Talk:Joel Monaghan

message: I understand that some would prefer to use the word "simulate" but perhaps the article should include something in brackets to say that the use of the word "simulating" completely  misleads the reader as to the nature of events. Would that please both sides of the argument?    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.8.196 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. The papers are merely reporting rumours at this stage. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Much too vague to be confirmation of anything other than some image (of someone, not necessarily Monaghan) exists and an internal investigation is taking place. Still nothing encyclopedic as far as I can see. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is clearly an admission that the image is of Monaghan, stating that "One of his teammates has taken a picture of it and it's been passed around." I of course don't suggest adding any sort of full confirmation, but his manager (himself a reliable source) has been quoted in a newsworthy publication admitting that a picture exists, and that "everyone involved is disappointed in what they have done" Ashman05 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not prepared to add anything or lift the page protection so you can add something. If you disagree, you will need to find an another administrator willing to make the addition and/or lift the page protection. You might find one at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not fussed either way. The information will be added at some point, its merely a matter of whether it is added now or later on. Certainly not irritated enough to open an incident report Ashman05 (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Voila = http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=20162 Also being syndicated by many other news sources Ashman05 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/disgraced-nrl-star-joel-monaghan-expresses-remorse-over-dog-photo/story-e6frf7kf-1225947979232Liquidpappe (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And on the ABC: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/04/3057534.htm Yuck, but it clearly belongs in the article Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think extreme care needs to be taken, while yes I also find it rather disturbing (I've not seen the image but I've had others who have describe it), we have WP:BLP to follow. Bidgee (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Something like 'In November 2010 Monaghan apologised after a photo showing him committing a lewd act with an animal at an end of season party was published on Twitter' is the best that's possible (this is pretty much the wording the ABC used'. It would be best to wait at least a week though to see what, if any, ramifications arise from the incident. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty certain now, doesn't really make sence to not have it in here. http://www.periscopepost.com/2010/11/canberra-raider-joel-monaghan-in-%E2%80%98counseling%E2%80%99-after-dog-photo/ ADD Booknerd (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, maintaining this stance is just editorial bureaucracy gone mad Ashman05 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm in favour of including something in the article as well, and Nick-D's suggestion seems good. Reliable sources say that he's admitted to it, so it's low risk as long as what's in the article accurately and succinctly represents the sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make an addition, if you wish. I am no longer strongly opposed to some inclusion in the article (although I still question its encyclopedic nature - it is mere titillation IMO) and Nick-D's suggestion is fairly reasonable. I would not support lifting page protection at this stage, however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that, even pulling it back to semi-protection would be premature. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it in "Playing career" for now, which is not ideal, but it seems as though this will affect his playing career in the near future so it will end up being the correct section. I'm loathe to create another separate section dealing with the incident. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that looks pretty good - matter-of-fact mention, no undue weight vis-a-vis the rest of his football career. If there is some sanction, then of course that will need mentioning - otherwise I think it is sufficient. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to keep an eye on Canberra Raiders as well. I don't think this belongs in that article at all. An article on a club with a 30 year history mentioning a transient scandal involving one of its players? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I suggest changing "simulating" to "engaging in", again also consistent with the wording in the ABC report. The lewd act was actual, not simulated Ashman05 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still disputed (see The Age article: "engaged in a simulated sex act ..."). Given the nature of the claim and taking into account the principles of Wikipedia:Avoiding harm, "simulated" stays. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Let alone the fact that engaging in a sex act with an animal is a crime (at least I assume in the ACT), and therefore an allegation that we would do best to avoid. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough, it does not appear to be, see Zoophilia and the law#National laws. " ... except for the Australian Capital Territory and Jervis Bay Territory which do not explicitly outlaw it." Not sure if there would be another angle of prosecution such as animal cruelty however. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha Landeryou nails it: "Legal experts – who consulted Wikipedia – tell VEXNEWS that while all states – and wisely the Northern Territory – have made provision for bestiality prohibitions, no such offence appears to exist in the ACT." --Mkativerata (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: oh wait, I missed the change since last time I checked. I kinda expected a new section. Ah well, I expect in the coming months it will get its own section as this story develops. The article should still be unlocked though. Mathmo Talk 04:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) In my opinion, creating a separate section would be undue weight and quite frankly not necessary - what else is there to say at this stage? I have no intention of unprotecting the article at this stage but if you want to find another admin who is willing to, feel free. Otherwise, you can ask for review at WP:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, Cheers, Mattinbgn (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: There have been no affects on his employment as yet, though media reports are speculating that this will change on or about this Monday. Virtually all of the media reporting is speculative or repeating rumors which I don't think needed to be added to the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see why a separate section is necessary. If he gets sacked by the Raiders, the one sentence in "Playing career" can become two. I'd only think a separate section would be warranted if it became a criminal prosecution. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which it won't as the ACT police have confirmed that what he did isn't illegal in the ACT. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSPCA could initiate a prosecution for domestic animal offences. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I already suggested this above. However please remember that this is Wikipedia, and information being factual is not good enough for many administrators. Ashman05 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much of a case for seeing it as simulated, either, but that's what those speaking for Monaghan are saying. Given that, I think we can go with their version until things become a bit more settled - if we do, and we (and they) are wrong, then the worst that happens is that the article understates things for a few days. If we don't, and say that it wasn't simulated, but it is later agreed that it it was, then we've potentially done some damage by overstating it. Waiting seems relatively harmless. - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashman, apologies. I posted before reading the entire discussion...just saw that line and had to jump in, but perhaps the double-entry of the same point might get it noticed a little more!  I don't think there is too much danger in it being overstated...every media outlet is now saying it happened.  In any case, this is pretty much going to be a history page from now on.  I doubt there will be much of a public profile for this man after this.Lezman (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Given that the Raiders board is apparently going to meet tomorrow to decide Monaghan's future with the club, there seems to be no need to add material on this topic as yet as  it will soon become outdated. It's probably also best if admins don't add more than the absolute minimum given that the article is currently fully protected. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Rather than include press speculation (and that is all it is at this stage) about what the board may do, we only need to wait a day or two and we will have an actual, factual response from the board. Wikipedia is not a news site and there is no pressure for us to keep up with the latest scoops - nor should we try to. We should leave news reporting to the newspapers and focus on encyclopedic material. Including every twist and turn about a current issue leads to poor articles filled with proseline. Being printed in a reliable source may be required for inclusion in Wikipedia - but that does not mean everything printed in a reliable source is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandal

message: As I noted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, there's now international coverage of this incident...it's clearly notable and worth inclusion. However, allowing an editing free-for-all on a still-brewing salacious incident seems a poor idea, too. I propose that those editors wishing to insert the information write some proposed content here, in a separate section below, complete with footnote cites. I'll insert it myself if it looks like it meets WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:RS, etc. A separate section on the incident does seem appropriate as given its broad coverage, its effects on Monaghan's employment, and other team factors. — Scientizzle 14:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no affects on his employment as yet, though media reports are speculating that this will change on or about this Monday. Virtually all of the media reporting is speculative or repeating rumors which I don't think needed to be added to the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see why a separate section is necessary. If he gets sacked by the Raiders, the one sentence in "Playing career" can become two. I'd only think a separate section would be warranted if it became a criminal prosecution. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which it won't as the ACT police have confirmed that what he did isn't illegal in the ACT. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSPCA could initiate a prosecution for domestic animal offences. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I already suggested this above. However please remember that this is Wikipedia, and information being factual is not good enough for many administrators. Ashman05 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see much of a case for seeing it as simulated, either, but that's what those speaking for Monaghan are saying. Given that, I think we can go with their version until things become a bit more settled - if we do, and we (and they) are wrong, then the worst that happens is that the article understates things for a few days. If we don't, and say that it wasn't simulated, but it is later agreed that it it was, then we've potentially done some damage by overstating it. Waiting seems relatively harmless. - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ashman, apologies. I posted before reading the entire discussion...just saw that line and had to jump in, but perhaps the double-entry of the same point might get it noticed a little more!  I don't think there is too much danger in it being overstated...every media outlet is now saying it happened.  In any case, this is pretty much going to be a history page from now on.  I doubt there will be much of a public profile for this man after this.Lezman (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested middle ground

message: Regarding "last sentence is speculation by the press", I object to this characterization. From the cited sources:
*"...sponsors had threatened to withdraw about $1million of revenue over the lewd photograph of Monaghan."
*"Australia's rugby league bosses have told the Canberra Raiders they expected "appropriate" action to be taken against Joel Monaghan after a photograph of the player simulating a sex act with a dog was posted on the internet."
Now, I'd be willing to suggest that of my original textCanberra Raiders advertising sponsors1 and National Rugby League officials2 have placed pressure on the Canberra Raiders board to cut ties with Monaghan.the "cut ties" portion is edging into OR territory as it requires reading the (frankly obvious) messages in between the lines. Given that the second of the two links also states "Local media have speculated that Monaghan...could have his contract cancelled", I think there's enough to stateCanberra Raiders advertising sponsors1 and National Rugby League officials2 have placed pressure on the Canberra Raiders board to discipline Monaghan, and local media have speculated that the team may cancel Monaghan's contract.2— Scientizzle 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the Raiders board is apparently going to meet tomorrow to decide Monaghan's future with the club, there seems to be no need to add material on this topic as yet as  it will soon become outdated. It's probably also best if admins don't add more than the absolute minimum given that the article is currently fully protected. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Rather than include press speculation (and that is all it is at this stage) about what the board may do, we only need to wait a day or two and we will have an actual, factual response from the board. Wikipedia is not a news site and there is no pressure for us to keep up with the latest scoops - nor should we try to. We should leave news reporting to the newspapers and focus on encyclopedic material. Including every twist and turn about a current issue leads to poor articles filled with proseline. Being printed in a reliable source may be required for inclusion in Wikipedia - but that does not mean everything printed in a reliable source is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion?

message: He has just quit  AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've updated the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Joel Monaghan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721134256/http://warringtonwolves.com/team-player-17 to http://warringtonwolves.com/team-player-17
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716170258/http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/sport/rugby-league/monaghan-raiders-finest/1269670.aspx to http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/sport/rugby-league/monaghan-raiders-finest/1269670.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808144730/http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0%2C8659%2C24111780-23214%2C00.html to http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0%2C8659%2C24111780-23214%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified