Talk:Aussie Malcolm

A news item involving Aussie Malcolm was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 September 2024.

Wikipedia

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Baseless accusations from a private dick

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]

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]