Talk:Walter Mikac

Untitled

I really seriously don't think that his wife and kids are notable. Murder victims are not notable, and don't need their own articles. The foundation maybe. I've never heard of it before, but maybe. But Walter Mikac is imminently notable. He was indeed the 2nd face of the Port Arthur massacre, after Wendy Scurr, who was originally the media baby about it. When Wendy Scurr told them quite bluntly that "No, Martin Bryant didn't do it", they dropped her like a ton of bricks. Walter Mikac, who actually wasn't an eye witness, just a witness (i.e. he didn't see the killer or the shots being fired), was the darling of the media because he accepted what he was told without checking anything. So they pretended that he was an eye witness. He wasn't of course.

It's a big deal to go through something like that, and of course it is debatable whether its fair to mention that he was used by the government in order to detract from the likes of Wendy Scurr. I don't know whether its worth putting it in there, and am happy to see it left out. I won't be making changes to this article. It seems accurate, and while its far from neutral, I think accuracy should come ahead of neutrality. We can account for the bias easily enough anyway. 203.122.203.145 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So what?

It is absolutely irrelevant whether his wife and children are notable or not; they still belong in this article. Otherwise one would be obliged to go through every article on a notable person and ensure that the names of partners and children are weeded out. A silly notion.