Talk:Chris Hurley (police officer)
- The Chris Hurley page has now been deleted and redirected. Last time I tuned in it was quite favourable to Hurley. Someone has apparently included some defamatory POV and the page gets deleted supposedly based on that and the 'fact' that Hurley is only known for one event. If deleting is the solution rather than correcting the content why is the Mulrunji (person famous for the same incident)(no books about him for other things) page not a redirection? It couldn't be hard to fix to remove a defamatory POV slant. The inquest didn't go his way but it later got overturned by the District Court, The DPP found insufficient evidence to charge him, the CMC found insufficient evidence to charge him, Street argued circumstantial evidence an it went to trial, then Hurley got acquitted. Now there are books about his work with aboriginal communities. How hard can it be to have an article which doesn't defame him? I agree with the lazy comment in the arguments made prior to deletion.Jb3 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- What your above comment shows is a distinct lack of understanding about WP:BLP1E and WP:NPOV and how they apply to otherwise non-notable people. Regardless of what is written, the article did nothing but attach his name to a crime of which he has been acquitted. "Now there are books about his work with aboriginal communities" How much of this work would be in the least bit notable if he had not been involved in the Palm Islands incident? The article about Mulrunji of course by definition is not covered by BLP1E, and therefore the precedent set here does not apply. Having said that, I would be entirely comfortable with a merge and redirect of that article as well. This attitude of "It's been in the press, therefore its open season" is entirely wrong-headed and I for one am glad to see the attitude of Wikipedians on this issue start to turn around. Of course, if you are unhappy WP:DRV is available but I doubt there will be much support for your case there; the principles in BLP are the new reality here and we all need to get used to it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am taking the first mentioned rule at face value. If you know something I don't please feel free to illuminate. Hurley has been a public figure for the last 4 years and other issues of his life have not just been mentioned in a media report. There have been books written about him. Every public figure becomes known to the public somehow. Just because his 'debut' can be tied to an event doesn't seem to inevitably enliven WP:BLP1E. That is for people get a mention for an event but retain a low profile isn't it? Nevertheless I concede that the Mulrunji thing is irrelevant.
I am fully aware that there is a prohibition on POV in wikipedia. However several months ago I viewed this article and it was entirely factual and in no way defamatory toward him. (Indeed if the darn thing hadn't been deleted the POV redrafting could have been reverted out) Accordingly, there is no reason that the negative POV it necessarily part and parcel of this article.
I am not trying to get the man slandered. I genuinely believe that the facts speak for themselves and are extremely favourable toward him as I hinted in my original post. I believe if I give an off the cuff summary it will confirm this:
The media portrayed Hurley as a racist aggressor. The first known facts are his work in the aboriginal community and ironically his evidence about deaths in custody to the Federal Committee. Further an aboriginal activist stated that he was not racist or words to that effect. The next known facts are that while escorting some Aboriginal women who had been assaulted so that they would not be attacked he arrested a drunk and disorderly man. The man died in custody. The media portrayed accidental death as impossible. One potential witness at first said he saw nothing then later said that he saw Mulrunji get beat up by Hurley but was in a different cell and couldn't do anything about it. The video of the cell showed him asleep in the same cell. A police witness gave evidence consistent with accidental injury. Another witness said that Hurley punched Mulrunji in the head and kicked him in the guts. The man was at the station for the wrong reasons and ended up serving a substantial time at her majesty's pleasure. The medical evidence ruled out kicking to the guts. The coroner came up with a theory which was later struck out by the District Court. She suggested that the head punches were body punches and the witness was honest but mistaken. The medical evidence at trial indicated that body punches were unlikely. All medical experts were open to accidental death as a possibility for explaining the death. The DPP and CMC concurred that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute although the media took a different tack and emphasised the coroner's opinion. Coroners do not function in the relevant jurisdiction as a second DPP. The DPP reportedly gave their conclusion after consulting with a retired judge. The head of the DPP actually publically expressed a view that the death was a "tragic accident" after examining the evidence and making their finding. Street was hired and tried a circumstantial argument. The matter went to trial where the prosecutor ingeniously tried to apply the circumstantial approach (yep this is POV but he deserves credit for his brilliance). Hurley was acquitted. I believe that is just a fair summary of the most relevant facts with POV minimised but to do so I do I sound like I want to defame Hurley? Do you want an extensive POV from me based on the facts and my inferences? It won't be negative.
As indicated above I did not read the article when it just attached his name to a "crime" of which he was acquitted (which by definition is not a crime if we take the civilized view that people are innocent until proven guilty). The article could have been easily amended to remove the hostile POV.
"How much of this work would be in the least bit notable if he had not been involved in the Palm Islands incident?"
As a preliminary matter I dispute the relevance as he didn't just get a mention in relation to an event but retain a low profile. The rule doesn't appear to preclude making a 'debut' with an event. Having said that there is a clear difference between notable and known. He has clearly made a significant contribution and we are now aware of it. Yes the Palm Island incident provided his debut but we are way past that. And again I emphasise that the low profile aspect of the relevant rule cannot reasonably be applied to Hurley. Were his contributions to the joint standing committee and other work in the aboriginal community noteable? Yes. Would they be known by the general public but for the light put on him over this? No Many people do many noteable things without becoming known. Both are required to make them encyclopedia eligible. However even in the extreme a lack of public recognition doesn't change the noteability of the person's actions. A Mother Theresa with a nobel prize is known. If Mother Theresa hadn't become known would anyone who discovered her actions argue that she didn't do noteable things? I doubt it. Likewise if hypothetically the nobel prize had made her known would anyone argue that she should be solely covered by an article on Nobel Prizes. I doubt it.
"The principles in BLP are the new reality here and we all need to get used to it."
Where they don't need to be applied it creates unnecessary debate.Jb3 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Tell me this.....how many white people have died in custody???? but you never hear anything about that..or if you do, it goes on for a few days and then it is all forgotten, just because he was black and the cop was white, it has to be murder, i would bet that if the cop was black he would have got a smack on the wrist and told to be more careful next time........The page about the white guy was all POV and had to be deleted....yeah right....why is it that the black guys page it still there??? What happened to EQUAL RIGHTS???? or is it all one sided? Thuringowacityrep (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)