Talk:Aussie Malcolm

Sexual abuse allegations

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why should we be worried about litigation and not common decency? 115.189.89.30 (talk) 00:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Media publish all sorts of scandals. That doesnt make them suitable for inclusion 115.189.89.30 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

BLPN Discussion

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