Talk:Bernard Finnigan

Alleged offences

This meets the verifiability requirement of WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN, being documented by reliable third-party sources. His name is only suppressed in South Australia. Wikipedia is subject to Florida law, not South Australian law. Therefore this information should remain. ShipFan (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your knowledge of the comparitive laws of South Australia and Florida, we are still bound by Wikipedia policy which does not allow original research by synthesis. None of the sources you cite name Finnegan as the person in question and thus it is original research on your behalf to link his resignation to the offences. If inadequately sourced material is continued to be added to this BLP article, it will be fully protected and the offender may be blocked from editing. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read the sources? Two of the three name Bernard Finnigan as the person in question. "SOUTH Australia's Acting Minister for Police has been charged for allegedly having child pornography. Bernard Finnigan, a Labor member of the state's Legislative Council and also Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State and Local Government Relations and Minister for Gaming, was arrested yesterday but given police bail."[1] and "South Australian Premier Mike Rann says he will make a major statement to state parliament next week on the arrest of a Labor MP on child pornography charges. Bernard Finnigan quit as industrial relations minister last week after being charged with four offences."[2] This is not OR. These are reliable third-party sources. This meets the verifiability requirement of WP:BLP. ShipFan (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are now five reliable media sources naming Bernard Finnigan as the person in question. ShipFan (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Concur. They are reliable/reputable sources. It MUST remain as it is multiple sources. KymFarnik (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now. I understand that it can be sourced now, and thus we can include it if that's the direction consensus heads in (although perhaps editors in South Australia need to be particularly wary). However, we're not a news source, so personally I need to consider the risk of damaging the chance for a fair trial, which is part of the reason for these protection orders, against the desire to provide full coverage. We don't need to cover it, and the alleged charges are only of particular interest in SA, so the chance of doing damage is quite strong while the international interest is quite low. I'm reminded of the Dennis Ferguson case, where a trial almost didn't go ahead because of the damage to a fair trial caused by the media coverage, and during which one commentator pointed to Wikipedia's tendency of aggregating news which made court orders ineffective.

Anyway, personally I'd rather not see it go back until there is no chance of it unfairly impacting the trial, and I don't think we're obligated to cover the material in the short term. There have been instances in the past where we've kept out material that would unfairly influence a trial until later in the process, although naturally we did include it once that was over. - Bilby (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The protection order only applies in South Australia, which is why media in all other Australian states was able to name the MP in question. This is properly sourced and meets WP:WELLKNOWN. Wikipedia does not censor. ShipFan (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

I have no problem with sourcing or the tone. My concern is with the effect this material would have on a trial, given the lengths which the media is going to in order to protect the alleged's identity. If it was a major national or international figure, of considerable interest outside of the state, I would probably feel differently - but as most people who read this will be in South Australia, I'm concerned that this would damage the value of the suppression order. We're not a news service - we don't need to rush to include content in the short term, if we choose not to, so it may make sense to wait for a bit to see what happens after the first court appearance. - Bilby (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What lengths? His identity is only protected in one state. The references show has been widely reported in the media except in South Australia. This is not rushing in. More than a fortnight has passed and media reports have nee factual and objective. The degree of fame is irrelevant to notability. He is a notable figure and this is a widely reported story. See WP:WELLKNOWN. There is no justification in removing factual, neutral, verifiable information from multiple reliable sources which is already a matter of public record. ShipFan (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to sit back and see what others think. I'm happy to let consensus take it. Just personally, I see a risk of harm based on the likely readership of the article and the affect it can have on the court case, given the suppression order, which I need to weigh against the advantage of covering it now, rather than waiting to see if the order is lifted after the first court appearance. I respect that you see things differently. - Bilby (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Surely it's been in enough mainstream publications now to include it. Censorship is against the fundamental priciples of Wikipedia and as for affecting a fair trial, the person charged can only not be named in SA up until the time he or she enters a plea, which can be a long time before the trial itself starts. Once a plea is been entered the SA media will be allowed to report his name and all the details of the allegations against him. We should not let ourselves be sidetracked by the fact this bar (and it's not a court issued suppression order, it's an automatic part of the law dealing sexual crimes in SA, which has no effect anywhere outside that state) only applies in South Australia. It's now a well documented fact that Finnigan is the member charged and as such these facts should be on his page. Compare the treatment of this matter with the allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, which are detailed in fullon his page. They are directly analogousJaxsonjo (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No they're not - SA isn't New York State, and the alleged crimes are totally different. It's fair to say that Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a vastly better known figure than the subject of this article. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ, they are both alleged to have committed serious offences of a sexual nature. The prohibition against publishing his name only operates until he enters a plea, not until the trial iteslf so there can be no issue with regard to it affecting his trial. Much media commentary on the case (both within SA where his name has not been published, and in the rest of Australia where he has been named) centres on the archaic nature of this particular section of the SA Evidence Act. The existence of this commentary in itself indicates that there is in fact national interest in the case, not just local to SA. A Google search on "SA Parliamentarian charged" will give you his name pretty well instantly so there is no valid reason not to include this. It is a verfiable fact meeting WP:BLP about a person who meets the WP:WELLKNOWN criteria. There is no longer any justification for not including this. Jaxsonjo (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The law prohobits publication in South Autralia, the only contention is if this counts as publishing the name, and applies to all cases to protect any victims. Also, Bernard Finnigan is an MLC (Senator in Upper House), not an MP (Member of Lower House), so I am not sure if these news sources were there and actually heard or are just guessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.148.247 (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in South Australia. Legally his name is being published in Florida, more than 2 weeks after it was published in other Australian states. ShipFan (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• Univolved Editor from BLPN--Assuming the sources are reliable and the proposed text summarizes the sources in a neutral and efficient manner (one sentence) then I support its inclusion. I am not aware of any WP policy that says we should refrain from text that may influence a trial.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• The sources were five major Australian daily newspapers. The text was a one sentence neutral summary relating to the resignation and charges, and a second sentence adding that his party membership had been suspended. ShipFan (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike Rann (SA Premier) is due to make a statement on the issue under parliamentary privilege this afternoon. No-one is guessing, it is a fact that has been reported widely around Australia and as said above there is NO WP POLICY on refrain from text that may influence a trial. The suppression on WP would seem to have political motives. WP is neutral and just publishes verifiable facts. KymFarnik (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that several major non-SA newspapers have published stories naming Finnigan which are available online, I don't see any grounds to censor this material from the article - Wikipedia isn't subject to South Australian suppression orders and the horse has well and truly bolted anyway given that this is a matter of public record in the rest of Australia. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest deference to Bilby's perspective, I think I have to agree with Nick here. The ship has well and truly sailed, and there's little someone in SA could find on Wikipedia that wouldn't turn up in a Google search. However, I have to point out that the implication of political motives made by Kym above is very poor form. There is very good reason to be cautions publishing these allegations, and this is especially true for South Australian editors, whose legal ground here is a little shaky.  -- Lear's Fool 09:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

IAR doesn't remotely mean that. Local consensus can NEVER override encyclopedia wide consensus from policies. There is no way half a dozen people getting together on the talk page of an article can consensus themselves out of binding policies like WP:V, NPOV, OR, BLP, etc. IAR simply gives you license to edit without necessarily reading and studying up on every single rule and following them to the letter, before making the edit. However, when questioned, you must provide solid reasoning based on consensus to support your position.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to jump in here - but I guess I agree that you can't override policies with IAR. So we can't decide to add negative controversial information without source, or add a fair-use image where a free-use one is available. But the policies only really say what the minimum requirements are: they don't say that we have to include particular content, as that is left to editorial discretion. If this material wasn't sourced, the policies would tell us that it couldn't be added. But although the material is sourced, the policies don't force us to add the content - that's where local consensus plays a part. - Bilby (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only the Canberra Times article is still available through google. Have the other newspapers pulled them from searchability? I'd like to see a lot more evidence before concluding that national newspapers have considered this safe to report. The idea that wikipedia is immune from South Australian laws is plain wrong. Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick illustrates that Australian courts don't give a crap where a website's servers are located. Wikipedia disseminates information in South Australia; it can be bound by South Australian suppression laws and in my brief review of the South Australian Evidence Act there is nothing suggesting that suppression orders cannot operate against interstate publishers. For now, I'm against putting this in the article as I'm not satisfied that wikipedia or its editors will not be contravening the law by doing so. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick was a defamation case. We are not talking about defamation here. We are reporting a true and provable fact (which under Australian law is not defamatory), i.e. that five Australian newspapers named the South Australian MP charged with child porn offences. If the Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph and Canberra Times have not broken any law anr are not already in front of an SA judge for breaching the order, then neither are Wikipedia or its editors. You are grasping at straws trying to think of tenuous reasons to censor from Wikipedia what has already been covered by the Australian media. ShipFan (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm well aware that it is a defamation case. But I mention it to illustrate the point that the location of servers tends to be irrelevant to Australian courts. Show me where the SMH and Telegraph articles are still accessible through google.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You'd know better than me, Mkativerata, but I was under the impression Wikipedia content only needed to be legal in Florida to satisfy our own policies, although I suppose that doesn't alter the legal position of individual editors. Perhaps it would be worth getting some input from the foundation? To respond to your question about Google, I'm not comfortable posting the search terms I used here, but with a reasonably standard search phrase I was able to find coverage from the Financial Review, Herald Sun and Daily Telegraph.  -- Lear's Fool 00:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know a lot of editors share that impression, but I don't know why. This article (I'm not sure whether it is accessible in SA) accurately explains that suppression orders operate against online publications regardless of where the publication originates. It says: You can read this in the Herald's printed edition outside South Australia, but you won't find it online, all thanks to this stupid rule hiding the identity of the acting Police Minister. I expect it would muzzle the New York Times website too, should the twin unlikely events of The New York Times considering South Australian politics to be of interest, and that someone in South Australia should be reading The New York Times, actually occur. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to wrap up any legal concerns lingering, I got in touch with Philippe Beaudette at the WMF who passed it along to their inhouse legal counsel. The advice is that "the legal danger here is minimal. The Foundation is prepared to fight any order suppressing this information, as it goes against our values." They do, however, point out that "citizens of the State of South Australia are constrained by their own local laws". bou·le·var·dier (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the standard response to any editor who asks a question, noting the disclaimer about "local" editors. Also not that I've retitled this section to "alleged offenses" though charges have been laid a person in this country has the right to presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Gnangarra 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, Gnangarra, that it is not a "standard response to any editor who asks a question." Each question is taken as an individual, and this one was discussed with our legal counsel prior to it being posted here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not able to comment on any legal issues outside of Australia. However, I think it would be remiss of me not to mention a talk I had yesterday with a lawyer specialising in internet law. (It was a friendly chat, and not really related to this debate, but I was curious about general issues). The comment was that having the content hosted on a server in Florida is unlikley to be sufficient to protect a South Australian (or probably an Australian) editor if it was decided to charge them. He also made reference to the Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick case mentioned above. Thus it was suggested that Australian editors should consider their actions in light of the legal situation. My interest in this is primarily ethical, rather than legal, but it is worth keeping in mind. - Bilby (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I should add, as I feel nervous about raising legal concerns, that I don't want to prevent discussion on this: I simply need to clarify that the WMF is correct in saying that our actions as individual editors open us up to possible legal action should we contravene local laws, so as individuals we need to keep this in mind. - Bilby (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"the legal danger here is minimal". That's lawyer code for "it is probably against the law but they'll never bother to go after us so it doesn't matter". We ought to do better than that (and especially editors in Australia because the SA authorities definitely can go after us, they're just not going to bother hitting the WMF as it would involve extradition, etc. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to be late to the party here, and I want to emphasize that I don't really have any great desire to see this material included. Wikipedia is not a news source. But I have to object to the notion that "we ought" to try to obey the laws of any jurisdiction that deigns to promulgate such. South Australia, in my non-lawyer understanding, can pass whatever laws they like, but it doesn't matter, because they don't have jurisdiction over Wikipedia (though they may well have it over South Australian Wikipedia editors). As a matter of principle, claims of extraterritorial jurisdiction over speech on the Internet must be resisted, or the whole world becomes subject to the most restrictive state. To put it less gently, South Australia can kiss my hairy ass. That is the attitude we really ought to take as a project (though we can put it more diplomatically if that seems to be the strategic choice). --Trovatore (talk) 09:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion Consensus

OK folks, it's late at night and this isn't exactly the most difficult issue. People are claiming "consensus" as an issue still, so here's where you can say "yay" or "nay". Just about anything relevant is already covered up above, so let's leave it at this; do the references currently getting bounced back and forth count as reliable sourcing? Yes. Is Wikipedia subject to hush-orders on South Australian news organizations in regards to criminal cases involving sexual assault/underage pornography matters? No. Because I'm not planning on keeping tabs on this all night, I'll point out that your views on the matter are only relevant in regards to Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion to articles about a living person. If you have any kind of response based on Wikipedia's guidelines then say them here, otherwise five separate sources are far, far more than would generally be required. Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not about sourcing. It's about do no harm, which I'm aware isn't a policy. I'm happy if consensus is to add it. But the role of the BLP policy is to say what minimum standards are, and while adding this material is permitted by the policy, we are not limited to policies or guidelines where they limit what we think is the right approach to protecting living people. To tie it only to that is, I think, to do a disservice to the importance of consensus and the aim of the BLP policies, and to devalue the ability of editors to consider individual situations. I expect that consensus will be to keep the material - but I also think that we need to consider special circumstances carefully. - Bilby (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't of said any better... -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 07:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are three positions being taken by the sources; the first is to name him (eg Daily Telegraph and the print version of The Age); the second is to broadly hint at the identity; and the third is not to name him (eg Advertiser). Correct me if I am wrong, but there are no sources suggesting it is not him. Assuming there has not been a correction or retraction in the sources that have named him, I would suggest that a brief NPOV description of the allegations/charges be included in the article. Hack (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. The purpose of the suppression order is to protect the victims of sex offences. The problem is the blanket suppression order also prevents the accused being named. But this only applies in South Australia. The consensus does not say no. There is no concensus, including no concensus to remove properly sourced, neutral, verifiable material that meets BLP. The only consensus seems to be a handful of self-appointed censors have decided to keep reverting something they don't personally agree with. Even the admin (below) agrees that the "wrong version" has been locked, i.e. the content should be included. ShipFan (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and in response to your "Troublemakers at Bernard Finnigan" query (and really, that title could stand to be a little more classy in my personal opinion) you were directed to this AN thread as the closest example able to be found. The pertinent summary is this:

Summary - WP is not currently oversighting to comply with UK "celebrity super injunctions" - although it is following its standard BLP practices. Legal matters are the province of WMF (who have been sent a query) and of individual editors.

So I'm wondering what your opinion is on the matter? If you are still overly concerned about legal ramifications (the only which seem to exist is "If you're from SA then you really shouldn't be anywhere near here"), then I suggest you go here and contact the wiki legal group. However I think things are pretty well covered already. Human.v2.0 (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove it either. South Australian law and suppression orders do not apply to Wikipedia. All that applies here is US/Florida law and BLP. The content in question meets the requirements of BLP. ShipFan (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Fact 1: There are multiple reliable sources that have current and significant relevant information on Finnigan. Fact 2: There are NO WP policies being broken in publishing that sourced information. So why is consensus needed in the light of those facts. Does anyone really dispute either fact (unless I suspect politically motivated)? WP does have a NPOV policy. WP is supposed to be able to publish such facts about people without fear of editorialisation. KymFarnik (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is needed: that's the way things work here. A number of highly experienced and well respected editors have voiced good faith concerns about the inclusion of this material, and you should avoid implying that they are doing so for political or suppressive purposes.  -- Lear's Fool 00:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree. On further consideration, I think that this should stay out of the article until the suppression order is lifted. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Take this comment for what it's worth (I'm simply going to wait for further sources, since that was the only complain given at review), but I really must say; that comment is certainly a can of worms. "Until the suppression order is lifted". Really? Do think about the broader ramifications of that point of view.

At any rate, I'll just be watching and keeping an eye. Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The information is not being disputed; the censorship of information, currently in the public domain and reported by several reliable sources, is the issue. Please point to a wikipedia policy that precludes NPOV inclusion of this issue. As far as I can see, there is no valid objection to the inclusion of this information under wikipedia policy. Hack (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

A simple, matter-of-fact statement that the subject has been charged is supported by WP:Verifiability, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV if that statement is backed up by a reliable source, several of which are available in this case. Hack (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 06:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

• Wikipedia is not censored, the information is more then adequately sourced, and I do not think any of the objections raised here are based on any policy that would support exclusion. Remember, consensus is not a vote, if you don't think the material should be included, you need to find a policy justification. As I see none, it should be promptly included. (uninvolved editor who saw this on ANI) Monty₈₄₅ 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Self removal of talk, others have sufficiently contributed. Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_is_consensus?#Not_a_walled_garden, if the advocates of inclusion can point to general policies that indicate the material is appropriate for inclusion, those objecting should point to policies to the contrary. Just repeating that there is a lack of consensus, without offering reasons for keeping it out supported by policy, is not productive. Monty₈₄₅ 07:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

To quote a senior administrator on AWNB... "From the outside I see one very telling fact the four sources used are all Fairfax media and the wording of the stories are near identical, which leads me to percieve them as a single source and not multiple independent sources. BLP is clear Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.<emphasis added> WP:WELLKNOWN is clear in that if an incident is notable, relevant and well documented its should be included. IMHO as the sole source is fairfax media it fails the well documented part of the equation and that even without considering the supression order it dubious that the allegations should be included. If one considers the existance of a supression order and the conditions of BLP the situation is clear that inclusion of the allegations clearly fails WP:BLP requirements. I'd also note that theres is a possibility that much of the discussion over the matter may itself need to be subject to some form oversight/courtesy blanking. I'd suggest that editors be careful how they word future discussion, even those outside of SA especially the more definitive commentary." - Gnangarra.

How do you counteract that exactly? Though i'm sure you'll find a way. Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, a News Limited publication, also reported the same information. Hack (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

We have an independent Admin ruling, and two mainstream news sources (counting Fairfax 4 items as 1) THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO PUBLISH!!!! KymFarnik (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy reason to include this material is WP:NPOV which requires reporting all significant points of view documented in reliable sources. My usual answer to BLP-vs-NPOV tension for less well known people is to want to delete the biography, but that probably won't fly in the case of a public figure like a politician. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

FTR I'm in agreement with Bilby and Mkativerata here (and note Gnangarra's observation as quoted above). One significant note is that the ABC, our national broadcaster, has failed to draw any direct link, and I imagine they have a lot more sound legal advice than we do on this one. Having worked on OTRS for a while dealing with people who Wikipedia has actually harmed, often people who you would never have heard of who are known only to a niche of people in some industry or area of interest or location, I believe that "do no harm" should be the effective standard here. If the ABC draws such a link at some future point, or the suppression order is actually lifted, there will be no shortage of reliable sources and this entire argument will then be moot - but until then, we should be careful. Orderinchaos 11:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's (now) my view as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Orderinchaos, are you saying that the article subject is only kown to a niche of people...? We're talking about someone who just stepped down as an Australian MP and cabinet member, i.e. a high level national politician. It's pretty shocking how little news reporting there is about it. Here in Yankland something like that would have wall to wall TV coverage. The Canberra Times is pretty clear what happened though,[3] citing South Australian laws regarding coverage of sex offenses. If that makes any sense at all, the purpose of the suppression is presumably to protect the victims, not the perpetrators. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, he's not a national MP, but a regional one - he's an Minister in the State government, and not one of the major figures in the Cabinet. There isn't much coverage of the alleged charges outside of SA to begin with, as this is primarily a state issue, although it is interesting enough to get some national coverage. Without these alleged charges, the MP would have been pretty much unknown outside of the state. - Bilby (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Omission by ABC silence- that's a novel argument. Obviously, the ABC has to operate in all Australian states. If you have legal concerns paralleling those of the ABC over whether you should be editing this article to add reliably sourced information, perhaps you should be withdrawing from discussion of it. Nevard (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, local article consensus cannot override encyclopedia wide consensus. If there is no wikipedia policy prohibiting the inclusion of well sourced information, a handful of editors getting together on a talk page claiming it shouldn't be there doesn't cut it. You cannot consensus yourself out of policy without first changing the policy. As no one has provided any policy to back their argument, I agree that the information should be added to the article, it's well sourced, it's already available on the internet, it violates no laws where the servers are present, and the inclusion violates no policies.--Crossmr (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr, local consensus can't override policy. But this isn't about overriding policy. Local consensus should, and does, determine what content goes into an article. If there was a policy that said "you must include all sourced information" then you would be correct. But the policy only states "you can only include well sourced information"- whether or not that information is then included is a decision that emerges out of these discussions. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, policy also governs whether or not it should be included, WP:NPOV, for one. Otherwise we'd have small groups of editors white-washing their favourite subject by forming (or at least trying to form) a local consensus to keep some unflattering information about their subject out of the article. As it stands, if this well sourced information is not present in the article, I would dispute the neutrality of it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

True, NPOV has an impact there. But this isn't about overriding NPOV, but deciding whether or not some content should be included now, or if it should wait a short while before being added, in the interests of the treatment of a BLP. I've got no hassles if people decide to add it now, as I have a lot of respect for this process, but I don't think we're forced to if there are valid reasons for a short delay, and the delay might allow for a better, more neutral coverage when more information comes to light - it's a discussion I've seen many times on BLPs. I would be disappointed if we reached a point where there was no possibility of editorial discretion on WP. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

While I am in favor of inclusion, I see no harm in waiting a few days or more for the story to complete itself in the media. WP is not a newspaper so waiting a few days or a week before including is not a problem in my mind.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the information is known, has been verified, but for various reasons isn't widely known means that if Wikipedia were to publish the information, we'd become the primary means by which that information becomes known. (I checked Google News - only one link, the Canberra Times, still exists between the person and the event.) Once that ceases to be the case (and it will, I suspect, pretty soon), then Wikipedia can and should publish it in a manner which reflects its coverage in a wide array of sources, respecting BLP policy in the process. Orderinchaos 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, thanks, that explains the relative obscurity. I wonder if Finnigan's former status as a state-level rather than national MP could be made a little clearer in the article. Per Keithbob and NOTNEWS, waiting a while longer for media coverage of the arrest to solidify seems ok to me. However I think leaving out significant, reliable info about a subject on a lasting basis isn't good for WP's reputation as a builder of neutral articles. It's better to delete the article outright, than turn it into a whitewash. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It says he was elected to the SA Legislative Council (equivalent to the Senate of a US state) in its lead paragraph. Orderinchaos 00:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I somehow read the paragraph as indicating that he represented South Australia in the Australian legislature. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed your "(the legislative body for the state of South Australia)" contribution out of the lead which you placed after "South Australian Legislative Council"... articles are not the places to explain what words mean, that's why the SALC is hyperlinked, so those who want to know what legislature it is in can find out. The most recent example I can think of is on Gough Whitlam where someone decided it would be good to explain what confidence and supply meant - why? That's what the link is for! Common sense obviously prevailed for them. Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May I say i'm pleased that it's been thrashed out on the talk page without again delving in to edit wars, and i'm also pleased to see that the people who have the best grasp of policies, admins, have agreed that it shouldn't be here until it's published properly. Bravo to the admins for their detailed meticuluous explanations. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC

Wrong. The admin who locked the article due to YOUR constant rvs agreed that the "wrong version" was locked, ergo there is no legal or WP policy reason not to include it. ShipFan (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we really be mentioning he resigned from cabinet, then? Perhaps that should be removed. Why should we not put forward some fiction that Finnigan is a cabinet member when we have one that suggests he is a party member in good standing? Nevard (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Especially when he isn't a SA ALP MLC. Nevard (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the Herald Sun come from Fairfax Media?[4] 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Daily Telegraph (News Corp) [5] 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Both the above seem to be from News Corp. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS isn't the issue here. Read the whole of the talk page. Just because something can be included, doesn't mean it necessarily should be included. Timeshift (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

At a certain point the article has an NPOV problem if significant, reliably sourced info is missing from it. That moment may have already come, though it's not a terribly urgent matter as of yet. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And there is no legal or WP policy reason not to include it. A public figure who resigns after being charged with a criminal offence is a fact, not an editorial opinion. ShipFan (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

But yet multiple admins do not agree it it suitable for inclusion at this point of time. Incredible! Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Might I kindly suggest that you tone it down and attempt to at least parse what your saying could be construed as unhelpfully rude. It's easy to see from your edit history that you were watching this article to avoid inclusion for several days before the incident that propted you to report some "troublemakers". So I would suggest that you take this kind suggestion, lest you have someone else interpert your actions more seriously in the future. Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Also, I have been watching this article for years. As I do with thousands of other articles. My watchlist has an average of around 25-50 changes to watched articles a day. I fail to see your point. Timeshift (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Supression orders

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/05/06/3210226.htm everyone should take a moment to listen to this piece, Gnangarra 08:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite a good report that. Unfortunate that they don't take the time to mention that the primary purpose of these suppression laws has always been to protect victims- who are highly unlikely to suffer any further harm as a result of the widespread reporting of Mr Finnigan's alleged crimes. For how long are we going to continue to omit context from the description of Finnigan's resignation in this article? Nevard (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I came here after watching the same video. :) @Nevard, do you know that to be the case? I was under the impression this suppression order was granted to to protect the reputation of a person who is yet to face trial and is therefore entitled to the presumption of innocence. Not publishing here is a) respecting the legal process (whether that is enforceable is not the issue); and b) respecting the principle of do no harm. Moondyne (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

[6] etc. As far as respecting the legal concept of the presumption of innocence goes, I certainly haven't seen any attempts to add material into the article suggesting the Finnigan is guilty of whatever child pornography offences he may be charged with. Likewise, there's no suggestion that any offending may have involved victims close to him who could be hurt by the revelation of his name. So where's the harm in adding the widely published (old) news that his resignation from cabinet was not the result of a sudden mental breakdown, or a desire to go off and circumnavigate the globe, but that it was the result of criminal charges being laid against him? Nevard (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"Do no harm", and yet for the inclusion test it easily passes all three if you live outside of SA.

