Talk:Australian Capital Territory Debating Union

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have cleaned the article up enough I hope, am removing the tag

I have additionally removed the copy page, because as it has been created by the people who wrote that content, it cannot be copyrighted

Contents

[edit] RE: 2008 team

The team having just been selected, I have re-added it. Please refrain from deleting it again.

[edit] Article issues

  • Peacocking, e.g. :"Mike Douse came to Canberra in 1970, served as president of the ACTDU for several years until he moved overseas in 1977, and by a mixture of enormous energy and a magnetic personality,...
  • No reliable sources, all references are to the organization's own website
  • No see no claim of notability

Pete.Hurd 21:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    • I will fix the peacocking and such, as for notability, there are 8 sub links to the ADF page, including the DAV, if they are notable, this is, if not, well fair enough... anyway, I'll fix the rest shortly.JJJ999 05:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • With all due respect to you Pete, I have fixed the other issues in part with more references, and will continue to do this, but I don't think the notability issue can be resolved by notification here. The body organises a quite large series of debating competitions, involving a large number of schools, and members from the ACT teams are noted for competing in National school comps, which have ceremonies attended by Australian ministers and the like (I have added one footnote for this so far), so while I would oppose a page for any individual involved, the organisation seems notable enough, and I don't see how further proof can really be offered here.JJJ999 05:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

From WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ... "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources..." I don't see much in the way of reliable sources, and nothing approaching significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability. So I'm restoring the template, minus the peacocking. Pete.Hurd 04:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The {{Refimprove}} template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. {{Unreferencedsect}} , {{Primarysources}}, or {{Citations}} may also work well for your purposes. I have changed this article to use {{Primarysources}}. Thanks--BirgitteSB 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Honest Discussion attempt- I have since added a whole host of footnotes, with more coming. Now, I want to run over slowly what these footnotes do, and then explain why I feel I am justified in removing the notability and referencing tags. You may put them back, and in the long term you may need to resolve this via an AfD debate, but in the meantime I will go over this.
      • 1) The article has more non-ACTDU footnotes, including the Australian Deptartment of Immigration, the South Australian Government, non-Australian bodies, and independent schools. So I just don't see how you can claim it claims reliable primary sources. I mean, just what do you doubt the verifiability of? What would I need for a primary source? A scan of the PM attending one of their debates? I think you know full well the body and its accomplishments are real, so I feel this should certainly be dropped.
      • 2) In terms of notability, I feel the footnotes justify this claim. I can see pages for bodies like the DAV (which is effectively the same body, but in Victoria), the OakTree foundation, and innumerable non-for-profit organisations of this scope. The footnotes show events it is involved in have had Ministers attend, have represented the State in debating (before going on to represent Australia), have had a number of notable young people involved, like runner up young Australian on the year Julia Fetherstone, comedian Matthew Keneally and Chris Erskine, who apparently Wikipedia deems worthy of his own page. The body has thousands of students attend its competitions each year, and those schools pay to attend. It often has ministers or representatives from local bodies attend the functions. The yearly CP finals are held in the Legislative Assembly, which is the parliament for the ACT, and sponsored by local ministers and the Australian Federal Police. The body is at least as notable as bodies like rostrum or Toastmasters, and this seems borne out by the attendance of prominent figures, and the selection of the state debating team. In short, I don't understand what more you expect for notability. Please explain it to me.JJJ999 05:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd also ask you to stop adding those tags until consensus is reached here. It seems to me strange that a HS, which is of similar size and scope in its activities, could be automatically notable, yet this would not...JJJ999 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What I expect to see to demonstrate notability is (per WP:N) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." with "Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...", so, significant coverage in secondary sources, where those secondary sources have as their central subject the Australian Capital Territory Debating Union, and the sources meet that standards set by WP:RS.Pete.Hurd 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Right now there are 3837 "references"

  1. www.hotfrog.com.au, a "create your won free business listing service" which is not a reliable source, merely lists a business address, and says nothing about notability
  2. http://lernen.bildung.hessen.de/bilingual/Englisch/cur/meth/deb (I fixed the broken and duplicated link) which is a german link-listing service, which says nothing about notability, and isn't reliable.
  3. http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Education/Teachers/Facilitating+A+Parliamentary+Debate/FoundationLearning.htm which is a South Australian Parliament web site for schools, and merely lists a link to the www.actdu.org.au site as another website providing "general information on debating skills and techniques", which makes neither the website nor the parenr organization notable.
  4. http://www.radford.com.au/cocurricular/oratory.html, a Radford College site which simply states that the college debating teams schedule is published in a draft calendar on the ACT Debating Union website, which makes neither the website nor the parenr organization notable.
  5. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:llc3IN9-iiMJ:canberrac.act.edu.au/aug05.pdf+%22ACT+debating+team%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au, which is a roundabout link to http://canberrac.act.edu.au/aug05.pdf, the Aug 2005 issue of the Canberra College newsletter, where on page 10 a single sentence -and not the most prominent item in the paragaph on debating- mentions that "Daniel Higginbottom has also been selected as the captain of the ACT Debating team", trivial mention in trivial source, not amounting to notability.
  6. http://www.lynehamhs.act.edu.au/school_policies/competitionsdebating, Lyneham High School website page attesting that "the school takes part in the ACT Debating Union competitions"
  7. http://www.cgs.act.edu.au/debating.html Canberra grammar school web site page on debating: "The school participates in the ACT Debating Union's competitions."
  8. http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffyrc/subjects/english/drama/debate.htm Trinity college website page listing links to the ACT, as well as Western Australian Debating League, Australian Debating Federation (the peak body for schools debating in Australia), Australasian Intervarsity Debating Association, Queensland Debating Union, Macquarie University Debating Society, South Australia Debating, Debaters Association of Victoria, Tasmanian Debating Union, and a slough of international debating associations. I don't see links on this page amouting to encyclopedic notability.

references 9-33 are from the ACTDU's own website, and don't qualify as reliable sources, and don't demonstrate notability.
34 http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2003/r03034a.htm former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Philip Ruddock, "today congratulated Canberra students on being selected to represent the Australian Capital Territory at the National School Debating Finals" a 2003 press release of congratulations in which the ACTDU gets trivial mention in paragraph 6.
35 http://www.australianoftheyear.gov.au/pages/bio.asp?pID=4 Australian of the year website article on Australian Capital Territory Young Australian of the Year 2004 Finalist, a page in which the ACTDU is not even mentioned.
36 http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Matt+Keneally%22+comedy&meta= a google search on "Matt Keneally" comedy... I don't understand what this is supposed to show.
37 http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2004/v04116.htm former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs press release from 2004 "ACT Student Named Captain of the Australian Schools Debating Team" in which the ACTDU is not mentioned.
In summary none of these are anything like secondary sources, and I don't see how any attest to encyclopedic notability. Pete.Hurd 18:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Reply- well, we can ask other people, but I'd compare it to a school in terms of notability, and all schools are automatically notable. Is it notable? Notable enough to have the attendance of Ministers and to be mentioned in govt press releases. That is a good indication there. How is it less notable than the Oak Tree foundation? Or similar youth bodies? You just keep listing the citations and saying the same thing over and over in what I'm personally finding to be a robotic way, it's not helpful to the discussion. We can ask other people in if you like for their views, but noting the sources you don't like speaks nothing to the general notability. I'll go add a few more sources while I'm at it. There, I just added one citing the ACT team on ABC news. Look, you obviously disagree with me, but that's two people who differ. Hardly cause to remove it. Obviously judging from other people having worked on this, and even more still on pages like DAV, quite a few people disagree with you. The NYSF has its own page, and I see no real references or citation there, yet it is a body of like scope and note. You seem to have some grudge against this body, but as I say it is not against the grain of usual non-profit wiki entries...JJJ999 03:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for deleting text

I have (twice now) removed the following text that JJJ999 added to this article:

“While Chris Erskine had been elected ACTDU president for some years, it is worth noting these meetings were very poorly attended. The minutes from 1998 for example show a mere 10 people present at the AGM.”

This text had a reference attached to it ([1]), but I have deleted it because the reference only showed that 10 people attended one particular meeting in 1998. It does not support the general blanket statement that “While Chris Erskine had been elected ACTDU president for some years, it is worth noting these meetings were very poorly attended”.

Purple Watermelon 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I also fail to see the relevance of that statement to this article, and clearly that text wasn't written from a NPOV. V-train 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

then the statement shall be rephrased accordingly, to note that for that particular year, and any others I can find online minutes for, there was no real attendance.JJJ999 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For this info to be shown to be in any way relevant, it would need to be verified that (a) low attendance was commonplace not occassional during that period, and (b) this commonplace low attendance was different from all other periods in the organisation's history. It would also have to be written in an NPOV tone, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions from that info rather than trying to impose an opinion through the tone of the wording of the text. Purple Watermelon 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further reasons for deleting text

JJJ999 has now added in the text:

“Some teachers in 2001 complained of difficulty contacting Erskine while he was in charge of the Ford competition. The Minutes from that AGM noted “there was a question expressing concern about Chris Erskine’s availability and difficulties contacting him”.”

I have deleted this because it’s simply not a notable enough piece of information to be relevant to an article on the general activity and history of the ACTDU organisation. (It’s about as relevant in this context as info on whether or not coffee and biscuits were served at that meeting.) JJJ999 has made it very clear that he has a negative personal view of Christopher Erskine, but that doesn’t justify adding in random pieces of negative information about him that aren’t relevant to an encyclopedia article. Purple Watermelon 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see anything further than "Because I said so" as far as the relevance and notability of this statement. Not to mention the fact that it is OR, and the source is weak at best. V-train 06:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
a) Only teachers and committee members were at that meeting.
b) Of those 2 groups only teachers would be complaining about why it was difficult to contact him about a schools comp he was running, which is why Harry (a committee member) promises to take it up with him. At a certain point, logic kicks in and things don't need to be citedword for word. It is relevant how the comp was conducted at the time, and nothing you have said makes it less so.JJJ999 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Why are you still uncapable of posting a reply properly? You have been told multiple times. You seem to conflate logic and assumption. How do you know it wasn't a committee member that was having issues? How do you know it wasn't someone who wasn't actually at the meeting, and wanted it brought up? How do you know it was more than one person? The quote does not back up your assumptions. The statement's placement also implies that it has something to do with his resigning, which there is no evidence of. Also, how is this notable? He is no longer the president, the information means nothing now. It has no relevance and is not notable. V-train 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
a)I am familiar with the committee minutes from that year, and while I do not have a scanner or a copy online, I can assure you it was to do with teachers. At any rate, the merest application of common sense would tell you that since his only job that year was to run a school comp, for which committee members besides the President had no reason to contact him, that the teachers would surely be the ones complaining. The committee meets all year, the teachers only come to the AGM, why would the committee only complain then? Why would Harry agree to talk to him about this if the committee contact for Chris (ie, Harry) had trouble contacting him? So aside from the fact I happen to know that was the problem, simple logic backs it up quite convincingly.
b) The statement implies nothing of the sort. Your reading it that way says more about Erskine frankly, and is a fruedian slip.
c) It is clearly notable to the business of the organisation, which is notable itself. It is unfortunate there is not more info like this, if there was it would be notable too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh please. One minor note in the minutes 6 years ago has enough notability to be mentioned on this page? That's absurd. You can say it is clearly notable all you want, that doesn't make it so. You also have shown nothing to substantiate your claim that multiple teachers had issues with him. It is clear, however, that you do not have a NPOV as far as Erskine is concerned. Why don't you add to the article that in those same minutes, it says there was no opposition to his reelection to the same position? It's clearly notable, according to you. V-train 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I may well add that, you may feel free to as well. Just because it is relevant, it doesn't suddenly become my job to add it.JJJ999 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
One minor comment about an ex-president being hard to contact after leaving office is clearly not notable in this article. And there seems to be clear consensus to delete it, with Purple Watermelon, V-train and me in favour of doing so and only JJJ999 believing it should stay. Dorange 10:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] joint speaker in crime presention 2006

hey, I'm sorry about the previous comment, my friend got ubber keen and decidd to add it in. You can just ignore it.

Sorry once againSareena101 12:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I assume I am correct and it was just Daniel then?JJJ999 04:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)