Talk:Corey Haim/Archives/2021

Charlie Sheen rape allegations

Nor sure that a National Enquirer report published Wednesday that is being regurgitate on tabloid and and entertainment websites should be reproduced here. What do others think. Still no real coverage of this.--Moxy (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The National Enquirer is well established at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as not being a reliable source, and thus cannot be used as a source for negative information about a living person, which Mr. Sheen continues to be. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This makes zero sense to me. The Enquirer (which, I agree, is not in itself a reliable source) is in this case simply the venue where the charges that Brascia made are being quoted — and all the sources (Newsweek, etc.) that are reporting on this story aren't saying "the National Enquirer *says* that Brascia told the Enquirer that Sheen abused Haim" — rather, they're saying "Brascia told the Enquirer that Sheen abused Haim" — i.e., they're citing Brascia's comments to the Enquirer as an established fact, not as something that only the Enquirer is willing to stand behind, but rather something that their own editorial boards are also willing to stand behind. Thus, it's no longer only the Enquirer that's repeating these allegations — and the source of the original story shouldn't be relevant if so many news sources are willing to reprint the story. CircleAdrian (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the fact that Sheen is denying the charges is an event that wasn't originally published in the Enquirer, but is being reported widely by the news media — so what are we supposed to do, say in our article "In November 2017, Charlie Sheen denied allegations about something that allegedly happened between him and Haim [citation][citation]" without saying what it is that he's denying? CircleAdrian (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's simple to not cover that. At this point, we don't have a fact ("X happened") nor even a claim ("Y said X happened"), but a rumor ("Z said Y said that X happened".) It's hard to see that rising to the level of inclusion, particularly when there's a living person being painted negatively. And given that, we also don't need to have living person saying "nuh-uh!" --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

All just reprints Original story......even your Newsweek link says "alleged to the National Enquirer on Wednesday". They say this for a reason WP:BLPGOSSIP. We are in no rush.....lets see if real publications look into this.--Moxy (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Although I don't disbelieve the allegation, it doesn't belong here at this point. A person who wasn't there claims that a now-dead person told him a story. There's a BLP issue at play. Perhaps later, more evidence will make it ok to put here, but not now. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

And further developments make it clear why we should not rush to throw rumors into articles. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Brascia

Much has been published in reliable sources the past few days. So, I reverted this edit. If and when Brascia responds to Ms. Hiam, then that should be included here too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Again third party account.....5th time person named this year......and again denied--Moxy (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Named by whom? This is the first time that the dead person’s next of kin has named the alleged abuser AFAIK. Surely we don’t have to wait for the dead person to speak up, or for someone to publicly confess. This new report is widely published in reliable sources including:

• LA Times
• San Francisco Chronicle
• People Magazine
• Toronto Sun

The accuser here (Hiam’s mother) could not be closer to Hiam, and the sources could not be more reliable. User:Moxy, please reconsider. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

We have talked about this guy before....As per TO source above..."The former actor was previously accused of being Haim’s abuser last year, but Brascia denied the allegation in an interview with Perez Hilton."---Moxy (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)-Moxy (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said, accused by whom? Does a previous accusation by someone who was not related to the victim forever preclude us from saying what all these reliable reports are now saying? Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)−

Pls read over WP:BLPCRIME.--Moxy (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dominick Brascia is not a relatively unknown person. He had starring roles in films like Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985) and Evil Laugh (1986). He has also thrust himself to the forefront of this public controversy, by making claims about Charlie Sheen. I agree that for relatively unknown people, we should seriously consider not suggesting that the person is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction is secured. But here the person is not relatively unknown. Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the claims are true, any publication that peddles the obviously false and racist claim that Obama was born in Kenya doesn't deserve to be a reliable source. What next? We're gonna have to cite Alex Jones or Breitbart? MightyArms (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"In an episode during the second season of The Two Coreys, Haim confessed to Feldman that he had been sexually abused at the age of 14 by one of Feldman's acquaintances." Haim didn't confess to Feldman, he CONFRONTED Feldman. Huge difference. And that "acquaintance" was Dominick Brascia.--Splashen (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)