Talk:Bill D'Arcy

Untitled

Bill Darcy was always known as The Phantom as he was rarely in his electorate, he was usually to be found travelling in Europe during Parliamentary Sitting time, for up ato 12 months at a time. His electorate officer, Desley ran the electorate very efficiently in his absence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitzylady (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

@Gladiator-Citizen: I think the external links recently added are not appropriate as per WP:EL. I think it would be more appropriate to include these as citations to support statements in the main article text. I note that they appear to be exhibiting a strong point of view and so any statements made using these as citations should be careful to make clear these are opinions and state who holds them (as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Kerry (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Kerry.I will take notice of what you say. I have read WP:EL again but I feel in a very difficult position. I would like to do links in the external sources about "recovered memory" "paedophilia" and "trial by media" and similar to enlighten the readers on the issues, but I do not have the sources suitable for the entry ---or the courage. I do have sources such as the study by the senior students in criminology at Bond University, who began by being certain that D'Arcy received a fair trial and was guilty but unanimously concluded after research that there was a miscarriage of justice. The problem is that it is not a published source. However, I do take notice of what you say, and I will discuss it further with a very experienced Wikipedia editor friend of mine and see if I can find some rational articles as external sources which support his conviction -- for balance. I am open to any further suggestions.Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I just took a deeper look at the external links. They will be problematic as citations too. The first, third and fourth ones are opinions being expressed by unidentified people from what appears to be a personal website. This makes it difficult to comply with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as we need to say who holds that opinion. The UK link doesn't mention D'Arcy at all, but could perhaps be cited where it touches on issues in the D'Arcy case, which would appear to relate to the passage of time between the alleged events and the prosecution. However, I note that the UK link appears to be just to the introduction of a longer report, which seems to do little more than identify a concern to be investigated and not the conclusion of that inquiry (that is, it does not say that the passage of time made convictions unreliable, only there was a concern to be investigated). Where is the rest of the report? I note you have previously contributed a lot of material into the article which was removed by others. Having looked over some of that material, I can see the concern as much of it appeared to lack reliable sources. It is not an issue about finding more sources about his conviction for balance against the sources you wish to add, as you suggest above. Nobody seems to be disputing the sources in relation to his conviction. If there are doubts about the conviction, then you need to provide some reliable sources that name those who express those views and what their concerns are (from people who are not connected to D'Arcy and from whom such views might have credibility, e.g. criminologists, lawyers, etc). Certainly if you have an experienced Wikipedia friend, discuss it with them, but if they are experienced, then they will be familiar with the rules that Wikipeia is not the place to right great wrongs. Kerry (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

report the sources, and the disagreements between the sources

Dear The Drovers Wife User:The Drover's Wife I "met" you earlier in your talk comments on the "1975 Constitutional Crisis". There I totally agreed with you when you said--

in the rest of the article we should just report the sources, and the disagreements between the sources, as ever. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

This is what I did here - I am dumbstruck by your harsh decision to cut out so much of my carefully researched detailed work which I believe is "report the sources, and the disagreements between the sources". If anywhere, I stated an opinion (as distinct from a justified conclusion) I would like to know where it is, and I would thank you for your assistance and would change it. I am respectfully asking you to revert your deletion, and, if necessary, discuss with me better phraseology. It is an important part of the factual history about Bill D'Arcy but also of Queensland and its struggles with its own institutions.Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't closely studied the history of how the article became such a mess, so I'm not sure where you fit into it, but the article's approach to D'Arcy's offending was absolutely off the wall compared with any coverage of the incident in reliable sources. He is a convicted sex offender - he was found guilty and all his appeals failed, and that's not reasonably in dispute. The overwhelming portion of the article was an absolutely wild case of WP:UNDUE prioritising D'Arcy's own personal claims and a handful of fringe sympathetic people over basically everything else ever written about him. "Convicted criminal still claims that he didn't do it" is not a particularly notable take until there's at least some form of serious coverage elsewhere supporting it (ala Kathleen Folbigg), or our articles on anywhere who was ever convicted of a crime and didn't confess would be obsessed with arguing for their innocence. The article was also actively misleading, phrasing D'Arcy's release on parole after seven years (an ordinary occurrence with anyone imprisoned) as if it were some kind of vindication on appeal in the hope that people wouldn't understand the difference.

