Talk:Andrew Theophanous
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
Andrew Theophanous 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. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
|
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
Contents |
[edit] clarification
When I referred to "yellow", I meant sections of text removed when comparing edits in the history. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 11:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah OK, well I encourage you to actually read the changes because they are an attempt to make the article a little more balanced, as it is clearly written by someone extremely sympathetic to the subject which is OK at one level because they are very familiar with the topic BUT they have left out anything actually relating to the crimes of which he was convicted. I'm not sure that I've covered it in the best way as I don't write much here but it should be included and I hope others can improve things. 59.167.92.90 14:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
There are two versions of the article, one nearly a parody in its spin of Dr Theophanous' offences. The other a more balanced explanation of his public service and subsequent disgrace. Those reverting the article without reading it or without explanation are clearly doing the wrong thing. 59.167.158.178 08:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality of the version 1
The article is an insult to an encyclopedia entry with a one-sided description of the events leading to Theophanous' conviction. Version 2 sets out what he did and retains the criticism of the authorities. Verson 1 barely deals with the serious crimes committed and just launches into an apologia of the disgraced politician. I don't think the Wikipedia article should be the scene of such whitewashing. 59.167.158.178 08:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph itself is laughable:
His supporters have often described him as a “champion of multiculturalism and of an expanded and generous immigration policy in Australia”.
Who?
During this period, Dr Theophanous was very productive – chairing a number of Committees of Parliament and of the Australian Labor Party caucus. He also served in a Ministerial capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister Keating and in other portfolios.
Parliamentary Secretaries are not acting in "Ministerial capacity". This is laughable boasting.
However his sentence was halved to 21 months by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Victoria, when they quashed his conviction on the main charge of Conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth in relation to a Visitor’s visa application. After his release in February 2004 and right up to July 2006, the Prosecutors attempted to force a retrial on the Conspiracy charge.
It is clearly bad style to capitalise "conspiracy" in that sentence and yet this has been repeatedly reverted back in by either the original maker of the mistake and by those who have failed to read the article. Same problem arises with "pre-trial"
Further the assertions of dishonesty by authorities are very serious and need to be specifically sourced.
I could continue but it scarcely seems worth the effort. This version of the article is a joke. Visasforsale 09:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here's one of the dark 'secrets' of Wikipedia: we have lots of really bad articles. This isn't the worst by a long way. We're making progress at improving things, but only slowly. I'd expect progress with this article to be slow as well. CWC 16:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article development
An editor has suggested that we wait for a few days to achieve a consensus. I don't expect any reply on this page but if there is one will go through each sentence to work out an agreement.
Failing any participation by Socrates who substantially wrote the first article, I'll instead replace it with version 2 of the article which has been partly contributed by me and others. At that point, I'll remove the unverified material after searching for some sources, including parliamentary biographies etc.
What would be ideal though is for Socrates to be involved and not just reverting the article back. Socrates seems only to edit this article so it would be sad if they didn't actively participate.
Also, it would be good if an editor could review what we're doing to make sure the article doesn't defame the subject, who has legal rights not to be defamed and also to ensure that the claims of serious misconduct made (against Theophanous and the authorities) are entirely referenced and supported.
If I haven't heard back by Wednesday night, I'll go ahead and replace this currently unacceptable article with version 2 which is still quite flawed and will start correcting that.
One way or the other, I'm sure we can all work together to ensure the article is a good one, it's certainly had a lot of work done on it, so it might as well be good.
Politicocrimina 12:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Most of version 1 and 2 of this article contains a large number of unsubstantiated statements. Some of these will probably not be capable of being sourced, but many should be able to be. I'll have a go at Google and see what I can dig up and maybe post it here for people to consider.
Any others helping out would be welcome, in particular the sources about the criminal charges against the subject. I assume the case judgements are online somewhere. Politicocrimina 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Politicocrimina 12:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Australian criminals category
It is undisputed that Andrew Theophanous is a convicted criminal, convicted of many serious crimes from offences he committed while a serving Labor member of Parliament. Could we please resolve the issue of his categorisation in the Wikipedia Australian Criminals category. Is there a valid reason why this has been removed?
Politicocrimina 12:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
My user name is now Johnreginaldsmith, hopefully no one will dislike that.
Tomorrow I will replace the version 1 article, which is clearly against wikipedia policies.
Is there any objection to the change? If so please talk it through here. Johnreginaldsmith 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Citations needed
Some of these are being removed without explanation. I think that's hardly cricket. Please explain yourself here as replacing them all is tiresome. Johnreginaldsmith 12:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ministerial capacity
As above, ministers serve in a "ministerial capacity", parliamentary secretaries do not, any more than public servants who receive ministerial delegations. Johnreginaldsmith 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that an appointment to Parliamentary Secretary is a Ministerial appointment, see definition on Parliamentary Education Office [1]. For example Minister, the Hon Dr Brendan Nelson MP (LIBERAL PARTY) has listed under Ministerial Appointments[2]the following: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence from 30.01.01 to 26.11.01. Minister for Education, Science and Training from 26.11.01 to 27.01.06. Minister for Defence from 27.1.06.
Come on mate -it's clear you don't like Theophanous, but credit where credit's due.AustralianLeft 01:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The definition in the reference you cite makes it clear it isn't a Ministerial appointment:
parliamentary secretary
A parliamentary secretary is a member of parliament appointed by executive government to assist a minister with his or her work. The parliamentary secretary sat beside the minister.
- I could work as the minister's receptionist and assist him or her, doesn't mean I'm acting in a ministerial capacity. The only people who do that are ministers.
Johnreginaldsmith 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Publisher?
I very much doubt Theophanous "published" anything, he might have written or contributed to published books but they were presumably published by someone else. Johnreginaldsmith 12:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
