Talk:Robert Hughes (actor)

New alleged misconduct

Why is there nothing in the article about Robert Hughes.Can someone please inform me what's up with this? I refer to the following news article primarily: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/television/more-hey-dad-scandal-emerges-as-further-accusations-levelled-at-actor-robert-hughes/story-e6frfmyi-1225845656318

Sarah Monahan AND Simone Buchanan united against Robert Hughes / Channel Nine

This is not just the online news articles now, but also a primary television news channel, yet no information on wikipedia? why is this? are there vested interests protecting the article? does he need to be found guilty in a court before this is updated on the article? what's going on here seriously? - Anon 26/3/12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.247.81 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Buchanan said she took on the role of Monahan's protector and also accused Hughes of "inappropriately touching" her while driving her home after filming when she was 18.

Monahan, who played Hughes' on-screen daughter Jenny, has alleged Hughes began interfering with her on set from age six. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.247.81 (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged misconduct

There should be no such allegation, placeholder or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia. This reference or otherwise should be submitted for deletion as part of this process, and the article in full should be immediately blanked in the interim while the allegations are heard. Any reference, allegation, or otherwise, is not suitable to be added into Wikipedia. Again, I quote Bright Line rule. --203.219.135.147 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

(A fair scripting would be the following, which states what has occurred along with a response by Hughes)

In March 2010, following interviews with Hey Dad co-star Sarah Monahan, in Womans Day Magazine and Channel Nine alleging molestation on the set of Hey Dad, Hughes was name by Australia's Channel Nine Network show 'A Current Affair' as Sarah Monahan's alleged molester.

Hughes, who was pursued to Singapore by 'A Current Affair', said: “I am absolutely shocked and surprised at this allegation." Further more he went on to say "I categorically deny the allegation. It never happened. The entire matter is now in the hands of my lawyers.” (the quotes have been sourced from) http://www.news.com.au/national/hey-dad-actor-robert-hughes-denies-sex-claims/story-e6frfkvr-1225844930846 (Davhosking (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)).

While Hughes has not been named, it has been insinuated that he was responsible for the molestation of co-star Sarah Monahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.57.196 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This article should be submitted for deletion - bright line rule. --203.219.135.147 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is confirmed. It was Robert Hughes. It was confirmed on A Current Affair on 24th of March 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.157.31 (talk) 07:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not confirmed. He has not been convicted of an offence, or even charged. An assertion on a talk show does not make guilt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.124.9 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's confirmed that he's the suspect though. But yes, innocent till proven guilty. It should still be discussed in the article in any case, and it could be expanded a bit with other stuff too eg his wife is agent Robyn Gardiner, how long have they been married, a bit more about his career etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.3.3 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

he is now confirmed. the public have a right to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.72.252 (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about debating whether or not he's guilty, in a biographical page about someone of course properly cited accusations should be included. Whether the allegations are true or not isn't for us to decide, and is irrelevant regarding its inclusion. If it did turn out the allegations are bunk he would want them addressed with citations here, rather than an ominous blank spot. Kestasjk (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

At this stage, there is nothing except untested allegations made in the popular press. Until such time as something more official results, including this topic is not appropriate and, if it isn't true, inclusion would be grossly defamatory. As an encyclopedia, we should bend over backwards to be fair to the subjects that we cover, even those accused of ghastly, terrible deeds. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about here-say or such, we are talking about an allegation that has been broadcasted through a mass media (two prominent television current affairs programs) and a number of the printed media around Australia. It would be the same as the sex scandal of Michael Jackson independent of the guilt or innocence. An allegation has been made publicly and should be publicised. Should the accusation be tested, the events can be rewritten that Robert Hughes has been accused and then convicted or exonerated. The accusation has gained much attention in Australia therefore it should stay. -- throttler (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottyBerg (talk • contribs)

I agree that there should be some reference to the claims, but I also think "Sarah Monahan and Ben Oxenbould named Hughes as the perpetrator that molested and exposed himself to Monahan and others during the filming of the television series." needs tweaking and doesn't do enough to reinforce the fact that they are only allegations at this point. StuartH (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Right now seems a tad early to discuss this at all - it is less than 24 hours after he was named, he hasn't been charged, none of the claims have been tested, and things might change dramatically over a short period. I tend to agree with Mattinbgn here, in that we should be erring on the side of the subject, given that there are simply allegations at this point. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of finding consensus, the last version added was:

In March 2010, Hey Dad...! actors Sarah Monahan and Ben Oxenbould alleged that Hughes molested and exposed himself to Monahan and others during the filming of the television series. The allegations prompted a police investigation. Hughes has denied the accusations.

The changes made by WWGB covered most of my concerns with the earlier wording. I'm personally still concerned that this is very early in the cycle, and I'd be much happier if there was more news - either a charge or a decision not to charge would help - but I guess that's something for consensus to decide. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

