Talk:Jerome Laxale

Sexual misconduct
We once again have political partisans attempting to censor a Labor MP's Wikipedia entry. The following matter has been reported in the media and remains an issue of public concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizek Rocks (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

BLP
Please mind WP:BLP. The second half of the addition doesn't appear to be in the attached source Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct allegation section misquoted
The section on sexual misconduct needs to be removed as no article sourced claims an extra marital affair or sexual misconduct. The articles explicitly state no allegations are made against mr laxale but rather the ALPs complaints process. This addition to Wikipedia is not only vandalism by those affiliated with the liberal party but clear defamation and a gross manipulation of the sources cited. 172.195.125.193 (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Clearly some work is needed on this section. A quick search of articles show only coverage from conservative media (Daily Telegraph, Sky News, 2GB, which have been cited) and none at all from more balanced or diverse sources. Without more diverse and balanced sourcing for this section, it risks being unbalanced and biased with an impression of it being a conservative axe to grind, against BLP. For this reason I have added the tag in this section. Happy to discuss further.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have attempted a rewrite of this section as it contains superfluous unsourced details and included information that is not described in the sources. I will add more info from different sources if they come into the public domain.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe your rewrite places proportionate weighting on the allegation. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 08:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A lot of sanitizing of the details here, following prior sockpuppetry to attempt to censor the allegation. The re-write above removes important information and context and should be re-considered. Zizek Rocks (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no sanitising or censoring, merely trying not to place undue weight or bias (as evident by the sources) on a story that is at the moment merely allegations about allegations, and have been reported by a very narrow subset of conservative media, and unreliable sources (Daily Mail). If this story develops beyond what it is right now and receives broader coverage from more diverse and reliable sources, then its wording can be expanded/reconsidered.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you maintain that the relationship ended amicably given the complaint and the potential fear this young woman has that the images remain in Laxale's possession and could become public. You've stripped the allegations of their substance and sanitized them and have done so on the basis that progressive media refuses to cover the story. That's the definition of censorship. Zizek Rocks (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can remove amicably, as that is just an assumption brought in the sources, though my understanding from the sources is that the allegations came to light after the end of the relationship. Call it what you like but this story is so bare bones and at the moment is just allegations with very little substance to warrant any more than a passing mention at this stage. That may or may not be the case in reality but given the level and type of coverage, we have a responsibility not to place undue weight on this matter. Wikipedia is not a repository for every last detail, particularly for something like this where its mostly gossip obtained from anonymous sources. If you read WP:BLP we have a responsibility to ensure that really contentious matters like this are properly and reliably sourced, instead of just parroting sensationalism and biases present in the current sources.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So to summarise this story (based on three conservative tabloid media sources) currently comprises the following elements: 1. that they were in a relationship (allegation), 2. That there was a transfer of explicit material (allegation), 3. That this material was retained by Laxale after the end of the 'relationship' based on unnamed 'Liberal sources' who claim to have access to a Labor politician's laptop? (allegation), 4. There were one or several complaints sent to the ALP and no action has been taken (allegations). I mean really? Wikipedia is not a repository for gossip.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The material has been removed entirely. Can you explain to me how that is appropriate and not outright political censorship. The material needs to be reverted so it can be discussed. Deleting it is edit warring. Zizek Rocks (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree that this is gossip re-heated by partisan media outlets. Don’t think it should be included at or (or the para about his council deputy’s alleged scandal, which seems to be about another subject entirely). Ponyshine (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Edits by Zizek Rocks
has once again added a section on sexual misconduct with edit. This was reverted by. Zizek Rocks did not discuss but simply reverted. I have reverted and re-opened this discussion to see if there is any change to the consensus against adding this biography of a living person. Do not edit war - see WP:BRR --Find bruce (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing new to this non-story beside what has already been discussed and reshashed previously. As I said in the last discussion, Wikipedia is not a repository for gossip, and this matter has precisely nothing to back it up and precisely nothing of relevance to this article.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

‘Controversies’
Can we agree that the first three ‘controversies’ on this page are completely without note and should be deleted?

I mean, writing letters on birthdays, dancing on TikTok, someone else being unsuccessfully accused of something? None of these are significant - they’d barely make an opposition media release let alone actual news. The final one is being discussed elsewhere so I defer to that process, but note dirt sheet media is not usually considered of much value to wiki. Ponyshine (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. They are trivial and don't belong here. ITBF (talk) 07:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jerome-4935.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jerome-5125.jpg