This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scott Morrison article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles.
This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (centre, colour, realise, program, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Scott Morrison 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
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)Reply
@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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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. TarnishedPathtalk04:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
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. TarnishedPathtalk09:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=logo}
