Dodgy reference edit

Resolved Mattinbgn\talk 06:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC))Reply

The reference cited for this article[1] itself cites this article as its reference. This is a serious allegation against a young person, we should have real evidence before including it.

  1. ^ "Swim sensation Emily revealed as text bully". news.com.au. 2008-04-06. Retrieved 2008-04-06. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

--Kitty Davis (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Without making a case either way, the linked article was not the only source for the claims, merely the initial one. Other sources came forward to corroborate the story:

One source told the Sunday Mail this week that Seebohm - who had been on a sport scholarship at the college - had left after being asked to apologise for the bullying. "She was investigated by the school for bullying," said the source, who did not wish to be named. "It was found that her and her friends were targeting a fellow student in Year 8." Another source said Seebohm was suspended for text-bullying after ignoring a warning to stop. She and her friends were found to be "excluding, isolating and harassing" one student, and expressing their dislike of her using "really strong words".

And confirmed by her father:

John Seebohm described the bullying incident as "nothing". "We're well past that mate," he said. "It was nothing, absolutely nothing. That's where we left it."

Having said that, I'm not sure that it is appropriate to include this either. It does not sit well with me immortalising a 14 year old girls (alleged) mistakes in a Wikipedia article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The law protects minors from having details of their offences published. WP should maintain a similar stance, even though this is a lesser transgression. WWGB (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think such an incident should not be included under WP:UNDUE --Matilda talk 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've semi-protected the article due to IP addresses continually readding it without a consensus to do so. We need to be conservative with information like this being added into articles, and even more so given this person is still a minor. We are not a tabloid or even a tabloid masquerading as a legitimate news source, and I'm sure we'd all agree that the content should never have been added in the first place if we had the choice to prevent it. Daniel (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

NN. The 60s barrier is what counts...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few footballers beat up their classmates when they were at high school, nn. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
"THE parents of teen prodigy Emily Seebohm will seek legal advice after a newspaper alleged she had been suspended from an exclusive girls' school for text-bullying 18 months ago." Daniel (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I guess it's pretty difficult to get a monetary settlement from an anonymous IP address. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, but not from the Foundation. Should the foundation be informed and should we courtesy blank (or delete?) this discussion. Consensus seems clear this is not suitable for inclusion in the article and it is now confirmed that this is sensitive. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emily Seebohm. 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) 11:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)Reply