Talk:Josh Giddey

The 11/23/23 incident

The following discussion 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.

---

So there was an accusation of Giddey with a minor. There had been accusations and leaks on twitter covered by sports news, however still had not been touched on by offical news sites nor the NBA. If the NBA or a non-sports outlet covers this should we add this? Melofy (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Melofy It depends on what is reported. WP:BLPCRIME says it has to be "noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented}, since Giddey, as a professional athlete, is a public figure. Note that if Giddey should deny the incident, that should be included in the article too. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if the accusations are found to be fallacious, there has already been significant media coverage and internet discourse regarding the incident. There are parallels to be seen with Karl Malone, another NBA professional, whose media coverage of a similar situation did warrant mention. It doesn’t appear Giddey has made any comment on the matter. 2600:1702:5422:A800:6019:38E7:A3AE:D59E (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTNEWS and should't be on the page. Wikipedia isn't a record of which athletes/celebrities hooked up with whom. If it was, this is all it would be. Yes it made the news, but it doesn't mean it should be here. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

After seeing it was an editor of dubious nature who added it, I removed it. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"Dubious nature" AKA I have better shit to do than edit Wikipedia articles all day, I just edit when I feel like it. Also the newsworthy thing isn't the fact that he hooked up with somebody it's that the person he allegedly hooked up with is allegedly underage, it's important, got a lot of news coverage, is widely reported, and pertains to a noteworthy public figure, it should be there. K3YTMLG (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also the edit was cited so my edit history is completely irrelevant. K3YTMLG (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not a matter of “who hooked up with whom”. That is celebrity gossip. Accusations of a crime amount to more than celebrity gossip. The topic is (increasingly) noteworthy, relevant, and well documented—in addition to being non-routine. Given that Giddey is a public figure, this would almost certainly warrant a short mention within the article; that much need not be a sensational newspaper paragraph.

We can keep scrutinizing specific guidelines, but I would find it hard to believe at this point that we would gate-keep this incident out of the article, especially given the disregard for the many trivial fun facts contained hitherto. 2600:1700:FD0:E200:A87E:F89:1C84:983A (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

He is only 21. Could be he had a relationship with a 17 year old when he was 20. Consensual in some states and countries. 2601:648:C100:1670:B922:DB3:76D4:C4E0 (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2024

i just want to Madsmaddie (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

different language use

using the phrase "improper relationship with a minor" is a HUGE down play to what that actually means. it means he was accused of statutory rape and grooming. i suggests using the proper words in describing rape and grooming because thats what it is, if not changed i and many others can assume that you all are purposely down playing such a horrific act. do the right thing 2605:A601:A692:E200:CC87:CCFF:FE67:8029 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's worded as described in reliable sources. Readers are free to assume what they want, right or wrong. There was ultimately no charges filed. —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"they did it, so its okay"

cool 2605:A601:A692:E200:A927:6554:726B:9F8B (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SOAPBOX. Other sites are more suited for that. —Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

the wording is heavily misleading and doesnt even tell the whole story.

no charges doesnt meant it didnt happen ( plenty of evidence that it did) as well it was a widely talked about subject and still is to this day so being more descriptive tells the entire story rather than misleading wording. calling it rape is just more factual than saying "improper relationship"

if anything that wording falls under "SOAPBOX" 2605:A601:A692:E200:A927:6554:726B:9F8B (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Consider bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch on whether this is a WP:EUPHEMISM to avoid like "made love" instead of "had sex". —Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

no charges doesnt meant it didnt happen ( plenty of evidence that it did) — The evidence would be in the reliable sources, and we've described it according to how it was presented in said sources. The alternative, given that there were no court proceedings, would be to describe the subject as the recipient (victim?) of an accusation of statutory rape for which no charges were pressed. IP, is that really how you're looking to describe the subject? —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

yes it is called statutory rape and should be called as such. also taking the word of just 2 articles without doing your do diligence into the reporting itself, is on you. not all journalism is equal and should be scrutinized and picked at. the cbs article barely even reports on anything other than regurgitating statements from people who are obviously not impartial. please do better 2605:A601:A692:E200:A927:6554:726B:9F8B (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If you know of other reliable sources that have covered the matter in more depth, please list them here for verification. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/nba/nba-2023-fresh-details-emerge-in-nba-star-josh-giddey-allegations-as-okc-thunder-star-continues-to-play-report-investigations-continue-latest-news/news-story/22e8ef8bf64b28d171626ce213c0ddf2

here is a article saying that it was a one night stand. she was still underage and in California, where this occured, the age of consent is 18. she was under that age while he was not. police confirmed her age. shd was not the one to make allegations, rather someone she knew and the victim and her family decided not to cooperate with the investigation which obviously means he wouldnt face charges because the only person who can provide irrefutable proof in this certain circumstance, would be the victim and or their family

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/josh-giddey-allegations-girl-family-wont-cooperate-with-police-investigation-into-nba-star-report-says/

regardless if all of this is even true or not, it is still by California law and by definition, statutory rape. "improper relationship" is again a huge understatement of what it is. it is called statutory rape and should be called as such. 2605:A601:A692:E200:A94C:811F:7A3D:8FD5 (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Was there any consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch? —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

By California law and definition, it is not "statutory rape". The most we could call it is "unlawful sexual intercourse" per Penal Code 261.5. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

NBA closes investigation

Given that the NBA just closed their investigation of this and nothing came of it, how should this be reflected here? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that on the record yet? If no actions were taken, it'd be worthwhile to go through and trim per WP:NOTDIARY.—Bagumba (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/40204769/sources-nba-closes-investigation-thunder-josh-giddey MaskedSinger (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The NBA has closed its investigation into Josh Giddey, sources told ESPN's Adrian Wojnarowski on Thursday...: We usually don't go off unnamed sources, per WP:RSBREAKING. —Bagumba (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

ok no problem. should be announced shortly. keep an eye out for it. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That said, would it need any more than a simple sentence, if the NBA decided to do nothing? —Bagumba (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

change OKC to Chicago 2601:240:4D01:2030:45B6:53C1:1329:CED (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Needs official announcement. See the note at the top of the article. RudolfRed (talk) 00:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)