Talk:Glenn Wheatley

Wheatley's criminality
The criminality must be in the opening paragraph, in line with other criminals in Wikipedia. This is because if someone attains a criminal record, it is then a defining aspect of that person. Also, some have objected to the word "disgraced" being used in his description. For starters, a criminal conviction is a disgrace in anyone's language. Second, Wheatley's defence team used the word disgrace, to say that the disgrace of it all is reason that he should be spared a jail term. Sure, people are fans of Wheatley and John Farnham, but really, a criminal conviction outweighs all that. 203.217.36.172 04:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. If a non-notable person gains a criminal record, then yes, their conviction is the defining aspect of that person.  Wheatley is already plenty notable and this conviction is todays news, but will be largely forgotten in a few days time.  His notability is defined by his career with The Masters Apprentices and his band management. &mdash;Moondyne 08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if you did a random survey of Australians on the street, and asked them "Who's Glenn Wheatley?" they'd say "He's that guy on tax fraud charges who went to jail". Try it with some young people. Chances are they won't be familiar with any Masters Apprentices songs. Also, the guy is now in prison. He's never going to live that down. Not many famous people go to jail, and when they do, the jail becomes an even more defining feature than otherwise. I don't think Wikipedia should give Glenn Wheatley special soft-touch treatment of the subject of his criminality, just because people like his music. Pigmypossum 11:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * People have a right to know the truth that has been supressed for a long time. Its ridiculous not to include details of the conviction and sentance because they are stone cold facts that arent ever going away. The man tried to run from this for years - it definitely wont be forgotten... --OzzieKezzie (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Moondyne above. By all means include the detail of conviction and so forth, but it is not what establishes his notability.  Therefore put in detail, not in the intro.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.198.37 (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)