The reference cited for this article
[1]
itself cites this article as its reference. This is a serious allegation against a young person, we should have real evidence before including it.
--Kitty Davis (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Without making a case either way, the linked article was not the only source for the claims, merely the initial one. Other sources came forward to corroborate the story:
One source told the Sunday Mail this week that Seebohm - who had been on a sport scholarship at the college - had left after being asked to apologise for the bullying. "She was investigated by the school for bullying," said the source, who did not wish to be named. "It was found that her and her friends were targeting a fellow student in Year 8." Another source said Seebohm was suspended for text-bullying after ignoring a warning to stop. She and her friends were found to be "excluding, isolating and harassing" one student, and expressing their dislike of her using "really strong words".
And confirmed by her father:
John Seebohm described the bullying incident as "nothing". "We're well past that mate," he said. "It was nothing, absolutely nothing. That's where we left it."
Having said that, I'm not sure that it is appropriate to include this either. It does not sit well with me immortalising a 14 year old girls (alleged) mistakes in a Wikipedia article. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. The law protects minors from having details of their offences published. WP should maintain a similar stance, even though this is a lesser transgression. WWGB (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think such an incident should not be included under WP:UNDUE --Matilda talk 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the article due to IP addresses continually readding it without a consensus to do so. We need to be conservative with information like this being added into articles, and even more so given this person is still a minor. We are not a tabloid or even a tabloid masquerading as a legitimate news source, and I'm sure we'd all agree that the content should never have been added in the first place if we had the choice to prevent it. Daniel (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
NN. The 60s barrier is what counts...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a few footballers beat up their classmates when they were at high school, nn. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- "THE parents of teen prodigy Emily Seebohm will seek legal advice after a newspaper alleged she had been suspended from an exclusive girls' school for text-bullying 18 months ago." Daniel (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it's pretty difficult to get a monetary settlement from an anonymous IP address. WWGB (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but not from the Foundation. Should the foundation be informed and should we courtesy blank (or delete?) this discussion. Consensus seems clear this is not suitable for inclusion in the article and it is now confirmed that this is sensitive. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
