Christian is innocent of the charges he has been convicted of? That would be the only BLP concern - if we were repeating false and unsourced allegations. Maybe take a look at WP:PUBLICFIGURE, a part of the BLP policy which clarifies the role and purpose of the policy. It says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." AusLondonder (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, the onus is on you to explain how the BLP policy has been violated. Simply invoking the policy, as an attempt to silence discussion, is not enough. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, the accusation that I'm trying to silence discussion is somewhat ridiculous. We are discussing it here and I actively suggested discussing it at another, more relevant venue.

Secondly, the information is in the article, so nothing is being whitewashed or censored (I am not sure why this incorrect inference is being made for a second time).

The question here is whether this information should be repeated in the lead. Christian is primarily noteworthy by Wikipedia standards for being a politician, specifically the political head of the Pitcairn Islands, and it is unlikely that we would have an article on him had he simply been a perpetrator of the crimes in question (he would fail WP:PERP as the events are covered in the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004 article). Therefore I am not sure that this is appropriate to mention in the lead; BLPs are required to be written conservatively, so it's not clear to me that this is information that is needed in the opening sentence. Again, if you disagree, then by all means raise it at WP:BLPN to get further input. Number 57 22:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I write here having had a simple, factual edit ("convicted child rapist") reverted by User:Number 57 ("not really sure this should be in the intro"). I notice that this user has continually deleted all mentions of the despicable crime of which this person has been convicted. What is the motivation behind this? Why try to hide this? I know it is mentioned in the main text, but it's a pretty significant piece of information, and I would hazard that this guy is more famous for his crimes than for being mayor of a tiny community. Also see the following people in the public eye, whose sex-offence convictions are less serious that Shawn Christian's but are still mentioned in their intros: Rolf Harris, Adam_Johnson_(footballer), Alex_Hepburn_(cricketer).--Getbacktothecarpet (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

The motivation is compliance with WP:BLP. As I suggested above, you are welcome to being it up at WP:BLPN to ask whether it is appropriate to mention it in the intro. Number 57 08:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)