Talk:Bernard Finnigan

message: As there's currently an edit war over the content which is being discussed above, I've protected the article from editing for 24 hours to encourage dispute resolution here. I note that I've commented on this dispute above, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved for this to not be problematical (and the version I've locked the article at is the wrong version on the basis of my comments). Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I've posted on WP:ANI asking an uninvolved admin (or admins) to review the discussion here. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably worth noting that this is the kind of Wikipedia talk page discussion that gets reported in the media. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article protected for 24 hours 

message: If the addition of this website to the article becomes a bigger problem, it could be worth a xlinkbot addition. Nevard (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: IP blocked but I'd suggest that semi protection for a while and just add it to M:spam list instead Gnangarra 13:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'bernardfinnigan.com' 

message: Some people seem to be either be under the impression that "A SOUTH Australian Labor MP charged with child pornography offences has been suspended from the ALP. The party state executive unanimously endorsed the move against former industrial relations minister Bernard Finnigan yesterday after a request from Premier Mike Rann." does not support the statement that Mr. Finnigan has been suspended from the Labor Party, or this content is being blocked by some censorship filter. A archive of the real article is here. Nevard (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are censoring this information, calling it vandalism. Reliable sources have been cited. This has been widely published outside South Australia. 121.45.194.162 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The link originally you provided was not in service. Calabe1992 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. BOTH links are working. One to the Townsville Buletin, one to the Canberra Times. I can add five more reliable media sources if you require. 121.45.194.162 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

text: If you haven't read the rest of the talk page, these links are perfectly functional. If you are unable to access them, that is a problem with some form of censorship that is preventing you from accessing them. You should be able to access both links 121.x has added at  and  respectively. Nevard (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm assuming good faith here

message: I've compared this to Domonique Strauss-Kahn elswhere as have others, but let's examine this dispationaltely and apply a simple thought experiment.  The publication of Bernard Finnigan's name is not limited by a supression order, a supression order is issued by a judge on the application of one or more of the parties to a case (be it criminal or civil)and can be absolute or more nuanced in it's application.  That is not what is in effect here, instead this is a blanket ban on the publication of his name in South Australia, bought about by a section of the South Australian Evidence Act.  This section prevents the publication, within South Australia, of the name or names of anyone charged with any crime of a sexual nature.  If Dominique Struass-Kahn had committed  his alleged offence in the Adelaide Hilton Hotel instead of one in New York his name could not be published in South Australia under the very same provisions of the very same act in exactly the same manner.  Is there anyone who will believes for one nanosecond that it still would not have made the front page of every major daily in the rest of the Western world within 24 hours, and been referenced in Wikipedia almost as quickly?  Similarly if the NYPD had busted Bernard Finnigan in a New York hotel for allegedly possesion of child pornography would we be having this argumet?  I don't think we would, no actually I am certain we wouldn't.  These well sourced factual details should be included forthwith. Jaxsonjo (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your little thought experiment falls down when you start to compare the newsworthiness and notability of the head of the IMF and a likely candidate for President of France with a South Australian upper house member barely known in his home town. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it does not invalidate it in the slightest.  Certainly Strauss-Kahn deservedly made page 1 all around the world, and not just for his alleged rape and Finnigan was lucky if he ever made page 1 in Adelaide before this (and ironically he still actually hasn't all that often), but that is not the issue here.  It is the principle that is important.  He was a Minister of the Crown  and an elected representative at the time of the alleged offence and as such Finnigan is a public figure, he meets the notability requirements. That is all that is required.  Yes he is minor compared to Straus-Kahn but he had a bio page long before these events, we've already decided that he is noteworthy enough to have a biography on WP.  He's noteworthy (no matter how noteworthy he is or isn't in comparison to others) and it is now well documented that he has been charged with serious offences.  As such these details should be included in his bio.Jaxsonjo (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to lean towards Mattinbgn on this. We need to weigh up various issues, such as the possible effects of ignoring the legislation when compared to the wider public interest. For me, the result for Strauss-Kahn, who is of international importance, facing a court system which is quite different from the one found in Australia, is quite different from those for a politician almost unknown in his home state, where there is little interest in the story outside of the area the legislation covers. At any rate, this all changes as soon as a plea is entered, so this is about a delay, rather than a question of permanently excluding information. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Mattinbgn you are confusing the prominence of the two individuals with the principle involved. If, as I suggest, the two offences took place in the opposite jurisdictions (Strauss-Kahn in Adelaide and Finnigan in New York) then the reportage in various locations would remain the same. Strauss-Kahn would still have made page 1 around the world, but in the Adelaide Advertiser while he'd still have been on page 1, he'd have been referred too as "prominent international financier" or "global banker" and named everywhere else. Finnigan being busted in New York would still have made page 1 in Adelaide and page 1 or page 3 around the rest of the country and in New Zealand (and nowhere else), except this time he would have been named everywhere, including Adelaide and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Finnigan is already notable under our guidelines, he's crossed that hurdle, he has a bio so we should detail these events. If we start acceding to ideas of what governments and laws don't want published and limiting articles accordingly we would head down a very slippery slope, and traduce all the things that make WP what it is. Jaxsonjo (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're just going to have to disagree with this. :) I see enough difference between the two cases not to assume that one should define what we do in the other. I certainly respect that you see things differently, but I'm not sure there's a lot of middle ground to be explored. - Bilby (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I think this is a rather important point.. If we required the same very high levels of international media attention for including material in Finnigan's article as we do for Stauss-Kahn, this would be a pretty poor (nonexistant) article. Meanwhile, this incident has attracted Finnigan more attention than ever before. As far as legal issues go, Wikipedia has a proud history of not being censored, regardless of speech-restrictive laws around the world. I can absolutely see a moral concern that the authorities not unduly delay a trial because a South Australian editor is traced back to adding the information into the article, but that's easily solved- don't get caught. Nevard (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it isn't in our interest to recommend that people act illegally, whether or not they are careful. - Bilby (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Bilby on the issue of not recommending people act illegally, but once again that is not the principle at stake here.  Nor is the issue the differences between the cases.  The issue is we are not expanding an article on someone who has reached the level of warranting a bio, when there are verifiable facts about that person that are significant.  One could quite successfully argue that Finnigan was lucky to reach the level in the South Australian Government that he did, and that he only did so due to the inner machinations of a political party that is well known for such things and also whilst they are a government in probable terminal decline and quite possibly unlikely to survive the next election.  However lucky he was, he reached the position of being a Minister and he warranted a bio as a consequence.  There are now significant developments in his personal story and if they had occurred anywhere other than South Australia they would already be there.  Let us suppose not New York, but he was arrested over the state border in Victoria, of course once again the details of his arrest and charges would now be on his page.  Also it's not only him entering a plea that lifts the ban on publication in SA, if Finnigan himself mentions in public he has been charged the ban is lifted.  If he did so and made a public statement like "I have been charged with a serious offence and I have stood aside from my position (or resigned) while I fight to prove my innocence", then the media in South Australia would then be free to report the matter in full, including his name.  The fact that the law operates in this manner seems to me to demolish any argument about affecting a free trial or protecting victims.  The sole issue here is why WP and so many of it's editors seem paralysed with indecision about the application of an outdated law in a minor province to our editing practices.  Such self-imposed censorship flies in the face of all of WP's principles. Jaxsonjo (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simple thought experiment and some sanity is all that is required here 

