Talk:Graham Fitch

message: I will revert unsourced and inflammatory edits as they appear. This must adhere to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rules. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and inflammatory 

message: Please see the following link to Prof. Fitch's successful tribunal with the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa, resulting in a fine levied against the SABC. http://news.iafrica.com/sa/1390978.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamrag (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to the SABC finding User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

text: It never does, according to BLP. If a person is _charged_ with something, that is different. Accusations are not Wikipedia-worthy, unless that person is something like a head-of-state where their whole life is already open to scrutiny. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So a police investigation bears more weight than a media investigation?  Powers T 21:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: No, a police arrest would. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it's the fact of an arrest that would be notable, rather than the existence of an investigation, police or otherwise?  Sorry for the questions; this seems a tight rope to walk and I'm trying to get the gist of the "unwritten rules".  Powers T 14:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not a matter of notability. He was notable before, the Wikipedia article predates what you have both called allegations and accusations. To put a point on it, he's not a public figure, an athlete, a rock star or the Pope. He's a private individual of some previous notability. The rope to walk is that we can't say things that are yet unproven. Police investigate many things each day. I once had an ex-girlfriend tell cops untrue stories about me, they investigated and found nothing to hang their hat on. Legal action would mean the authorities have actually found something and are actively pursuing the matter. Unless/until that happens, there is nothing to add from the Wikipedia standpoint. Please read BLP for yourself. Several longtime editors in addition to myself have covered this multiple times, and have removed the text as I have to do periodically. You are also tenured and I assume good faith, but there's nothing to get the gist of. Nothing can be added at this point. Circumstances may change. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to put too fine a point on it, but I did read WP:BLP and found it somewhat lacking in specifics.  What we have here is a reliable source that did some investigation and believes they have shown with some confidence that these allegations are true.  If a police agency had done the same thing, it would have likely resulted in an arrest at minimum.  So what I'm asking is, what is it that makes a police determination of suspicion in-line with BLP, and a reliable source determination of suspicion out-of-line?  Is it that police investigations are more reliable?  Or is it that police investigations are inherently notable?  Powers T 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

text: It's a fact that an allegation was made via a source that merits consideration. Whether the evidence for an allegation is "compelling" is something to be decided by the authorities, not by you, me, or Wikipedia in general. That something is "common knowledge" is in itself not convincing at all. (In Japan, where I happen to find myself, it was once "common knowledge" that Koreans burnt down Tokyo after the enormous earthquake of 1923: the "common knowledge" was of course mere racist scaremongering.) If you have evidence that Fitch "fled" to Britain because of allegations, please present this here. When you say that avoidance of presentation of facts (that allegations were made) is tantamount to willful denial that these facts occurred, I infer that you haven't yet fully familiarized yourself with WP:BLP. If you want to remove the article about Fitch from Wikipedia, here's a clear explanation of how to go about it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I've some reason to believe that the allegations are common knowledge in S Africa. (I don't know if they actually are common knowledge, because I'm not qualified to assess the implications of coverage in the S African blogosphere, etc, and I'm not in S Africa.) But even if they are common knowledge in S Africa, I've no reason to think that they're common knowledge in Britain, where Fitch seems to be. Fitch isn't unambiguously a private person: after all, his website advertises himself to the wider world. However, he's not running for political office or similar, and the (sad?) fact is that the very large majority of the British public normally has no interest in non-pop music or its performers, teachers or commentators. -- Hoary (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal allegations 

message: The allegations were ruled by an independent investigatory tribunal to be defamatory and poorly-substantiated. Therefore, it is entirely proper for Wikipedia to describe SABC's actions as "defamation." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Defamation" is accurate and sourced 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Graham Fitch. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sabcnews.com/specialassignment/features/0206/script.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified