Talk:The Family Murders

message: The Suspects of these tragic murders appears fact-less and based on gossip/tabloid news. Additionally, the case report you highlight has no relevance whatsoever to the so-called Family Murders. Lets look at it, remembering, this is a low-brow journalist:
"AN INTERSTATE doctor with alleged links to the "Family" murders..." 
That's it. "alleged links". Alleged by whom? I allege that Tony Abbott is involved. Does that count? Once again, this particular case has nothing to do with the media-named "family murders". If you can find me a comment from police stating the Doctor is a key suspect in the Family Murders (which you won't find because they would have prosecuted him by now, agree?) then I'll stop editing.    
Now lets read the Suspect 3 comments.  
''''
"A close friend of von Einem and suspect 1 and a former male prostitute. Police have evidence implicating him in drugging and sexually abusing hitchhikers. Police believe he was with von Einem and suspect 1 when Kelvin was abducted. He fled Adelaide and works as a bus driver in Brisbane."''''
Who is the police officer that said this? Where is the reference? And please don't list the Advertiser again? Also, don't you find it incredible that "Police have evidence implicating him in drugging and sexually abusing hitchhikers" (again, no evidence this is true). If it were true,  dont you think it completely stupid that he is roaming free working "as a bus driver in Brisbane". 
Can we please stick to facts on the Wikipedia website and especially something as upsetting to victims' families such as this Wayne? As your profile states "I am now a firm believer in telling people the truth regardless". The 'truth', not 'hearsay' or references to low brow Murdoch newspapers pedalling "another family murder suspect". Can't wait to read the Beaumont Children on Wiki. 
Why not mention the under-resourced (some might say 'hopeless') South Australian Police Force and how they have managed to make just one arrest in 30 years attached to these hideous crimes that have never been proven to be related or unrelated.
Rvoight (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is verifiability not truth. No one needs to find a personal police statement as it is published by a reliable source so we can use it from that source. Police can have evidence implicating people but it is not always enough to take to trial. "low brow" is your own personal opinion and you are free to "allege" all you like but you are not a RS and your entire post above is WP:OR. It may be a Murdock paper but it's South Australia's only major newspaper and it's reporting on a crime committed in South Australia.  As a WP:SPA you are free to edit but for major edits you should use talk to put your case and get some sort of consensus before making such a major deletion. Please do not delete the material again unless you can find a source refuting the newspaper report. Wayne (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I have asked you several times not to delete the material without discussion. Provide justification that complies with Wikipedia guidelines or gain a consensus and we can modify or delete text. Wayne (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The article already mentions that all the subjects were DNA tested. It also mentions that no charges have been laid. These facts do not need to be repeated for each individual. The two sources you provided for the DNA are not related to this article so are irrelevant and are what is called WP:SYNTH and Wikipedia:No original research applies. Wikipedia policies do not allow the use of Original Research. One talks about DNA only in regards to a training course while the other is six years old, doesn't mention the Family murders and only refers to voluntary testing not compulsory testing. Relevant references that you have provided I have added to the article.You have provide zero responses for deleting sourced text and you have ignored my requests to provide reasons. The only "detailed responses" you give is for your additions which I have answered. What exactly have I made up? Everything is from the references provided.As I said before, you do not understand what a cold case is. A cold case remains open until the crime is solved. What was completed was the "cold case review", one of several to date and it will likely not be the last.I have been trying to accomodate your concerns but use Talk not deletion. Please do not delete sourced text without getting a consensus and if you delete reliable and relevant references again you may be blocked from editing. If you have a problem with the text, follow Wikipedia guidelines and take it to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and explain your case there. Administrators will then decide what needs to be deleted/added. Wayne (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The suspects  

message: This article has been semiprotected one month per a request at WP:RFPP. Some material in this article has recently been disputed by a set of editors who are too new to be autoconfirmed. If you think that anything in this article violates Wikipedia's policy on WP:Biographies of living persons please make a complaint at WP:BLP/N and explain your issue. In general, any material that is reliably sourced qualifies for inclusion.  EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected 

message: I have removed a huge section of totally unsourced information about apparent suspects. These kinds of accusations must be supported by reliable sources, most especially for the many people thus accused who are still alive. See WP:BLP.  Do not replace this material without very solid sourcing from reliable sources WP:RS. --Slp1 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has standards for writing about the perpetrators of crime that are stricter than WP:BLP alone. This states: "Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." Also, Wikipedia should not be a gossip column, nor should it spread rumours about individuals. This is because in Australian law a person accused of a crime has the right to be "presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law." Speculating about who else might be involved serves no useful purpose, apart from providing more business for lawyers suing people.- Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspects section 

message: I added the clean-up tag: Lead extra info. This is because the article's lead section has extra information about a TV interview that is not included in the body of the article. The lead should introduce and summarize an article, not contain the details that are not covered in the article. The TV interview mentioned in the lead also needs to be explained further in the body of the article, so if it is omitted from the lead, the details are sill available in the body. I am not sure that having all this information in the lead is really necessary, although it is important to naming the article, simply saying it is the name given by the police might be enough in the lead. See MOS:LEAD. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section has extra information