message: I'm seeing a lot of claims about consensus here. A consensus that reporting on what reliable sources have to say about Finnigan isn't nice is no consensus. The consensus that matters is the consensus expressed in Wikipedia policy. That policy says that [[Wikipedia:RS|all majority and significant minority views that appear in [reliable, published sources] should be covered by [Wikipedia] articles]]. It does not say that we should exclude information from reliable, published sources because the government of Zimbabwe, or Germany, or China, or South Australia has tried to censor that information. The only valid argument I've seen against including this information was that the information should be excluded, because certain editors (presumably in South Australia) were not able to see it in sources, because it had been censored. That censorship appears to have been circumvented by archive links. If there is any good reason to exclude the fact that Finnigan has been charged with child pornography offences, has been suspended from the ALP, then I would absolutely love to be made aware of it. Especially if it outweighed the overwhelming weight of policy that dictates we should include it. Nevard (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your views on it's inclusion, but in a collaborative, consensus based project, you cannot unilaterally add this content where there is obviously not a consensus to do so. Pursue dispute resolution if you'd like to solicit more outside input and get a broader discussion going.  -- Lear's Fool 04:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There plainly isn't a consensus here to include the material - views seem to be roughly evenly split. As such, I've removed the material. I agree that it might be best to take this to alternative forums for dispute resolution as the discussion here has been going around in circles, though I'd be surprised if that results in a consensus either way. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been taken to the relevant Wikiproject page and to the BLP noticeboard.  Perhaps an RfC is the next step?  -- Lear's Fool 04:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: A consensus of what, Bilby+an editor who hasn't edited in a week after his userpage was deleted over partisan content+some people who weren't able to access references because of censorship. There is an absurd situation over this article where people have been discouraged from even trying to argue that Wikipedia policy & guidelines should be followed because they will simply have every real concern addressed with 'yes, but there is no consensus'. I.P. editors have been blocked from contributing real content to Wikipedia without any attempt being made to engage with them- or even to read the references they added to the article. There is just no real consensus to violate policy on this article. Nevard (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

