Talk:Bennelong Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Bennelong Society 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.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia.
Assessment comments

[edit] Neutral POV?

More about the BS as a conservative political body would be helpful and worthwhile. A brief look at the BS weblinks page is ample proof of their strong political position: verbatim example: Quadrant Website: www.quadrant.org.au Australia's independent review of literature and ideas. Quadrant has been a leader in new thinking in Aboriginal policy.

Keith Windschuttle Website: www.sydneyline.com Keith Windschuttle has almost single-handed forced the insular history and anthropology fraternity to think about their scholarship in Aboriginal affairs.

Many moderate people would see these links as radically conservative opinions. mangonorth


\\

Am not sure how to tag something to contest a neutral POV. Suffice to say, the Bennelong Society is viewed from some perspectives as a means to advance conservative polemics about the "Aboriginal Question(s)", rather than to facilitate open discussion. This entry doesn't address any of these criticisms, which I thought were supposed to be included as a part of Wikipedia policy.

Could someone tag this as having a potentially non-neutral POV?

Raverant2006 12:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you can of course fix it by adding something to the article. Wikipedia is not a platform for debate - see WP:NOT. The article documents the society's existence, history and aims, albeit briefly - I do not see that the article as it stands breaches WP:NPOV. If introducing a discussion about criticisms of the society, please ensure reliable sources are cited - ref WP:Cite policy and WP:RS guideline.--A Y Arktos\talk 19:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the clean up tag. "maybe the words "conservative" and "supports the abolition of indigenous welfare programs" sould appear somewhere" is not grounds for clean up. Nor as above are they grounds for NPOV. If you want to add material, do so - don't merely tag. Make sure referenced. Present material not merely cut and paste though obviously draws heavily on the referenced sources since it is not original research.--A Y Arktos\talk 07:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I have reverted the second clena up tag which was placed with the edit But it still needs a better structure and at least a token attempt at presenting a dissenting voice. - that comment applies to most Wikipedia articles and we don't tag 1 million articles.--A Y Arktos\talk 07:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course we don't, but let's not make false equivalencies. uranium is in a much better state than this article. The article is basically a "list of objectives" and it has been, not withstanding wikification, since it was created (by a person who, incidentally, claims to be Gary Johns - i.e. a promiment member of the society). This society is a think tank - i.e. in this context a group that aims to disseminate certain policies and viewpoints into the public debate - and we are currently allowing it to self-define (indeed, to promote its own agenda in that self-definition). If the article on the ALP was simply the "objectives" portion of the ALP constitution, there would certainly be a cleanup tag on it at the least. All wikipedia articles cry out for improvement, yes, but this one does as a matter of urgency, and I can see nothing in it to reduce that urgency. Slac speak up! 07:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Many articles are in a better state than this one. Even more are not. If you want another POV introduced, do so - don't merely tag. Also review WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves which I think amply applies to this - look who they have given awards to and for what reason! Note a a very cursory google was not very good on producing strictly reliable sources criticising the society - didn't try too hard but I am not the one trying to introduce a different perspective. When I get more time I will have another go.--A Y Arktos\talk 08:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they give awards to Aboriginies for reasons that don't contradict three particular policy directives they have; anti-land-rights, anti-self-determination and pro-assimilation. Raverant2006 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] content moved from bennelong medal talk page

I feel this page is notable as it is not included on the Bennelong Society entry, where it should rightly go. I attempted to put it there and it was repeatedly deleted and I did not want to enter an edit war. Therefore it exists as a separate page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by A.J.1.5.2. (talk • contribs)

There appear to be some mentions in Google; you should add some to the article. --Jack Merridew 12:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the notability warning as Jack Merridew seems to have contradicted himself by adding a notability warning prior to checking basic searches such as google. I'll add some links and expand the article so it can be merged back into Bennelong Society when time permits (unless Jack Merridew would like to make some constructive edits? :) ). R:128.40.76.3 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Article did not cite any third party sources when I added the tag; the onus is not on other editors to cite sources for material. --Jack Merridew 09:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What on this page needs cleaning up? It states the data and the source. What else could there be. The article did site one third party source at the time of you first tagging, it was within the body of the article, as it was a hyperlink, as opposed to at the end. This surely suggests that you have not actually read the article fully. The added sources to keep you happy are in fact irrelevant as they add nothing to the article and in adding to the length of the article, remove some of its encyclopædic nature. Is it these you would like removed for the clean up? - - A.J.1.5.2.TALK 11:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming I understood you correctly I have gone ahead with the clean up and removed the tag. - - A.J.1.5.2.TALK 11:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)