Talk:Derek McCulloch

Discussion

(Please make clear for the closer whether you support or oppose inclusion.)

• Given the rabid obsession with the sex abuse claims, if there were actually anything of substance at this time there would be more press stories than these and we would have more to say than "allegations were made about someone in a book 10 years ago that an pseudonym is believed by someone who wasnt even born at the time the events are alleged to have happened." We are wikipedia, the encyclopedia, NOT Tabloidopedia. We can wait until the reliable sources actually have something to say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• The guidelines for reporting allegations should be broadly the same regardless of whether the person is alive or dead. WP:V and WP:UNDUE do not go out of the window when a person dies. The claims against McCulloch have clear issues in this area, as they are limited to a few sources, with John Simpson's book having particularly serious RS problems. This is not about covering up The Truth™, but about ensuring that basic Wikipedia guidelines are followed. My position is to exclude the McCulloch allegations unless more evidence emerges.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's quite nonsensical - the fact that the allegations have been made is as verifiable as anyone could possibly wish. We don't present them as true allegations, but we present the true information we have about the allegations, which are clearly something many readers are going to expect to read about when coming to Wikipedia to read about the totality of what reliable sources have reported about this person. To exclude this information would be an absurd whitewash, and quite against the spirit of both V and UNDUE and the rest of NPOV. Victor Yus (talk) 10:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the TheRedPenOfDoom is incorrect when he alleges that there is only a single primary source. The allegations were confirmed by O'Hagan using several other sources from the BBC. "Of the three men named to me as I talked to people about the BBC in those days, Uncle Mac is the one who stirs the strongest emotions." The allegations have been reported by a multitude of reliable sources, using a multitude of primary sources. TheRedPenOfDoom and ianmacm are aggressively attempting to censor information here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

There were lots and lots of "verifiable allegations" about Satanic ritual abuse in the US as well, and the allegations were almost entirely hogwash. Wikipedia readers deserve better than being fed inappropriate content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies you should petition to have them changed. Until then this encyclopedia will be edited according to the existing rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I DO agree with wikipedia policies. WP:V and WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT all support articles NOT covering content based on a few vague allegations initiated in the tabloid press. Having a reliable source is the MINIMAL level for content, but it is not a guarantee that it SHOULD / MUST be included.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have reached a classic impasse here. One of the things that I had hoped for is that other people would have come forward and made similar claims against McCulloch, as happened after the ITV1 documentary about Jimmy Savile. This has not happened, possibly because it was all a long time ago (the 1930s-1950s). "Auntie Gladys" also claimed that the BBC had responded to letters complaining about "Uncle Dick's" behaviour, which may be present somewhere in the BBC archive. At the moment, there is too much hearsay, which leads to a range of issues with Wikipedia policy and admissibility as evidence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Lies and more lies. The allegations were initiated by John Simpson, not the tabloid press. They have been corroborated by multiple sources by O'Hagan, and published in multiple reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

John Simpson's account would not last five minutes in court, it is his recollection some years later of a telephone conversation with an anonymous "gin-sodden lady".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is not a court of law so it makes no difference whether an account is beyond all reasonable doubt. It merely has to be published in a reliable source. We have at least five reliable sources publishing the allegations. Being a journalist you could safely assume that John Simpson would have taken notes of the interview, and would have written his autobiography in references to these notes. Furthermore the allegations made by McCulloch's grandson that Kathleen Garscadden was an alcoholic do not seem to be supported by the facts, the lady lived to be 94.

IP, you are absolutely wrong. "I have a source" is the first, but not ONLY hurdle for content. as long as you continue to completely ignore other wikipedia content policies your opinion is not going to be regarded as having any value. (and please sign your posts) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• I retain my position that Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. In the case at hand, I suggest the allegations (rumours) constitute a "contentious claim" for any biography at all, and that since they trace back to a "single source" that they are weakly sourced. Further that the article has definite implications for living people. Collect (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support inclusion -- the sources are fine (strange to see the Independent and the LRB described as tabloids...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This Sun "exclusive" from 17 October 2012 is causing the problem, and is likely to set off RD2 edits.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "is causing the problem"? The only problem I see is that various editors keep removing reliably sourced material without the least attempt at justification. Victor Yus (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Sun's attempt to portray John Simpson's hearsay account from 1999 as an "exclusive" is not a reliable source. The rest is not very reliable either. Would you trust any of this material to withstand a libel action, assuming that McCulloch was still alive?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know, but that isn't a question we need to ask. Reliable sources (not only the Sun) are reporting this; we should do so too, as Wikipedia regularly does with reported allegations (even with living subjects). Readers - not you or I - can make up their own mind as to how credible the allegations might be, given the information we know. Victor Yus (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, with rewording based on the report in The Independent. That newspaper is clearly a reliable source, and says: "In an article for the London Review of Books, author Andrew O'Hagan claims BBC broadcaster Lionel Gamlin, who produced children's programmes and presented Top of the Form, regularly had sex with young boys in a secret Fitzrovia hideaway during the 1950s.... Children's Hour presenter Derek McCulloch – known to children as "Uncle Mac" – is accused of similar abuse and regularly taking children "to the gents to interfere with them". O'Hagan says parents' complaints were waved away as fiction by the office of the director general whose letters said: "The nation wouldn't understand such an accusation against a much-loved figure."" It makes no claims as to whether or not the allegations are true, and nor should we as editors - what is important is that a reliable source is stating that the allegations exist. I suggest that we do not use the IBT or Sky News as sources in this case, as both rely heavily on The Sun, which is clearly not a reliable source - Sky News also says that "..McCulloch's Wikipedia page has been blocked for editing..." which is completely untrue. We should not base the decision on inclusion on an editor's claim that their relatives are upset by the allegations - McCulloch died 45 years ago and WP:NOTCENSORED applies. There is no good reason not to include a reference to the fact that allegations against McCulloch are in the public domain. They are notable by virtue of the fact that they have been widely publicised in the context of the Savile scandal; McCulloch himself is a notable person; the allegations relate to the culture existing at the BBC in the past which itself is subject to an important investigation, as well as to McCulloch (and Gamlin) specifically; and have been acknowledged by the BBC as allegations deserving investigation. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: Incidentally, the same issues over article content are discussed at Talk:Lionel Gamlin and editors may wish to comment there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

can you explain to me what credentials novelist Andrew O'Hagan's (who was born after McCulloch' died) has for identifying and verifying 40+ year old claims of sexual abuse that his opinion is one that we should be caring about? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not up to us to have any views whatsoever about O'Hagan's "credentials". The fact that The Independent thinks him to be worthy of being reported is enough. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't O'Hagan who first wrote those things about McCulloch, it was Simpson in his book. This is a case of The Independent reporting Andrew O'Hagan reporting John Simpson reporting a conversation with Kathleen Garscadden in 1967. The "me too" sources speak to the notability of the claims, but don't change the fact that there's a single purported source and that she is dead. As for the O'Hagan article, you and I are reading that differently. You see him referring to other rumours about McCulloch. I see him referring to the same rumour (the Simpson/Garscadden rumour).

I was inclined to support inclusion of this, and I'm still weakly inclined to (though haven't decided yet). I'm concerned that more newspapers aren't reporting it. The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and Observer haven't mentioned it, despite having the wherewithal to find out whether there were rumours over and above the Simpson/Garscadden one. So that is making me hesitate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian did report Simpson's allegations. They did not name McCulloch but there can be little doubt they knew who Uncle Dick referred to.^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

But of course these charges are so serious and deserving of coverage that we must throw out WP:OR as hampering our ability to dive into the slime coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

And of course we have several sources that tell us that McCulloch is clearly the subject of the allegations so there is no need for [WP:OR]]. O'Hagan: " He calls him ‘Uncle Dick’. In 1998, and still today, Simpson felt he shouldn’t name McCulloch directly: but it is now clear that Uncle Dick is Uncle Mac." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Parts of the media have used the fact that Derek McCulloch, Wilfred Brambell and Leonard Rossiter are dead to make allegations that could easily have set off unwinnable libel actions if they were still alive. This should be a cause for concern, and on balance I still think that the root of the sourcing for the McCulloch allegations - the Simpson book - is too weak.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

We rely on secondary and tertiary sources, which are what someone, reporting someone, reporting someone else, essentially are. Perhaps one of the reasons the newspapers haven't reported anything is that McCulloch is a very obscure and forgotten figure, at least to anyone under 60 or so. Another is the fact that, to a newspaper, The Sun is a competitor that has already covered the story. Another is that now, clearly, inquiries are ongoing into these claims and others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

re: "Another is the fact that, to a newspaper, The Sun is a competitor that has already covered the story. " as anybody who has watched the papers knows that this is the most facile reasoning ever and if true the stories about Savile in newspapers would not be numbering in 10s of thousands in the past month. re "Another is that now, clearly, inquiries are ongoing into these claims and others. " while it may well be true that investigations are occurring, (that is also true regarding Savile and that has not quenched one iota the coverage of those incidents) but we dont have really any coverage that there are investigations ongoing, just the passing comment from the BBC that the will add him to the list. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, is that there may well be many reasons why other newspapers have not published the story, and we can't assume it's because they think it is untrue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

1) they think its untrue 2) they think its unworthy of reporting on 3) they think it may be true but feel they need better and stronger evidence. all are far more likely than " oh the Sun ran it so we cant" and all are reasons why Wikipedia shouldnt run it either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If guessing the reasons that some sources haven't published a story isn't WP:OR then I don't know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR is not allowed for content within an article. But editors are most certainly allowed to use personal analysis to determine what properly sourced content should be allowed within the article, which content would be expressing UNDUE prominence to fringe or non notable claims etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You're offering your own personal analysis to decide why some editor has not run a particular story. What are your credentials for offering this analysis? Are you a journalist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.120.139 (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My credentials are that I am a Wikipedia editor. We make determinations about the quality and reliability and representativeness of sourcing all the time with every edit we make. And I think that we need to include these allegations about sexual impropriety at Dalek because of course we have a source and any type of sexual allegation with a source belongs in an article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• [comment copied from above by SV] The information can be included, in my opinion. The subject is dead, so the WP:BLP guidelines cited above do not apply in this case. The only questions are 1) are the sources used to support the information reliable? Unless anyone wants to dispute that, I assert the answer is yes. I certainly haven't seen any suggestion otherwise. And 2) does the information in the article accurately reflect the sources? This is a matter that editors should agree upon, but shouldn't be too hard to resolve. You're merely repeating what's written in news articles - describe allegations as allegations and investigations as investigations. Because that is what they are. We need not worry about defamation or libel: allegations against dead men rarely wind up in court. --Batard0 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noting here that I copied Batard's post from the old RfC above in case he posted it there without having seen this one. I've left a note on his talk page to make sure he doesn't mind. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

While the subject of the article may be dead so that BLP does not directly apply to him, allegations of child molestation DO STILL have impact on the living members of the family and ARE covered under BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"It's OK, he's dead and can't sue us for libel" is arguably the least of the problems here. Simpson's 1999 book account and its reliability (or lack of it) is the main issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

First, thanks for moving my comment to its proper place. I inadvertently posted it in the wrong section. Second, concern about the effect of allegations on living relatives under WP:BDP doesn't apply here; the subject is not recently dead, nor is there doubt about his death. He's dead, and he's been dead for some time. Any assertion that these allegations have "implications" for his relatives is a tenuous one at best. What implications? Were his relatives implicated in these allegations? There's zero suggestion to the effect that, for example, a living relative condoned or supported or was implicated otherwise in his alleged activities, which if it were the case would be a proper invocation of WP:BDP. The embarrassment that a relative may feel about the legacy of this man doesn't give rise to any WP:BLP issues, in my opinion. Now, as to the reliability of Simpson's 1999 book, that's neither here nor there because it isn't being relied upon directly as a source. News stories from reliable sources (Sky News and the like) are being relied upon. It's not up to us to judge the indirect reliability of a book when we have direct sources the reliability of which nobody has seriously challenged. The purpose of the reliable sources policy is to make sure we base articles on sources that have editorial oversight and don't publish innuendo willy-nilly. If Sky News and other outlets have judged these allegations worthy of publication, in other words, and we consider them reliable sources with strong editorial oversight, we shouldn't hesitate to repeat them ourselves, obviously keeping in mind due weight in the article. --Batard0 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

