Talk:Rupert Taylor

message: Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. Use of this information is supported by WP:PUBLICFIGURE and Taylor is a public figure. There are no allegations being made by these statements, only news reports of information from reliable sources (RS). This entry is saying "This major news source said Mr. X did this", not an unfounded/unsupported "Mr. X did this". WP:LIBEL does not apply as the material has been published in a number of RS, not so reliable, blogs, and as well as Wits Journalism's Vuvusela. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE do not apply as Taylor is well known in Wit and many other places. A Google search of "rupert taylor" "sexual harassment" returns numerous hits. So these events are well known. As far a liability is concerned, Wits seems unconcerned: they have not taken down the articles   by the Wits Vuvuzela. 
If you search Wikipedia, you can find numerous articles on public figures who were accused of crimes and the articles had the information added before conviction and the information was not removed. For instance Tom DeLay campaign finance trial: the U.S. Senator Tom DeLay was not convicted until 2010, but the article was started March 2006. Delay's conviction was overturned, but the article remains because it is factual.
The statements:
# "Taylor was placed on special leave in 2013 following allegations of sexual harassment." - this is well backed up by multiple RS.
# "He disputed the allegations and stated he was taking legal advice" - not libelous and backed up with RS
# "Taylor was subsequently dismissed from his position." - well sourced by multiple RS.
Question to be considered: Are there any disagreements with the statements as fact? One may disagree with if they were legal or justified, but that is not discussed in the article (and should not be discussed), so that is irrelevant here. 
If Taylor's dismissal were overturned and/or succeeded in legal action, the statements would still be true. Is there any disagreement with this? These statements would typically be left on the article with a statement that the dismissal was overturned. Any liability liability would be with Wits, not Wikipedia.
One could add RS statements on the legality and/or justification. But the source should fall within RS policy, not one's own personal opinion (see wp:or.
Please do not remove the contested information unless there is valid Wikipedia policy supporting the removal. Simply not liking it is not justification. I don't believe there are any Wikipedia servers in South Africa and thus they would not be subject to South African law. Jim1138 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rupert Taylor sexual allegations and dismissal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rupert Taylor. 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/20130918165556/http://www.citypress.co.za/news/wits-prof-accused-of-sexual-harassment-placed-on-special-leave/ to http://www.citypress.co.za/news/wits-prof-accused-of-sexual-harassment-placed-on-special-leave/
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) 06:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified