Talk:Bruce Lehrmann

Quoting Justice Lee in the lead paragraph
I assert that the sentence I deleted here, which was restored by, is redundant and should be removed. Specifically: Other editors' comments are invited. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * is unnecessary - we've already stated that Lehrmann raped a colleague, so we don't need to quote Justice Lee. If Higgins' name is necessary in the lead paragraph (and I don't think it is) then add it naturally to the lead sentence: . If Lee's name is relevant (and I don't think it is) it should be in the body text, not the lead paragraph.
 * Lee's comment that is completely irrelevant anywhere in the article, contrary to the spirit of MOS:IDIOM and Quotations "Quotations that present rhetorical language ... be very careful".
 * — I've rewritten a paragraph in the body text and included Lee's name. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree, doesn't seem to be any need to put either of these statements in the lead, or include the second quote at all. The "cause célèbre" quote probably deserves to moved to Legal issues as well. However, including Higgins in the lead sentence to qualify who the colleague is makes sense to me. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that Lehrmann's legal issues have become an Australian cause celebre is a -key- aspect of the subject that ought to be communicated to the reader. Whilst a public document, Lee's judgement is a secondary source for the proposition that Lehrmann's case is a cause celebre. For that reason, I think its usage and inclusion is warranted. Jack4576 (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah yes I agree it would be good to move them and the "cause célèbre" section to the legal section. My reasoning for adding the quotes was due to the "cause célèbre" section feeling like PR Control for Bruce Lehrmann by a supporter oh his. Trauts123 (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that noting the case became an Australian 'cause célèbre' is something that puts Lehrmann in a good light. Jack4576 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please consider this talk page section when merging Draft:Bruce Lehrmann. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEADBIO I was planning on moving that second paragraph in the current lede down to the body. I think can talk about everything else after that. It's enough work performing a merge as is without getting into a tonne of editing. TarnishedPathtalk 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The main problem with the Justice Lee quote (which I've placed in the Bruce_Lehrmann section), is that at present it violates WP:BLPPRIMARY because the source used is court transcripts. If we're going to keep, and I think we ought to because it's a pearler of a quote (people are already making tee-shirts out of it, see here for an example) then we'll need a secondary source. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The sentence has moved out of the lead now, but I still don't think we need to say in the article: It's unnecessary. We've already said in Wikipedia's voice as part of an earlier sentence (with bold here for my emphasis): so all we need to do is include the quote in the citation (in bold above) if it is that important. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Likewise the "lion's den" quote has moved but I still think it is irrelevant. If it is to be kept because it's on a T-shirt, then: Mitch Ames (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable secondary source saying that it has become a "meme" (for want of a better word)
 * It should be quoted closer to "omnishambles", per the tee-shirt (subject to RS)

I originally raised this issue under the previous Draft talk (now gone). I have a big issue with simply saying "rape" in the article without a clear and explicit reference to the "balance of probabilities" in the opening paragraphs. In particular, I don't agree with using "found at fact" because that refers to two standards of evidence ("beyond reasonable doubt" and "balance of probabilities") then forces the reader to look into "civil trials" to see the standard of evidence (the balance of probabilities is buried in the article later on). As of right now, the article appears to be written (particularly in the first 3 paragraphs) to deliberately obscure that it was based on the balance of probabilities and not "beyond reasonable doubt".Mag1cal (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary sources

 * Australian news publications are secondary sources
 * Judicial judgements are also secondary sources for some propositions, and primary for others. The judgement is a primary source for the finding that Lehmann is a rapist. However, in my editorial view this is an instance of WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It is okay to rely on the judgement for the proposition that he was found to have raped Higgins. Jack4576 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576, the pertinent policy here is WP:BLPPRIMARY which states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". The emphasis on not is not mine, that is deliberately in the policy. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 02:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IAR, a judgement is fair use for the proposition that a finding has been made about someone IMO. Judgements are neither trial transcripts or mere ordinary 'court records'. I accept that they are a type of 'public document' but they are a special kind of public document. In many respects judgements are secondary documents, not primary documents, which is an important consideration.
 * The reliance on the judgement in this article is only for the simple and incontrovertible proposition that a finding was made against Lehrmann. I think so long as it is relied upon only in that limited manner, its use is fine. Let's not get so caught up in WP policy such that we can't use obvious documents for obvious propositions. IAR IAR IAR.Jack4576 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think IAR extends to doing things for which there is specific guidance not to. A more important consideration is do we need to? Surely there are other secondary sources locatable which support the material. It's not like this is obscure subject matter. This is literally plastered all over the news at the moment and will be for a while. There's plenty of reporting and analysis. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IAR applies to the entire site. Where a rule results in an absurdity, (personally I think its absurd not to rely on the judicial decision for the mere and limited proposition of its result), IAR applies. Jack4576 (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576, I restored the quote without needing to rely on the judgment. So your argument wasn't necessary. We don't need to pull out IAR when we haven't tried to find secondary sources that can meet the same needs. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO it was fine to rely on either source for the proposition. IAR isn't only a last resort; it applies generally any time an interpretation of a rule would be absurd. Jack4576 (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IAR "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". In this situation, it simply wasn't the case that the rule was preventing us from improving the article because I was quite easily able to find a secondary source that had the quote in it by performing a google search on the full quote. It literally took me seconds to perform the search. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the article would be improved by also including the judgement as an additional source. Jack4576 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it worth the grief considering we have a good enough source to support the material and it's been reverted by other editors? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 06:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably not, but I maintain my view that slavish adherence to policy in this instance makes the article worse. Jack4576 (talk) 22:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have again removed the BLPPRIMARY source from the lead of the article. It shouldn't be there as references aren't needed in the lead, it shouldn't be there as other non-primary sources cover the details in the body of the article, and it shouldn't be there per BLPPRIMARY. IAR doesn't say you can just ignore the rules, it says you can ignore the rules if it improves the encyclopedia. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 11:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @ActivelyDisinterested agreed. @Jack4576 if you think you have a policy point can seek outside guidance at WP:BLP/N because you have at least two editors here disagreeing with you. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If other editors disagree about this particular application of IAR, I’ll follow the consensus.
 * I note with some amusement the habit of a few editors attempting to qualify a rule titled “ignore all rules” with additional rules. It’s not a rule conducive to qualification. Jack4576 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It seems far to many miss the import middle part of that sentence, it hasn't changed in over 15 years. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Errr.... Yea.... precisely.... Jack4576 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)