So while I found the video interesting, I find very little relevance. No one here has been conducting a witch hunt, or presuming more guilt than the fact that the man 'has' been charged and 'has' been named outside of the jurisdiction of the gag order. I personally am pretty darn far outside of the jurisdiction of the gag order, so about the extent of my thoughts on that is understanding the stated motive for their existence but feeling rather sorry for the people effected by it. Human.v2.0 (talk) 11:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The early talk page discussions were under a title that was definitive and This edit is very clear that in the eyes of on editor there was is no doubt, WP:BEANS about the witch hunt indicators. While the charges are real and a mention in the context of the person "being charged with criminal offenses and stepping down" is sufficiently appropriate the additional detail is clearly has WP:NPOV issues. Gnangarra 00:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

So you have no objection to adding a referenced sentence in the article that Finnigan has left the cabinet and been suspended from the Labor Party as the result of criminal charges? Nevard (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources in the article dont support that, the ABC, Adelaide Now both say he's resigned from Cabinet, I dont see a source that says he left the labor party. The current article content is sufficient, given our do no harm principle for BLP subjects, and WP:NOTNEWS. Additionally given the fact that many of the regular editors have been driven from the page by the language used and at the advice of the Foundation, asking for or suggesting changes while they cant participate in building of consensus is unreasonable, and somewhat provocative. Gnangarra 09:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but numerous sources that aren't in the article do refer to Finnigan's suspension. As it is I'm trying to avoid further provoking edit wars to keep such sources out of the article. Nevard (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If your not trying to provoke editors who cant respond why would you after being warned that changes are somewhat provocative make this edit? Gnangarra 07:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Where in that edit do I even add anything that would violate South Australian law? While I sympathize with those editors who feel they might face legal threats if they add easily available reliably sourced information to the article, I am uncomfortable with a view of 'disruption' that would require that the Tiananmen Square article not mention the massacre that occured there, because that would disrupt the ability of Chinese editors to edit the article. Nevard (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I read that twice and couldn't see it said that the suppression order was to protect a victim; at most it said it "... could prevent the victimisation of others ...". But anyway, that's moot to some degree. The idea of suppressing the name of the accused is guilt by association—if a person in public office is arrested on a certain charge and whose name is bandied around publicly, its probable that at least some people (including potential jurors I guess) will form an opinion of the person's guilt or innocence before a trial and before evidence is presented. Moondyne (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The same non-tampering issue comes around with jurors in the US; this does not hinder the publication of material. I think the greater point is that there has been no evidence that the suppression order has even effect on Wikipedia other than 1, it is slightly harder to find sources (sources are still available) and 2, editors from that region shouldn't be involved if they are concerned about legal ramifications on themselves (those editors being the only ones in jurisdiction). My point is that "Do no harm" is more or less satisfied in this situation as there are indeed sources and it is not like SA (the only region with this blacklisted) is ignorant to the facts; I mean, you all are certainly here.Human.v2.0 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see from the names involved, most in this discussion are actually Australians from outside SA - Moondyne, Gnangarra and myself are Western Australians for example. Orderinchaos 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So what is the difference between this case and Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Hypercritical much! There is NO reason not to publish the details of the BF! case KymFarnik (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the intricate details on that case, but I will make a mention of this... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but there's a limit to how much good policy linking does in a debate. Consensus without a valid rational isn't exactly the point of the thing, and so far the main argument for keeping material out seems to be "we have more votes than you, and that's all we need". Human.v2.0 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because you don't believe there have been rational valid points as to why it should be kept off, doesn't make it so. You've just chosen to ignore them. Big difference. Remember that it's not just users disagreeing with you, it's admins. You know, people who actually know wikipedia policies like the back of their hand? I'd suggest to move on because it will all be an irrelevant past debate soon enough. Timeshift (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The rational used have been "lack of concencus", "legal issues" and "do no harm", none of which have been elaborated on much more than exactly that (and the "legal issue" argument has been refuted several times). Part of the definition of "rational" is that the people making the claim can rationalize their statemtn. And I'd really like to know why you keep insisting that it will be "an irrelevant past debate". And no, I will not be "moving on" from civil debate on the talk page so it would be quite nice if you would stop trying to run off anyone who posts in disagreement. Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, just because you don't believe there have been rational valid points as to why it should be kept off, doesn't make it so. You just choose not to see them as rational valid points. It will be an irrelevant past debate soon enough when the case proceeds. And i'm not trying to run anyone off, i'm just making the point both sides have exhausted their reasons and rationales and it's just going around in circles now, and if you can't get users including admins who know policy like the back of their hand to agree with you after 100 times, what makes you think you'll be successful on the 101st time? By all means keep debating, just as far as i'm concerned it seems a pointless waste of time. Timeshift (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Article protected for 24 hours

As there's currently an edit war over the content which is being discussed above, I've protected the article from editing for 24 hours to encourage dispute resolution here. I note that I've commented on this dispute above, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved for this to not be problematical (and the version I've locked the article at is the wrong version on the basis of my comments). Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I've posted on WP:ANI asking an uninvolved admin (or admins) to review the discussion here. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's probably worth noting that this is the kind of Wikipedia talk page discussion that gets reported in the media. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

'bernardfinnigan.com'

If the addition of this website to the article becomes a bigger problem, it could be worth a xlinkbot addition. Nevard (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked but I'd suggest that semi protection for a while and just add it to M:spam list instead Gnangarra 13:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of fact that he has been suspended

Again, what on earth is the objection to adding the fact that Finnigan has been suspended to the article? I certainly don't see how this violates South Australia's censorship laws. This factual statement was in the article for more than a week, because there is no reasonable excuse for it not to be in there. Nevard (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If I weren't assuming good faith i'd think that adding a cite with the allegations is a sneaky back door attempt to have reference to the allegations in the article. I think you can see the issue here. No consensus. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If I weren't assuming good faith then I'd be noting your violation of the 3RR on WP:ANI, rather than suggesting you revert your own removal of content. A lack of consensus is not a good reason to remove reliable sources for factual information. Nevard (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't listed here because it's not verifiable. Finnigan is still listed as an ALP member on the parliamenary website, for obvious reasons. Rebecca (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you check the revision history for the article, which will show you where Timeshift removed a reliable source. Meanwhile, there is a confusing lack of his name on the ALP website. Surely they should know? Nevard (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly verifiable through multiple sources; these sources just seem to have the "unfortunate" trait of factually covering the matter. Though I think if I tally up the number of non-anons coming in to edit in sourced fact, consensus is just about swayed from that end. Human.v2.0 (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, cause anon IPs school themselves up on wikipedia policies before editting. Sheesh, how preposterous. Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You have removed all of your previous comments from this discussion, continue to make borderline personal-attack remarks, and all and all have contributed little aside from doing (I could insert "borderline" here for good faith, but you're going to have to assume I said it here) canvassing (for example, to avoid remarks of possible canvassing it would be best if you didn't go around to garner attention by labeling those who disagree with you as "troublemakers"). While you're perfectly free to keep your position until consensus is reached, it is increasingly difficult to assume good faith when you have already erased your comments with the claim of "others have already covered what I have said" and leave talk page remarks pushing for editors to remove themselves form the pointless, time wasting, and futile act of disagreeing with your personal opinion on this matter. "Though some food for thought" does not cover it as it would be just as inappropriate posting it on another editor's page and the statement itself comes off as rather antagonistic.

