Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Spencer

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

Untitled

[edit]

The "hall of fame" external link showed that the band AND its key members were specifically honored. On that basis I suggest restoring it.--Kibbitzer 30 June 2005 06:11 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. --Monger 30 June 2005 12:28 (UTC)

Album title correction

[edit]

The solo album of 1972 is titled "Jeremy Spencer and the Children"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.129.91 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Ward

[edit]
This piece about Spencer being identified as being involved in child abuse confuses me slightly. If he wasn't charged, then how is this allegation proven? Spencer hasn't answered these allegations as far as I know (if so, where is his statement?). Surely if there's a case for him to answer, then charges would have been pressed? How far is this from libel? Bretonbanquet 00:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accurately reporting the facts does not constitute libel. Is is an undisputed fact that Lord Justice Ward's 1995 judgement has the following information about Mr. Spencer:

THE ORAL EVIDENCE OF CHILD / ADULT ABUSE
8. MS. Her father is Jeremy S. [Jeremy Spencer] of Music with Meaning. Her mother is Dawn, a European Shepherd. … She said in her affidavit: From my earliest memories until my time in India, sexual activity pervaded The Family. Instances that stand out in my mind are as follows:-
"My mother and my father frequently had sexual intercourse and performed oral sex with each other and with other people in the same room as us children, regardless of whether we were awake or asleep. I distinctly remember my father having sexual intercourse with Faithy Berg when we lived in a caravan in Greece. I was around four years old at the time."
At the age of 6 she had to use both hands to masturbate Timothy in his 20's or 30's, ex-Vietnam veteran. At the same age she had to "help her father [Jeremy Spencer] out" which meant caressing him and mutual masturbation. From the age of 7 her step father made her masturbate him. She later told Mary Malay about her step father but not about her father because she liked him: "at least," she said, "he did not beat me".
THE LEADERS' INVOLVEMENT IN SEXUAL ABUSE
8. Jeremy S. [Jeremy Spencer]
His own daughter with understandable reluctance complained that he abused her as I find he did. He also abused MB. Music with Meaning was a particularly corrupt and corrupting organisation. He played a central part in it.

Just because Mr. Spencer has not been charged with or convicted of any crimes related to the sexual abuse of his children and other minors does not mean that Lord Justice Ward's ruling is libelous. I do think the article would benefit from the above quotes so the specific allegations, and evidence presented by Justice Ward is clear. Manicmoe 08:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Ward's ruling may not be libellous, it doesn't mean it's correct. A good way to prove his findings are correct would be to actually prove them, and that hasn't been done. I just think it seems unfair to include allegations against someone that haven't been proven. If this was decent evidence, why haven't charges been brought against Spencer and this evidence used against him? Is it because this evidence wouldn't stand up? All this seems to be is someone's word backed up by a judge, against someone else who isn't there to defend himself. It seems a bit one-sided to include this without some kind of addition to state that this evidence as found by Ward is not proven in any legal way. Bretonbanquet 14:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet: Your statement that the allegations against Mr. Spencer have not been proven is an opinion. After reviewing the evidence, including the statements (and in some cases, sworn testimony) of the alleged victims, the ruling of Lord Justice Ward, pornographic video cassettes produced by The Family which feature Mr. Spencer, his daughter and 2 other children he allegedly abused (by exposing himself to them, having sexual activity in their presence, having them perform in video taped pornographic strip teases, having sexual contact with them, etc.), I also have an opinion about whether the allegations against Mr. Spencer have been proven. However, neither my personal opinion or yours (or that of any other contributor) belongs in a Wikipedia article about Mr. Spencer. What belongs in the article are the facts about Mr. Spencer and not our personal opinions about those facts. It is a fact that at least 3 people, including Mr. Spencer's daughter, have accused him of sexually abusing them when they were children, that Lord Justice Ward found their testimony credible and that other witnesses and video tapes corroborated their accounts. The article makes it clear that he has not been charged with any crime. Due to obstacles such as the statute of limitations, it is very unlikely that Mr. Spencer will ever face criminal prosecution for incidents of child sexual abuse that were not reported to a law enforcement agency until the applicable criminal statute of limitations had expired and happened more than 20 years ago in countries (such as Greece) that, unlike the U.K., have a relatively short limitations period for such crimes. Manicmoe 07:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Manicmoe: You have just introduced a lot of information not previously presented. On the basis of the level of information that was previously available to me, I don't feel that I was being unduly opinionated. It was a reasonable point to make that evidence had not been effectively explained. You have just said that you have been able to review all the evidence and I know you will appreciate that I, nor anyone likely to be reading this article, will not have had that opportunity. Your introduction of the video tape aspect casts a wholly different shadow on the information given, and it would be worth citing full sources for that in order to add strength to what you have said. Anything else you may be able to cite should also be added, either here or in some other relevant place, in an effort to provide a fuller picture.
I'm sure you will understand that information of this nature requires as much detail as possible for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. I fully refute that I was expressing a personal opinion. My level of knowledge extends only to Spencer's musical career - I don't really know anything about this case, so my only opinion was that it was not being fully explained. Bretonbanquet 09:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Justice Ward also specifically requested that those identified in his document by initials not be indentified further in any other way. I think this wikipedia entry violates that request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.89.104 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 October 2006
Lord Justice Ward identified Jeremy Spencer by full name rather than initials. There are a number of text versions of the Ward judgment in which the name is inexplicably edited to read "Jeremy S." but this is not found in the original printed version that was released to the public. You may verify this at http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Complete_Judgment_of_Lord_Justice_Ward and http://media2.xfamily.org/docs/legal/uk/ward-judgment/ward-judgment-scan-low.pdf (296 pages, 25MB)Manicmoe 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has come forward to state that Spenser abused children in this cult

[edit]

Daily Mail 13th July 2007 "By Celeste Jones. Born into an evil cult, called the Children of God, sisters Celeste, Kristina and Juliana Jones were abused from the age of three. Torn from their parents, their childhood was dominated by the warped cult leader David Berg. How could a man stand by while his 11-year-old daughter was effectively raped by another man? The former Fleetwood Mac band member Jeremy Spencer was a member of the cult. On the regular dates we had, he would play a tape of saxophone music. The routine was, by now, familiar - undress, pray, kiss and then perform lewd acts for him. "—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.250.153.2 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up, put in more context, and sourced the quote. Take a look and tell me what you think. Joie de Vivre° 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

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 17:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jslindager.jpg

[edit]

Image:Jslindager.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of abuse

[edit]

It is highly unacceptable to have uncited sentences, paragraphs and even sections on this issue. Each statement needs carefully citing as it could potentially constitute libel. I am amazed that this has been allowed to remain for so long. Tom Green (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This section of the article requires extremely careful sourcing. Some paragraphs have no citations whatsoever. This will need to be addressed or it risks deletion. It might not be a bad idea to take it higher up and get an admin to look at it in order to avoid the risk of libelling Spencer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more references in addition to the many that were already there. By definition, something that has been proven to be true is not libel. The allegations against Mr. Spencer are not vague but extremely detailed and explicit and based on verifiable information from reliable sources such as court records (including excerpts from 6 pages of a 295-page ruling by Lord Justice Ward), newspaper articles and published books (including "Not Without My Sister" published by HarperCollins in 2007 and which underwent a thorough and word-by-word review by a team of top lawyers in the United Kingdom and the United States before it was published) which is referenced numerous times in the section of the article concerning these allegations. This information has been publicly known for many years and the reason Mr. Spencer has not sued the people (including Lord Justice Ward, his wife, his daughter "MS," Merry Berg, Celeste Jones and others) who have accused him of child sexual abuse and those (including HarperCollins, the Daily Mail and a number of other newspapers and magazines) who have published information about these allegations is because the evidence is voluminous and irrefutable. Wikipedia has nothing to worry about because the information in this article is accurate and very well-sourced. However, I do think it is libelous, defamatory and highly irresponsible to accuse Lord Justice Ward and the people who testified under oath, spoke publicly and published statements, regarding alleged child sexual abuse by Mr. Spencer, of perjury, judicial misconduct and other crimes without offering a shred of evidence. Manicmoe (talk) 13:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one has accused anyone of anything like that. In a subject matter of this nature, each statement, even sentence, requires a source - even if it is one that has been used multiple times. Tom Green (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that "[e]ach statement needs carefully citing as it constitutes libel." Thus, your accusation was that these statements about Mr. Spencer constituted libel. For them to be libelous, they have to be false and accusing those (Lord Justice Ward, Fiona Spencer (Jeremy Spencer's wife), Mery Berg, Celeste Jones, MS (Jeremy Spencer's daughter), The Family/Children of God, Harper Collins, The Daily Mail, some Wikipedia contributors and others) who made or published these statements of libel implies (depending on which person or organization is involved) that they are also being accused of the other things I mentioned such as perjury, judicial misconduct and other crimes. To prove that all the allegations of child sexual abuse against Mr. Spencer are false and that making them constitutes libel, one would have to prove the existence of a vast and extraordinary conspiracy involving dozens of people (including those who testified under oath in a court of law) and the creation of a huge amount of phony evidence (including many hours of video footage). Asserting that all these allegations constitute libel is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence before it is made. If statements in this or any other Wikipedia article constitute libel, the only remedy is to remove them and careful citing is not going to make any difference. Of course, in this case it is absolutely clear that nothing in the current revision of the article constitutes libel. However, I see now that you didn't really mean that these statements constituted libel but something else entirely which your second comment makes clear and is a position that I generally agree with. I am not sure if every single sentence needs to have its own footnote but that is easily done since there is at least one (and in some cases as many as 6) corresponding source for every single sentence. So, if I have understood your position correctly, I believe we are in agreement. Manicmoe (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This entire section seems to have been removed, which seems problematic, given the sheer number of allegations and petitions that exist. Merely stating that allegations have been made against him (with more coming soon, which is how I ended up searching him) doesn't take a position on whether they are true or false, and are just a fact, not libelous. https://blog.safepassagefoundation.org/jeremy-spencer-a-child-abuser-unworthy-of-your-support/
