Talk:Mimi Macpherson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Undue weight to drunken driving arrests[edit]

The excruciating details regarding the drunken driving arrests provide WP:UNDUE coverage and need to be trimmed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Macpherson is a high range drunk driver and a serial offender with little regard for public safety. Drunk driving offences are mentioned in numerous other articles, including Mel Gibson and Kiefer Sutherland, why should this article be any different? The blood alcohol levels, the fines and suspensions are all relevant to report the seriousness of the multiple offences. Perhaps some editors would prefer this article as a hagiography? WWGB (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps some editors think that wikipedia is the improper forum to promote claims that a living person has "little regard for public safety" through a violation of WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SYN applies to article space. It has no relevance to a talk page. WWGB (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BLP does apply to talk pages. And your talk page comments clearly show that the content you want to include in the article is to make a point within the article that the original sources dont. Your talk page comment is evidence of the SYN you are pushing within the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the text of the article supports that reading. The paragraph describes the reports in a very factual manner. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking when I trimmed it. And that "Personal life" wasn´t a good title for the text. I´m not against a valid summary saying it´s bad drunkdriving, but the level of detail seemed to clash with the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see three sourced sentences as "undue". On the other hand, this edit by TheRedPenOfDoom did introduce highly negative and unsourced assertions, not seen before in this incarnation of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, people are convicted all the time without being arrested. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; what's your point? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "She´s been convicted for driving under the influence three times, in 1995, 2001 and 2007, with fines and suspended licence as a result. Her blood alcohol content was roughly 2-3 times that of the legal limit depending on occasion". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With refs and wikilinks, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DUI[edit]

I've trimmed the DUI paragraph as undue weight especially for a BLP. I'm not sure it should be mentioned at all.(olive (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Okay. I think the sentence left can be kept, as it's quite well-sourced and the incident received extensive coverage; we might add at least the dates for the previous two convictions, though I'm not fussed about it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on my suggestion slightly above? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that if its to stay that whoever has edited it as is - User:Olive - has got the weight exactly right. Youreallycan 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Wikid77 has replaced the extended version - which imo is undue detail for historic minor convictions and I have reverted him and left him a link to come discuss here - Youreallycan 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly "minor" convictions. If the third offence had occurred one year earlier, she was facing a jail term. [1] WWGB (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and if my dog had lived another 10 years he would have been a 101 in dog years. and if Rick santorum had gotten 500 more delegates he would have still been a potential presidential candidate. it didnt happen. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ 👍 Like 2eschew surplusage (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ok now, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding non-injury details mentioned in several sources: Typically, the judging of "wp:UNDUE weight" of detailed text is determined by what the sources state. If details are mentioned in 2 sources, then that is grounds for inclusion, and if mentioned in more than 2 sources, then exclusion of details is off-balance, such as trying to omit "driving without headlights on the Gold Coast Highway" (mentioned in at least 5 sources: Herald Sun [2]; TheAustralian.com [3]; DailyTelegraph.com.au [4]; The Courier-Mail [5], etc.). In general, the removal of text is limited by wp:NOTCENSORED, which even allows text offensive to religions, with the exception in wp:BLPCRIME to avoid non-conviction charges. Hence, the 3 DUI convictions should be described with the due weight of details as stated in multiple sources. Removal of such details would be a violation of censorship limits (wp:CENSOR vio). Plus, there is a long-standing precedent to avoid a "hagiography" by not omitting negative text. Meanwhile, omitting the non-injury details of DUI incidents would be unfair to the person, since that leads to speculation that all 3 incidents involved auto accidents to catch the drunk driver, injuring other people, which the sources state was not the case (see article: "DUI" which explains how DUI incidents are treated as attempted murder in many nations). It should be understood that a DUI conviction is a "big deal" and omission of details is inappropriate, per WP policies and guidelines. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DUI is serious, especially if there are injuries to others, which in this case there are not - we don't have to publish a blow by blow coverage as you claim, to assert there were no injuries or serious complications. These situations - two of them very historic, one from 17 years ago (she was given a small fine) and one from five years ago were not major issues - so reporting them unduly here is , well - undue and completely unnecessary for the reader - the reader does not require all the minuscule reports of minor charges that resulted in minor punishments. - Youreallycan 14:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
while we are not here to create a hagiography, NEITHER are we here to scrape up all the muck we can find to artificially tar and feather a living person. WP:BLP is very clear, we err on the side of caution. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and there is no "censorship" going on here. there is content that is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and content that is not. "It should be understood that a DUI conviction is a "big deal" is only appropriate IF the third party sources covering it indicate that it is. the coverage I have seen DOES NOT. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree with everything you've said RPoD. 2eschew surplusage (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sextape Controversy?[edit]

A number of early posts on Mimi indicated she was in a sextape, and were always deleted without a reason. Wondering whatever came of this? Was it a fake sextape? Not enough confirmed references? Some sort of attempt to hide the controversy? The only particular quote I can find regarding it says "[REDACTED]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.60.20 (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Links:
[REDACTED]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mimi-declared-bankrupt/2008/12/18/1229189757920.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/gallery-e6freuy9-1111120397512?page=9
--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another one:
Henderson, Craig (7 June 1997). "Mimi takes action over video". The Sun Herald. Retrieved 18 June 2013. Hack (talk)
As embarrasing as it might be for the subject of the article, along with her famous sister, this is her key notability. It should either be mentioned, or the whole article deleted. Ashmoo (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussions, shown at the top of this page, explain. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mimi Macpherson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mimi_Macpherson&oldid=1203826458"