Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
	This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Portal	Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) is maintained by 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.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

This page has been established on Alan Jones' 62nd birthday. :-) Sources include his 2GB biography and an Australian Broadcasting Corporation analysis of his career. Peter Ellis 03:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hear this man is homophobic?

The anon who has been vandalising this page also created a vandalised clone, Alan Jones (Sydney Radio) and redirected other articles' links there - I guess he got tired of being reverted here. I've pointed those links back here, but might be worth keeping an eye on. --Calair 5 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)

I have unprotected this page, since it has been protected for several weeks now, which seems a bit extreme for dealing with anon vandalism (especially since there was no protected message nor explanation on this talk page). I have added the article to my watchlist and will keep an eye out for any further vandalism. —Stormie 04:26, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Sydney race riots 2 Wikipedia RL project 3 Cronulla race riots 4 Jones and Methadone 5 References 6 Triple J tapes 7 Tidying 8 Snowy Mountains phone-poll 9 Today tonight story 10 Jonestown/gay claims 11 Page move 12 David Flint 13 useful link 14 Article request

[edit] Sydney race riots

Come now, 165.228.129.12, his urging of residents to protest is fact not opinion. Kewpid 03:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia RL project

Hello

I've added an information box at the bottom as part of the Wiki RL project. Would anybody here know, by chance, who succeeded Jones after he was dismissed from the Tigers in 1993? I've put down Pearce for 1994 but I know (at least, I think I do) that he wasn't appointed straight away. Any help would be great. Cheers

Yes, it was Wayne Pearce according to http://www.nswrl.com.au/index.cgi?sID=35&det=1&intArticleID=7: "Junior took over from Alan Jones as Balmain coach in 1994 but with only a handful of top players they finished with the wooden spoon in his first year." Msmyrk 12:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cronulla race riots

Melbourne's Fairfax broadsheet newspaper The Age subsequently denounced Jones' remarks on his breakfast radio programme as inflammatory, possibly seditious, and largely responsible for those riots. The reference offered doesn't actually support that - for instance, the word 'sedition' appears nowhere in the article. I'd have deleted the unsupported bits, but I seem to recall articles that *did* make such judgements on Jones; perhaps somebody could dig them up and add them here? --Calair 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed characterisation of the Age's coverage, since no response to the above, but left the actual article link. --Calair 23:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

220.239.4.237 recently removed this paragraph ("removing subjective opinion that Jones urged on violence in cronulla"):

"In December 2005, in the lead-up to the Cronulla riots, Jones used his breakfast radio programme to read out a widely-circulated text message calling on people to "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge... get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day". While telling listeners not to take the law into their own hands, he also gave lengthy and sympathetic coverage to callers urging violence and vigilante action and called for a "community show of force".[1]."

After I reverted, s/he then re-deleted this sentence ("opinion - suggesting he gave more sympathetic coverage to those who urged violence"): "While telling listeners not to take the law into their own hands, he also gave lengthy and sympathetic coverage to callers urging violence and vigilante action and called for a "community show of force".[2]."

The Age article linked in that sentence quotes Jones as calling for "a rally, a street march, call it what you will. A community show of force." It also reports an exchange between Jones and a caller:

When John called on Tuesday to bluntly recommend vigilante action — "If the police can't do the job, the next tier is us" — Jones did not dissent. "Yeh. Good on you, John." And when he then offered a maxim his father had picked up during the war — "Shoot one, the rest will run" — the broadcaster roared with laughter. "No, you don't play Queensberry's rules. Good on you, John."

If Jones has denied this reported exchange, that dispute would certainly be worth acknowledging in the article. If his remarks have been taken out of context, he certainly has the wherewithal to make a full transcript available. But if he hasn't disputed that representation, it's hardly 'opinion' to characterise folk like John as 'urging violence and vigilante action' or Jones' repeated "Good on you"s as 'sympathetic'. --Calair 10:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite sure if you've ever read a real encyclopaedia, Calais, but your entry is overtly opinionated and destroys any neutrality that section had. It's a loaded quote, and it's objectionable, even from David Marr's piece, that the "good on you" was in direct reference to the condoning of 'wog' bashing. Your insertion of the quote further implied there was a direct correlation, and if one wanted to be equally as fanciful, they could insert the other piece from Marr's article, unqualified, by suggesting that he responded to said callers by saying "No" - and this if anything, was the part of the quote that was linked to the caller, not merely the concluding goodbyes.

Note these two exchanges, as reported by Marr:

John: "If the police can't do the job, the next tier is us"

AJ: "Yeh. Good on you, John.

...

John: "Shoot one, the rest will run."

AJ: "No, you don't play Queensberry's rules. Good on you, John."

If Marr's representation of those exchanges is disputed by Jones or anybody else at 2UE, that should certainly be acknowledged in the article. (Marr's account was run fairly widely, IIRC, so presumably Jones is aware of it.)