Short version: If you don't have further input here, then by all means feel free to retain your blanked comments and "it's all been covered" stance, because at the moment you are coming across as specifically antagonistic to any disagreement with you in this discussion.Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I blanked my earlier comments so I could remove areas of specific specificity that has the potential to create issues of a legal nature, something i'm perfectly entitled to do. What I don't get at this point, is the same arguments used to go around in circles with. By all means keep talking, I just don't see the purpose when nobody is raising any new points. Can I ask, if you haven't been able to convince people (the admins you'd particularly need to convince) with arguments thus far the first 100 times, what makes you think the arguments will produce a different opinion the 101st time? Just sayin :) Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to quit saying. I'm going to take good faith up until now, but as you will see if you look below, I have been searching for relevant information in the land of wiki-world; moving ahead. Further comments akin to "just stop trying" and I will be looking into outside mediation in regards to you specifically; it is anything but helpful to the discussion, and has been already pointed out to you (as well, as research shows, by a rather large multitude of other editors over time). Move on, retain your viewpoint, but please refrain from the "just give up already" comments. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

To me, the below seems like what's been repeatedly happening... that's my impression anyway - the same thing asked in a different way without any real substance. If not, as I said, feel free to keep contributing to discussion. I just want to know the answer to: if you haven't been able to convince people (the admins you'd particularly need to convince) with arguments thus far the first 100 times, what makes you think the arguments will produce a different opinion the 101st time? I'm just asking. Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Methods Involving Super-injunctions/Etc

I'll point people over here for a similar situation, involving a super-injunction in the UK, reputable sources (largely from outside of the UK), and a proper manner to handle this in the case of a Wikipedia article. What's said by the sources is stated, individual clams that is was such-and-such individual are handled as "the Newspaper of the Day reported that Joe Black" etc etc. I don't see how this case here cannot be handled similarly. Human.v2.0 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how comparable the British situation is to this situation; the laws are obviously differ between the jurisdictions as do the reasons for not publishing details (hurtful/defamatory gossip vs allegations that could deny someone a fair trial - and the alleged victims of this crime the right to justice - if published in South Australia). It should be noted that the suppression of the details of the case in question applies to all people charged with the set of offenses (no matter how notable or non-notable they are) and forms part of the legal process for handling these kind of trials in South Australia, where in Britain the super-injunctions are taken out by individuals depending on their circumstances mainly in order to prevent publication of stories about them, so it's quite a different kettle of fish. It's also worth stressing that any penalties for publishing the details are also likely to differ - Australian editors who add the details to this article could potentially end up in serious trouble. Nick-D (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as the legal ramifications go, a super-injunction is more or less a super-injunction. You make differentiation between "applying to anyone" to "applying to all", and I would argue that in the British case there is a greater chance of prosecution simply because this really does include people rich enough to "buy laws". At this point I'm really debating bringing this before the powers-that-be for legal authority in Wiki World, so as to get a solid answer in the case (and also to get opinions from editors/admins that are outside of Australia, to avoid possible bias).

As has been stated several times already, the issue of Australian editors getting into trouble is the issue of the Australian editors alone; if they fear possible prosecution then they should stay as far away from this article as they should lolicon, because that also contains information (in this case images) deemed illegal in their area. I haven't found any statements that this makes the content illegal for the rest of the editing/viewing population; I'd welcome a link. To put it more directly: show me where these local laws have sway over Wikipedia here. If that was the case, then there are quite literally thousands of laws from a multitude of country that would deem a sizable chunk of content here (Wikipedia) to be illiegal/unwholesome.

Barring that, we have a similar situation; legal injunction in a local region against the dissemination of factual evidence and an example of how it can be properly sourced into existence here with a minimum of fuss. Perhaps have it link to a separate article, such as how my example is a separate page from this one (though I don't think that is necessary, as there is not enough call in this case to fill out a full-fledged stub article). Human.v2.0 (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not a lawyer. The Australian national media is complying with state-based injunctions so it seems best to err on the side of caution. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, you're not a lawyer, and certainly not a lawyer for the Wikipedia foundation. Therefor is a little out of place for you to be delivering judgement as if you were either. Honestly, I don't see fault in an Australian wishing to go along with that, but right now I'm rather wishing there was a "WP:IAmNotAustralian" to use. I think it would be best to get outside commentary from people who are at least slightly more removed from prosecution by legal authority, though if I'm going to draft up a request for comment it won't be for several hours before I re-research the various references and information on the situation-at-hand. Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal issues are only one for a number of reasons why adding the material would be a problem. I dislike bringing this back to the risk of being sued, as I don't like saying "they probably won't sue use, so it is ok to do something illegal." That shouldn't be the line we take, and for editors in South Australia that would be wrong, as one person has already been charged in the state for revealing the person's identity offline. But I'm less concerned with the legal issues than I am with ethical ones - the supression orders in Australia, in these sorts of cases, aren't to protect protect privacy, as per the super injunctions, but to ensure a fair trial, make sure that the trial can go ahead, protect the reputation of the accused, and to protect victims.

If this was a situation where the subject was of national or international importance, then I can see that these concerns may be overridden by the broader interest. But in this case we have someone who is only of major interest to South Australian readers, with limited interest outside of that. If we choose to respect the local laws, we don't harm wikipedia, we can add the information as soon as the order is lifted, and we don't risk the potential harm to the subject or the court case. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re. national papers bending to South Australian law: this is not actually the case [7][8][9][10]. Media commentators in national papers have made comments about this state of 'unreality'- "The usual primary reason to ban the media, and anyone else, identifying perpetrators of sexual offences is because perpetrators are often related to their victims, so identifying the offender can easily lead people to work out who the victim is. Justice, rightly, wants to protect victims... In this case, the law is more than an ass; it is interfering with a state's political functioning, preventing voters from knowing what is alleged by police against a cabinet minister." Nevard (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, newspapers in Australia aren't publishing the material in South Australia, and this extends to not making the material available online. However, other parties, like the archives you are linking to above, directly duplicate the print editions in he home state, and therefore include material not available hrough the original publisher. My understanding is that there is some concern about this practice. So yes, newspapers and other mass media are bending over backwards - it is other parties, like the ones you linked to, that don't. - Bilby (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I realize that. So we have a multitude of easily verifiable reliable sources. The reason being put forward not to include information based on them is concerns about a law which doesn't apply to the Wikimedia foundation, just as it doesn't apply to those sources, and which was passed to protect victims of heinous crimes in cases where they would be identified by the publication of the name of their abuser. That doesn't really seem to matter as much as "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles" to me.Nevard (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused - if you realised that, why did you say newspapers weren't bending to SA law? At any rate, a) the law may not apply to the Foundation, although this isn't clear, but it does apply to anyone in Australia adding the material; and b) protecting the victim isn't the only reason for the law, as has been outlined. - Bilby (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still published.. so they're not being censored by the SA government. South Australian law doesn't apply to Wikipedia any more than German law does. Certainly.. a very small part of the intent of the law is to protect innocent persons accused of crimes. If Finnigan clicked on links he was sent pointing to the Wikipedia lolicon article and has been charged for that then yeah, he's kinda screwed. Because the cat's already out of the bag no matter what reliably sourced verifiable information Wikipedia publishes. Nevard (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a very small part of the law, nor is the need to ensure a fair trail. However, it seems we're back to arguing in circles, so I'm stepping back. I do need to emphasise, though, that while Wikipedia might not be open to litigation, the status of individual editors may be very different - I would be concerned if we gave the impression that individual editors are protected due to the location of the server, when this is not the case, although I would still rather see ethical considerations being the main focus. Bilby (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup.. I absolutely agree South Australian editors should not edit the article where they may be put in a position of legal risk. Using the secure server is one sensible precaution. Nevard (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't recommend that editors act illegally to add material. The secure server is not a sensible precaution, and it provides no real protection, legal or otherwise. It is not wise to suggest otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 05:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've agreed that it would be most sensible not to edit the article. OTOH, there is no way to intercept secure HTTP connections that wouldn't cause big flashing popups telling you there's a security threat to appear. Nevard (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not the problem. It isn't intercepting transmissions that is the risk, but tracking downthe contributor after the event. - Bilby (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith here

Some people seem to be either be under the impression that "A SOUTH Australian Labor MP charged with child pornography offences has been suspended from the ALP. The party state executive unanimously endorsed the move against former industrial relations minister Bernard Finnigan yesterday after a request from Premier Mike Rann." does not support the statement that Mr. Finnigan has been suspended from the Labor Party, or this content is being blocked by some censorship filter. A archive of the real article is here. Nevard (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Some people are censoring this information, calling it vandalism. Reliable sources have been cited. This has been widely published outside South Australia. 121.45.194.162 (talk) 04:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The link originally you provided was not in service. Calabe1992 (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. BOTH links are working. One to the Townsville Buletin, one to the Canberra Times. I can add five more reliable media sources if you require. 121.45.194.162 (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't read the rest of the talk page, these links are perfectly functional. If you are unable to access them, that is a problem with some form of censorship that is preventing you from accessing them. You should be able to access both links 121.x has added at [11] and [12] respectively. Nevard (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The link http://aap.newscentre.com.au/acci/110503/library/workplace_relations/25593488.html at one point returned a "page cannot be found" but appears to be working as of now Calabe1992 (talk) 05:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is basically how the text that is being removed from the article should look, with archive links added in:

