Talk:Joel Monaghan

Scandal

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)

No mention of the [dog fucking} scandal yet? Scandal is now confirmed as real. Only difference is some are reporting it as 'simulated' and others are reporting it as real. Still, confirmed scandal.

• [1]
• [2]

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)

There has been cautious confirmation from his manager - http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/canberra-raiders-player-investigated-after-allegations-of-mad-monday-act-with-a-dog/story-e6frf3ou-1225947828961 Ashman05 (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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) Not great at referancing but here's another link to a news source: http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8118755 ADD Booknerd (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, maintaining this stance is just editorial bureaucracy gone mad Ashman05 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Are we still refusing to open this up for edits. This is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.142.88 (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Those wishing to make an edit to this page are welcome to use the {{editprotected}} template and put forward their proposed edit for discussion on the talk page. If an admin thinks it is reasonable, then it will be added to the article. It is unlikely that any administrator will remove the page protection in the short to medium term - so if you want to change the article, you will need to go down that path. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Agree with that, even pulling it back to semi-protection would be premature. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, sorry for adding, I should have read all the talk pages first. The way it is added here is perfect. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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." [3]--Mkativerata (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed there is still nothing here, at the very least there should be a new section "Scandal/Controversy" with a sentence or two along with appropriate references. At a minimum open this up to established users. Mathmo ^Talk 04:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

(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)

JM is gone - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/05/3058735.htm?section=justin, the board won't put up with what he did. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggested middle ground

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)

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)

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)

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)

The RSPCA could initiate a prosecution for domestic animal offences. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rumors? Go see the pic for yourself, its freely avaliable. It should be added to the page the sooner the better. Even if its a crimal matter and was prosecuted, it doesnt need a new article.--27.33.109.57 (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What do they mean "*simulating* a lewd act with a dog"? There's no *simulating* about it! That should be changed to *engaging in*.Lezman (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reversion?

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."[4]
• "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."[5]

Now, I'd be willing to suggest that of my original text

Canberra 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 state

Canberra 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)

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)

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)

Quit

He has just quit [6] AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the article.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Locking a article

I think locking an article is wrong! There is enough wikitrolls here to revert vandalism edits. It just goes against all wikipedia stands for! 220.101.4.140 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article being censored?

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		How else do ppl get these? 220.101.4.140 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the last two sentences of JM asking for a release needs to be explaned with better use of words and more explanation of the incident, when, where, etc and the cirumstances (NRL, Media, Canberra Public, team mates support, coverage, etc) leading up to his asking of a release from his final two years of his contract. CheersCanberraBulldog (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The subject does not merit more than two to three sentences when seen against the totality of his career. . Including quotes and reaction from every party tangentially involved is massive, massive overkill. In simple terms all that is needed - there was an incident, it attracted widespread condemnatory media coverage, he resigned from the club. When writing an encyclopedia article we should consider what would be relevant 12 months, 5 years, 50 years down the track, not what is relevant from a day to day basis. We are not a news site and we do not need to cover every twist and turn of the topic, especially where it involves a biography of a living person.