If that representation is not in dispute, then I don't think it's POV-pushing to point out that Jones responded "Good on you" to a call for vigilantism and again to a call for violence; if that's a loaded quote, it's because Jones himself loaded it. But I'll throw this over to the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and see if other editors have anything to say. --Calair 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that we may be engaging in original research. We shouldn't be interpreting what he says, but instead citing those who characterize it as condoning (or not) violence. Andjam 13:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced there's a real question of interpretation here - it's hard to see how those responses can be taken as anything other than approving, IMHO - but I've converted it to a "Marr accused Jones of..." format. Does that look better? --Calair 23:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm dubious that he was approving (you can ask me on my talk page about why I'm dubious), but the current version, which describes rather than accuses, is reasonably NPOV. Andjam 10:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

To assume that Jones approved the riots is far fetched at best, particularly if you are only going by the small excerpts provided by David Marr. The edit is an improvement on what was there before, as it encourages the reader to make up their own mind, rather than be persuaded by your interpretation of his intentions.

To interpret that as Jones approving the riots would indeed be stretching it, since they hadn't yet happened. Construing it as Jones approving of the comments is rather less of a stretch. But if you're happy with the current version on the article page, I'm happy. --Calair 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

General rule of thumb, Calair. A person reading a proper encyclopaedia excerpt should be unable to tell which side of the fence the author stands. With your edits, it was obvious that you are indeed a critic of Alan Jones' comments, even though you claim you were directly quoting a media analyst (and also drawing conclusions from said quotes) and therefore it was poor editing. However, what is up there now looks far more professional.

Anybody who edits on Wikipedia for any length of time gets used to accusations of bias. Since I started, it's been equally 'obvious' to other editors that I'm a shill for the LASIK industry, a proponent of anti-Catholic conspiracy theories, and all sorts of other things which, alas, are far more exciting than the truth. As long as at least half those guesses at my position are wrong - which, so far, they have been, even though there are some pretty big hints on my userpage and contributions log - I'll take that as evidence that I'm doing a reasonably even-handed job :-)

I'll offer some Wiki-specific advice in return:

• As per NPOV, specifically NPOV#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete, wholesale deletion of a section you dislike is not a good way to make a first impression. Rewrite it to remove the POV without removing the information - the old version may have over-interpreted Jones' remarks, but the issue was certainly newsworthy enough that it should be mentioned here. Or flag the section with an appropriate template and explain concerns on the talk page, if you don't want to rewrite.

• Speaking of unprofessionality, sniping at other editors ("Not quite sure if you've ever read a real encyclopaedia") would be it. See Wikipedia: No personal attacks for discussion on why this is a bad thing. The short version is that articles are created by consensus, and consensus is easiest to achieve when people are in a cooperative frame of mind.

• Sign posts on talk pages; it makes it a lot easier to follow discussions. --Calair 15:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jones and Methadone

Does anyone know what Jones' attitude towards methadone treatment is? Sarah.

Opposed. See cached copy of 15/9/2004 editorial here: "Harm minimisation is a policy, if you could call it that, where we just give in to the drug scourge and say well let's try to minimise the harm caused by drugs... Surely if we are losing nearly 8,000 Australians from drug related deaths in a little over four years, why are we giving out needles and methadone? The Federal government's committee on substance abuse said replace the methadone programs with rapid detoxification: subsidise the trials of naltrexone implants." --Calair 01:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article currently has no references. This is not good. Andjam 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple J tapes

Hi, I'd just like to point out that at the moment that the article refers to "tapes leaked to Triple J" as happening in the late 1990s. As far as I am aware, this occurred in either 2004 or 2005, on JJJ's 'Hack' show. They were dubbed "The Closet Recordings of Alan Jones" and featured plenty of swearing by complaints by Jones, included his constant frustration with 'fucking dust in the studio'. So, unless anyone is aware of other tapes that were leaked in the late 90s, this date should be changed. Stuart mcmillen 01:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidying

In 1990-1993 and 1995-1997 Jones was awarded, by the radio industry, the title Australian Radio Talk Personality of the Year. That's verbatim from his website bio, but 'the radio industry' could do with explanation - presumably this refers to some specific industry body?

I reworded some material about other people involved with the show, but I'm not sure this is really notable; if it is, it should probably go to a separate section on the show's format rather than sitting in a chronology. --Calair 02:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snowy Mountains phone-poll

Is the Snowy Mountains Scheme sale phone-poll notable enough to warrant inclusion? A phone-poll on a talk back radio show seems pretty ordinary. Ashmoo 02:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Calair 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagee. the anecdote illustrates Jones's methodology Albatross2147 11:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Today tonight story

anyone who shows up here, today tonight just ran a story on Alan jones. they identified that the majority of Alan Jones listeners are A)liberal, b)religeous, c)zombies who do anything he says. I know that they were probably just trying to knock down CH9, but i think i'll track down the video and add it as a reference. (go pies) MichaelBillington 08:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• "liberals" shome mishtake shurely Billo? You prolly means "Liberals" Albatross2147 11:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonestown/gay claims

Article claimed: On 5th July 2006, it was suggested in Crikey that among the objections that the ABC board members had to the publication of the book was that it includes details of a number of homosexual affairs Jones has had. [3]

I removed this sentence because while the Crikey page cited does indeed discuss Jonestown, I couldn't find any mention of this particular angle. Maybe it was there before, but it doesn't seem to be there now. --Calair 11:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Jeez Cal whatever happened to "Rule 1"? Anywho I dredged up another reference Albatross2147 12:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule 1? Not familiar with that one.

The new reference is better, but it still doesn't quite support the material it's attached to. Carlton is quoted as using qualifiers like "I haven't read the book but I believe it says X" and "I understand X is in the book".

This is a bit weaker than implied by the "Carlton claimed the book contained allegations of gay sex" offered by the SMH and repeated in this article. (To see why, observe that if the book turned out not to contain such allegations, Carlton could still claim those qualified statements were true - after all, they're just about what he thought was the case.)

And the previous sentence is still unsupported. It is a fact that the ABC Board decided not to publish, and Carlton certainly suggests that the book contains allegations of gay sex. But as far as the cited article goes, he does not allege that the latter was the reason for the former; he asks if it was the reason (and then immediately asks about a different possible reason), but a question is not quite the same as an allegation.

I suspect Carlton would very much like to make those allegations, but the quotes have the sound of a man who's just obtained legal advice; that 'I understand X' and 'is it perhaps because of Y?' format is standard for somebody trying to suggest such things without actually presenting them as claims of fact, which could potentially be fodder for a defamation suit. As it is, I don't think either of those two sentences are completely supported by Carlton's quotes in that article.

(It's also not clear from the article whether the sentence about allegations as to the ABC board's motivations is referring to Carlton's statements, or somebody else's; it needs clarification either way, and in the latter case a source of its own.)--Calair 23:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rule 1 of the "Philosophy Department at the University of Wooloomooloo" Albatross2147 04:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this article from the "List of GLBT people" category. If Alan Jones hasn't specifically stated in public that he belongs within this category, then it is not for us to put him in such a category based upon mere rumour and innuendo. - Mark 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Why have you done this? Jones's homosexuality has been on the public record for some months and has been widely known for years. He was outed in a poster campaign in Sydney's Paddington and district some years ago when the authorities went to a great deal of trouble to remove the offending material. In recent months Andrew Marr has stated categorically in radio broadcasts that Jones is "gay" on several occassions the latest on RN Breakfast this morning. I would ask that you revert your clearly vexatious category deletion.Albatross2147 02:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, policy at Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality says:

Inclusion [in such categories]should be justifiable by external references. (For example, even if you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a gay-related category if factual, reliable sources can be provided to support the assertion.)

It is certainly very widely rumoured that Jones is gay. (Personally, I would be astonished to discover that he wasn't.) But categorisation needs a solid citation, and I'm not sure the fact that somebody has alleged it, without any information on the basis for that allegation, is enough. (BTW, googling on '+"andrew marr" +"radio national" +"alan jones"' got no relevant hits - do you have a transcript link or something?)

But Jonestown will be out soon enough. I think it is very likely that it will be an adequate citation - if it does (as has been suggested) detail gay relationships on Jones' part, and he doesn't challenge those claims, I for one would be happy to re-add the category on the strength of it. So rather than have this argument just now, why don't we wait a few months and see whether it gets resolved for us? After all, as fascinating a subject as it may be, Jones' sexuality isn't exactly central to his role in Australian public life; it's not like this is a huge gap in the article. --Calair 09:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. If the knowledge that he is "gay" was widely known it would blunt some of his his attacks on the Greens for instance and make him somewhat less welcome in some Liberal party circles. It is the hypocrisy of the creature that grates. Albatross2147 08:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Has Jones ever attacked the Greens on LGBT-related issues, though? I don't follow him closely, but my impression has been that he's always been very, very quiet on the subject of homosexuality. --Calair 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous claims on ABC Radio National were on the Law Report, on a program involving David Marr where he and other experts debated the new national uniform Defamation Laws. Can't remember the date, but was available as a podcast. MojoTas 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Carlton's assertions are now irrelevant. Extracts, replete with claims of homosexuality, have been published in the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/alan-joness-demons/2006/10/20/1160851142104.html Harley 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

This page has been moved from "Alan Jones (radio)" to "Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)" as Alan Jones is not a type of radio but rather a radio broadcaster. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Flint

"In an appearance on the ABC's Enough Rope, John Laws accused Jones of placing pressure on Prime Minister John Howard to keep Flint as head of the ABA, made comments that many viewers took to imply a sexual relationship between Jones and Flint (see transcript), and broadly hinted that Jones was homosexual like Flint, who is openly gay." According to his page, David Flint is out now, but was he openly gay at the time of Laws' appearance on 'Rope'? My fuzzy recollection was that there were a lot of insinuations going around, particularly from Laws, but nothing definite back then. If Flint wasn't out at the time, this bit should probably be clarified. --Calair 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] useful link

Background discussion on this topic here. Tony 13:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article request

Would someone please create an article for Jonestown: The Power and the Myth of Alan Jones?[4],[5],[6] Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)