While the allegations were at the Woman's Day/ACA level, I agree that Wikipedia takeup was premature. Now that the police and reputable media have taken an interest, some mention is appropriate in Hughes's article. If the above is too explicit, a "placeholder" statement like "as of March 2010 police were investigating claims that Hughes was involved in inappropriate conduct during the filming of Hey Dad (+ref)" may be sufficient. WWGB (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have to agree with you. Now that the police has taken interest in the accusation (by two separate people) this does deserve to be publicised as this is being published in nearly all Australian media especially on two prominent current affairs television show. Like I stated previously this is not just some innuendo, it is stated by two separate people and just like the Michael Jackson sex scandal, it deserves to be publicised. Should the evidence be tested, the events can be rewritten that Robert Hughes has been accused and then either acquitted or convicted. -- throttler (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a particular rush to include things as if this were a news site, but with coverage growing well beyond the initial Womans' Day/ACA claims the argument for inclusion is strengthening. A "wait and see" approach on the other hand raises the arbitrary question of exactly how long to wait. If reliable sources can be included for the claims and we continue to clearly demonstrate the fact that they are only allegations at this point, there's no harm in a brief mention. StuartH (talk) 00:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Put it in. If there are reliable sources publishing the allegations, as there are as of this morning Australian time, the allegations should be included in the article. Avoid recentism. Follow the sources strictly. But we can't just ignore it. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The other sources were just as reliable. I don't see the reason for such a discussion. -- throttler (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Nor do I. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

We need to mention it to some extent - the question is how and how much, not whether it should be ignored. The problem with Wikipedia is that these sorts of negative claims invariably gain extensive coverage, so these lot's of reliable soruces in which to base them, but the long-term significance is something that can't be decided within 24 hours of the allegations being raised. Thus I tend to prefer to err on the side of having minimal coverage until it is clear what is going to happen. In this case I'd much prefer WWGB's usggestion of a palceholder. - Bilby (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the current length is about right - not too long, not too short. The placeholder is too short and gives no details of the conduct alleged or who is making the allegations - both of which are being widely reported. The media is giving much more coverage to this than a one-sentence placeholder can reflect. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Interested editors may also like to keep watch on Hey Dad..!#2010 sexual abuse claims where similar content is being added. WWGB (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Below is a link that is relevant. The link is to a talent company that is owed by hughes wife and represents Hughes and fellow Hey Dad actor who has spoken of the allegations http://www.rgm.com.au/msv.html (Davhosking (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Sex Scandal is wrong - glad the title has been changed, so far no allegation of 'sex' has been made. Also, I'll play devils advocate here - might this be a publicity stunt to the MAX? I noticed that the actor Ben is on agents books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanberraBulldog (talk • contribs) 03:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Police haven't acknowledged any claims!

If the police haven't acknolwedged any claims [1] then it is safe to say there are no allegations, so the current evidence is just plain defamation if they don't want to refer it to police. Running a very big risk having it here according to BLP guidelines... 118.208.28.86 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whether an allegation has been reported to the police has nothing to do with defamation and our BLP policy. The article merely reports the allegations that have been published by reliable sources. Nothing wrong with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Repeating defamatory claims does not sound advisable (and weasel words like "it was reported ..." are seem, well "weaselly"). Our BLP policy is specifically designed to prevent untested allegations of this nature making their way into articles. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a storing house for everything that has ever been published in a newspaper on a particular topic. The correct (and the moral) thing to do at this stage is leave out the accusation altoghter until some action (other than the mere allegation) takes place, i.e. some criminal or civil court action commences. The damage here is in the mere accusation, regardless if it is (perhaps) not proved at a later date. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The allegations are now an encyclopaedic aspect of the subject as it has been widely reported. We should be no more concerned about including material about the subject than the reliable sources we use. Nothing about this is defamatory (a strict legal concept). Nothing in the BLP policy precludes it. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • What is written reads well and is a concise and correct representation of a current news story. If these events were missing from Wikipedia the article would be sadly lacking. Additionally remember that news as is history is an ongoing process. What has been written is such a massive story it needs to be written as does the final outcome so as to complete this entry into history. (Davhosking (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC))
    • What this page is missing is more detail on Robert Hughes family life, his wife, child/children. His wifes ownership of talent agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davhosking (talk • contribs) 10:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Moving forward

Given the disagreement and reverting on this page, I'm getting outside input from the BLP noticeboard. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Hughes (Australian actor): allegations in Australian press --Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus

It has essentially been conceded on the BLP noticeboard that the material included in this revision does not in anyway contravene WP:BLP policy. That said, its inclusion is now a matter for editorial judgment. We need to get a consensus either way to stop the reverting. I'd ask editors on both sides to be very careful not to breach WP:3RR. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. The material is properly sourced to reliable sources. Like it or not, the allegations are now what the subject is known for. We should present the information in an encyclopaedic manner. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. These allegations are now in the media, and have been reported in a number of newspapers, with three actors from the show now supporting them and police involvement. They should be included. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There is police involvement with relation to an allegation? I haven't seen a reference for that yet. I am only anti putting it in until there is a claim and the major points are said by police to be in the claim. So far it is a media storm, but that doesn't mean the guy should be guilty without charge. 118.208.159.58 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The article is not saying or implying that he is guilty; just reporting the allegations and reporting Hughes' denial. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This matter has been reported in credible national media for days. Its absence from Wikipedia makes the website appear untimely and ineffective. It is uncontested that there have been multiple allegations, and that police are gathering information on the matter. WWGB (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure that the cost to Wikipedia's reputation of having one article not entirely up to date outweighs the very real damage to a living subject's reputation. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I appreciate that local editors may have a desire to report this issue but that desire does not override BLP protection. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You still haven't pointed to any part of the BLP policy that prevents inclusion of this information. You conceded at the BLP noticeboard that your objection to the material was "editorial judgement". Stop muddying the waters by throwing out phrases like "BLP protection". You've twice reverted content that is entirely consistent with BLP policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have conceded nothing at all, I have removed for the time being this content as a protection of a living person, if and when new details are reported I am more than happy to reconsider my position. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says the content should be removed? Where? You're just acting unilaterally based on your view that your own opinion of editorial matters is superior. You are entitled to that opinion; but now you have asserted that your opinion overrides consensus here. You need to re-assess your status as an editor on this project. You do not have the power to exercise editorial oversight by unilateral reverting in all matters BLP. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Restracted unnecessary personal comment. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I already posted for you on the BLPN the policy detail regarding this, perhaps you are of the opinion that we should add anything that there is a citation for, I can understand your desires when it is in your interest field and local interest but please consider the living person and take a step back, protect him in such cases and if and when we have a worthwhile issue to report with true long term value, (not a titillating scandal report) without even a police report or any kind of official investigation. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

All well and good. That's editorial judgement. My view is the public nature and importance of the information outweighs the desire to protect the subject. That's my opinion. You have your opinion to the contrary. But policy (BLP) neither requires the addition of this content nor its removal. So add your views by an oppose here as others have done below; don't impose them on top of everyone by reversion. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is a educational on line resource, your suggestions that this information is important in relation to that and that the fantastic need to add this unsupported accusation that has not even been reported to the police is as far as wikipedia concerned, absolutely mistaken. Off2riorob (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion. Not a basis to revert. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

My editing is always with the utmost regard to protect living people, there is time, this is not a daily newspaper, we report long tern notable issues, lets see, informed editors are predicting a police report from the accusatory woman, which if it happens we can re-appraise. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has edited this page in good faith. Reversion because you disagree with the content's inclusion is totally unjustified. As I said earlier, you are not a super-arbitrator empowered to remove content you consider harmful to living persons. Not even administrators have the power to do that. Unless there is a BLP policy violation, and there isn't here, you should consider yourself bound by the community's consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Retracted unnecessary personal comment. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats right, the community consensus and policy is that living people get maximum protection and that is what I am doing here, I realise your position is that there is a public need for wikipedia to report such issues but there is not consensus support for your desire. Off2riorob (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of your assertion that removing this material is in any way called for by BLP policy. You still haven't pointed to any policy that requires the removal of properly sourced allegations against a living person. Absent any BLP policy violation, consensus happens here. At this talk page. I will consider myself bound by that consensus. You should too. Your view that your desire to protect BLPs beyond what BLP policy mandates overrides editorial consensus is alarming and frankly arrogant. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Retracted unnecessary personal comment. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please consider your comments and take a step back, your comments are personal and verging on a personal attack. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to end this back and forth if you feel slighted. With a reminder that you're only one revert away from a 3RR. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. There is widespread reporting of this in reliable press, and whether or not the allegations will be proven is irrelevant to the fact that this will always be part of his history. Six months or so from now it will still be there, regardless of the outcome. We only need to show that these are allegations at this stage, and change as it developes. --Dmol (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I'm somehow reminded about the fuss over Matthew Johns. Anyway I've seen suggestions the police may soon be involved, when they are I have no problem with adding something. If this doesn't happen within a few days, we can re-evaluate then Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion. It seems that some editors seem to confuse the role of an encyclopedia with the role of the press. It is the role of the press to report on the happenings of the world and to report promptly, the timeliness of information is important. An encyclopedia, on the other hand, should take a longer term view on these matters and there is not the same rush to include immediately changing information. It is important that the encyclopedia is current, but it is more important that it is accurate and fair to its subjects. When a living person is involved, it is even more important that editors do not rush to add the latest breathless exposes in the press but take a considered, long term view, considering the fairness of the manner that we treat the reputations of living people. The accusations made against the subject of the article are terrible ones to make and will severely tarnish his reputation. If the accusations are true, then this would be well deserved and more. If the accusations are false, then this encyclopedia and the contributing editors will have added significantly to the harm this person will have unjustly suffered. Inclusion in an encyclopedia is a different kettle of fish than the daily paper. Given that the cost of potentially waiting until the accusations are more than mere accusations is small and the potential damage to the subjects reputation is quite large, the prudent course of action is wait and see what unfolds from here before adding content relating to the (as yet unsubstantiated) allegations. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as Mattinbgn -- User:Littlerascal 10:53 26 March 2010
• Support inclusion. There is widespread media coverage with more than ample reliable sourcing. It's now history. PaulHammond2 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. This issue has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, with many alleged witnesses coming forward (including at least three former co-stars of Hughes) and we can reflect those reliable sources while maintaining the fact that they are only allegations at this point. StuartH (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. I agree that the allegations have been made, and are notable as they are featured in many notable news sites, television shows and publications. Do we now remove "suspects" lists from unsolved murders and kidnappings because they are allegations? No. Allegations are made, this isn't some teacher that has an allegation against them, this is a notable person (as they have a Wikipedia page) that has had allegations made by other notable people, and it has been covered extensively by the media. Parradudes (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support: As long as the comments are focused on public allegations and aren't stated in such a way to imply actual guilt then I cannot see how they can be construed as offending against the BLP policies. Obviously great care and restraint needs to be used in how any comments are phrased. But as long as it is focused on the allegations themselves with reliable and verifiable references then I do not see a conflict with BLP policies. The allegations are now a matter of public record regardless of what charges may or may not be made. Afterwriting (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed - although I think some mention is warranted. However, at the moment all we have is that some cast members claimed that abuse occurred, some claim that they never saw nor heard about anything, and the man accused denies all claims. And all played out in Women's day and A Current Affair with some rather dodgy reporting. I prefer to be cautious, given how serious the allegations are, and wait until the news settles. - Bilby (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. It has been covered extensively in several reputable news sources. That the coverage exists means that it should be mentioned in this article. Why the delay? It has already been reported. Format (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This comment is typical of the editors here that want to add this rubbish report that may come to something and may not, the insert that Format just added and was removed included the phrase, the subject denied it and said the situation was in the hand of defamation lawyers, we also have a duty of care to ensuse we do not add to that situation, and the comment, why the delay? is completely misunderstanding of what wikipedia is reaching to be, the fact that it is being reported is not a reason to insert it on wikipedia, if you like this kind of speculative derogatory titillating tabloid style content you can read it in one of the paper reports, we are not a newspaper driven by sales and headline grabbing stories that attract people to buy newspapers, wiki is attempting to raise up a long term educational tool, in which such content does not belong, if and when reporting reaches the same global coverage as the wikipedia and we could say that there will be no more harm done to his reputation by inserting a small comment or there are charges there would be a stronger case for inclusion, for now there is no reason to include it here. Off2riorob (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would also say that I have taken this content out of the article for BLP protection and I opened a thread there to discuss this content and this discussion should be there where it is exposed to community wide opinion and not here. Off2riorob (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While I am in sympathy with much of what you write, I am not convinced that your opinions on these issues are actually supported by Wikipedia's BLP policies. Editors sometimes interpret the BLP policies differently - for instance, some editors understand the policies regarding "contentious" material to also apply to any "controversial" BLP issues, but that isn't the interpretation of others because not all "controversial" BLP issues are also "contentious" ( open to contention or various interpretations of the basic facts ). It would seem to me that while the allegations made against Hughes are certainly "controversial" they aren't necessarily also "contentious" due to the allegations now being a matter of public record. The fact that he hasn't been charged doesn't seem to make the allegations contentious, only controversial and it is clear from the BLP policies that controversial information should not be excluded only on that basis. Afterwriting (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This is worth a read, quoted from the provided link...A very public campaign of vilification the rest of the media, tabloid and otherwise, has been more than happy to feed off the story. The feeding frenzy is on and the vultures of the media are swopping on the carcass of a man who is not only entitled to the presumption of innocence but who has been subjected to a cheap exercise by ACA in ratings hunting.http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2856611.htm Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your comments would seem to have zero relevance to what can and cannot be included in articles. Regardless of your personal opinions of the media, Wikipedia articles are edited according to its policies. Please argue your case on the basis of policies. Afterwriting (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The current mood seems to be 9 editors supporting, with 4 opposed. This would indicate that there should be a mention in here of the current situation, which in fact has become more serious as there are a number of actors now that have made accusations about the actor to the media, and the police have taken a number of statements. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/eight-new-claims-in-hey-dad-sex-scandal/story-e6frf7jo-1225846497309 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

This is not a vote, there are enough objections to this content to keep it out for now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC

User:Deathlibrarian, you need to realise that there is a minority of editors here who have absolutely no intention of working towards any kind of consensus. They just prefer to keep their heads in the sand and pretend that nobody ever mentioned Robert Hughes in the last seven days. It matters nought that highly respected print, radio and television media across the nation are reporting this matter, or that the police are gathering intelligence. No, it simply did not happen! A classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Now I shall sit back and await the hubris and feigned righteousness. Regards to all, WWGB (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes WWGB it appears that no consensus appears to be acheivable here, and attempts at changing the article have resulted in 3RRRs. If no consensus is going to be achieved, and with 9 editors pushing for changes and 4 blocking it, it would look like the next step is mediation WP:MEDCAB - Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could see what eventuates over the next few days - the story is moving quickly, and a formal report to police is due tomorrow. The main reason for opposing is that these are currently just accusations made in the tabloid press (although then quoted elsewhere) - once the accusations become more substantial things will change. I don't know how "substantial" they need to be in order to please everyone, but the main argument above is to wait, rather than never to cover the topic. - Bilby (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with waiting for a few days if the story is expected to develop and the argument for inclusion is expected to strengthen, but the editors mentioned by WWGB above who have no intention of working towards consensus will unlikely be happy with any outcome other than a collective head-in-the sand approach. Mediation and/or arbitration may well be the next step. StuartH (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about waiting a day or two - mediation would take a while, by the time its finished there will probably be an investigation well under way. it could take a week for a mediator to pick up the case. As Stuart says, it looks like some people are trying to block the inclusion of this information in this article and they will continue to do that no matter how the case develops. Deathlibrarian (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course your claim about the opposition to inclusion is completely untrue. One could wonder why the proponents of inclusion are so determined to see this material in the article at all costs just as easily. Given that nothing other than allegations have been made yet, I wonder what the hell is actually encyclopedic (as opposed to newsworthy) about this matter at this stage? The concept that, just because something is printed in the press, it belongs in an encyclopedia article is seriously misguided and only serves to damage the project. Edits like this one (which, against my better judgement, I have not reverted) are a key case it point. Of what encyclopedic relevance is all this matter to the article on Ben Oxenbould other than some sort of tabloid curiosity? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

To address these concerns, perhaps strong opponents of inclusion now could outline at which point the claims can be included according to policy, rather than vandalising the article, edit warring and claiming their "editorial judgement" overrides the consensus of others. StuartH (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a Biographical encyclopedia entry. I would think that if the police force formed a strike force to deal with your alleged activities...that should be something that is relevant to your entry? Does anyone seriously here see a police investigation of someone as not worth mentioned as an entry in their bio page? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the Strike Force announcement only happened today, and is only relevant if a formal complaint is made to police. If a formal complaint is made this will change from allegations made in the tabloid media to a genuine police investigation, and then the situation will change. - Bilby (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a 9-4 headcount, and now a police investigation. Anywhere else in wikipedia, 9-4 would be a consensus for change. So I think it should be here. While consensus is not a headcount and the opposers here raise reasonable points, there is a very strong majority in support of including the material, and the presence of an investigation should now to some extent allay some of the concerns of the opposers. In my view succinct and well sourced material can now be added by an editor and there will be no justification for reverting it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just on that topic, has an investigation been started yet? Last I heard no formal complaint had yet been made, although it was due today. - Bilby (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As you've said above, there is a "strike force". It "will now begin the process of talking to alleged victims and potential witnesses" [2]. So it seems the investigation has begun regardless of whether the formal complaint has been made (which is expected today). --Mkativerata (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The argument for inclusion is clearly strengthening, and the consensus to include was already reached before the recent developments. I'm putting it back in. StuartH (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, I was just under the impression that they had been collecting information to prepare for a potential investigation, as they needed a formal complain to proceed. As I gather the main accuser hadn't made one yet, I'm not sure if the strike force means that an investigation has started, or if they have simply named the people who will head up the investigation once a formal complaint arrives. I'm curious as to the procedure, but judging by what I've read in the media, I'm not convinced that the media really understands it either. :) In regard to StuartH, I wasn't convinced that there was consensus - or at least not a clear, decisive, consensus. - Bilby (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned yourself in your opposition that there was room for some mention of the claims, and another "oppose" editor stated a support conditional on police involvement. I fully understand the presumption of innocence and the need to make clear that only allegations have been made at this point, so perhaps we could work towards an acceptable inclusion that most appear to want? StuartH (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good succinct addition, Stuart. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking too much credit for it, it was a slightly cleaned up revert of a previous edit, with the latest development included. I think there's still room for improvement. StuartH (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposing including it - I was just curious about the situation. I note that it now seems that the Herald Sun is also curious, as they were thinking along the same lines I was. However, they have also now stated that there is a formal investigation, so they're just wondering whether or not that means a complaint was received. At any rate, things have changed so it is more than allegations on ACA. - Bilby (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

possible new addition

Now we have this fantastic claim to fame, Mr so and so has been accused of kiddie fiddling but no one has complained to them, if and when someone, anyone, reports anything to the boys in blue, they stand ready to investigate, we must we must insert this valuable content immediately. Off2riorob (talk)

On 25 March 2010, Detective Superintendent John Kerlatec, Commander of the Sex Crimes Unit in the New South Wales Police Force informed the PM program on ABC Radio that his Unit was "actively collating all information" concerning recent allegations against Hughes, and that police are "ready to take up any follow up investigations or inquiries that need to be done." He also stated that "we've not had contact from any of the victims. ... Police need to see detailed allegations by any victims to determine what crime or crimes have been committed." Police call for information about Hey Dad indecent assault allegations

Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. WWGB (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I won't edit war with you to keep such worthless rubbish out of a living persons wikipedian biography, you are responsible for it, you added it, so enjoy it. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Worthless rubbish", eh? Ah, you've gotta love invective, the cheap-shot refuge of those with no credible alternative argument. WWGB (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The addition is your your responsibility not mine and yes, worthless rubbish is what I think of your addition. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is "my my responsibility" and I accept the consequences of my post. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You are joking, the addition of such unsupported allegations, not even reported to the police allegations is damaging and demeaning to the living subject and damaging to the standards of this wikipedia as a whole. Close your eyes and imagine what the wikipedia would be like if your publish anything whatever was rolled out across the whole of the wikipedia, a worthless comic would be the result. In new south wales I am this is a massive press titillation, but your insistence in wanting to add such unfounded claims to wikipedia publish them to a worldwide audience, and you accept all responsibility, right. Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. The information you keep removing is about the media's reporting of the allegations. This information is verifiable and a matter of public record. The allegations at present are just that. Whether they are "unfounded" is yet to be determined. If you think that including information about media reports of the allegations is contrary to the BLP policies then please point to the relevant pieces of the policies that may support your thinking about this. Afterwriting (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The inserted rubbish is a copper says that nothing has been reported to him, that is a joke inclusion, the BLP policy that I removed for the time being untill there are charges or at least some major development was this...Lets just call it editorial judgment, and erring on the side of caution and not inserting sensational disputed content that may do damage to a living person and his family. ask yourself, why are some editors removing this content? Off2riorob (talk)

• Found on a toilet wall, Jenny said on the telly that harry had been fiddling with her when she was ten, as yet the coppers have only seen it on the telly no one has reported this heinous clime to them, meanwhile the man has been strung up in a tree by a bunch of engaged kiddie protectors. for all the details published worldwide go to wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Your vandalism [3] is a lasting symbol of your desperation. Chill out ... WWGB (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Real mature behaviour here, Off2riorob. Lose an argument and resort to vandalism of a BLP. Good stuff. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Retracted regrettrable comment. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have removed this rubbish from my watchlist, but as you mention my name, you mistake discussion for argument and you mistake comedy for vandalism, you also mistake the wikipedia comic and the view out of my window, enjoy yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please try and keep it a bit more WP:CIVIL. Vandalism, sarcasm and abuse doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it. StuartH (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Police and Credible Sources