Why was the entire section removed? 93.117.214.54 (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional allegations are recorded in Daniella Mestyanek Young’s 2022 autobiography uncultured. The section about the abuse should be reinstated and updated with the additional source. 2600:1700:28A0:318F:FC11:B3A6:F721:C3 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic

[edit]

I know Wikipedia enjoys these long controversy sections, but the allegations of abuse section needs to be summarized and all the various participant statements moved to a more appropriate place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6.3.55.1 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a great deal of cruft. If you really need to expand the section, please do so, but a list of he-said she-saids, particularly one that takes up more than half the entry, is unencyclopedic and should be avoided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6.3.55.1 (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating complaints and reversions of the above IP editor's recent edit reducing the section to one paragraph, he/she clearly did post here attempting to start a discussion, and nobody joined in, or objected. The quoted sections were not necessary, given that it's all there to be read in the references, and the whole section was unnecessarily detailed and long-winded. I suspect that some editors will expand the section again, but it needs to be more encyclopedic. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The White Album

[edit]

Jeremy Spencer's 1970 "Jeremy Spencer" album has apparently been reissued on CD (in the UK?) by FootPrint Records (FPR 29004). Not sure how official it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 6.3.55.1 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a pirate thing. I'll ask him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheJeremySpencer Youtube Channel

[edit]

Not sure if you want to list it but :

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheJeremySpencer

Honemelgren (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"best known"

[edit]

No-one's yet explained the reason for their desperation to have this phrase in the article. It is an assumption, an opinion, and what you would need to turn it into a fact would be a global poll asking a representative sample of the population what they know him for, which of course does not exist and never will exist. At a conservative guess I'd say 99% of the world's population would never even have heard of him anyway. NPOV requires that you state the facts and don't judge them. What next? The Moon, best known for being the Earth's largest natural satellite? Berlin, best known for being the capital of Germany? This inanity needs to stop. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been explained a number of times. Spencer is notable for one thing – being a member of Fleetwood Mac. That is a fact. He is not Wiki-notable for anything else. I don't know what part of that you can't understand. Why have you left the lead sentence to say he was a member of Fleetwood Mac? Answer: because that's the most important, most notable, and best-known thing he's ever done. Your global poll stuff is a crock. You seem to have very strong ideas about what he is or isn't best-known for, when you freely admit you don't even have a clue who the guy is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not explained how "X is Y" is somehow not clearer, simpler and more objective than "X is best known for Y". You have not explained why you are insisting on putting opinions into the article. You are too stupid to distinguish between fact and opinion and that's a remarkable handicap for someone who is editing an encyclopaedia. You really should learn the difference. In the mean time, perhaps my next edit will indicate to you just what a moronic crusade you are on here. 190.162.52.196 (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm going to try and explain this to you again. If you don't understand anything about the subject of an article, it would be worth you leaving it alone. Maybe you wouldn't get blocked so often. Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An anonymous user (209.31.36.254) recently removed the link to the Jeremy Spencer biography on xFamily.org with the following edit summary: "Removing link per {WP:EL} the content should go on this page in an encyclopedic manner. There is no copyrightable content on the associated link that can't be contributed to the current article."

