Jump to content

Talk:Walter Breen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources?

[edit]

I don't see sources for the claims of pederasty against this person. I'll admit I don't really know much about the case myself. Nevertheless, the onus is upon the editors who added or support the inclusion of the information, to back it up with sources. Accusations of felony crimes are serious business and should never be thrown around unsourced at Wikipedia; the last thing Wikipedia needs is another high-profile libel scandal. Please cite sources. -Kasreyn 05:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's public record that he pled guilty.

Pled guilty twice, in two separate trials over two different children; of whom one was seven when he was first assaulted. He was convicted in 1993 of 13 counts of 288.a,b,c,and d and sentenced to 13 years in San Quentin. He died in Chino before he could be transferred to San Quentin.

Here lies my dad, he died in jail Of broken lives, he left a trail For all his coins, they'd brook no bail And cancer made his liver fail. --Moira Stern —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.1.49 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: added source

[edit]

Thank you very much, and it's a good start. But I'm still concerned about the allegation that he was convicted of the crimes alleged. Once again, to forestall any flames, I'd like to point out that my interest here is protecting Wikipedia from defamation claims, not protecting dead jailbird child molesters (assuming good faith here). Thanks. -Kasreyn 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is Marion Zimmer Bradley's testimony in the lawsuit filed against her by Ken Smith, Walter's last victim and the one he went to prison for. It is excerpted at: http://www.sff.net/people/stephen.goldin/mzb/excerpts1.html
Bgoldnyxnet

Why Texas?

[edit]

I don't understand why this article has been placed in the Texas project. Breen lived in California during the time I knew him (approx. 1966-1990). While apparently born in Texas, he seems to have been a Californian for most of his adult life.
Bgoldnyxnet

Project tags aren't awards (for the Project or the subject), they are used to identify possible sources for additional information. Since Breen was born in TX there is a pretty clear reason to tag. The more eyes watching a project, the better. Jacksinterweb (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I end up here trying to make sure this article complies to wiki policy and guidelines?

[edit]

I thought trying to protect the Tom Metzger from policy/guideline violations was bad(I have since given up), but this one is out there too. Oh well. Is it too much to ask for better/more sources?? Thanks --Tom 20:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is well known for his writings about pederastry? Since its in the lead, is there a source for that?--Tom 20:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article in Before Stonewall (listed in the "Further reading" section) for details. --Orange Mike 02:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pederasty and LGBT activist.

[edit]

I have removed the "LGB activist", and "gay" categories. There is no supported evidence in the article that he's gay, and I'm not sure being a advocate of pederasty makes one an LGBT activist. I'm not very informed here, so I've cross posted to to the LGBT wikiproject.--Scott Mac 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly aren't. I'll leave it to the LGBT project on the activist tag, but Breen's gayness is not in question and hasn't been since the late 1950s. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - can you give a source for that?--Scott Mac 01:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the excellent potted biography of Breen in Before Stonewall.--Fafhrdrn1154 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted two edits by House1630, who removed "pederasty" in two places. Breen was an outspoken proponent of pederastry and differentiated it from androphilia. Given that, I'm not at all clear why "pederastry" was replaced with "homosexuality". Zentomologist (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

gay tag copied over from my talk page

[edit]

The category was removed under the BLP policy. Do not replace it without a solid citation or you maybe blocked.--Scott Mac 01:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "L" in BLP stands for "living". --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I missed that. Nevertheless, if it is as well known as you claim, a reliable source should be easy for you.--Scott Mac 01:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; how many more do you want? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read D.H. Mader's "Walter Breen aka J.Z. Eglinton (1928–1993)," in Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context, edited by Vern L. Bullough (New York: Harrington Park Press, 2002), you'll see that both tags should be restored, since Mader and Bullough both consider him a pre-Stonewall LGBT activist. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was taking a look at Before Stonewall.... on Google books, but I don't it either calling him gay, or an LGBT activist for that matter, although that is the topic of the book. Could you elaborate? And perhaps this discussion should be on the talk page. Prodego talk 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try page 313 (inter alia): "He also found the etiology for his sexuality in his past lives; if it was classically Greek, that was because he had once sat literally at Socrates' feet." --Orange Mike | Talk 02:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I am correctly understanding the meaning of that. Page 318 seems to me to be more direct. Prodego talk 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "Gay writers" category is valid. Breen's arguments (from what I've read in the Before Stonewall book on Google) are that "Greek Love" is nothing like "androphile homosexuality" (same-sex relationship between adults). He seems to have self-identified as the former, not the latter. See especially pg 317.
Having said that, he probably *does* belong to the "LGBT activists" category, since (as that book argues) his writings are some of the first on the study of homosexualities throughout history. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I'm being a vulgar old het boy here, stomping all over the subtle distinctions: Breen made a rather esoteric and (IMHO) self-justifying distinction between "Greek Love" and regular androphile sexuality (garden-variety gayness, if I understand it correctly). Just because he had this rather fringey theory, does this really justify excluding him from the gay writers category? For better or worse, he's certainly of more note than some of the more obscure folks in that category whose careers were enabled by the work of pre-Stonewall pioneers like Breen. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: gay activist' -- despite his inclusion in Before Stonewall: Activists for Gay and Lesbian Rights in Historical Context, he is classed in that volume in the category "Other Voices and their Influence" rather than the sections on people who were activists as such. He was included because editors though his specific "belief" was important (p. 301), and I don't think belief = activist. He is called a "theorist" and we're told he "made a notable academic contribution" p. 312. Even being a path-breaking and/or original scholar doesn't add up to activist in my book. Re: gay -- his theory of Greek love explicitly requires the older man to introduce the younger into sexuality, specifically heterosexual practice. Thus neither person in the relationship is exclusively homosexual. That's vey clear in Before Stonewall p. 318. I don't pretend to understand it. Not clear to me how Breen defined himself, but I suspect "LGBT writer" works and "gay writer" doesn't. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organgemike, thanks for asking about all this! As a "vulgar old het boy", the subject may (or may not) be outside your normal zones :) Here's the "official" reason Breen isn't considered "gay": The LGBT community, for the most part, rejects man-boy relationships (what Breen called "Greek Love"). The reason given is because such relationships almost always have a "power over" contributing factor - the adult almost always has some form of power over the youngster. Since (by and large) LGB relationships are based in love, they tend to not have that factor. That's the official reason, anyway - as you might guess, there are large gray areas in that reasoning, but there ya go. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Walter H. Breen. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks quite a lot of official statements and commits and/or cites spurious synthesis

[edit]

So we have mainly three sources that contradict and openly contest most or even all of the claims regarding Breen's sex crimes, legal record up until 1990, and synthesis in this article regarding them:

According to the Official Statement by the MZB Estate, Breen had never in his entire life been convicted for a sex crime up until 1990, and when he was convicted in 1990, the only evidence used against him in court was his own confession over the event of March 1989. Considering all the legal evidence put before MZB and the Estate (the latter had also been officially involved as a defendant), the Official Statement expresses doubt about the truthfulness of Breen's confession (interestingly enough, the opposite councellor hired by the boy's parents as late as the late 90s still went on record as calling it an "alledged molestation" during an official testimony). The Official Statement points out that the parents of the 13-year-old boy involved in the March 1989 event were under official investigation of "atrocious neglect" up until at least September 1999 because it was considered legally proven that the alleged act of molestation in March 1989, if it had taken place at all, had undoubtedly occured at the house of the victim's mother, with the mother present in the room next door during the event, and that, according to the Estate's Official Statement, there was reason to believe the mother had deliberately and actively encouraged her child towards the crime, if it had taken place at all, and that the victim's parents had, at the time, been sexually open to him for years to a degree bordering obscenity. After MZB died, the charges against the victim's parents were suddenly dropped as part of an out-of-court settlement.

Now, let's move over to the sources for this WP article as it currently stands and how it's synthesizing them:

As for the 1954 accusation, this WP article here uses two sources to claim that it had to do with child molestation. The first source used for this claim doesn't call it that it all. It only cites "lewd behavior" without any mention of minors at all for that event. The second source is a deleted private website that has been put online in 1999 on behalf of Ken (the boy from 1989), his stepfather (whom the Official Stament of the MZB Estate accuses of having both a financial interest and an interest in not being legally persecuted for his and his wife's acts towards their son up to and including in 1989), and Moira Grayland, and it's this one deleted private smear website that most of the other sources have used in this article to privotally directly or indirectly quote and synthesize from, including quoting and indirectly referencing its interpretations of documents and events, since at least 2007 and at least up until Greyland made her public accusations in 2014.

So what do we have so far regarding 1954, outside of the deleted private smear site and other sources referring or alluding to it and its interpretations?

