Talk:Darrell Lea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
Flag
Portal
 Darrell Lea 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Hobart shop

The article currently states:

"Jason Lea, Monty's son, opened the first shop in Hobart in 1956."

Given that:

(a) Jason Durard Lea was born on 28 September 1942,
(b) was 13 years of age until 28 September 1956,
(c) was 14 years of age on 28 September 1956 (at that time, the legal school-leaving-age was 14),
(d) was living in Melbourne with his family, and
(e) was a full-time student at Melbourne's Caulfield Grammar School from 1952 until 1958 (in fact, for each of those years he was also a classmate of Kenneth G. Ross),

this statement quite impossible (except, of course, if it only means that somebody else was responsible for the establishment, stocking, and staffing of the shop and that Jason simply cut the ribbon at the doorway on the opening day sometime in 1956 — thus, in this limited sense of "opening" the shop, he did "open" the shop).

Furthermore, given his love of sport, it would seem quite impossible that Jason would have been absent from Melbourne during the Olympic Games that were held in Melbourne from 22 November 1956 to 8 December 1956, and give up his chance as a Melbourne schoolboy (and thus entitled to a student ticket) to attend at least one day's exciting events with his classmates at the main stadium at the Melbourne Cricket Ground. Lindsay658 10:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section "Jason Lea (28 September 1942 - 12 September 2005),[1] Monty's son, opened the first shop in Hobart in 1956 ([citation needed] -- this statement is almost certainly wrong (see discussion page)" from the article. The company's own web-site at [2] clearly states the following:
1962 Jason, Monty’s son, starts full time employment in the company as a trainee manager.
Also, the same company site makes no mention of a Hobart store in 1956 (or any other Tasmanian store at any time for that matter).Lindsay658 (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Britain

I'm pretty sure I saw a shelf containing bags of Darrell Lea sweets in Sainsbury's in Kidderminster last week. It was on a rather feeble Aussie products display (the sum total were those, some Tim Tams and a few bottles of wine). Loganberry (Talk) 14:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABC "Documentary"

Loganberry has removed the following comment from the External link section of this article, that linked readers to an ABC documentary on the Lea family:

Warning: This documentary is very poorly researched, is very highly biased against Jason Lea who was just weeks away from his death on 12 September 2005 (and, as well, highly medicated) when he was ambushed by the film crew. Also, the crew only interviewed part of his family.

The reason supplied by Loganberry is that, in his/her view this passage represented a POV and, therefore, regardless of its accuracy (upon which he/she passed no judgement), it should be removed.

Given the incredible anti-Jason Lea bias of the poorly researched, and extremely unbalanced "documentary" -- which, rather than being the story of "the Lea dynasty" turned out to be a cowardly one-sided and entirely unwarranted hatchet-job on the (at the time of its broadcast) very recently deceased Jason Lea -- and given that it represents the extremely polarized views of only one side of the recent history of the Company, and given that there were many members of Jason's own "blood family"' (i.e., in addition to his adopted siblings), including a number of his children and his former wife (i.e., his wife at the time of many of the events the "documentary" alluded to) who were never contacted and, moreover, would have been able to give a far more balanced account, and given that Jason was, essentially, "ambushed" by the film crew, in the last days of his life when his cognitive capacity and his ability to understand the intent and significance of complicated questions was significantly reduced due to the massive amounts of chemotherapy and other medication that he was enduring at the time, the fact that he was given no opportunity (nor were any members of his immediate family) to scrutinize the completed "documentary" before its screening, to identify the myriad factual errors and misrepresentations of history that it contains, I am puzzled.

Whilst not wanting to tread on anyone's toes, engage in any sort of toe-to-toe battle -- or, indeed, any other sort of extended fierce struggle -- over this matter, I am extremely disappointed that the important warning that I had placed against the "external link", relating to a lack of balance -- i.e., in Wiki language, I was saying, "Beware! this documentary expresses an extreme POV" -- has been removed because I am being accused of expressing a POV in simply registering the fact that a cited source is pushing and extremely biassed POV (rather than presenting neutral matters of balanced historical fact).

I hope that someone with a bit of commonsense and a bit of insight will restore my warning to its rightful place (so that those innocent readers who follow the link will not swallow the story offered holos bolus without independently checking the historically incorrect and entirely unsubstantiated allegations made throughout this supposed "documentary").

Finally, I fail to see how an important warning against a POV can, in and of itself, be classed as a POV. I eagerly await an explanation from, perhaps, the POV-centred individual that removed my warning of another's POV. Anyway, I think you get my point.Lindsay658 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my removal of the warning, for the reasons I gave in my edit summary. You are correct that I passed no judgement on the warning's accuracy or otherwise, and that was deliberate: it is simply not our place as Wikipedia editors to do that. The fact that (as illustrated above) you have very strong views on this subject is not in itself any reason for you not to edit the article, but it is not your place to insert your views into the article. Or my place, or anyone else's place.
We can't have a situation where editors are allowed to include their own opinions in the body of the text - including references, notes, external links etc. If you were to add a section to the article dealing with the documentary, and were to quote criticism from verifiable and reliable sources, then that would be fine. For example, a newspaper article in which some of the people interviewed were quoted as saying the programme was unfair would definitely be an acceptable source. But we as Wikipedia editors are not acceptable sources, even to add "warnings". Loganberry (Talk) 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining the Wiki convention. Without arguing against your description of the convention, I plainly can not accept that a link to something as biassed as the "documentary" in question is not, in actual fact, and by its very presence on the page, actively asserting a POV.
However, if it is the convention to accept the insertion of such biassed and inaccurate nonsense (without any comment), simply because it is an "external link" to a television show, and not allow and accept that that very the insertion of the link itself is in fact the assertion of a strongly opinionated POV, which in this case is tantamount to (in another Wiki domain) self-advertising -- i.e., the promotion of a POV, rather than facts -- seems rather astonishing.
Also, if either you, or myself, or anyone else, as "Wiki editors" have direct personal knowledge that such-and-such is the absolute correct state of affairs (e.g., that you were an eye witness to something) and, simply because we are "Wiki editors", by this convention are unable to correct either the inadvertent misrepresentation of facts or the deliberate, active and intentional dissemination of misinformation, it seems to be a very unfortunate state of affairs.
Anyway, Loganberry you have made the social dimensions of the Wiki-convention abundantly clear; and, whilst I can never rationally accept the content of the "message" that you have conveyed to me, I am most grateful to you for having been such a clear-headed and articulate "messenger". I will not waste your valuable time by pursuing this point any further.Lindsay658 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I note your intention not to pursue this point further, and that's not a problem. However, you've (perhaps inadvertently) illustrated perfectly just why the Wikipedia policies in question exist. You refer to "biased and inaccurate nonsense"... but that's your opinion, not a verifiable fact. It would be just the same if you had entirely the opposite view called it "a wonderfully accurate portrayal" - that wouldn't be appropriate language for the article either.
In short, as Wikipedia:Verifiability explicitly says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." In other words, if you can't show that a reliable third party has said what you're saying, then you shouldn't be saying it. And yes, that does mean that Wikipedia policy is to omit certain statements even if you're sure they're true. I doubt this policy will be changed, as it has the personal support of Jimbo Wales. Loganberry (Talk) 11:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Darrell-Lea logo.jpg

Image:Darrell-Lea logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)