Having said all the above, perhaps if you write what you propose to include (with footnoted sources) and post it on this talk page using the {{editprotected}} tag, one of the other administrators watching this page may allow it to be included. I would have no objection in principle if they did so. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it was very stupid to lock the article and it would have been frowned upon had he been somewhat famous. Not everybody is trolling, these are no longer rumours, there are pics and the player himself has apologized for what he did...Which ever admin locked this article is probably a n00b (new) admin and thus doesn't realise the implications. You only lock articles like these for a day or 2, any longer and that admin can be reported to the bureaucrats....--Stemoc (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I protected this article and I have no intentions of un-protecting it at this stage. I have been an administrator for some time and while I might be "stupid" I am not a "n00b" and believe it or not I do realise the implications. If you can find another administrator to unprotect the article, feel free - otherwise if you think I am abusing the administrator tools you can report me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and your views will be given full consideration. Many thanks, Mattinbgn (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm not going to get involved in the Bureaucracy of this site, i just stick to whats important. What happened is not a small thing and yet there is nothing in his article. The article has had over 54,000 page views since the incident broke and all these people will understand is pretty much nothing cause the article gives you nothing...whats the use of having an article on wikipedia if its going to be "censored" ? ...--Stemoc (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you please post the text (with supporting references) that you suggest be included in the article here? (I presume that you have some concrete changes you'd like to see given your concern about 'censorship'). I'd note that Matt is a highly experienced admin and locking the article for a person in this kind of circumstances is fully justified - and probably required - by Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living people (WP:BLP) given that the article was already attracting lots of vandalism and things were only going to get worse as the story received more publicity worldwide. Matt also posted at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Joel Monaghan after locking the article asking that other editors review his action, and it received support from all the editors who responded there (including myself). Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've seen a situation where there is a greater likelihood of significant vandalism than this one - the circumstances are such that protecting it seems like the best option. I'd like to see the article expanded a bit, but the main issues: he was photographed simulating a "lewd act" with a dog, and that this forced his resignation from the club - are already covered. The difficulty is that there are details that could be added, but the main points seem to be there. - Bilby (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just 4 lines describing what happened and his departure, more info should be added especially self-quotes, the comments from his former clubs, more "sources" etc..even Greg Inglis has a better "Controversy" section than Monaghan. The article should be semi-protected, not fully protected. YES, vandalism will happen, but this is wikipedia, vandalism was a major problem 3 years ago but its no longer a problem now as there are enough bots and scripts that can get rid of vandalism within a millisecond of that edit, please have faith in your own editors...--Stemoc (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please draft this section and post it here? I think that you'll find that we all want to improve the article. If you think that full protection is unwarranted you can ask for it to be removed at WP:ANI or WP:RFPP. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

After the end of the 2010 season, Monaghan made a request to the Canberra Raiders to release from his contract after a photograph of him simulating a lewd act with a dog was published on Twitter.

"There are no hard feelings or grudges towards anyone else," Monaghan said. "They were my actions and I am solely responsible for the prank that has caused so much pain.

"I don't want to damage this great club, my family, the players and sponsors any more because of my stupid prank." he added.

An emotional Monaghan announced his resignation in Canberra for his prank gone wrong but was unable to finish his prepared statement after breaking down in tears.

Raiders chief executive Don Furner said and quote "He had to pay a very high price for a party prank at somebody's house that most of us - even though there's a lot of people that say they wouldn't - would get away with."

The picture in question was uploaded by someone impersonating Wyatt Roy, a LNP member.

This looks slightly better...--Stemoc (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Just want to pipe up in support of Matt. I came here expecting this article to resemble a dogs breakfast and was presently surprised it didn't. As to Stemocs suggestion I like the Monaghan quote, but am not sure the Furner quote or Wyatt Roy sentance are needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Monaghan quote should go in the article and I think that the Furner quote is OK. The bit about the twitter post being from someone pretending to be an MP doesn't seem very important and should be excluded. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the general approach, but agree that the Wyatt Roy reference isn't really relevant here. The line that starts "An emotional Monaghan announced" can't be used as written due to copyvio concerns, but I don't think it is needed anyway, and I'd like to suggest slightly less reliance on direct quotes. Perhaps something like:

After the end of the 2010 season, Monaghan made a request to the Canberra Raiders to release from his contract after a photograph of him simulating a lewd act with a dog was published on Twitter. Monaghan chose to resign prior to the board meeting, claiming sole responsibility for his actions and stating that he resigned because he did not "want to damage this great club, my family, the players and sponsors any more because of my stupid prank." Raiders chief executive Don Furner acknowledged the decision, but noted that Monaghan "had to pay a very high price for a party prank at somebody's house that most of us - even though there's a lot of people that say they wouldn't - would get away with."

I'm happy with alternative wording as well. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA IS UNCENSORED. Portillo (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a fucking joke .... this bloke is more notable for the dog act than for football at this stage. Wikipedia admins : there are too many of them, and hardly three brain cells to knock between them. This is a real policy issue for Wikipedia, new and notable information is pushed out by ill advised lock downs from admins who are haughty and immune to logic.

See, even when we give the admins what they want, they still ignore it and keep the article locked, so me calling the admin that locked this article as "stupid" stands..admins like you give this site a bad name....--Stemoc (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I came here to make good faith edits (fixing the representative footy dates in the infobox and mentioning his signing with Warrington but I can't.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I've scaled it back to semi-protection as the danger of BLP violations has been lessened by the passage of time. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to do that as well but you beat me too it! Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for censoring the article. Portillo (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

References

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)