Talk:Michael Danby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Michael Danby is part 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
WikiProject Australia To-do:
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Danby's preselection
- Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
- I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Wikipedia. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Wikipedia has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. Adam 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Adam, The only reason I reverted your link was that it should really be to the original source, the AFR. Is this link not available? Subscriber only? cheers, 198.208.16.221 03:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ellipses in quotes
Is is reasonable to provide a quotation with so many ellipses? Without going to Carr's webpage, there is no way to verify what is in the gaps. This is not necessarily aimed at this qupte in particular (though a reading of the article will determine the honesty of the selection) but a general query...
"My view is that Australia is at war," Danby wrote, "at war with a new form of totalitarian ideology as evil as the fascist and communist forms that the democracies fought during the 20th century... The enemy in this war adopts the rhetoric of Islam but it is in fact quite alien to the traditions of Islam, and particularly to the traditions of Islam as practised in Indonesia. Some call this ideology Islamofascism, others jihadism... As a social democrat, I believe in a pluralist Australia. I believe Australia should accept, and indeed welcome, migrants and refugees from all countries, including Muslim countries, and that we should prevent victimisation of Australian Muslims. I reject the view that all Australian Muslims are potential terrorists. I am always careful to distinguish Islam from the extremists who misuse it for political ends." (see link below)
Any comments? Danke 198.208.16.221 09:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I see a grand total of two elipses. The link is there for anyone who wants to read the full text. Adam 09:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The quote could be paraphrased a bit, to cut down on length. Xtra 10:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It was put there to counter the LaRouche allegations that Danby is anti-Muslim. Have the LaRouchies gone away? Adam 11:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- The criticisms that Michael Danby is anti-Muslim are highly relevant in the article. Danby's neo-con POV has to be couner-balanced by other POVs, as stipulated by Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Cognition 08:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
As you see, Xtra, the LaRouchies have not gone away. So I think the quote is still needed to counter their slanders. Adam 08:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- But vandalistic edits and other nonsense can be reverted out. Xtra 08:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
When you get Cognition banned for POV-pushing and stalking (he has suddenly developed an interest in Cuba and in Indigenous Australians because I am editing at those articles), I will agree with you. Adam 09:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Adam, There is only one POV in the article. I see no slanders. Your response is a little disingenuous.
Ok, there's 2 ellipses. But how much text is removed? The link is to your website, not the AFR. Does this link exist? I think that would be preferable and largely release you from any accusations of bias. Further, You don't own this article and you are not the only editor. I can place it on my watchlist lest the LaRouchies return. The other option is to take out all "race/religion" references. After all, they don;t form the core of Danby's politics, do they? 198.208.16.221 03:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Apologies, Adam. I wrote the above before reading the History page...Feel free to keep slapping down frivolous links.. 198.208.16.221 03:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- There is no link to the article at the AFR site, so I got a PDF from the Parliamentary Library media service and stored it in my website's server. The article does not actually appear at my website.
- If you want to remove the whole section dealing with these accusations, I have no objection. It is only there because the LaRouchite Cognition made the accusations in the first place. However I would be very surprised if he allowed you to delete it. If the accusations appear, the rebuttal to the accusations must also appear. Adam 03:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sunday Sun Herald article
I would love to hear from Rebecca about why she deleted this sentence:
- "Labor MPs Julia Irwin and Jennie George have accused an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Wikipedia to "blacken the names" of Danby's opponents.[1]"
Not notable? Not verifiable? Embarassing to Wikipedia?
- We should try to steer clear of self-reference and OR here. Just stick to the facts as reported in the article. I realise this makes it hard for Adam to defend himself, but we may assume that the paper will be examining his edits very carefully, and they should pick up on his statements on his user page(s) where he specifically denies "dirt files", if they are planning any follow up. --Jumbo 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you rather over-estimate the professional standards of the Herald-Sun. This was a plain and simple smear-job: they had no interest in the facts of the matter, with which they were fully acquainted. Adam 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- OK. Just concerned that we were using your talk page as a source. If this story goes nowhere then we should pull it out of the article. --Jumbo 09:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Xtra, the article as it stands reads:
- A Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it quoted Labor MP Julia Irwin accusing an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, of using Wikipedia to get "dirt on people". However, these accusations were strongly denied by Carr.
- The specific allegation of getting "dirt on people" hasn't been denied by Adam anywhere except on his talk page. This is a small point and I'm not going to make a fuss over it, but your wording goes beyond what we can actually use without self-reference and OR. You've also messed up the wording and removed the wikilinks. In an article that may well be the focus of media attention, I think we should follow established Wikipedia policies. --Jumbo 10:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The allegation is also disproved by looking at what I actually wrote about Julia Irwin. Adam 10:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't the more relevant question whether the entry should be included in the article at all? What does it offer the casual reader of the page? Barely nothing of any import. It only serves ot make Wikipedia look like a vindictive whinge session. Please feel free to repond to this, otherwise I plan to cut out the reference. 138 08:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is more relevant to Adam Carr. Unless this turns into a story with legs, it should be removed. I suggest giving it a week for the Sunday paper to come out with any followup, and if there's nothing, then pull it out of this article. --Jumbo 09:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be growing legs. [2]
- Factiva and the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre both only have one article each (the Herald Sun article) about this. I don't think that equates to "growing legs". Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to be growing legs. [2]
If they are legs....they're pretty stubby and useless. I plan to yank the reference as they have offer almost nothing to the casual reader.Any objections? 138 03:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I support removal of the reference. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed
I've removed the para about Julia Irwin, Adam Carr and the Sunday Herald Sun. Here's a copy:
- The Sunday Herald Sun published an article where it reported that an advisor to Danby, Dr. Adam Carr, had been accused of using Wikipedia to "blacken the names of MPs." Labor MP Julia Irwin was quoted saying that Carr was "getting dirt on people." However, the accusations were strongly denied by Carr.[3]
(Hmm ... I overlapped edits with User:138, who stole my line about the Inquirer item before I even wrote it ;-)
Reasons:
- This article is about Michael Danby, not Dr. Carr, Julia Irwin or (the topic of most interest to most people reading this) Wikipedia.
- Incidents like these are common and non-notable in politics.
- The newspaper report is (to be very polite) not a very impressive piece of journalism.
- Julia Irwin got her facts wrong, but we shouldn't. If we retain this stuff, we should add text explaining that it wasn't Dr. Carr who put the offending material in the article. A long paragraph about one minor incident involving one of Danby's staffers would unbalance the article.
- This is just another inter-factional spat in the ALP. They've been going on for decades. Outsiders such as me find them very tedious; I understand that some of the participants do too.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 04:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good call, and good rationale. So I'll just say "what he said". Rebecca 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] David Southwick - To decrease Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports?
Adam - you state that Southwick spent quarter of a million dollars on his Liberal campaign. What is your proof? A statement by Michael Danby under parliamentary privilege stating that is not proof. Please explain?
As you state that Southwick ran deliberately to decrease the Jewish votes in Melbourne Ports (which would not realistic help Southwick to get in politics since only 10-15% of Jews live in Melbourne Ports and it is the Greens that gets Michael Danby into parliament and the Jewish vote would not make any substantial difference)? I do recall that David Southwick contest a pre-selection against another Liberal contender. Did Michael Danby during 2003-4 have any Labor Party members challenge him for a preselection? Because it is unfair to say that Southwick was pre-selected because of the religion he and his ALP opponent worship.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Danby/archive1"
I don't debate anonymous persons. Adam 05:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The name's Greg - so what is your response?
[edit] Dispute over Michael Danby and Division of Melbourne Ports articles in Wikipedia
Sent Date 08-09-2006 6:11:21 PM
From "catonbishop" <catonbishop@lycos.com>
To <info-en-q@wikimedia.org>
To Whom It May Concern:
In the Michael Danby article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Danby. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of two percent, lower than the Victorian and national average swing, and not enough to overcome Danby's 5.7 percent margin."
In the Division of Melbourne Ports article it states "At the 2004 federal election, the Liberal Party ran a Jewish candidate, David Southwick, against Danby, hoping to win Jewish votes that had previously gone to Labor. The Liberals secured a two-party swing of about 1.5%, lower than both the national and state swings."
Those articles were stating that David Southwick, Liberal Candidate for Melbourne Ports ran against Michael Danby in order to decrease his Jewish votes. There is no evidence that that is the true reason why Southwick ran against Danby. However there was political and media hype that it was the first time Australian Federal politics that two Jews have run against each other (these articles were altered with those similar words). Yet people like Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes have reverted it and stated that there is no evidence of a politcal and/or media hype over Danby vs Southwick. My evidence is the Australian Jewish News, the Herald Sun and the Australian newspaper during the 2004 Australian Federal election campaign. I accuse Adam, Rebecca and Petaholmes of being pro-Labor and making these articles a bias for the ALP when they should be apolitical and be objective.
I ask that the sentences that relate to Southwick deliberately running against Danby just to decrease his Jewish votes should be removed from Wikipedia immeidately. Please find attached the sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Melbourne_Ports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Danby
Thank you for your attention
I look forward to your response and actions
Yours faithfully
Caton Bishop
[edit] NPOV?
This paragraph needs expanding imo:
- Danby has sometimes been accused of being hostile to Muslims or to Islam. He countered this accusation in an article in the Australian Financial Review in November 2005.(see link below)
So we have a link to Danby's side of the story, but nothing is said or linked to about the accusations against him. I've currently put a [citation needed] in, I think the current information should be added to or referenced. Psychobabble 10:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This dates back to the stuff that was inserted in the article by the LaRouchite Cognition. It can probably now be removed. Adam 10:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting it's objectively non-notable or non-notable because editors you don't like* mentioned it? Cause it actually sounds like the sort of information which might be useful for an uninformed but interested reader to know and the fact that he wrote an AFR article rebutting the allegations (which I've just notice isn't actually linked "below") indicates to me that it's the sort of thing which is notable enough to warrant at least some external linkage so readers can figure out what was going on. On a more general note, this article and the references section in particular is a mess. Mind if I put a cleanup tag in or is that pointless? And it's a shame that the article has absolutely no information on what Danby has done in parliament, policy positions, advocacy, committees, media attention/statements etc. I'm sure there are editors (I don't know if you're too close to do it, but surely there's someone) who could make this more than a 3rd rate piece with very little information. Psychobabble
- *Perhaps for good reason, but I haven't delved into that mess and don't intend to
- It would be notable if the allegation could be sourced to someone credible, rather than to LaRouche crackpots. The article I cited provides an effective refutation of the charge, but at the moment there is no charge to refute.
- I don't think this article is much better or worse than most of the others we have on backbench federal MPs.
- I have agreed not to edit any articles on Australian politicians (except to delete obvious defamation and vandalism), so someone else will have to do any improvements you think desirable. Adam 11:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