There now seems to be an edit war over a police statement about the actor. The text as inserted does not say why the police are involved, so it doesn't really tell the reader much. I have noticed that a few editors are saying lines along the lines of "we can't put anything into WP until the police have become involved." Involvement of the police is not the yardstick by which information is included in WP. Having a credible external source is. I previously added a brief and rather plain description of where things stand. (I do not have a personal or strong interest in this case really. I had previously edited Hey Dad..! a few times - I never watched the show but I Australian and am interested in film and television.) I thought that adding a brief and neutral bit was better than the inviting absence, if you know what I mean? This is all a silly argument because none of the claims are ever going to go away. The subject already had a WP article, so it is inevitable that information about this news event will end up in this article. Also, apparently Kevin Rudd was asked for his comment on it as well. Format (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with you entirely. At least what is in the article now doesn't make it look like wikipedia editors are ignoring the issue completely. I would like more information to be there but I'm not sure the headcount majority above is quite a consensus support for it yet. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed (again) the info about police involvement as it is totally out of place there. It does not have any introduction or context and as such is only a news item without any explanation for its presence. Note that I am one of the editors who is pushing for inclusion of these allegations, so this is not just a POV push on my part. Once consensus is reach (if it hasn't already) regarding the inclusion of these allegations, the removed paragraph can form part of that section. Until then it is only stray text that needs context.--Dmol (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This link says she is flying back or actually being flown back by one of her sponsors to AU to make a statement to the police, I would say that if she does not make an official complaint she will be open to defamation claims, also you will see in the citation, how reporting of such claims before charges or investigation actually makes charging the person less likely. I have heard it mentioned that reports in wikipedia pre trial could have affected the chance for a fair trial and lawyers fight in such situations for a dismissal due to there being no chance of jurors not being exposed to opinions about the offense, I don't think any editor here would wish to diminish the chances of a criminal conviction in such a case. I also notice that she has been paid for her comments as exclusive with womans magazine, so she has taken money for this exclusive and TV appearance, 55 thousand dollars announced payment to the accuser Sarah Monahan so far. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal issues over Hey Dad! media frenzy, March 28, http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/people/legal-issues-over-hey-dad-media-frenzy-20100327-r42j.html

Interesting that ACA say they have overwhelming evidence that they are completely nullifying by using to increase their ratings. Rather irresponsible of them. Of all people they should have experience with the effects of public media trials on actual convictions. [4] Ansell 23:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} In a March 2010 interview with Woman's Day magazine, regular cast member Sarah Monahan alleged she had been molested on set during the production of the series.

In initial news reports she did not name the man. She told the magazine she was her family's breadwinner after the death of her father and she feared speaking up would cost her the job. Former co-star Julie McGregor said she was shocked by the allegations. "I had heard something but I had no idea the extent of the monstering ... and I feel sorry for her that there was no one that she could feel she could turn to." Another cast member, Chris Truswell who played Nudge, said he was surprised by the allegations and feared people would think he was the alleged assailant. Truswell and McGregor both said they had no idea of the identity of Monahan's alleged assailant and said they never saw any inappropriate behaviour.

Monahan was subsequently interviewed several times on the Nine Network series A Current Affair.

In an A Current Affair interview broadcast 22 March 2010 Monahan said she had complained but was discouraged from making a formal complaint. "They say that people don’t know but people knew. It was always ‘Keep it hushed’ because this is the most successful TV show on television. People don’t want to know that."

In an interview aired on A Current Affair on 24 March 2010 Monahan alleged that it was the show's lead actor Robert Hughes who sexually molested her. She claimed it occured on several occasions during production on the series. Hughes, confronted by A Current Affair in Singapore where he now lives, strenuously denied the claims, saying the matter was in the hands of defamation lawyers. Cast member Ben Oxenbould claims he discovered Hughes touching a different female child actor who was a guest actor on a show, in a way that seemed inappropriate.

In an interview with A Current Affair, the executive producer of Hey Dad..!, Gary Reilly, denied knowledge of Monahan's allegations until they were published in Woman's Day. Reilly said he confronted a man accused of inappropriate treatment of a young cast member hired after Monahan had left the program.

Cast member Simone Buchanan claimed she had approached Reilly about the alleged assaults, but that he instructed her to keep quiet. After Buchanan had left the show she received a telephone call from Reilly warning her against speaking up about the allegations. "He was very, very angry with me. He said: 'If I hear you speaking about this again anywhere, I'll see to it you'll never work in this country again'," she said in an interview with A Current Affair. New South Wales Police have asked victims or people with information to come forward. 124.181.213.160 (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done I need references to make citations for this request. --Mikemoral♪♫ 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Flying Circus

It should be pointed out that although Hughes was one-time a member of The Flying Circus, he left the group before 'Hayride' and 'La La' were recorded. The bass player in those YouTube clips is not Hughes. Perhaps that part of the article needs to be clarified to avoid confusion. PaulHammond2 (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Refs all about sex abuse claims

since no consensus has yet been reached about how to include the current allegations about this living person, I think it's highly inappropriate to be backing up random info in this article with refs like this that I've removed:

<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/more-at-stake-in-molester-affair-than-a-reputation/story-e6frg6nf-1225846183135|title=More at stake in molester affair than a reputation |last=Overington|first=Caroline|date=27 March 2010|work=theaustralian.com.au|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/hey-dad-child-star-flies-home-to-talk-to-police-20100326-r375.html|title=Hey Dad child star flies home to talk to police |last=Hornery|first=Andrew|coauthors=Jacobsen, Geesche|date=27 March 2010|work=theage.com.au|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref> <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/entertainment/tv/every-family-has-its-secrets-inside-the-seemingly-perfect-world-of-hey-dad/story-e6frexlr-1225846195433|title=Every family has its secrets - inside the seemingly perfect world of Hey Dad |last=Fife-Yeomans|first=Janet|date=27 March 2010|work=dailytelegraph.com.au|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|url=http://bigpondmovies.com/libraries/article_library/aap_newsml/hey_dad_actor_claims_she_was_sex_abused/|title=Hey Dad! actor claims she was sex abused|date=2010|work=bigpondmovies.com|accessdate=27 March 2010}}</ref>