That statement provides no rational justification to delete a link to the most authoritative and comprehensive source of information about Spencer's activities during the decades after he left Fleetwood Mac to join the Children of God cult. Spencer's activities during the 43+ years he has been a member of the religious cult he joined in 1971 are barely covered in the article and mostly reduced to the inaccurate statement that "[r]elatively little is known about this period of his life." In fact, a lot is known about that period of his life yet the article fails to even mention most of it. His biography on xFamily.org fills in that gap and links to a huge collection (consisting of thousands of pages of documents and several dozen hours of video footage and audio recordings) of primary and secondary source material (a large portion of which is not available anywhere else) related to Spencer and his life after Fleetwood Mac. The article could certainly be improved and expanded by someone who has the time to fully utilize the Jeremy Spencer related xFamily.org archive content but that is certainly not a rational justification to remove the only link to it. It's absurd and makes as much sense as removing an external link to the web site of the George Bush Presidential Library from the George H.W. Bush article simply because no one has yet found time to encyclopedically add all its contents to the George H.W. Bush page on Wikipedia. I'm going to restore the link now. Manicmoe (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that relatively little is known about that period of his life is not inaccurate. Nowhere outside the xFamily site is it mentioned in any great detail. The xFamily source, to my knowledge, is not a reliable source, which is why it's not used anywhere in the article itself. I have no opinion on its presence or absence from the "External links" section. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that "[r]elatively little is known about this period of his life" is indeed completely inaccurate. The link you cited notes that "Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." If you are arguing that xFamily.org encyclopedia articles are themselves also not reliable sources, you are not entirely incorrect. However, the sources cited by the xFamily.org article on Jeremy Spencer are reliable sources and the contents of the xFamily.org Archive that directly relate to Spencer are reliable sources. Some of them are primary sources (for example, the published writings and drawings by Spencer and the many hours of audio and video footage of Jeremy Spencer) and thus care has to be taken with how those are used here to comply with Wikipedia's prohibition against original research but these primary sources are indeed reliable. The xFamily.org Archive, which contains the largest online archive of material related to Spencer, also contains many reliable secondary sources related to Spencer. The reason that this Wikipedia article only uses a small percentage (about 0.25%) of the publicly available and reliable primary and secondary source material related to Spencer has nothing to do with the reliability of the hundreds of sources it ignores or fails to mention but probably more to do with no one having enough interest or time. Manicmoe (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The operative word is "relatively" – compared to his time in Fleetwood Mac, not only is less known about his time afterwards, but it's considerably less notable. That's also partly why it isn't covered in the article – it is unencyclopedic to have an article containing reams of information which is nothing to do with what the subject is actually notable for. He's really only widely notable as a musician, not as a member of the Family, or whatever it's called these days. As for some of the material I have seen supposedly written by Spencer, I would absolutely say that some of it wasn't written by him at all, due to the number of elementary factual errors about Fleetwood Mac. Great care is required when dealing with such sources, and you're also right about Wikipedia's requirements when dealing with primary sources. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bretonbanquet: On what are you basing your claims that "some of [those articles] wasn't written by [Jeremy Spencer] at all"? Sounds more like a "hunch" on your part, or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think you really know what you are talking about here. The details in that xFamily.org article are well-sourced and are backed up by multiple parties (including Lord Justice Ward; hardly an unreliable source). Also, your claim that he is only really notable as a "musician" is silly. Ever since he dropped out of Fleetwood Mac and joined the COF/TF in the early 1970s, every single news report of him (and there have been thousands) has mentioned that he joined the COG. That is noteworthy. Anyone interested in learning more about Jeremy Spencer (one of the entire reasons for Wikipedia articles), would also be interested to know what happened to him after he left Fleetwood Mac. This is true about all kinds of people. An encyclopaedic article is meant to cover the entire lifespan of the individual it is describing. This is somewhat analogous to Cat Stevens. He was notable as a musician before converting to Islam and he was notable afterwards because of his conversion. --Thorwald (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, some of that stuff was written by someone who hadn't even grasped a basic knowledge of Fleetwood Mac, let alone been in the band. There's no "hunch", and you have precisely zero idea of what I do and do not know. I cannot find a link in the xFamily article to anything he wrote, although I have seen it online in the past. I read one piece with cartoons drawn by Spencer, with text written by someone who didn't know the difference between Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham, and Spencer had met both. If it can be reproduced here, then I'll show you what I mean. Anything that is OK by the folks at WP:RSN is OK with me, but plenty of what I see at xFamily will not pass their scrutiny. Nowhere have I said that all of it is unreliable, simply that great care is needed. I assume you do not disagree with that.
Secondly, there's nothing "silly" about the fact that Spencer is only notable as a musician. If he hadn't been in Fleetwood Mac, he wouldn't have an article – fact. Otherwise everyone who joined the COG would have one. Of course the COG side of his life is worth some detail, but it is not what he is notable for. I am not suggesting there is no mention of it, and I have written most of what is there now. To use your example, Cat Stevens doesn't have an article because he converted to Islam; he was notable as an already-famous musician who happened to convert to Islam. Stevens may or may not have achieved notability outside his musical career, but Spencer definitely has not. All aspects of his life should be covered, but the weight of the article must lie within the field of his actual notability. We do not need any blow-by-blow accounts of 40 years of someone doing relatively little, if anyone is contemplating adding that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. You completely missed my point about Cat Stevens. I am not saying (not even remotely implying) that Jeremy Spencer is notable because he has been a member of the COG for the past 40 years or that Cat Stevens is because of his conversion to Islam. Re-read my previous post. As I clearly wrote before: Both Jeremy Spencer and Cat Stevens were famous (aka "notable") before their conversions. The fact that Jeremy Spencer suddenly dropped out of Fleetwood Mac while they were on tour to join the COG is, almost by definition, noteworthy, that is all I am arguing for. The fact that their articles mention what happened to them after their conversions is worth covering and that is what we are debating here. Anyway, I am tired of debating obvious points. The purpose of this talk section was about keeping that xFamily.org link. Nothing you have written has made a case for removing that link. --Thorwald (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, starting your post with "sigh" and leaving it in your edit summary is rather wearisome, patronising and insulting, not to mention juvenile, so I'd appreciate you not continuing that practice, particularly when you make no sense in your posts. I did read them carefully, that was the problem. In the last sentence of your penultimate post, you said Stevens was "notable afterwards because of his conversion" as well as his music career. Now apparently you are not saying that or even implying "that Cat Stevens is [notable] because of his conversion to Islam". You have directly, word-for-word, contradicted yourself. If you are incapable of saying what you mean, then I suggest not bothering. In any case, we appear not to disagree on Spencer.
The article clearly states in the lead, and throughout the latter sections, that Spencer joined the COG and it gives a rough outline of what he did since leaving Fleetwood Mac. It's always been there, I put most of it there myself, and nobody wants to remove it. Explain exactly what you want to do that you think I am opposing. No, nothing I have written has made a case for removing the link because, since you haven't read my first post in this discussion I'll repeat the relevant line – "I have no opinion on its presence or absence from the "External links" section." I have never removed it nor supported anyone who has removed it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article for Jeremy Cedric Spencer be named "Jeremy Spencer (guitarist)"

[edit]

Five Finger Death Punch and Fleetwood Mac are both very prominent bands. Should the article for Jeremy Cedric Spencer not be named "Jeremy Spencer (guitarist)", with Jeremy Spencer becoming the disambiguation page? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, right? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - With the younger and/or heavy metal generations, the name "Jeremy Spencer" resonates more closely with Five Finger Death Punch than it does with Fleetwood Mac. In 2012, he was named Golden God's "Best Drummer" by Revolver Magazine. Like Maximum Overload, I feel that there is no longer a primary topic. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's even close. Wikipedia doesn't just cater for the younger generations. I've never even heard of FFDP, and I'd be willing to bet I'm not alone. The drummer might have won an award from a minor music magazine, but the guitarist is in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame. It's not scientific, but "Jeremy Spencer Fleetwood Mac" receives exactly twice as many google hits as "Jeremy Spencer Five Finger Death Punch". Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any further discussion should take place below in the formal move request. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not moved: no consensus Ground Zero | t 02:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Jeremy Spencer → Jeremy Spencer (guitarist) – In 2012, Jeremy Spencer Heyde was named Golden God's "Best Drummer" by Revolver Magazine. Like Maximum Overload, I feel that there is no longer a primary topic for Jeremy Spencer. Jax 0677 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)--Jax 0677 (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

also a move may create: Jeremy Spencer (guitarist), but on the plus side it would tidy the ridiculously long hatnote: "This article is about the singer / guitarist. For the drummer of rock band Five Finger Death Punch, see Jeremy Spencer (drummer). For other uses, see Jeremy Spencer (disambiguation)." I will leave this decision to people les ignorant of the field than me. Gregkaye (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of the 20 photos on that page, 15 of them are of the guitarist and 5 of the drummer. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interesting to see that all information about child sex abuse has been scrubbed from this page...

[edit]

by users with strangely religious user names "Casua qui" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.49.54 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Why is there not even a section about the allegations? The allegations exist. At a very minimum, that is a fact that can be agreed upon: https://blog.safepassagefoundation.org/jeremy-spencer-a-child-abuser-unworthy-of-your-support/. There is another memoir coming out soon in which another person who grew up in the cult alleges he molested her. I Googled him and found the petition above, and came to Wikipedia to read more about the allegations, only to see that there is literally nothing on his page. It's scrubbed completely. But above, it shows that there was at one point a section on Child Abuse Allegations. It seems as biased to leave this major fact about his life that he has been accused by multiple people off of the page than it would be to offer opinion and conjecture. He has been accused, and credibly from what I have read. 93.117.214.54 (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand why none of the credible allegations against him are mentioned here? [redacted]

[edit]

Add references to allegations, there are many published sources available. 209.166.91.30 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any rationale for ignoring this completely? I would appreciate some justification for its removal. 2600:8800:7D00:15C0:151D:A5F7:3C7E:8B8 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLPCRIME for why we generally don't mention unfounded allegations. Further, have they been mentioned in reliable sources? The last addition only cited a first-hand account in an autobiography. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At one point a good 75% of the Jeremy Spencer page was devoted to these accusations (with several apparently reliable references), see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Spencer&diff=prev&oldid=318717812 before being shortened considerably by a younger me. I just would like to be reassured that all mention of these charges have been removed for good encyclopedic or legal reasons, rather than whitewashing. 2600:8800:7D00:15C0:61E8:8E73:E2BD:FAE4 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a new memoir coming out in September which will also reference a first hand account of being molested by him (though I am not sure the name is used, the author indicated in a recent online discussion that it was easily discovered and people had already identified him from the details.) But why not a single line about the allegations? You aren't validating them by acknowledging they exist. The existence of *multiple* accusers is not in dispute, and is just a fact. Petitions to stop his tour exist. Unbiased fact. See https://blog.safepassagefoundation.org/jeremy-spencer-a-child-abuser-unworthy-of-your-support/ 93.117.214.54 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the book, but the only allegation I've seen in the discussions on Wikipedia is that Spencer was staying with the church at the same time as the woman that wrote the memoir. signed, Willondon (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also at least two legal documents posted at xfamily.org documenting these allegations. See the link in my reply to C.Fred. 2600:8800:7D00:15C0:61E8:8E73:E2BD:FAE4 (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update bio.

[edit]

Update bio based on accusations from the book Uncultured. No more men lauded for their contributions without also laying open ways that they abused and harmed others 172.92.102.150 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so go for it. But make sure it's reliably sourced and follows all the rules laid down about allegations and suchlike. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Spencer&oldid=1219262916"