Talk:Chris Hurley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag
Portal
 Chris Hurley is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

[edit] POV

This article has serious NPOV problems. Language such as; "In support of this view" "Also in support of this view of Hurley" "Nevertheless, the media reports suggested" "arrested a drunk Indigenous man" "the resulting effective contribution he made to the public outcry" is a problem, please fix the language and I will remove the tag. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It reads like most other pages about people, just looks like it hit a nerve with you. All i can see is fact and seems to be quoting what the media and other indigenous and non indigenous people have said. looks fine to me. however i have made a few small changes, and NO i didn't write this article.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Here here Thuringowacityrep. In substance it isn't point of view even if words like "view" were used which could lead some people to think it. For that to happen it does however sound unusually nitpicky. In any case the language appears to be fixed. Townsvillian are you open to removing the tag? BTW I probably should have started a new section for the following but it is pretty trivial. The words:"The Deputy Coroner also recommended that charges be formally made against Hurley." have been added. Technically the Deputy Coroner had no power to decide whether or not charges can be formally made. That is the job of the DPP and in this case CMC as he was a police officer and any criminal act would also be prosecutable as misconduct. Technically it should be deleted but it doesn't make much difference. Jb3 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP1E

I am going to propose that this article be deleted from Wikipedia per WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable for one event only. Given that there is extensive coverage of that event elsewhere and that the subject was acquitted at trial, it is virtually impossible to maintain a neutral point of view and avoid undue weight. We need to be especially careful about articles on living subjects and this article, no matter how it is written, is guaranteed to cause controversy and unwanted attention to the subject.

Note: This proposal to delete makes no argument either way about the subject and his actions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This makes no sense. His alleged actions sparked one of the biggest race and police brutality rows in the entire last decade in Australia. He's got more articles about him than some government ministers. The case and his subsequent trial is not going to fade from public memory any time soon. WP:BLP1E was intended for the sort of case where Wikipedia is the most prominent source retaining coverage of the person/incident (like the high school athlete who had her photos strewn all over the net last year, resulting in much unwanted attention and drama). This is the most ludicrous attempt to extend that that I've ever seen. Rebecca (talk) 06:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree Rebecca. Cabinet members are necessarily public people in a way that Hurley isn't. Hurley is a low ranking policemen who was charged with a crime and found not guilty. The article does not even make a pretence at being comprehensive; the only subject covered in any depth is his role in the incidents at Palm Island. Surely this is the definition of "one event". From the policy : "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted". All the facts mentioned are covered elsewhere, he was found not guilty at trial; what purpose does this article serve other than continue to associate him with Mulrunji's death? As I said above, we should be especially careful with biographies of living people, especially one's where the subject is associated with controversial events. I stand by my opinion that this article is in breach of BLP1E and should be deleted. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The content is not covered elsewhere: at present, the central coverage of the incident is here. Hurley's notability does not stem from his rank in the police force: it stems from the fact that his actions, or his alleged actions, caused one of the biggest race rows of the entire bloody decade. This makes him notable. He will always be associated with Mulrunji's death; any Google search will turn up thousands of other deeply reliable sources about it. Deleting the article in spite of the massive level of notability would blow a hole in our coverage of an important incident, lead to pretty justified charges of POV. Rebecca (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the relevant policy however I would have thought that the article on Mulrunji (which I created) would fail this kind of test before the Hurley article as Mulrunji is only notable (to wikipedia) in his death and how controversial it became afterwards. Whereas Hurley's notoriety, while originating from the death in custody, continued over many years, in fact he is still making front page headlines even in this last week.

The Coroner’s investigation, his trial, his testimony, his comments (while rare) in the public domain and that of his family, the fundraising and public defence of the Police Union for him personally and finally these new revelations about his compensation payment made to him by the QPS, are all related to (and are subsequent events to) the death in custody. However they are in their own right events involving Hurley which are independently notable. I stand by it currently being a poor article in breach of NPOV policy however I think the subject matter of the article is notable. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there's actually a fair case for Mulrunji to be redirected here per WP:BLP1E. He's a dead man, known only for the circumstances of his death, the article of which pieces together elements of his life which are not really that on the public record. Getting rid of this article under that policy, however, is bollocks. Rebecca (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, except I don't think it should be redirected here, I think the content should be moved to 2004 Palm Island death in custody and then the article redirected there. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I third the fact that "Getting rid of this article under that policy, however, is bollocks.". I note Townsvilia's idea of moving the Palm Island one here. I have a concern. The background is that the thing dragged on for so many years and in the course of the $7 million prosecution and private investigation there were two sets of police investigators, one private investigator, two (albeit one uncompleted) coronials, three teams making a decision about whether or not there was sufficient evidence to convict, a highly unusual legal procedure followed, a very public trial, riots, and a death in custody thus generating a lot of notable events and facts. Plus the thing doesn't seem to go away. Now after criminal prosecution, and a misconduct investigation he is being sued. These events and facts are currently spread out over 3 topics. Hence my concern is that compiling them would get overly long.Jb3 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)