text: John, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here is - this has been extensively discussed already, and singling out individual editors with whom you don't agree and asking them to prove a negative doesn't seem very productive. I agree with Lear's Fool that an RfC would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for gold. I would obviously rather not single out editors, but it's difficult not to do so when trying to address the concerns of a consensus of one. Nevard (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Consensus'

message: Should this article mention the subject's arrest and suspension from his party? Nevard (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have asked several times, and I guess I need to ask again - please don't recommend that editors break the law, or provide inaccurate information about how they can do so safely. If individual editors choose to break the law that is their choice, but it is not something we should be seen to recommend. In regard to WP:NOTCENSORED, that policy does not apply to this discussion, as it relates to removing content because it is offensive or objectionable. This is not the concern being raised here. - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes.. it refers to removing content that is offensive or objectionable. This is not even content that is offensive or ebjectionable by any reasonable standard, and it must be included as a significant [view] published by reliable sources. Nevard (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of arrest and suspension 

message: A few people above mentioned it might be worth warning Australian editors (and South Australians in particular) about possible legal risks in editing this article. I think that's a good idea, out of an abundance of caution rather than any kowtowing to SA laws. The best way is probably to create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Bernard Finnigan, which only admins can do. I'd suggest the following content for that editnotice:
which expands into:
I am a bit hesitant about verging on giving legal advice, but I think this is a fair thing to do just in case -- it's better than the alternative if we do nothing. I know there's a few sysops watching this page so I'll leave it to their discretion whether to create the notice now or wait for more people to weigh in. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. --Trovatore (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, is appropriate, given the circumstances. I believe the provisions of section 71A cease to be an issue once the matter comes to trial. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I certainly won't be adding it.  We don't give legal advice, and this certainly gives that appearance.  As far as I'm concerned, all we'd need is an edit notice directing editors new to the article to the talkpage so that they can get some idea of the issues involved.  -- Lear's Fool 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a difficult line to tread between giving legal advice and pointing out that legal concerns exist. I tried to walk it, but it's not easy... perhaps something simpler like "There are potential legal concerns involved in editing this article, particularly for Australian editors. See the talk page for discussion."? bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Actually I've edited it slightly to be a little less legal advicey. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Looks good. I don't think this is legal advice at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I like it as well and although it borders on giving legal advice, I don't think it actually does. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Question: Shouldn't the article be semi-protected in order to prevent the IP addresses of unregistered Australian users from appearing in the page history? Given the legal concerns, we have a duty to protect the security and privacy of those users. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a reason to semi-protect an article as it needlessly restricts non-Australian anonymous users and does nothing to protect registered Australian users (some of whom have usernames clearly indicating they are Australian). Wikipedia cannot protect editors from themselves. Everybody is, at all times, responsible for their own actions on Wikipedia. I don't object to the edit notice, but such warning has not been deemed necessary (to my knowledge) for English and Welsh contributors regarding the recent super injunctions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOCK#LEGIT: "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Australian users would be justified in creating alternative accounts in order to safeguard their privacy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, although I'm not sure how effective it would be in practical terms in this instance. It's not a reason to semi-protect the article though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editnotice 

message: Article containing this video. Right-wing News Ltd run a countless number of stories over four simple four words with ambiguous meaning: "Can you trust Habib". Yet somehow morphing an image of a convicted child porn viewer Finnigan, to his replacement Malinauskas, and back again, several times, and Andrew Southcott being asked to but refusing to re-tweet it, probably isn't as bad in the conscience of News Ltd. The first and only? Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal smear 

message: I'm certainly no expert when it comes to this but the lead sentence of the child pornography article states "Child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation". Finnigan was found not guilty on one count of attempting to access it, but found guilty on one count of accessing it. Without knowing the specific detail, I felt that the lead sentence could be more accurate, so i've changed it to "Child pornography is often defined as pornography that is created with the intention of sexually exploiting children for sexual stimulation." I certainly find underage and/or non-consensual pornography abhorrent and have no desire to turn this in to a war. But if there's any comments, suggestions, improvements, or flat-out rejection of the change, then please feel free to comment/change as appropriate. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitions change according to the jurisdiction, so if you feel it's important (I don't really care either way), probably best to quote from the actual provisions of the SA Act he was convicted under. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of [[child pornography]] according to wikipedia 

message: Can someone with a better knowledge of how refs work please fix refs 16 and 20? They've got "chapter-url= missing title" in red. I've tried fixing it myself using the help link but I failed to understand what it needs. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: for the template to work, it needs both a url and title entered. Hack (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you :) Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two refs need a quick fix please - unsure how to do it myself