Talk:Graham Ovenden

Birthplace needs disambiguation

Currently points to Alresford, which is a dab page. Given the existing text, there are two choices. Either the town of New Alresford or the adjacent village of Old Alresford. -- Chris j wood 14:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The former claims him, so I've pointed to it while cleaning up the intro. Melchoir 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

From User talk:Tony Sandel

Re this edit: I've reverted it for now. 1) It's unsourced, and I can't find any verification in NewsBank. 2) It's in an area that's likely to be risky in terms of WP:BLP; I'd recommend getting it vetted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gordonofcartoon 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - there's lots of references via Google, but I can't find a really authoritative reference, so will leave your revert.Tony 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

Thanks for the reply. I just found an authoritiative one:

"Brotherhood of Ruralists" A Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Art. Ian Chilvers. Oxford University Press, 1998. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. <http://www.oxfordreference.com/views/ENTRY.html?subview=Main&entry=t5.e399>

Apart from Blake, the best known of the members of the Brotherhood are probably David Inshaw and Graham Ovenden ... Ovenden is best known for pictures of prepubescent girls, which have sometimes been attacked as pornographic. In 1977 he published a book called Nymphets and Fairies, and in 1979 he wrote: "My work is the celebration of youth and spring—the fecundity of nature and our relationship to it. This is why the subject-matter of my work tends towards the girl child (more often than not at the point of budding forth) and the English landscape in all its richness and mystery." ... <snip ref to Hetling affair> ... Ovenden had another clash with the law in 1993 when officers from the obscene publications squad of the Metropolitan Police seized a large quantity of his photographs. They were eventually returned following a petition on Ovenden's behalf by fellow artists.

I guess something can be condensed from that, but I'd still run it past WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon 22:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the reference can only be seen by members. I'll just put the original stuff back on (tweaked) as it doesn't seem too contentious.Tony 09:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Tony

the reference can only be seen by members

That doesn't matter; we're not limited to sources universally available online. For instance, many bio articles cite the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (which is only available in print form or online subscription). The version you've restored is unsourced, making it fair game for removal anyway, and even more so for potentially contententious bio material. Gordonofcartoon 10:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

END OF COPIED MATERIAL

New police enquiry, April 2010

Re. this (in the circumstances, correct) revert,[1] see Western Morning News. The situation is not quite so clear cut as to be summed up properly in the short sentence now removed, particularly as the police (presumably the source of the information, albeit maybe "leaked") are not willing to be accountable for it: "Alex Stevens, spokeswoman for the Met, said: 'We are not prepared to discuss the matter.' " Ty 22:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've used this report in the article now. Ty 01:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Charged with sex abuse

Not sure what the outcome of this trial was, but surely significant that he has been charged with actual child sex abuse.

http://m.thisisdevon.co.uk/story.html?aid=13236995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.117.203 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 

New sex abuse accusations

Graham Ovenden, 70, is accused of paedophile crimes against four children aged from six to 14 between 1972 and 1985.

http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Acclaimed-Cornwall-artist-Graham-Ovenden-accused/story-18382855-detail/story.html?664494275=372638545#axzz2NF41swLW Theroadislong (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

While this was some time ago, the legal process is still ongoing and a further appeal is being processed. It is worth pointing out that of the four victims included in the original charges, the major allegations were from a witness who the judge removed as unreliable, while two refused to endorse that any abuse had taken place, and the remaining charges were for 'indecency' such as taking pictures of naked children rather sexual assault as reported in some of the press. The later confiscation hearing appeal in 2016 actually returned images against which Mr. Ovenden was convicted ... as they were not indecent, and further evidence has come to light in relation to the charges that were put to the jury. The http://graham-ovenden.uk site has the material that can be currently shown, and further material will be included once the legal process allows. Lsces (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Has he died?

There are reports of his death in December 2022, but apparently a verifiable source for that information has not been found. Can anybody comment further? Tesseract12 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

What reports are there of his death? Searches of Google and Twitter find nothing and, given his prominence, I would expect his death to be reported. Unless there is a Reliable Source of his death, we assume he is alive (well, until he is 115). See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Nedrutland (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Aren't there other sources beside Google and Twitter for verifying such information? Also, the graham-ovenden.uk website no longer exists, further indication that he has unfortunately passed away. Tesseract12 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

As above. Unless there is a Reliable Source of his death, we assume he is alive. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Nedrutland (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

A search finds one recent mention on a blog, mentioning a death on 9 December (and funeral on 27 January) but a blog is not a Reliable Source (and I do not wish to link to it) so, for now, WP continues to assume he is alive. Nedrutland (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that he has died, but the only available source is a blacklisted blog. Theroadislong (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that by "blacklisted" you mean not quotable according to Wikipedia's rules? Tesseract12 (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

That's correct and I can't find any local newspapers that have reported it yet. Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

And yet the "Article" page still shows only a date of birth and not a date of death. This was, of course, a very sad occasion. But it is absurd for the official Wikipedia policy to be to in effect play make-believe and represent a deceased person as still alive. It is simply an issue of factual accuracy. Tesseract12 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little concern with "factual accuracy" we only report what reliable sources say, if there are no such sources reporting his death, then Wikipedia will assume they are alive. Theroadislong (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Which is worse, to say someone has died who hasn't or to say nothing about the death of someone who has actually died? "Everyone knows" wikipedia articles are incomplete and work-in-progress, so a completely omitted detail might not be wrong, just an article that isn't up-to-date. DMacks (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps whatever apparently controversial blog they're talking about should be "un-blacklisted". Blacklisting a legally operating blog can be considered a form of Internet censorship. Tesseract12 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RS "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material". Nedrutland (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have asked more directly:

Why is that unnamed-here blog blacklisted? Tesseract12 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware that the only blog mentioning a death has been 'blacklisted' (by which, I presume, is meant not considered a Reliable Source after discussion, like some newspapers). My point is that any blog will not be accepted "as a source for material about a living person". Nedrutland (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The blog in question is "pigtailsinpaint" but as indicated above even if it wasn't blacklisted it would not be allowed, because it is not a reliable source. Theroadislong (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

He has passed away. My book dealer is handling his estate. 2A00:23C4:B85C:3B01:6EA6:3743:8462:ACE5 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it is even more strange that the actual article about him still only gives a date of birth, thereby falsely implying that he is still alive. Tesseract12 (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source for his death and add it. Theroadislong (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

He has died. Confirmed by a deceased estates notice in The London Gazette https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4277012 Nedrutland (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)