Talk:Robin Brooke

Fiji allegation

From User:Gadfium's summary: Some mention of this might be appropriate, but at present its an allegation, not proven, and it shouldn't be longer than the section on his career.

It is entirely appropriate that the discussion of this man groping a 15 year old is in the article. It is all over the news, and sadly for Robin Brooke, will be the last thing he is remembered for. You may be able to write more about his rugby career - go ahead, but everyone who is googling Robin Brooke wants to know how he molested the girl and what he did to her friend. Tristanb (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that we have to cover this in depth because it's a popular news topic is against Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:RECENTISM (an essay, not a guideline, but perhaps a clearer explanation of what the policy of WP:UNDUE means in this context). In a week, or next year, this will not be in the news at all, but the article will continue. Try to put this in perspective. Think what coverage an impartial full length biography of this man will give to this incident. 50%? Not remotely likely. A chapter (ie 1/10)? Possibly, but that would be the maximum, and only if he's found guilty. Inevitably, the Wikipedia article will give more attention to this incident than the full length biography will, but still giving it 50+% is inappropriate.-gadfium 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the recentness of the story that means it should be well-covered, it's the fact that he sexually assaulted a 15 year old! That's big news. If he wasn't an All Black being tried in Fiji he'd be locked up! And in a week, and in a year, this still will be a fact. I am sure if Robin Brooke is mentioned again in five years' time, this "indiscretion" will be mentioned.

But I see your point. But just because the rest of this "biography" is empty, doesn't mean that we have to hobble the rest of the article. As I stated in my initial paragraph, I am more than happy for someone to put in information about his childhood, school days, and early rugby career. If the section on his child molestation becomes proportionally shorter, then fine.

Another point is that everyone who has done something notable, has more written about that notable activity than the rest of their life. For instance nearly 50% of the Gary Glitter article is about his sex offences. Robin Brooke played some rugby, made the All Blacks, then ran a supermarket in Tauranga, but he is notable for what he did in Fiji on New Year's 2010. Tristanb (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, he's not notable for the alleged groping. If he wasn't already famous as an All Black, this would not be making headlines. The average criminal, be it murderer, thief, rapist, etc is certainly not worthy of an article. For criminals, it takes something well out of the ordinary to be sufficiently notable; either mass murder or mass rape, or a case which is widely debated, as in the case of David Bain. We can ask for a third opinion on this if you like; either WP:3O or WP:BLPN would be appropriate.-gadfium 05:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The article would not have been touched substantially for years if not for this event. He's notable for being an All Black who grabbed an underage girl's bottom. I don't have any idea what WP:3O or WP:BLPN are, but they sound like horrible overly bureaucratic pages that might symbolise what Wikipedia has become. Since there's no content under debate, probably not much point. I just thought when I saw that boilerplate stuck there that I should justify what I've written.

But go ahead, write more about the guy's rugby. No debate there. Tristanb (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robin Brooke. That might bring more attention to this discussion.-gadfium 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely undue weight been given to this matter - the least controversial solution would be write more about his rugby career - how can we get the Rugby Project guys on this? --Xorkl000 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the best idea. Unless something surprising happens, I can't see the section on his groping getting beyond three very short paragraphs. Looking at his ABs.com page, there's much more to write about. Once there's a decent amount about his career, childhood etc, then the drunk bum-grabbing incident will be proportionally correct. Tristanb (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable to leave an article in this state in the hope that other sections will be expanded later.-gadfium 22:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I take no view on which should happen first (cut down on the arse grabbing, or expand on the rugby) - whatever order we do it in, its obvious we need more info on his rugby career. Its not like the bum grabbing stuff is lost, it's quite easy to bring back once the article is better balanced. --Xorkl000 (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied from my (Tristanb) talk page:

I am also less than impressed that you removed the undue weight notice from the article without making an effort to remedy the situation.-gadfium 23:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on mate! You go and get a third party to help. And ignore what he said, then delete what I've written in the article. Not on. Tristanb (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Xorkl000 agreed the section was undue weight. By removing the notice without expanding the rest of the article, you gave me no choice but to either revert you, or reduce the overweight content. Reverting you would not have improved the article. I am not in a position to make a substantial increase in the article content.

Thank you for removing the residue of the defamatory material from this talk page.-gadfium 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agreed the section had undue weight. Both Xorkl000 and I agreed that adding more to the article was the way to fix it.

And as for no choice?? You could have just left it! You have done nothing for the article, except for keeping it short.

You stuck that ugly boilerplate, without discussing it. After discussion, and solution, you want it back. But for some sort of techinical 'revertion' requirement you just trim the text? That's just not on. Tristanb (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with gadfium on this - the undue weight tag should stay until the article is fixed. --Xorkl000 (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have you thought about taking it out altogether, has he been charged yet? If not then it is not really very biographical to insert it. After reading the citations and the fact that after eleven days he has not been charged, I think it should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

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)

• Expanding the comment to add detail as a form of rebuttal in not an option, I am always amazed at what people insist on keeping in a biography as if it had a biographical value, If there is no charges and its not going to come to any charges it should come out, that is in one or other policy or a recommendation. It is simply an accusation that could well be detrimental to the living person. Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask yourself this, if in two months he hasn't been charged with anything, then you you still think it should stay in, the answer is no and if the answer is no in two months you should take it out now. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Charges

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)

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)

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)

There is plenty of evidence! You think the newspapers are lying? You don't think this is a significant event?He violently grabbed a girl's bottom, twice, then assaulted her friend! You think this is okay? That it should be brushed under the carpet? If he isn't charged, it is not because it didn't happen! Anyway, how was the article it awful? Because you didn't like way it was written, or you didn't like the facts? It was a work in progress, which is what this encyclopaedia is about. Those two awkward lines and the end could have been fixed, and it is hard to reread copy when it's mixed in with a bunch of references. But those references are important in an article such as this. Tristanb (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Alleged

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)

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)

Expansion of other sections

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)

Recently added content

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)