  • a.) The source Soy Taylor already used in this here WP article only mentions "lewd behavior" for 1954 and makes no mention whatsoever regarding minors for that event, which markedly differs from how explicitely Taylor names later accusations.
  • b.) The Official Statement by the MZB Estate points out, interestingly, that Breen was not convicted in 1954 at all, and that the document presented to MZB during her deposition only referred to an "arrest" that had no legal conesequences at all.
  • c.) Finally, according to Bradley Zimmer's own deposition linked above where she was confronted with said 1954 police document, the 1954 event related to "lewd behavior" with a "Kevin" who at the time was aged "21 or 22" that Breen was involved with in a "marriage triangle".

Next up: Some joker has obviously defiled this article by changing the "Boondoggle" event to "Breendoggle", making it sound like some humorous public nickname for Breen's supposed illicit sexual activities at sci-fi cons during the 1960s as something supposedly widely known and joked about. As can be read in MZB's deposition, the "Boondoggle" was simply the common nickname for a public raffle for American sci-fi fans to go to a British sci-fi con where Breen bought a ticket for the raffle, and so did, separately, a minor that Breen at no point in time was ever involved with or had ever even met by the time of his death in 1992. But since Breen had written about Greek homosexuality before, some local journalist called Jack Sphere wrote a smear article about Breen that he'd only bought the raffle ticket to his own name to solicit pre-adolescent American males like the one that had also bought a ticket at the raffle entirely separate from Breen. *THAT* was all that was to Breen's supposed "illicit activities" at cons during the 1960s.

When WZB publically defended her husband against Sphere's smear article by stating adamantly that he was not into pre-adolescents at all (which WZB's own WP article calls "defending his pedophilia") and that anything else was nobody's business, a cartoonist that didn't even know them responded by publishing a cartoon based solely upon WZB's public defence of her husband that alledged that she and her husband where engaging in incest with their own pre-adoelescent children. This smear cartoon created out of sheer malice is referred to in Breen's WP article here as "allegations of further pedophilic acts" as if it was anything remotely credible, and due to this cartoon in combination with Sphere's smear article, Breen was banned from Pacificon II.

The scandal caused by this purely malicious print cartoon referred to here as "allegations of further pedophilic acts" also led to WZB's mail correspondence being intercepted (illegally, as she emphasizes in her deposition) and she was arrested and found guilty over charges of "sending obscene material" to a socially isolated adult male seeking her advice (she'd sent him a biology textbook drawing of internal female organs) and a copy of Nabokov's Lolita that she had sent to herself from France. This conviction of WZB's is referred to here even as a possible "further molestation conviction in 1964" as that's what it was publically alledged to be at the time when it was purposefully muddled up with Sphere's smear article simply due to a public raffle ticket in Breen's name and the malicious cartoon directed against Breen and WZB afterwards.

The WP article here as it stands then makes it look like MZB was "cognizant" of illicit activities with preadolescents it has so far construed out of thin air, and in a similar flimsy fashion, MZB's own article even makes it look like she "defendend his behavior" as if she'd somehow known about any such behavior and told him it was okay to have sex with any pre-adolescents. The source used here for MZB's being "cognizant" again links to the deleted private smear website, which in turn points towards MZB's deposition. But what MZB actually talks about as to she was aware of at anytime prior to 1990 were sexual activities with, in her own words, "older teenagers" between 15 and 20 years of age, namely one "14 or 15-year-old" (MZB was unsure how old the boy really was) that throughout the deposition (and the media) occurs as Victim X. By means of an entirely unsourced "editor's note", the deleted private smear website simply dates these activities with Victim X and MZB's knowledge of it several years back in time to around 1960, before Breen and MZB had even begun their relationsip, only to claim that Victim X "was really 10 or 11", in spite of the fact that every single person recorded in the deposition refers to him as "14 or 15" or "older teenager" (although the opposite councellor hired by the 1989 parents against MZB often suggestively interchanges those terms with "that little boy" and "those little boys").

In her own (and partly Breen's) defence regarding Victim X and Breen's sexual activities with other "older teenagers" throughout the 1960s, MZB points out in her deposition that:

  • all the parents of these "older teenagers" of c. 15-20 years of age were well aware of the activities, they often knew long before she did, and often spontaneously, even proudly told her about the matter, verbally approving of and even aggressively defending these activities towards her at the time,
  • at one time in the mid-60s, she consulted Breen's female lawyer about it who told her not to worry, since all of Breen's partners were at legal marriage age at the time (but after a series of legal changes, by the 1990s those very same partners had suddenly turned into "innocent child victims" in retrospect), and wide portions of her deposition indicate that that's what largely informed her perception of her husband's extra-marital activities at least up until the late-70s,
  • and all of Breen's partners she was aware of during the 1960s and 1970s were physically taller and stronger than Breen. Particlularly with Victim X as the only legally identifiable person that Breen had extra-marital sex with during the 1960s and 1970s (they were only affiliated during the 1960s, but no other person could ever be legally identified as definitely having had extra-marital sex with Breen before at least 1985, as the mid-1980s is the very earliest point when other people beside Vicitm X known to authorities by name enter Breen's life that he might have had sex with, starting in the mid-80s at the very earliest), she emphasizes a number of times that she considered especially Victim X's physical maturity at the time matching that of her husband's and also found him mentally mature and willful enough to have sex with her husband; literal quote: "he could have tied Walter into a bow knot" because "the boy" was obviously stronger and taller than Breen at the time the sexual activity occured during the mid-60s. During her deposition, she even openly mocks her interrogator (which is the opposing councellor trying to roast her) for telling her she should have "protected" Victim X from Breen who was stronger and taller than she *AND* Breen.

According to her protracted deposition spanning over a hundred pages, the only other suspicious behavior MZB was, as this article claims, "cognizant" of was that sometime during the late 1970s, Breen tried to unsuccesfully proposite Greyland's BF aka "Johnny Doe 4" who was "17 or 18" at the time and Greyland herself was attending university (which gives the opposite attorney plenty of opportunity again to ignore the age and only talk about "this other little boy" and time and again call him by this innocently-sounding name "Johnny Doe 4", a depiction also of this event that this article's sources are running rampant with). Fast-forward a decade into the late 80s, we have that diary entry by either Moira or Elisabeth (and pretty much flaunted by MZB's WP article) where she acts like that verbal exchange between Breen and Greyland's "17 or 18"-year-old BF would be successfully completed child rape and calls that reason enough alone to report Breen for child molestation of both Moira and her BF and that her mom MZB was "actively concealing serial child molestation" for having told her back in the late 70s that her BF was old enough at 17 or 18 to defend himself. That section of MZB's WP article next connects Greyland's allegations relating to her then 17 or 18-year-old BF back in the late 70s, and that her mom knew about it, with Breen's 1990s conviction for an alledged deed in March 1989, making it look like MZB knew of and was actively concealing Breen's alledged late-80s activities with pre-adolescents, when in fact they hadn't been living together and hardly seen or talked to each other for close to a decade at that time, even though at the time he was living for rent in a place that WZB owned (though this part is not quite clear; MZB several times says that while he'd lived in that place he rented for most of the 80s, he had moved out by the time of the alledged molestation in March 1989, whereas the opposite councellor at more times than one says that he was still living there, and never once either of them seems to realize they're contradicting each other).

During the late 1970s, Breen and MZB separated over her jealousy over his extra-marital affairs with "older teenagers", and sometime between the early to mid-80s, MZB considered adopting a homeless 12-year-old boy aka "Johnny Doe 1" after he had been living in her place for a time. Breen wasn't even living there anymore, but because they were still married officially, she legally required his signature and the authorities required both of them to turn up to check whether they were fit as adoptive parents, so she told Breen once that he could do whatever he wanted with his "older teenagers" but he better not act suspicious around this 12-year-old, plus for all she knew, he was too old and physically impotent by then to engage in any sexual activity at all. During her deposition, the opposite councellor uses this single occurrence for hours and hours and days and days to no end to aggressively suggest the deceased Breen had been after and had raped many, many 12-year-olds by that time and aggressively tries to make MZB confess again and again that she'd known and concealed it all.

Similarly treated by the opposite councellor (and hence spawning another depiction largely informing this article's sources in how they're feeling entitled to call Breen having been after pre-adolescents all his life and constantly getting convicted over it) during MZB's deposition is an event that had occurred between her son David and a family friend who'd propositioned her then 13-year-old son once during the mid-60s. In her deposition, she emphasizes several times how her son was "almost six feet" at the time and the family friend was "five feet one", and she pretty much told David that if he felt annoyed over it, he should turn to Breen for help against that family friend, as she pretty much thought that (no literal quote but more of a summary of her rationale) "gays should be disciplined by their own kind when crossing red lines", but her son responded that he felt Breen would consider him "too old to still need help" to defend himself against unwanted attention (or that Breen had really, openly said so in response to the event, after 30 years MZB wasn't quite sure which). The opposite councellor immediately jumps upon this quote during her deposition to aggressively pretty much call this an open, clear-as-day confession from Been's own mouth that 13-year-olds were "too old" for his "sexual tastes" to finally have any smoking gun against both Breen and MZB at all and nag her again and again if this wasn't perfect proof that she'd known for all those years that Breen was after pre-adolescents and that she's concealed it all.