He was suspended from the Australian Labor Party on the 3rd of May 2011 after being charged with child pornography offences.<ref>"MP suspended". Townsville Bulletin. 3 May 2011. Archived from the original on 11 May 2011.</ref><ref>"Rann to speak about scandal". Canberra Times. 27 April 2011. Archived from the original on 22 May 2011.</ref>

A simple thought experiment and some sanity is all that is required here

I've compared this to Domonique Strauss-Kahn elswhere as have others, but let's examine this dispationaltely and apply a simple thought experiment. The publication of Bernard Finnigan's name is not limited by a supression order, a supression order is issued by a judge on the application of one or more of the parties to a case (be it criminal or civil)and can be absolute or more nuanced in it's application. That is not what is in effect here, instead this is a blanket ban on the publication of his name in South Australia, bought about by a section of the South Australian Evidence Act. This section prevents the publication, within South Australia, of the name or names of anyone charged with any crime of a sexual nature. If Dominique Struass-Kahn had committed his alleged offence in the Adelaide Hilton Hotel instead of one in New York his name could not be published in South Australia under the very same provisions of the very same act in exactly the same manner. Is there anyone who will believes for one nanosecond that it still would not have made the front page of every major daily in the rest of the Western world within 24 hours, and been referenced in Wikipedia almost as quickly? Similarly if the NYPD had busted Bernard Finnigan in a New York hotel for allegedly possesion of child pornography would we be having this argumet? I don't think we would, no actually I am certain we wouldn't. These well sourced factual details should be included forthwith. Jaxsonjo (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your little thought experiment falls down when you start to compare the newsworthiness and notability of the head of the IMF and a likely candidate for President of France with a South Australian upper house member barely known in his home town. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not invalidate it in the slightest. Certainly Strauss-Kahn deservedly made page 1 all around the world, and not just for his alleged rape and Finnigan was lucky if he ever made page 1 in Adelaide before this (and ironically he still actually hasn't all that often), but that is not the issue here. It is the principle that is important. He was a Minister of the Crown and an elected representative at the time of the alleged offence and as such Finnigan is a public figure, he meets the notability requirements. That is all that is required. Yes he is minor compared to Straus-Kahn but he had a bio page long before these events, we've already decided that he is noteworthy enough to have a biography on WP. He's noteworthy (no matter how noteworthy he is or isn't in comparison to others) and it is now well documented that he has been charged with serious offences. As such these details should be included in his bio.Jaxsonjo (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I continue to lean towards Mattinbgn on this. We need to weigh up various issues, such as the possible effects of ignoring the legislation when compared to the wider public interest. For me, the result for Strauss-Kahn, who is of international importance, facing a court system which is quite different from the one found in Australia, is quite different from those for a politician almost unknown in his home state, where there is little interest in the story outside of the area the legislation covers. At any rate, this all changes as soon as a plea is entered, so this is about a delay, rather than a question of permanently excluding information. - Bilby (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Like Mattinbgn you are confusing the prominence of the two individuals with the principle involved. If, as I suggest, the two offences took place in the opposite jurisdictions (Strauss-Kahn in Adelaide and Finnigan in New York) then the reportage in various locations would remain the same. Strauss-Kahn would still have made page 1 around the world, but in the Adelaide Advertiser while he'd still have been on page 1, he'd have been referred too as "prominent international financier" or "global banker" and named everywhere else. Finnigan being busted in New York would still have made page 1 in Adelaide and page 1 or page 3 around the rest of the country and in New Zealand (and nowhere else), except this time he would have been named everywhere, including Adelaide and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Finnigan is already notable under our guidelines, he's crossed that hurdle, he has a bio so we should detail these events. If we start acceding to ideas of what governments and laws don't want published and limiting articles accordingly we would head down a very slippery slope, and traduce all the things that make WP what it is. Jaxsonjo (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're just going to have to disagree with this. :) I see enough difference between the two cases not to assume that one should define what we do in the other. I certainly respect that you see things differently, but I'm not sure there's a lot of middle ground to be explored. - Bilby (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a rather important point.. If we required the same very high levels of international media attention for including material in Finnigan's article as we do for Stauss-Kahn, this would be a pretty poor (nonexistant) article. Meanwhile, this incident has attracted Finnigan more attention than ever before. As far as legal issues go, Wikipedia has a proud history of not being censored, regardless of speech-restrictive laws around the world. I can absolutely see a moral concern that the authorities not unduly delay a trial because a South Australian editor is traced back to adding the information into the article, but that's easily solved- don't get caught. Nevard (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, it isn't in our interest to recommend that people act illegally, whether or not they are careful. - Bilby (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby on the issue of not recommending people act illegally, but once again that is not the principle at stake here. Nor is the issue the differences between the cases. The issue is we are not expanding an article on someone who has reached the level of warranting a bio, when there are verifiable facts about that person that are significant. One could quite successfully argue that Finnigan was lucky to reach the level in the South Australian Government that he did, and that he only did so due to the inner machinations of a political party that is well known for such things and also whilst they are a government in probable terminal decline and quite possibly unlikely to survive the next election. However lucky he was, he reached the position of being a Minister and he warranted a bio as a consequence. There are now significant developments in his personal story and if they had occurred anywhere other than South Australia they would already be there. Let us suppose not New York, but he was arrested over the state border in Victoria, of course once again the details of his arrest and charges would now be on his page. Also it's not only him entering a plea that lifts the ban on publication in SA, if Finnigan himself mentions in public he has been charged the ban is lifted. If he did so and made a public statement like "I have been charged with a serious offence and I have stood aside from my position (or resigned) while I fight to prove my innocence", then the media in South Australia would then be free to report the matter in full, including his name. The fact that the law operates in this manner seems to me to demolish any argument about affecting a free trial or protecting victims. The sole issue here is why WP and so many of it's editors seem paralysed with indecision about the application of an outdated law in a minor province to our editing practices. Such self-imposed censorship flies in the face of all of WP's principles. Jaxsonjo (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

'Consensus'

I'm seeing a lot of claims about consensus here. A consensus that reporting on what reliable sources have to say about Finnigan isn't nice is no consensus. The consensus that matters is the consensus expressed in Wikipedia policy. That policy says that all majority and significant minority views that appear in [reliable, published sources] should be covered by [Wikipedia] articles. It does not say that we should exclude information from reliable, published sources because the government of Zimbabwe, or Germany, or China, or South Australia has tried to censor that information. The only valid argument I've seen against including this information was that the information should be excluded, because certain editors (presumably in South Australia) were not able to see it in sources, because it had been censored. That censorship appears to have been circumvented by archive links. If there is any good reason to exclude the fact that Finnigan has been charged with child pornography offences, has been suspended from the ALP, then I would absolutely love to be made aware of it. Especially if it outweighed the overwhelming weight of policy that dictates we should include it. Nevard (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your views on it's inclusion, but in a collaborative, consensus based project, you cannot unilaterally add this content where there is obviously not a consensus to do so. Pursue dispute resolution if you'd like to solicit more outside input and get a broader discussion going.  -- Lear's Fool 04:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There plainly isn't a consensus here to include the material - views seem to be roughly evenly split. As such, I've removed the material. I agree that it might be best to take this to alternative forums for dispute resolution as the discussion here has been going around in circles, though I'd be surprised if that results in a consensus either way. Nick-D (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It has already been taken to the relevant Wikiproject page and to the BLP noticeboard. Perhaps an RfC is the next step?  -- Lear's Fool 04:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A consensus of what, Bilby+an editor who hasn't edited in a week after his userpage was deleted over partisan content+some people who weren't able to access references because of censorship. There is an absurd situation over this article where people have been discouraged from even trying to argue that Wikipedia policy & guidelines should be followed because they will simply have every real concern addressed with 'yes, but there is no consensus'. I.P. editors have been blocked from contributing real content to Wikipedia without any attempt being made to engage with them- or even to read the references they added to the article. There is just no real consensus to violate policy on this article. Nevard (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Bilby, do you have any concerns about including BLP compliant reliably sourced information in the article apart from that it could influence a trial? If people too thick to connect Finnigan's 'unexplained' resignation and an 'anonymous' Labor MLP being charged exist, is Wikipedia really obliged to protect them by forcing them to find out about it from another source? Nevard (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

John, I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here is - this has been extensively discussed already, and singling out individual editors with whom you don't agree and asking them to prove a negative doesn't seem very productive. I agree with Lear's Fool that an RfC would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Go for gold. I would obviously rather not single out editors, but it's difficult not to do so when trying to address the concerns of a consensus of one. Nevard (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mention of arrest and suspension

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article mention the subject's arrest and suspension from his party? Nevard (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• No. 1. South Australian law prohibits the publication of the material. 2. The law is not territorially limited (check it!), meaning that it can be broken by people operating outside state or even national borders. The mere accessibility of the material by South Australian readers is sufficient a connexion with the State to make it an offence for anyone anywhere to publish it. 3. We should not expose editors or the project to contraventions of the law. 4. The law is passed by a democratic body and is designed to protect important public purposes: whether we agree with the law or not we should respect it. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment we should absolutely not respect any attempt to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction over speech on the Internet. Such attempts are worthy of no respect, regardless of the democraticness of the body that passed them. (That's a comment on the general principle, not the immediate case — really it's fine with me if WP omits this information. Really. But we can't give in to extraterritoriality in this matter. SA has no jurisdiction; we can't give it to them.) --Trovatore (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Mkativerata – can you explain why you feel like we (anyone who lives outside Aus) should care if S. Aus. thinks its law has global jurisdiction? Why should I worry about committing "offences" in the eyes of SA? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • On purely selfish bases you have no reason to care unless you ever plan to set foot in Australia. But instead we've just arrogantly circumvented (in fact, just plain broken) the law. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I get it that if I go to Australia I might have a problem. But other than that you are just repeating yourself, not answering my question. It seems like there could be many ridiculous laws in various countries that might try to affect Wikipedia, and I don't understand why we should try to follow them, in general, if they have no jurisdiction. How am I being arrogant? It's bad enough that we have to follow the ridiculous US copyright laws; let's not make this any lamer than it has to be. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        • They do have jurisdiction. Anyone who publishes into South Australia is covered by the law. That's jurisdiction. I'm sorry you feel that following the law is lame. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
          • No, having jurisdiction means they can also enforce the law, which is obviously untrue for large parts of the world. Yoenit (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
            • How novel: summarising, incorrectly, a legal concept in one sentence and using a wikipedia article as your source. (Of course, I fully agree that SA will lack the capacity, in practice to enforce the law against wikipedia and most of its editors. But that's not a reason to (a) deny it the jurisdiction to do so; or (b) wantonly ignore it. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
              • I just realize I will never convince you you are wrong and that it would make absolutely no difference either way, so this is pointless. Have a nice day. Yoenit (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
          • They may claim jurisdiction, or think they have it, but I think jurisdiction implies some kind of practical coverage. It may be their jurisdiction to prevent people in SA from accessing this material? But In any case, my question remains. Why should we care? Why does running an HTTP server mean we need to care about the thousands of legislative bodies around the world and what kids of restrictions they want to put on speech? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• No Pretty much per Mkativerata. Sentiments of 'we must publish the truth', 'we should resist outdated censorship' and the like, while well meaning, don't trump actual laws. Whether we agree with the law or not (and I don't) it's on the books, is being enforced and needs to be complied with. There's also the issue that this state government has judged that the names of all people charged with this type of offense should not be published as it would interfere with a fair trial going ahead - this may or may not be correct, but we're not really in any position to judge. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It is not on the books of Florida or the United States, and is not being enforced in those jurisdictions, and does not need to be complied with in those jurisdictions. I am not a lawyer and am not commenting on the worldwide status of extraterritoriality in international law. But it goes beyond whether the law is a good idea. It's whether extraterritoriality is a good idea. And it isn't, and we have to resist it. That doesn't need to "trump the actual law", because it isn't the law here. --Trovatore (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "I am not a lawyer" and "it isn't the law here". Just about sums up the intellectual clarity of your argument. Perhaps I should not be so surprised that so many here don't grasp the distinction between a law of a place and a law that affects people in a place. For those who are interested, this article explains how extra-territoriality works in respect of the States of Australia. Now of course if the project wants to take the reckless position that it is happy to wear the consequences of breaking South Australian law, that's all well and good. As long as we're under no misapprehension that the law applies no matter where the project's servers or the editors who insert the content are. Of course, I'll conceded the recklessness may matter little: it's highly unlikely South Australia could take any enforcement action against the project or editors outside Australia. But there's too much idiotic bush lawyering going on here from those who clearly can't understand that legislative capacity is not geographically limited. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes If his arrest had taken place in any other jurisdiction the details would now be on his page and freely publishable even in South Australia. The bar on publishing his name only exists until he enters a plea or he mentions it himself in a public forum so any notions of it preventing a fair trial are fallacious as either is quite likely to occur well before the commencement of a trial. The information is quite easily obtainable from other sources and is already widely published on the net, and is easily derived from information on Wikipedia itself; the page on the South Australian Parliament mentions the ALP has 8 members in the upper house, the SA ALP page shows only seven, it's pretty easy to work back by process of elimination and come up with the name.Jaxsonjo (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That the information is obtainable on other (non-news and privately run) websites is largely irrelevant for our purposes: they have their own inclusion policies (or lack thereof) and own attitudes towards running legal risks. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes I wouldn't worry about protecting Wikipedia from legal liability, as it more than fully protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution. Laws from some second world backwater state such as South Australia hold no weight if they run contrary to US law. The information satisfies WP:V and attempts to remove it amount to nothing more than censorship. 98.248.210.39 (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment All arguments to Australian law are irrelevant. Wikipedia is not censored. This is a policy, it is not negotiable. This is the case whether or not the government opposed to free speech holds votes. To facilitate the circumvention of censorship, there exists a Wikipedia space article providing advice to users on how to bypass such censorship. Nevard (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have asked several times, and I guess I need to ask again - please don't recommend that editors break the law, or provide inaccurate information about how they can do so safely. If individual editors choose to break the law that is their choice, but it is not something we should be seen to recommend. In regard to WP:NOTCENSORED, that policy does not apply to this discussion, as it relates to removing content because it is offensive or objectionable. This is not the concern being raised here. - Bilby (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes.. it refers to removing content that is offensive or objectionable. This is not even content that is offensive or ebjectionable by any reasonable standard, and it must be included as a significant [view] published by reliable sources. Nevard (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, provided the statements are backed up by reliable sources Wikipedia does not comply with UK Super-injunctions (see the |signpost) and neither do we comply with some south-Australian law. I would advise Australian editors to stay away from this topic though. Yoenit (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, like Yoenit said above. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." SA law haas no bearing on this, apart from the fact that it makes it impossible for many interested RS to mention this directly. But it is an important aspect of his public life (forced resignation from his notable job), so it should be included in a fair, neutral version. Fram (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, per all of the policies described above. Funny enough, I can still use this link properly in this discussion. As an example of how far the community is willing to go, per WP:NOTCENSORED, I advise you read the Use of classified documents RfC, where the community, in large numbers, decided that it was alright to use documents that circumvented the classified rules of the US government per freedom of the press. The same holds true here, except stronger because this is a minimal ban only covering South Australia and does not hold water elsewhere. As stated elsewhere on this page, if Australia is going to sue us, first they'll have to sue all of the Australian newspapers outside of South Australia that are publishing this information. Obviously, they haven't done so, because the purpose of the ban was never to stop press of the event outside of the region, but merely within the region. Silverseren^C 09:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• We can't comply with the information-suppressing laws of every jurisdiction in the world. Every editor must be responsible for obeying the laws which apply to him (so it would be good to put a warning on the page if we know there's a specific danger that people adding certain information might be breaking the law of someplace), but Wikipedia as a whole just needs to obey the laws that apply to the Foundation. (And ethical principles, of course - that's another matter, but doesn't seem to change anything in this case.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Is the information backed up by reliable secondary sources? Yes. Is the information notable? Apparently so. Is the information illegal to host on servers in the state of Florida? No. I know of no reason therefore to exclude the information from the article. NPOV requires us to be neutral, not positive. The WP:BLP only imposes stricter adherence to WP:V - which is not an issue here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• I guess I should restate my view here as well. :) I disagree that this is necessarily a legal issue. I don't know whether or not the WMF would be asked to remove any content added, but I assume they would fight such a request. But that's not my concern. My concern has always been an ethical issue, not a legal one. The problem from my perspective is that this is a local figure, only of significant interest to local readers. By including any allegations now, the effect is not that we will be informing a predominately international audience with a global interest in the subject, but that we would be almost exclusively informing the specific people the law is supposed to apply to. Thus I need to ask if the law itself is of value - while that is harder to judge, the purpose of the law, which I understand to be to protect the accused, victims and ensure a fair trial, all seem to be good reasons for not including any alleged charges now. I need to emphasise that a) I would not wish to see content kept out forever, just delayed until the accused enters a plea; and b) if there was broader interest in the subject I might have taken a different stance, and have in the past. - Bilby (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As I've said before, my understanding, and that of some with a professional interest in the subject, is that the primary purpose of these laws, enacted in a time when prosecutions for child pornography possession may well have been rarer, has always been to protect the victims in molestation cases. Here, we don't need to worry that disclosing a name will lead to prurient interest in an alleged offender's children, Scout group, etc- the alleged victims could be anyone, anywhere in the world. Complying with Wikipedia policy does not require any true violation of the spirit of the law. Nevard (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • To me, the principle we can't give in on here is that South Australian law is not binding on us. Neither the letter nor the spirit. South Australian law does not apply in Florida. If South Australia writes a law that says that South Australian law applies in Florida, guess what, that law does not apply in Florida.
    • On the ethical side, I think that if there's a danger of denying the accused a fair trial, then that's something we can reasonably consider, especially given that Wikipedia is not a news source. There is little harm to our encyclopedic mission in waiting until matters settle down. So I don't mind if the information is left out. Maybe I even prefer it. But not because of the law in South Australia!!! We can't give in on that, or before long we're censoring ourselves to comply with equally non-binding-on-us Saudi or Chinese or German law. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sure the laws in some places would be that we shouldn't exist at all. Silverseren^C 20:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Just to be clear once more, I'm not arguing that we keep the content out for a time because of the existence of the SA law. That's a different issue. I'm only arguing that the reasons for the SA law's existence are such that considering those reasons, given the audience of this article, is something worth doing. - Bilby (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
          • That's a serious argument. I wouldn't oppose a decision to hold back the material for that reason, at least in Wikipedia, where timeliness (on the scale of weeks or even months) is not a core part of our mission. (It would be more problematic on Wikinews). --Trovatore (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
            • It could be much longer than a scale of weeks or months. A South Australian sex offender's name was suppressed by the court for almost two years even though he pleaded guilty. ShipFan (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Meanwhile, the South Australian government has initiated a review of the law because the way it is operating in this case is considered unreasonable. Nevard (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes As long as properly sourced. Monty₈₄₅ 19:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes-Again, providing that the comment is properly sourced as per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. The idea that editors worldwide are somehow subject to Australian law is absurd and, in all honesty, a bit Orwellian.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Yes for all the reasons noted above. The matter is central to this fellow's political career and entirely relevant to the article, reliable sources exists etc. The legislative arrangements at work in SA should not be seen as binding on Wikipedia. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes (although it has already been added). Just adding my voice. ShipFan (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• NO we must respect the law and the right to privacy. Crows Forever (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • We (Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and all non-Australian Wikipedia editors) have no obligation at all to respect Australian laws. And repeating the reason (as stated in reliable sources) why a clearly public figure must take a clearly public action is not a violation of the "right to privacy". Fram (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes – Wikipedia respects the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Note that the article doesn't say, "Mr. Whoever most definitely has CP on his computer." It simply says that Mr. Whoever was charged with the crime. That is enough protection for this individual in my opinion. Suppression of an event documented in reliable news sources will not benefit Wikipedia and the majority of its readers. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
• Yes of course; the reasons for his resignation from the cabinet obviously belong in the article. It is difficult for me to comprehend why the SA law should be an issue here at all, except that editors should be aware of it and how the law might impact them. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editnotice