I think it's a subtle way of trying to include it without reaching consensus. Cheers, --Amaher (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Overington is a Walkley Award winning investigative senior journalist with The Australian. She has asserted that there is an uneasy confluence between media allegations against Robyn Gardiner's husband and the proposed listing of Gardiner's company, possibly corporate sabotage. There is presently no mention in the Hughes article content of allegations against him. You are proposing a whole new slippery slope that no reference may be used because one part of it may refer to other matters not mentioned in the article. WWGB (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First we need to reach consensus on including a matter that is already across and press and Australian media (and can be fully referenced using mainstream news sites.) Now we're not allowed to include references in Wikipedia?! Format (talk) 07:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say unreliable, just inappropriate. This person's wife's company's affairs are completely out of context without also adding info about the allegations. There is ample, well-referenced information about the current allegations on the Hey Dad...! page anyway. I'm not against it being included here, but keep in mind wikipedia is not news, so there's no need to rush to include it without consensus, keeping BLP guidelines in mind --Amaher (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

While I think the abuse allegations should be included in the article, surely we can find reliable sources to other facts in his biography that don't have anything to do with the allegations. I don't think "Hey Dad child star flies home to talk to police" and "More at stake in molester affair than a reputation" are reasonable titles to have in the references if we're not getting involved in the allegations yet. StuartH (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No index and archive box

Considering that there are a couple of BLP violations creeping on to the talkpage and a lot of content and discussion about these allegations I have removed the talkpage from the search engine crawlers and I have added an archive box, where anything excessive could be moved to, or in readiness for removing some discussions from the talk. Off2riorob (talk) 08:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

There is neither mandate nor necessity to hide these discussions. If you perceive a BLP breach then ask an admin to delete. 220.253.74.56 (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is totally normal to remove such talkpages from the search engine crawler, this helps protect the subject and the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Please indicate source for "normal"? 220.253.74.56 (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Your edit warring to keep this talkpage in the search engine crawl is unbelievable. Off2riorob (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:STATUSQUO, "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change." 220.253.74.56 (talk) 08:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Two 3RR breaches over this (on both sides)? Really... Take it easy with the reverts and obey [{WP:STATUSQUO]]. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other editors that object to removing this talk page from the search engine crawler? 08:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't object but there's no reason to edit war over it. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• No objections. Format (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• Seems like a good idea to me. - Bilby (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• good idea--Amaher (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats five including me so I will add it now, thanks for commenting. Done Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mind. Ansell 23:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting article ...

... can be found here. Mattinbgn\^talk 19:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Guidelines

From Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

Format (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Care to point out what's irrelevant, or is this just general advice? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it just means we shouldn't discuss the case, but rather discuss the article, and how the case should be included / excluded. Parradudes (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Update

It is like a month now since task force ruskin was formed, have there been any official complaints to the police and have there been any charges. I can't find any citations of any official complaints or charges anywhere? The content needs updating. Off2riorob (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the police initiated an investigation, I expect there is no need for an "official complaint" since the matter will progress anyway. I guess it takes time to interview all the people involved (and, I suspect, police would wait for the media furore to cool down before releasing any further statement). WWGB (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is of course a need for an official complaint. There is nothing at all on the web, Monahan has gone off back to the USA or wherever she lives, the articles will need updating, perhaps it shold be added now that after a month there had been no official complaints andf no charges at all. There will be no charges as I can see there has not been an official complaint about anything. I will give it a couple of weeks and have another look at it. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree an update would be good and indeed necessary, but to say "nothing has happened" without a source saying that nothing has happened is original research. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen it done in quite a few such cases where there is a lot of press hoopla and accusatory claims and then everyone goes back to what they were doing, the damage having been done so to speak.Something like this I have seen..Mr harris called for an investigation and this is cited and then nothing happens and , after three months no investigation has been reported. We should look for any citations that give any kind of update to correct this, local editors maybe able to find something, I have been looking and not even found a single report since the hoopla. Off2riorob (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The allegations started around 19 March and its now 23 April so that's just over one month - not "three months"! Afterwriting (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, the comment I used is from another article. We will wait but please look for updates as it is not correct to leave the article like this. tOff2riorob (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There have been some secondary comments not directly related to the story, but I haven't spotted anything significant, and NewsBank didn't show anything when last I checked. I'm not surprised, though - generally the police keep these investigations quiet, and there could be significant delays if they had to organise to travel to Singapore. Plus I'd expect them to take a lot of care. If they choose not to charge him there will be some coverage, and if they opt for charges there will be a lot. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the jurisdiction in which Off2riorob lives, but police in Australia are entitled to launch their own investigation and lay charges without an "official complaint". They have already indicated that the investigation will be a protracted process. [5] WWGB (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that cite is a month old, IMO there will be no charges at all, the police launched an investigation into the claims, that is exactlly what it says on the tin and reflects as much on the claimer as on the accused. We can wait and see, as I said please pay attention to udating this article as soon as possible as per BLP. Also looking at that citation provided by User WWGB it clearly says, Police said last week an investigation would not begin until a victim lodged a complaint with detectives. this is clear that unless a complaint was actually lodged then there would be no investigation, and we have no citation to support that an official complaint was lodged. Off2riorob (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The first six words of the newspaper article state "Police have launched a formal investigation". The sentence beginning "Police said last week ..." was an historical perspective. Anyway, all this crystal ball gazing is entirely unproductive. As Bilby points out, the police will release a statement when they are ready. WWGB (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please..Our first priority under policy is to living people, the police is their issue , we must not wait an excessive time . please attempt to update these controversial allegations as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually several people have spoken to the police. http://sarahmonahan.com/finally-back-home Sarah started her statement on Monday April 30, as she has said she would.