Being only a few weeks from her death at the time, under heavy medication according to the official protocol, already living in a home for the disabled, according to the Official Statement by the MZB Estate "dying of congestive heart failure", and weary after hours of enhanced interrogation by the opposite councellor, the deposition protocol shows she during that moment obviously cannot fully grasp the accusations and questions hauled at both her and Breen and only responds "yes" several times, and when she is then aggressively questioned "Yes, what?" several times persistently and protractedly, she ultimately repeats her original statement several times in open contradiction to the opposite counsellor's accusations and questions, which is that Breen had said (or her son felt he'd say) that her son had been "too old" at the time as to be needing any help against that family friend. It is there and then that her very last deposition session is abruptly ended out of health concerns, at the outspoken protest of said opposite counsellor interrogating her, and a few weeks after, she was dead.

So there. That's what official sources, documents, and statements say that have been linked above, and it's entirely in contradiction what this article paints Breen's sex life and legal record to have been, which in turn is based on a number of sources almost all of which only ultimately point directly or indirectly to a deleted private smear site that was originally put online in 1999 by an interested party with a financial interest, as well as an interest to not get sent to prison themselves, in maintaining their version which consists of painting both Breen and MZB as these two boogeymen with a "relevant history". --2003:71:4E07:BB70:A047:3A81:9919:9D4C (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The long-winded diatribe above shows that even now, child rapists like MZB and Breen can count on their sympathizers to make excuses for them and try to obscure the plain facts: Breen raped children, he was convicted for it, and Bradley helped him get away with it. I know Moira Greyland, and I believe her, as the court did when they put this evil son of a bitch away for the remainder of his worthless life. Shame on you for trying to minimize his crimes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4f00:7d:e5a3:108a:12a6:357b (talk • contribs)
I will only add that the term "Breendoggle" is contemporary to the controversy within fandom over Breen's alleged behavior; and that the poster, apparently ignorant of science fiction fandom and its history, has somehow bizarrely managed to conflate the Breendoggle and the Trans-Atlantic Fan Fund! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Walter H. Breen. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Walter H. Breen. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 July 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 15:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter H. Breen → Walter Breen – Breen is seldom referred to with his middle initial, and there are no other Walter Breens such that disambiguation becomes necessary. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lede sentence

[edit]

The lede opens with child sex offender, NAMBLA activist before anything else. Seems, however, that most of the mentions on the wiki refer to his work as a numismatist. In other words, he's more notable as a numismatist rather than a child molester, or more appropriately, a numismatist who was a child molester rather than a child molester who was a numismatist.

I propose the lede should be revised along these lines, but I'm interested in hearing dissenting opinions since the topic is likely very touchy. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history, it seems the current word order is actually quite recent, changed by User:Sapphiremind with the summary Yeah, I put the words in a better order. It's more important that he was a pedophile and an activist for pedophiles, not LGBTQ people, unless you count advocating abusing young boys as advocating for LGBTQ. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and change the word order. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!(talk or whatever) 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"ANA"?

[edit]

I don't want to step in anything here, but the third paragraph in the section "Arrests and convictions" says "The conviction resulted in his expulsion from the ANA" with footnote 17; footnote 17 links to an external document that does not explain what "ANA" is. I could presume ANA is an initialism for American Numismatic Association, which happens to have its own article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Numismatic_Association. However, I don't know for sure. It would probably be best if a subject matter expert could make a determination & clarify the acronym. If that doesn't work, maybe someone could insert a tag or reference a template indicating that the apparent initialism isn't defined? I apologize if I'm not being bold enough here, but I ran into this by happenstance, & don't feel comfortable making the changes I think are needed to adequately define or mark "ANA." Joe V. (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given how common the term "ANA" is at the Newman Numismatic Portal, and its use in connection with individuals who are known to be affiliated with the American Numismatic Association, I feel it's a reasonable inference. And if that's not conclusive enough for you, the article "World of Coins Loses Controversial Scholar" (Chicago Tribune, May 9, 1993) includes the string "American Numismatic Association to expel Breen from the ANA, an action that was much debated in the hobby press".
Go ahead and link it. DS (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Walter_Breen&oldid=1250909583"