A few people above mentioned it might be worth warning Australian editors (and South Australians in particular) about possible legal risks in editing this article. I think that's a good idea, out of an abundance of caution rather than any kowtowing to SA laws. The best way is probably to create an editnotice for this page at Template:Editnotices/Page/Bernard Finnigan, which only admins can do. I'd suggest the following content for that editnotice:

{{editnotice
| id = bernardfinnigan
| header = Attention editors
| headerstyle = font-size: 150%;
| text = Some of the content of this article regards allegations that may fall under the effects of section 71A of the [[South Australia]]n ''[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/ea192980/s71a.html Evidence Act 1929]''. While Wikipedia chooses to publish these details, '''if you feel you may be subject to South Australian law you should consider your legal position before editing this article.''' See [[Talk:Bernard Finnigan|the talk page]] for further details.
| textstyle = font-size: 120%; background-color: #fee;
| image =
}}

which expands into:

I am a bit hesitant about verging on giving legal advice, but I think this is a fair thing to do just in case -- it's better than the alternative if we do nothing. I know there's a few sysops watching this page so I'll leave it to their discretion whether to create the notice now or wait for more people to weigh in. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Trovatore (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, is appropriate, given the circumstances. I believe the provisions of section 71A cease to be an issue once the matter comes to trial. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I certainly won't be adding it. We don't give legal advice, and this certainly gives that appearance. As far as I'm concerned, all we'd need is an edit notice directing editors new to the article to the talkpage so that they can get some idea of the issues involved.  -- Lear's Fool 09:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a difficult line to tread between giving legal advice and pointing out that legal concerns exist. I tried to walk it, but it's not easy... perhaps something simpler like "There are potential legal concerns involved in editing this article, particularly for Australian editors. See the talk page for discussion."? bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I've edited it slightly to be a little less legal advicey. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. I don't think this is legal advice at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I like it as well and although it borders on giving legal advice, I don't think it actually does. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this sort of notice/ warning is needed in order to protect our Australian editors. If I remember correctly, there was a situation where Wikipedia or someone was forced to disclose the IP address of an editor. Australian editors should be aware of the risks they may be putting themselves through if they click the "Save page" button without using a proxy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't the article be semi-protected in order to prevent the IP addresses of unregistered Australian users from appearing in the page history? Given the legal concerns, we have a duty to protect the security and privacy of those users. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reason to semi-protect an article as it needlessly restricts non-Australian anonymous users and does nothing to protect registered Australian users (some of whom have usernames clearly indicating they are Australian). Wikipedia cannot protect editors from themselves. Everybody is, at all times, responsible for their own actions on Wikipedia. I don't object to the edit notice, but such warning has not been deemed necessary (to my knowledge) for English and Welsh contributors regarding the recent super injunctions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#LEGIT: "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area." Australian users would be justified in creating alternative accounts in order to safeguard their privacy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, although I'm not sure how effective it would be in practical terms in this instance. It's not a reason to semi-protect the article though. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added it; please feel free to remove it, ask me to remove it, ask some other admin to remove it, etc. thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The editnotice is no longer required as the statutory suppression has expired.[13][14] ShipFan (Talk) 06:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment coming from the Parliament of South Australia article... thank goodness this saga will hopefully come to an end next month when he goes to trial for what ended up being two single charges of accessing and attempting to access. I'm surprised he's lingered as an independent in the upper house for so long - four years. Timeshift (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Liberal smear

Article containing this video. Right-wing News Ltd run a countless number of stories over four simple four words with ambiguous meaning: "Can you trust Habib". Yet somehow morphing an image of a convicted child porn viewer Finnigan, to his replacement Malinauskas, and back again, several times, and Andrew Southcott being asked to but refusing to re-tweet it, probably isn't as bad in the conscience of News Ltd. The first and only? Timeshift (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of child pornography according to wikipedia

I'm certainly no expert when it comes to this but the lead sentence of the child pornography article states "Child pornography is pornography that exploits children for sexual stimulation". Finnigan was found not guilty on one count of attempting to access it, but found guilty on one count of accessing it. Without knowing the specific detail, I felt that the lead sentence could be more accurate, so i've changed it to "Child pornography is often defined as pornography that is created with the intention of sexually exploiting children for sexual stimulation." I certainly find underage and/or non-consensual pornography abhorrent and have no desire to turn this in to a war. But if there's any comments, suggestions, improvements, or flat-out rejection of the change, then please feel free to comment/change as appropriate. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitions change according to the jurisdiction, so if you feel it's important (I don't really care either way), probably best to quote from the actual provisions of the SA Act he was convicted under. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Two refs need a quick fix please - unsure how to do it myself

Can someone with a better knowledge of how refs work please fix refs 16 and 20? They've got "chapter-url= missing title" in red. I've tried fixing it myself using the help link but I failed to understand what it needs. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Timeshift9: for the template to work, it needs both a url and title entered. Hack (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) Timeshift (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)