I'm happy to work on an improved version here because I'm not thrilled about having to take so much length off the previous version, but the obsession with claims of D'Arcy's innocence was completely unfounded of any reasonable basis in reliable sources. The equivalent in the 1975 article would be if the entire article was about the thesis that the dismissal was a literal, direct CIA coup, and the arguments for and against. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Let me start by mentioning the sentence about his release from jail. As far as I'm concerned it was simply a chronology point –a date in the account of his life.. You are right. It is very ordinary for prisoners to get out of jail on parole. I did not see it as anything else.

Let me explain how I am into this. A friend gave me a copy of a spiral-bound book containing most of the best cuttings from the D'Arcy case with dates and sources – 1998 to 2000. (A Wikipedia editors dream!)

There was an intense and fascinating period of publicity from the end of August 1998 into early September. D'Arcy was the catalyst for a number of issues. Rumours abounded that an MP was facing charges of sexual assaulting children some thirty three years previously. The main charge against him was that he had impregnated a 14 year old girl. The baby had been adopted out.

The Labor government of Peter Beattie was only in government by the vote of Peter Wellington MP, and independent who thus held the balance of power. Wellington demanded that the not-yet-named Member of Parliament concerned step down. Premier Beattie appeared to go along with this, obviously to keep Wellington’s support and his government intact.

The Courier Mail then published Bill D'Arcy's name as the subject of the allegations, defending this action as legal because the MP had not yet been charged.

Terry O’Gorman, the president of the Council of Civil Liberties (and also D’Arcy’s solicitor) then expressed his “outrage” for the denying of natural justice to his client. The Australian newspaper (a sister paper of the Courier Mail, also owned by Rupert Murdoch) strongly upbraided the Courier Mail for jettisoning the presumption of innocence.

The general public, in the midst of a laudable campaign which was attempting to heighten public awareness about the sexual assault of children, was stirred up against D’Arcy. There were other issues. That Bill D'Arcy was the catalyst of these issues, in my judgment, increased his notability.

Later it was revealed that the 14-year-old (now older) had categorically denied any intimacy with D’Arcy. This received almost no publicity at all.

Then an extraordinary thing happened. The government and the police formed a task force to question everyone they could find in the six or so schools where D'Arcy taught taught asking them to “try to remember” if D'Arcy ever committed any offence. Eventually after two years they found a woman who, after “rediscovered” memories, gave evidence that Bill D'Arcy had raped her in class in front of 20 children none of whom saw it.

From this collection of newspaper sources I tried to present this significant segment of history objectively. I believe I gave an account of the facts only.

I would appreciate your assistance because I realise that stating the facts, (“the agreements and disagreements”) does create an impression (not an opinion) of bias. The Queensland public, as far as I know, (I do not live in Queensland) is still hostile to D'Arcy.

I related the judgement of of Judge Botting in the civil court because it is central to the D'Arcy story. The civil trial covered the same evidence as the criminal trial. Botting said that the case against D’Arcy was not proven and could not be proved. He disallowed the request for compensation and awarded costs to D’Arcy. (Hardly any publicity!)

I mentioned other people, like Dr Travis Gee, and others because they are disturbed by the whole series of events.

There is a supporters website. https://www.apersonalhistory.com/Bill_D'Arcy/ which I have not quoted!

I looked for contrary reports and opinions and could not find any except exclamations like the Lucas quote.

No victims appeared at the Royal Commission into sexual assault of children. I maintain I have simply reported the facts from accepted sources. I would welcome your suggestions as to any phrasing which could be improved but I do insist this segment of history is correct and useful to people seeking an objective account of the Bill D’Arcy issues and the issues Queensland has with its media and its institutions.  With respect.~~~~ Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The first problem is that you've not cited sources for key parts of this, and made a bunch of claims that are highly questionable. As applied to the previous article, it resulted in wild editorialising (even the section title "a milieu of competing principles and interests" made that abundantly clear). These issues run throughout, but to address a few major ones:

There is a case of serious undue weight around the unsubstantiated claims in 1998: though the first few paragraphs of the removed version are in some way relevant, even if needing to be condensed, it then goes right off the rails. It spouts conspiracy theories about the only very tangentially related Operation Paradox, seems to misrepresent or misunderstand entirely what Operation Paradox actually was, and tries to use the Kimmins Report to cast doubt on the criminal conviction despite the fact that the Kimmins Report alludes to D'Arcy once, that I can find, and solely to dismiss an allegation that the police had not investigated the earlier allegations adequately.

The removed version gave far more weight to the unsubstantiated claims in 1998, then skimmed over his actual criminal conviction, and the conspiracy theory stuff above about the police investigation (which is sufficiently wild that it didn't even seem to make it into the old version) makes explicitly clear the angle that was being run with in how that section was framed.

Your placing of the civil trial as "central to the D'Arcy story" is similarly editorial, for something largely ignored by reliable sources. The judgment of Botting in the civil trial contained, and relied upon, numerous assumptions about child sex abuse reporting that are generally understood today to be false; indeed, the only reliable sources I could find online that so much as cover the fact that the civil trial even happened are in the context of discussing Botting's discredited misunderstandings of the subject matter.

And then there's emphasis on random people who agree with you like Travis Gee, whose opinions are of no particular significance - and on trivia of no particular substance (the Royal Commission into institutional sexual abuse did not remotely pretend to deal with every case of sexual abuse that ever happened).

Ultimately, the above post really suggests that you may be too close to this: you have extremely strong views that aren't grounded in reliable sources, and you're trying to use Wikipedia to campaign. That said, I'm happy to work on a reworked version if you can separate yourself from your views enough to assist in coming up with something that's neutral, well-sourced to reliable sources and places appropriate weight on aspects of the matter according to reliable sources, rather than according to the case you want to make to readers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we both would acknowledge that we are talking about an encyclopaedia entry and that, as editors, we are both concerned about Wikipedia’s reputation and revealing the whole truth about a person or a subject dispassionately. (I am not claiming equal eminence with you!)

Let us surmise that in 80 years time Bill D’Arcy’s great-great-granddaughter (or anyone else) wants to know what was the problem with her great great grandfather. All she reads is that he was convicted of sexually assaulting children. Wikipedia has failed her.

Two years before his trial a significant event occurred, which is central to his history -

At the end of Aug-early September 1998, the Courier-Mail, the one significant newspaper of that time in Queensland, ran a series of articles, repeating over and over an allegation that her G-G-G had had sex with a 14 year old girl. The allegation included that the girl became pregnant and adopted her baby out. (Fact: incontrovertible sources quoted)

The same newspaper, against all accepted conventions, named her G-G-G who was a politician and prominent citizen. The journalist (and later the editor) in an editorial-style article, defended the revealing of the name, because naming the subject of allegations was not illegal before the person was charged.(Fact: incontrovertible sources quoted)

The Australian, a national newspaper, owned by the same company which owned the Courier Mail, wrote a strong editorial expressing serious concern at these developments upbraiding Peter Beattie and indirectly the Courier-Mail (the “media”) and the people who were responsible for denying normal justice to her G-G-G. (Fact: incontrovertible sources quoted)

Her G-G-G’s solicitor and President of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties expressed his “outrage” in an opinion piece invited by the Courier Mail and accused the Courier Mail of jettisoning the principle of “the presumption of innocence”.(Fact: incontrovertible source quoted).

Some time later the girl concerned categorically denied that she ever had sexual intimacy with her G-G-G.(Fact: incontrovertible source quoted)

Her G-G-G was never charged with this crime of which he was so publicly and intensely publicised. (No record exists: n nothing ever publicised or charged by the police).

Dear Drovers Wife, let me stop there without complicating this part of analysis with what inferences the G-G-Grandaughter might take away from the encyclopaedia entry. If you check my sources and find they are accurate (which they are), how would you write this part of the entry in Wikipedia? (Sincere question)

Check these sources

ALP Backbencher soon to face child sex abuse charges. Courier Mail Newspaper. 29 August 1998.

(In this article it is alleged that an MP made a fourteen year old girl pregnant. The baby was adopted out. The article further claimed that a number of other offences concerning young girls were made to police. A by-election would threaten the government of Peter Beattie who were in government with the support of one vote - that of an independent., Peter Wellington.)

"Sex MP Crisis". The Sunday Mail. 30 August 1998. (Front page)

(page 4)“Child sex shock: scandal threat to Beattie Govt". The Sunday Mail. 30 August 1998.

(Repeated allegation: it is alleged that an MP made a fourteen year old girl pregnant. The baby was adopted out. Unspecified other offences. O’Gorman (solicitor, civil liberties) labelled the accusations ”outrageous”. Independent Wellington demanded Police Commissioner O’Sullivan issue charges or a public clearance.)

^ "Beattie raises pressure on MP to quit". Courier Mail Newspaper. 1 September 1998.

(Repeated allegation: it is alleged that Bill D’Arcy made a fourteen year old girl pregnant. The baby was adopted out. Bill D’Arcy is named. Successor to. His seat, Michael Kaiser is named. Beattie urges D’Arcy to resign. D’Arcy refuses “indignantly” denies charges. Liberal leader Borbidge accuses Beattie of being “judge, jury and executioner”. Independent Wellington declares that D’Arcy’s superannuation be “frozen”. O’Gorman accuses Wellington of playing “God”.

Koch, Tony (1 September 1998). "Media has a duty to Victims: What Terry O'Gorman said". Courier Mail Newspaper.

( In this full page editorial-commentary, journalist Tony Koch defends naming Bill D’Arcy as the MP in question on the grounds that the public must be warned about such people and it is quite legal to do so “before the person is charged”)

Roberts, Greg (1 September 1998). "Child-sex claims rankle Qld Labor". The Age Newspaper.

“Rule of law poor second to politics"(editorial), The Australian, Tuesday 1 September 1998. (Significant source.)

In this editorial the Australian upbraids premier Peter Beattie and, by implication “the media”, i.e. its sister publication The Courier Mail, pointing out that such publicity and public statements outside the law can ruin a person, his family and his friends for life, and that they should desist immediately because of the harm which could result to an innocent person.) Some quotes:

“Sexual crimes against children are so repugnant that even the suggestion that a person is a child molester is a serious smear. If an allegation is true it would be horrific for the victims; if false, or malicious, it would be horrific for the accused. So allegations of child sexual abuse must be treated seriously by all concerned. In this case, the police inquiry must be completed as quickly as possible (while not being rushed because of pressure from politicians or the media). Then it is for the processes of the law to determine whether the allegations are true.”

“The matter in Queensland has rapidly run out of control…”

“In seeking the MPs resignation the premier, an independent MP Peter Wellington, have by implication branded him guilty.”

Parnell, Sean (2 September 1998). "Lawyers Kit to fool police". Courier Mail Newspaper.

(This article denigrates Terry O’Gorman as a lawyer because he gave out advice to other lawyers on the lawyer-police interaction.)

^ Braithwaite, Heidi (2 September 1998). "Call for MP to resign". The Reporter. (Beattie and Wellington call on D’Arcy to resign. Police Commissioner O’Sullivan says resources would be maximised examine the allegations. D’Arcy not yet questioned by police. Accusations are more than 25 years old. Logan city councillor calls for more stringent conditions for Members of Parliament.

^ "D'Arcy Backed". Albert and Logan News. 2 September 1998.

(ALP Branch secretary defends D’Arcy saying allegations had come “out of the blue”. Known D’Arcy since 1977 - supports his innocence 100%. O’Gorman accuses media of trashing the presumption of innocence. Police say they need two more weeks before they can charge D’Arcy.

Morley Peter, Peter (2 September 1998). "Premier Hit over D'Arcy Actions". Courier Mail Newspaper.

(Beattie claims he partly called on D’Arcy to resign because he was ill with a heart condition. Borbidge asked how D’Arcy can “quickly develop a heart ailment”. Beattie withdraws references “he should not have made”. Beattie criticises Courier-Mail for releasing D’Arcy’s name.)

^ "Media's duty to promote Awareness". Courier Mail Newspaper. 3 September 1998.

Editorial quoting High Court and Tony Fitzgerald QC, stating the duty of the media to inform. Seeks to justify naming Bill D’Arcy as the MP against whom allegations were made. Only after charges have been laid are they obligated not to name.

Sommerfield, Jeff; Sands, Judy (3 September 1998). "National Leader defends D'Arcy". Courier Mail Newspaper.

Queensland National party president David Russell defended D’Arcy’s right to remain in parliament and fight sex abuse charges. He gave a “spirited” defence of O’Gorman and The Council for Civil Liberties. Courier Mail editor Chris Mitchell stated it was standard practice to name suspects before charges are laid. Acting police commissioner McGibbon said that Operation Paradox, a campaign against child abuse, was “entirely coincidental”.

^ "Action on MP child sex claim". Gold Coast Bulletin. 3 September 1998.

Acting police commissioner said that charges would be laid once witnesses gave statements. Month long phone in on child sexual abuse was “coincidental”.

White, Eugene H. (3 September 1998). "Protest on principle". Courier Mail Newspaper.

Letter. D’Arcy has not been charged. He is innocent until proven guilty. His superannuation should not be taken away, nor should independent MP Wellington demand his resignation. The allegations relate to a time before he was an MP.

O'Gorman, Terry (5 September 1998). "Issue of naming rights". Courier Mail Newspaper.

(Terry O’Gorman, in counter-editorial to the Courier Mail, maintains that this attitude is “outrageous”, that it destroys the person’s reputation, jettisons the presumption of innocence, and makes a fair trial problematic or impossible. He thanks the Courier Mail for the right of reply).

Mitchell, Chris (5 September 1998). "Media's reply should be aired". Courier Mail Newspaper.

The editor of the Courier Mail defends his stance. Quotes the High Court as saying that the media has a duty to disseminate information about elected officials.” Attacks O’Gorman. Puts blame on Beattie for pressuring D’Arcy to resign.

^ "MP told police of sisters' sex claims". Canberra Times. 27 July 1999.

Wellington demands freezing of D’Arcy’s superannuation if he is charged. O’Gorman calls Wellington’s statement “appalling and bizarre”’.

Kimmins, J.P. "Inquiry into Allegations of Misconduct in the Investigation of Paedophilia in Queensland: Kimmins Report" (PDF). Criminal Justice Commission 1999. Retrieved 21 November 2022.

(This contextual report is one of several on how police misconduct and falsities led to a deeply compromised legal system in Queensland.)

Drover’s wife, These articles continue for some two years presuming, without complaint or charge, D’Arcy is guilty of “something”. I have ascertained, and this is not part of my entry in Wikipedia, that a special police task force investigated D’Arcy for the aforesaid two years, and they could find no significant complaint against him. In 2000 he was convicted on a new and unrelated charge by a woman who experienced “recovered” memory and who stated that “the police identified me as a victim”.

What I have documented, I believe, is an essential part of the Bill D’Arcy story - any Wikipedia entry would be deficient without this information. I ask you to restore at least this essential part to the entry. I have taken note of your comments which I respect. I will prepare a stronger case for some other parts of the D’Arcy history once we negotiate this. Thank you Gladiator-Citizen (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to "reveal the whole truth about a person". Wikipedia's here to provide encyclopedia articles that are based on what is documented about the subject in other reliable sources. The idea that it's here to be used to convince people of a counter-narrative to that provided by reliable sources is literally the first point in what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is also unconcerned about the hypothetical take of a hypothetical granddaughter of an article subject.

That the 1998 allegations were unsubstantiated is not in dispute, nor that they should (without constituting undue weight) be referred to in this article. The only thing that is in dispute is your efforts to editorialise from that to try to discredit his subsequent criminal conviction. The Kimmins Report says absolutely nothing whatsoever about D'Arcy apart from finding that allegations that police did not sufficiently investigate the 1998 allegations were false - the efforts to try to use its findings about other issues to discredit D'Arcy's criminal conviction is original research in the most blatant sense. Your claims about the actual criminal conviction have no basis in reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)