Talk:Scott Morrison

Possible AI-generated text

Hi - I've added the AI generated template here, specifically regarding the edits by Ritwik Deuba; other edits by this user have shown indications of possible LLM use in the past, as do these. Thus they need review for accuracy, sourcing issues, possible NPOV/editorializing issues, and the like. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Rfc on Engadine McDonalds incident

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Should the article include the supposed incident at Engadine McDonalds when Morrison defecated in his pants? Note: the text is under "Personal life". Jack Upland (talk) 05:30, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: there is no need to take this straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC. I cannot fond any indication that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried, let alone exhausted. As far as I can tell, this relates to these edits from 5 July 2026 - more than three weeks ago. The content was added without subsequent discussion, nor has anybody attempted to remove it from the article. All I can find is that the person who added it had suggested it on this talk page a few hours earlier, but removed their post the same day (see these three edits) shortly after adding the content to the article.

Now, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed (indeed, discussion is good) - but please do it in the normal way without prematurely escalating it to RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph is insufficiently sourced. It starts from a piece in the unreliable Gizmodo about some Twitter stuff that became such a meme that Scomo felt he had to deny it. The matter is in any case insignificant. For these reasons, I think the paragraph should just be removed. Errantios (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The issue has been discussed for years — see the archives. It's time for a RfC. This is an unencyclopedic trivial rumour. It doesn't belong here. We should make decision here and stop arguing about it.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  If it's been discussed for years, you should have linked at least some of those discussions, if not all. Remember that an RfC is an open invitation for anybody do drop by and comment, and they should be given sufficient information for them to form an opinion. People coming in cold - like me - should not be expected to go searching. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete now for my reasons above. Indeed it's trivial. Errantios (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Include some mention, along with explanation that it has been debunked. There are a bunch of reliable sources which cover the rumour. TarnishedPath^talk 03:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  If a reliable source says that a rumour (some fake news) circulated, had no effect and was debunked, why should WP consider it notable? Errantios (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Notablity is not the yard stick for inclusion of content in an article about a subject who obviously passes WP:GNG. We should cover it because there is signficant coverage in reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 04:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, I'm not arguing that we should include it to the extent that it currently is, only that we should have some mention. TarnishedPath^talk 04:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  OK, "noteworthy". I still think it isn't. Errantios (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's notewothy enough that the man himself has joked about it. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• I've seen memes about it (and had thought it was like a settled fact) so it's a widely known rumour. If its been debunked, we should probably include that. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, or at the very least briefly mention (NOT in the personal life section) and explain that this is a hoax. It is literally a joke. Seriously, it is pretty low to be talking about this and writing in our article that it is possibly true. It was, as many suspected, a complete fabrication... It all started in 2018 [from] a tweet... The man who started the rumour [has] come clean on the Hello Sport podcast... "I just tweeted it," he said. "The intention was never for it to be a rumour. It was just sh*tposting." https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/that-scott-morrison-engadine-mcdonalds-rumour-has-been-cleared-up-by-the-person-who-started-it/tbcf8rir4 Endwise (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've removed a part of the section of text which read "but insufficient evidence has been found to support or refute this claim". It's clearly a hoax. TarnishedPath^talk 09:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete remove it. Rumors and gossip have no encyclopedic relevance.— Isaidnoway (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• (summoned by bot) Delete I also agree this is a poor use of the RFC process. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete I don't mean this as a general statement, and of course there are nuances and exceptions, but including this sort of thing feels like rewarding really toxic behavior in the public sphere. WP is not a cop, and we are not arbiters of good and bad acts, but I think its something that should be considered in cases where a deliberate, baseless, hoax gets news coverage. Deckocard21 (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALASP. Even though there is some media coverage, this is a minor and trivial aspect of Morrison's life and including it would give it disproportionate weight. NicoR8 (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:SENSATIONAL; and please it's just bad taste of what to include. Only if the story had a level of change-their-whole-life impact should it even be looked at. Skip bad taste snark. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - (Brought here from RFC/A) I would agree with Markbassett's above logic. I think adding it in could create a harmful precedence to advocate rumors on Wikipedia for "encyclopedic value", which I don't agree with. MaximusEditor (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Agreed with the above. I believe it would set a bad precedence to keep in the article if it was determined as a hoax. FiddleheadLady (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP—Wikipedia shouldn't further propagate embarrassing or harmful unfounded rumors about living people. Shocksingularity (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Summary: There was a consensus against including a false rumour.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.