@ " Any assertion that these allegations have "implications" for his relatives is a tenuous one at best. What implications? Were his relatives implicated in these allegations?" it is precisely the tenousness of THIS allegation that brings concern that guilt by association is FREELY flowing in the recent sexual abuse scandals as it did previously in the US in similar situations Satanic ritual abuse. So YES BLP does really apply. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion just to put in a !vote, although it should be clear from previous discussion (anyone closing this should take care not to double-count this). I'm not sure I follow the above argument. You say this allegation of abuse is tenuous, but it's repeated in reliable sources; to the extent that those sources say it is tenuous, so should we in the article. All we're doing is reflecting what's reported in these reliable sources. A separate judgment of the strength of the allegations is unnecessary. In any case, there is not the slightest indication that any living person is guilty by association; does the mere fact that these accusations of sexual abuse have been leveled color his entire family as guilty more than 40 years after his death? That, I suggest, is highly doubtful. --Batard0 (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the existence of reliable sources always trumps WP:BLP concerns; that's not the case. I'm arguing that there are no convincing WP:BLP concerns, and thus we can reflect what's been reported in reliable sources in the article, without of course giving the accusations undue weight. --Batard0 (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly support inclusion for the reasons given above. One needs only to read the article in the London Review of Books to see the issue as redundant. -The Gnome (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

to anyone who made the claim that false accusations by association are not a concern, they should revisit their position in light of false accusations that the BBC is now having to walk itself back from. Wikipedia should NOT place itself in the same situation and needs to hold high thresholds for coverage of allegations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Initially I supported including the claims so long as we made clear they were based on a single source, but I've grown uneasy given that several good British newspapers have not even mentioned them, and my unease has increased with the events of the last few days. It seems that a mentality has developed (elsewhere, not on WP) whereby allegations that should have been investigated properly, and weren't, may now be mentioned freely to make up for the earlier failures. But this is to swing from one extreme to the other. So I oppose inclusion until other reliable sources (not "me too" sources) develop this further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning to oppose too, per Slim and RedPenofDoom. Like Slim I've been waiting for another paper to pick this story up, and there's been nothing as yet. If the BBC are investigating this then they will have to report and that will give us a definitive source to cite. Until then I would be happy if Wikipedia did not include the material. Hiding T 18:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support inclusion - The current wording in the Derek McCulloch#Posthumous allegations section is suitable given the current coverage of these allegations. They could very well turn out to completely false, and I agree that concentration of news coverage is a good measure by which to determine the significance of these claims. It does mean something that the only sources talking about this so far are those that have been mentioned here. But as there are indeed some reliable secondary sources that talk about these allegations, we should mention them, as long as the current edit's neutrality is maintained. The important thing is to simply name these allegations and their sources and not give any opinion on WP's behalf as far as the veracity of the claims.

I also side with removing the "undue" template, because undue weight is not being given to the accusations. They are claims (however untrue they may turn out to be) that reliable sources (namely The Independent and IBT) have reported. Now, I recognize this claim has been wrapped up in the whole Jimmy Savile witch hunt, an event that has clearly borne false accusations, and this accusation appears to come from a sole person. All of this rightly causes editors to hesitate to include this information. Still, we should wait for one of these news sources to comment more on their coverage rather than immediately assume that this situation definitely mirrors that of Lord McAlpine. Ender and Peter 19:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Somewhat support There seem to be a few sources and I think we can agree that they are reliable. Because of the timing of this situation I don't think we should be in a rush to include so much detail on it yet. I would support cutting it down to a single and brief sentence, maybe an "it was reported that...", for the time being. This is many years after the actions and we don't need to be in a race to get the information in here, especially if the BBC is reporting it. The fact that this is being investigated should be notable. Dreambeaver(talk) 23:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Inclusion The O'Hagan article seems pretty clear in it's allegation. Certainly we wouldn't want to indicate that WP believes these to be true, at least not until the BBC report or something else gives some credence to it. It seems nonsensical to leave these allegations out, especially since they are from reliable sources. I would change the wording of the section in the article though; quite why the Simpson story is the "in" I don't see. The O'Hagan stuff is more solid and should be at the top of that section. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Wikipedia practice concerning anonymous rumours about people have changed on the past two years, and I suggest it is time to revisit the position taken here at that point. I note that the rumours made in the 1999 book appear to be no longer of current interest, IMO. The BBC review from 2012 has apparently found nothing at all to support the rumours, and 2 years is sufficient time for this to remain on Wikipedia . Collect (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This was brought up by the media during the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. The evidence always looked thin, and the passage of two years has not altered this position.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The RfC calls them "rumors". If they are just "rumors" then they don't deserve inclusion. What reliable sources do we have to support such claims or "rumors"? Meatsgains (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Meatsgains that it they are just "rumors" that they should be left out. Fraulein451 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect says "The BBC review from 2012 has apparently found nothing at all to support the rumours". Where is the source for that? According to the Dame Janet Smith Review here: "While the Review is nearing the end of its work, it continues to conduct interviews and to receive relevant evidence. The Review expects that its Report will be finalised before the end of the year. When a publication date is known, a further update will be provided." So, we can't assume anything at this stage about what the review may conclude about the allegations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

