Talk:Robin Brooke

message: Here is your third opinion:
* I don't think the current version of the article gives undue weight, as of 01:40, 11 January 2010.  Tagging the article is unnecessary at this time.  This doesn't mean the section is perfect and can't be improved.
* The older version made the mistake of presenting second-hand witness accounts as factual.  The articles cited interviewed the parents, who weren't even there during the event in question.  With BLPs we must be very careful when presenting negative information.  We should err on the side of not including negative information if there is doubt, and we shouldn't present witness claims as factual, and especially not third-hand hearsay.  
* Controversial or dubious claims should be attributed to who said them in the actual article text, not just through a citation. 
* The fact that the parents and the youths in question are only asking for an apology and not for charges to be pressed should probably be included to help the reader understand the gravity (or lack thereof) of the events.
* The section should stay in the article, it's a relevant event in the subject's life, and not including it solely because a consensus over policy isn't easily found would be a bad idea.
Hope this helps Gigs (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Off2riorob, it doesn't matter whether he is charged or not. The article is not a criminal record. It is a summary of significant events that happened in his life. He has admitted the assault and tried to apologise for it later in the day. There was never any question as to whether the event happened.
Many people don't seem to understand that something can be true, that something can happen, without a court telling us that this is the case. He is either going to apologise, or get charged. Either way this shows overwhelming evidence that he did it. Tristanb (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you are looking at it from an incorrect position, there is no evidence at all, I don't understand of what value you think this is, it isn't any value. If he isn't charged it shouldn't be there....Imagine in a couple of years ... the story that he allegedly touched a young girls bottom and was not charged and nothing happened, what value do you think it will have then, this is an encyclopedia not a titillating tabloid magazine. Off2riorob (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Your original addition of this content was awful and not at all what this project is about. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Its worthless schoolboy titillation. It may be important to you for whatever reason, but in an encyclopedia is is titillating tabloid rubbish. He touched a girls bottom at a new years party and you feel it is a massive biographical incident, sorry to tell you, it is not. Also the content on the talkpage is becoming a bit excessive, I have removed the page from the search engine indexes. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Charges

message: XLerate is incorrectly (and unfairly) stated that the "15 year old girl alleged". Nowhere in the news does it say that she alleged this, there were multiple witnesses, it should have been kept in the passive tense. Tristanb (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're mistaken Tristanb - per the TVNZ ref: "Fiji police have been looking into claims made by two Auckland teenagers; one says she was grabbed on the backside during a New Year celebration. The 15 year-old says her 17 year-old friend was assaulted when he tried to intervene." Per Wikipedia:Weasel#Use_of_the_passive_voice, I don't think it's reasonable to use passive voice in this case - it's necessary to specify who is making the allegation. XLerate (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged

message: I am happy to write more about Brooke's rugby career, but am reluctant to do so as some people have biased opinions about All Blacks which I believe is the real reason this news has been minimised. I think it can be rewritten without diminishing the seriousness of the offence, but without that eclipsing the rest of his life. Tristanb (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of other sections

message: What is the value of the excessive content  and citations that have been added here? The content clearly has no use here as regards additions to the article and is excessive here without good reason, does anyone object to my archiving it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently added content