Jump to content

Talk:Aussie Malcolm

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

Sexual abuse allegations

[edit]

BLP applies to the recently deceased. These are spurious accusations conveniently "revealed" after his passing. Police did not confirm anything. Anyone can hire a private dick to investigate anything 115.189.88.238 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question was careful to state they were just allegations and an investigation. Aspects of BLP can be extended to pages about people who have recently died if information added has implications for their living relatives and friends. Are you saying that this is the case? Kiwichris (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who made the edit: the allegations are well-sourced and clearly relevant. Their absence would be simply misleading. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do allegations that were investigated but never proven help with a readers understanding? If the allegations were never eeported in life (because there was never enough evidence to support a charge) why would they be okay in death? 115.189.89.30 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once a person has died and there is no risk of litigation to protect their reputation, then things like this can come out. A comparison could be made to Jimmy Saville, which is a similar situation. There is no BLP concern because the person is no longer alive. Not including the allegations would give a less-than-whole picture of coverage of this individual.
We on Wikipedia are not the arbiters of whether something is true or false. Rather, we report neutrally what reliable secondary sources say. In this case, reliable secondary sources have reported the allegations, so it is our job to also report them. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BDP clearly applies to allegations of child molestation. Ps. Those news reports are not even secondary sources. There is no presumed inclsuion of every lurid detail covered in a news report 115.189.89.30 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BDP does not apply here as the allegations do not affect a friend or family member.
We appear to so far have something approaching consensus that the allegations should remain included, so please stop removing them without consensus. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh yes him being alleged to be a homosexual child rapist has no bearing on his family, of course. 115.189.89.30 (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we be worried about litigation and not common decency? 115.189.89.30 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a member of his family? If so, you should declare a conflict of interest and refrain from further editing on the subject. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this information is relevant to the article? He wasnt charged, merely investigated, which should imply innocence but its inclusion here is used to imply guilt. A living person could defend themselves yet a dead person cant. There is no way to meet NPOV with its inclusion 115.189.89.30 (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV has been met simply by retelling what has been said in media with no original research.
As I said earlier, we appear to have consensus for including it, as around 6 editors have so far contributed to the article on this subject. Until you have a clear consensus that it should be removed, it can stay.
You may not personally like it, but as it was published in the media it is suitable for inclusion. Not including it introduces a potential NPOV violation. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Media publish all sorts of scandals. That doesnt make them suitable for inclusion 115.189.89.30 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this is encyclopaedic content that improves a readers undrstanding of the subject? 115.189.89.30 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serious accusations of sexual abuse are obviously noteworthy encyclopedic content for a biography, and they are appropriate to include on Wikipedia for public figures if they are reported in multiple reliable sources. This isn't some random "scandal", but accusations of serious criminal conduct. Your only real argument appears to be that there was no conviction for these crimes, but that is not a requirement for content about public figures. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The accusations and investigations have been widely reported on by some of the largest news outlets in the country. – notwally (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here from BLPN, given the recentness of the death and seriousness of the accusations, BLP policies still apply through WP:BDP. However, there are multiple high quality reliable sources reporting on this, which I believe would satisfy the requirements of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. – notwally (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would benefit the article to cite more than just articles by a single outlet, Stuff, when other reliable outlets such as The Press [1] and Radio New Zealand [2], not to mention multiple articles in The New Zealand Herald, have reported on these allegations. – notwally (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point well made, I can expand this section and add more citations from other reputable media outlets. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the RNZ article is a reprint of the Stuff article, as they have some sort of news-sharing agreement in place. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Press is one of the Stuff newspapers (Stuff is one of the two major newspaper groups in NZ). I see that the sources now include the other major group (the NZ Herald). Daveosaurus (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN Discussion

[edit]

The discussion above has moved to the BLPN. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was not much discussion at BLPN but the general vibe was that the content of the sexual abuse allegations has been published in reputable sources, and therefore including them is not a violation of the BLP policies. Content about the sexual abuse should remain unless a consensus against inclusion is reached. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus needs to be achieved for inclusion and not the other way around 115.189.91.198 (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to recent material

[edit]

Putting this content in the lead imploes it is the most important aspect. It is not, no one will remember this false accusation at a dead man at an attempt to cash in 115.189.91.198 (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence on his death and the allegations is not WP:UNDUE. It should remain in the lead. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any secondary sources? No, it is undue 115.189.91.198 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes references to multiple newspaper reports, which are independent, reliable secondary sources. IdiotSavant (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple secondary sources cited in the article body. There does not appear to be a lot of sustained coverage since then, so I lean towards the allegations not being significant enough for inclusion at the lead at this time unless there have been more recent news articles or other sources published since last month. – notwally (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources
So which source here meets that definition?? 115.189.91.198 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As determined at the BLPN, the sources used are all reputable outlets in New Zealand media and are considered reliable secondary sources.
As also discussed elsewhere, we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or determine the facts of the situation. We are here to summarise what has been said about this individual in reputable publications. The allegations have been published and are therefore WP:DUE on this article, including in the lead. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is due in the body of an article does not mean it is also due in the lead. Whether to include in the lead is a matter of consensus, which is based on discussion about legitimate concerns. I gave my reasons for why I do not believe it is due in the lead, and that is the lack of sustained coverage. Do you have reasons for believing it should be in the lead despite the lack of coverage since then? – notwally (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as per WP:LEAD I can agree that this might be recentism. However, this is the most significant coverage of this individual since their time in government, and I consider WP:WEIGHT to be met by having a single sentence on the allegations in the lead. If you disagree that's fine, we can remove it from the lead for now. However, it needs to go straight back in as soon as there is even a bit more media coverage of this in the future.
I'll also note the original removal by the IP editor was unjustified. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a single sentence int he lede is appropriate. It reflects the article, and gives a balanced picture of the individual. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Balanced how? One thing is an unproven allegation that the cops have aaid they wont investiagte 115.189.91.198 (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reflects the content of the article, which is backed by multiple independent reliable sources. If you have a problem with that content, maybe you should try litigating it directly, rather than trying to go after the lede. IdiotSavant (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It reflects the content of the article" is not a particularly strong argument for including something in the lead. Not everything in the body is supposed to be summarized in the lead, but only the most important contents. In terms of length, the lead is only 5 sentence, and so a single sentence about it there is far more than the current amount it occupies in the body (and the body section has increasingly veered towards WP:NOTNEWS). There is more written about immigration policies and their impact than the sexual abuse allegations, but nothing in the lead about immigration, for example. However, David Palmer has argued that the allegations are "the most significant coverage of this individual since their time in government", which is a much more compelling argument for why the content should be included in the lead than merely that the topic was covered in the body. – notwally (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Palmer, thanks for your explanation. I think you make a fair point. If you and IdiotSavant believe the content is important enough for the lead, then I am not going to object. – notwally (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Righting wrongs would apply to those who added it and call deleting the content from leader "censorship" (favorite term for those violating blp to justify their edits) 115.189.91.198 (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been determined, there is no BLP issue here. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM that inclusion of this content in the lead would be undue weight. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aussie_Malcolm&oldid=1253412924"