In a period of over two years, nothing has been educed to support the allegations whatsoever. No reliable secondary sources have produced stories about McCulloch in that time. The page you cite states Dame Janet has decided that her Report should not be delivered until after the conclusion of the trial of Dave Lee Travis. Which pretty much says that specific trial is to be referenced in the report as the reason for any delay. That trial, curiously enough, had naught to do with McCulloch at all. specifies what the review is covering: Savile and Hall. The review was not released pending the trial of Travis. Note McCulloch is not in any of the material from Dame Janet Smith in any of these pages. Nor did the reviewers solicit any information other than that related to Savile and Hall. The main purpose of the Review is to investigate the allegations made against Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall and to take any steps that may be needed to prevent inappropriate sexual conduct in future.. Thus using the review as a reason to further delay what is called for by Wikipedia policy makes no sense at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

There has been ample time for other people to come forward with similar stories about McCulloch's behaviour, but no-one has. It is similar to the situation with Benjamin Britten, where despite a large amount of hot air, no-one has ever been able to prove that he did anything illegal with a child. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"There has been ample time for other people to come forward with similar stories about McCulloch's behaviour, but no-one has." But, we don't yet know that. People were invited to send evidence - about Savile, Hall, and other people who may or may not include McCulloch - to the inquiry, which has not yet reported. The Inquiry is not restricted solely to Savile and Hall - it covers "the culture and practices of the BBC during the years that Jimmy Savile worked there." "The main purpose of the Review is to investigate the allegations made against Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall " - but not the only purpose. The fact that no-one else has made public allegations about McCulloch does not necessarily mean that further allegations will not emerge. Not everyone goes straight to the press with allegations. We don't know, and won't know until the report is published, whether the original allegations, or any other allegations, have any substance to them. What we do know is that allegations were made. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I was talking about the media as a whole rather than the Dame Janet Smith Review. Apart from the thinly sourced anecdote in a book by John Simpson published years before The Sun dragged it up in 2012 to cause a controversy, there is no evidence that McCulloch was a child abuser. This needs to be taken in context with WP:WEIGHT and the objections of McCulloch's family to dragging his name into the mud when he cannot answer back.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. My objection was only to the assumption that no substantive allegations had been made (other than the original ones), when we simply don't know whether that is the case or not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point, 4 oppose inclusion of rumours, and one is in favour of including the rumours of child molestation. No one disputes that accusations of child molestation are a "contentious claim" with regard to any biography, and that the rumours do affect people both living and deceased. Collect (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. If the Smith report mentions anything, we should consider it again then. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of weak, unsubstantiated rumors. I was invited here by Legobot. Ghmyrtle, there are an unlimited number of things that we don't know, but what we don't know should have no effect on our Wikipedia editing. If reliable sources discuss the allegations in the future, we can revisit the matter then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I said. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - unsubstantiated rumors have no place in BLPs. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Even when they've been dead for 47 years....?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If the rumours have been widely reported in reputable sources, they should be included as part of the media's reaction to this figure. If they have not, they should be excluded. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)