User:Matilda/Temp page draft RfC

The other RfC
An RfC on policy has previously been lodged and can be seen on this talk page above at. It doesn't seem to me that the RfC and responses is making any progress in resolving the issues. It has received one strong rebuttal; four responses as to the form and point of the RfC; one endorsement; one conditional endorsement. The RfC does not clearly suggest a way forward.

Hence in addition to that RfC I am lodging this one to invite outside editors to focus on the content and perhaps suggest a way forward.

The content issues
Borrowing heavily from the suggestions made (and in fact using their words for some things) by users Carbonrodney and Docku see and  (plus sub sub sections below) :

There are two policies widely debated here, which are WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

It is asserted that the insertion of the text violates WP:BLP as it fits within poorly source contentious material. The text was referenced to an item published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation - an organisation that would normally be deemed to meet WP:RS. It has been questioned as to whether it does in this case as The ABC put a lot of things through their newswire that aren't verified to their usual standards. There has been debate as to whether the ABC is the sole source (as to merely the sole reference) and then when a number of other news organisations were found to have run the story that they only ran the story onlione (not in print editions and that in each and every case, including the ABC news story they were merely rehashing the   - see discussion at