That is an interesting comment, but is simply a comment that she made a statement, not that she made a complaint. It is an interesting statement from her though, very revealing. Lets see what happens, it is interesting that she mentions that the police are aware that she received money for her story, as I have said previously, the fact that the police have taken a statement from her is perhaps as much a reflection of any charges that may be brought against her and any action that may or may not be brought against anyone else. People who report crimes do not first sell their story to celebrity magazines.Off2riorob (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

No charges and no interview of Hughes

There are never going to be any charges of Hughes and he is never going to bve interviewed by the police. It is important that this is made clear in the article. In the UK we have this thing were people are innocent until they are proved guilty. This man has not been charged, will not be charged and as such is innocent. Off2riorob (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to agree that at this stage WP:OR should be ignored to allow the sentence you've put in, so I'm fine with the statement "no charges have yet been laid". But that doesn't mean they won't in future: there's no basis to speculate that "there are never going to be any charges of Hughes and he is never going to be interviewed by the police". --Mkativerata (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say the fact that she first took money for the story from a magazine makes it an impossibility to ever charge him. I will swim to Australia with my hands tied behind my back if there are ever any charges. The whole issue was a press attack from start to finish Off2riorob (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't mind if it is removed, I will keep coming here every month and comment the same.Off2riorob (talk) 08:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

5 Months

It has been five months since the allegations first surfaced... does anyone know if there has been any new information about this case? Also, can anyone find links pointing to the supposition that (iirc) arouse not long after a current affair named Robert Hughes that all the key players were signed by a single rival talent agency to Robert Hughes wife? WookMuff (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

anniversary - one year - no interview and no charge

Are there any reports of what task force Ruskin is doing? In the next few weeks it will be a year since the woman made the claims and this subject has not been interviewed and there have been no charges at all. I have been looking for updates and found nothing. Perhaps someone local can find something. I will stick my neck on the line here and imo there never will be any interview and there never will be any charges, if the task force has disbanded we need to make that clear in the article as soon as we find a report. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the investigation is still going on. The A Current Affair tv show had a segment on the allegations on evening of 7 March 2011 (local date) See HERE. They went to the US to interview the 'girl' involved. FYI. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Yes, it seems even the woman in question has decided any possible outcome from the police investigation is not worth waiting for see here from march 7 and has said she is going to make a civil claim and said "We really don't know how much longer it's going to take and (police) can't tell how much longer it's going to take or if it's even ever going to result in charges," and added - "It's all about them making their money and the best way to hurt them is with their pocket book, go after their money," she claimed. I would say a claim from a complainant that they intend start a civil case is not something we should be adding to this BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry,about the TalkBack, didn't expect such a fast response! - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with your comment though Off2riorob, we should wait for something concrete before making too much of it. You don't have to start swimming, yet! ;-} - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 14:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I am a lazy swimmer thanks for the update. Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a brief news report in The Age today: [6]. Format (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

'A Current Affair' had a bit more coverage 8 Mar. 11, regarding public response to yesterdays segment. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Niece's allegations

There are some new allegations from his niece, aired on A Current Affair, if someone wants to add them into the article:

http://www.news.com.au/national/niece-melinda-odonnell-claims-hey-day-star-robert-hughes-molested-her/story-e6frfkvr-1226020873434 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.143.42 (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see they have been added. They should not have been. Their adding and the continued retention of the previous claims demonstrate this encyclopedia is not seriously committed to treating fairly its living subjects. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet, we see it fit to go and change Sarah Monahan's page and write in a tone that makes it sound like she's a lying publicity whore... Sarahjintexas (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC) sarahjintexas

WP:BLPN

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert Hughes (Australian actor). This article is manifestly unfair to someone who is basically no longer a public figure. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hughes: Coming, then staying

I heard that Hughes said he initially wanted to help the police and was prepared to return to Australia.

Now he's saying he's going to fight extradition.

Has anyone heard why he changed his mind about returning to Oz? Montalban (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Years Active

We should probably change this to what I think was his last role in 2000. LGA _talk^edits 03:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! You removed a reference that he was a voice actor in 2010, and then claim he has not worked since 2000. He may even take the lead role in the Christmas pageant at Silverwater Jail. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm whops my bad, you are right 2010. LGA _talk^edits 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Should his nationality be changed to British?

I'm honestly not sure if nationality is the same as citizenship. According to sources already linked in the article, he had dual Australian/British citizenship, then renounced his Australian citizenship. Does denouncing one's natural citizenship also renounce their "nationality"? Universal Declaration of Human Rights apparently says, "Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality".

According to https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/hey-dad-actor-robert-hughes-granted-parole/101119740, he is about to be moved to immigration detention ahead of deportation to UK (giving additional credence to the fact he is no longer an Australian citizen). --159.196.170.89 (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)