Talk:David Clarke (Australian politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag
Portal
 David Clarke (Australian politician) 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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

Can we find a better than die: "(for example it is suggested that he would support legislation to allow homosexuals the power to determine where their superanuation should go if they die)."

ṇ== POV ==

There seems to be some political editing to this article. I don't know enough about Australian politics to be of much help. Could a few users keep an eye on this and ensure it is thoroughly referenced?

I've tried to make this more neutral, but you have to keep in mind that Clarke is at the fringe of "mainstream" politics, and invites a great deal of controversy. Kewpid 06:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly object to the use of the label "christian right" to describe the right wing of the Liberal Party. It is factually inaccurate.
I object to, well most of the crap that's in this article, which it would seem is written by his enemies with little regard for truth, or his defences, whatsoever. You can't simply get a string of quotes from the far-left and put them up. And I mean what on earth is the relevance of things like "used alex hawke like a colonel" other than to defame? LibStu 03:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
well obvious Mr or Miss Pro right Liberal defender, if you have references to prove David Clarke is a moderate Liberal, show them. I know someone in the Young Liberals and they too are concerned about the growing ultra conservatism of Clarke. as for Alex Hawke, ask John Brogden what he thinks. 210.56.73.234 10:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia site, not a forum to play out factional squabbles within the Liberal Party. The article as it stood violated WP:NPOV. To quote from the Wiki guidelines "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." Having a string of attacks on David Clarke violates this. The fact that you have "friends" in the Young Liberals who are "concerned" is all well and good, but you can't exactly use this as a source - please see the NOR policy. Finally, controversies surrounding Alex Hawke should be limited to the section on Alex Hawke, and, whilst he is on David's Staff, I fail to see the relevance of the (strongly denied and with no evidence provideed whatsoever) allegation on the David Clark page. LibStu 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
well Libstu what is the truth about David Clarke? there is a number of media articles from various sources about Clarke's alleged viewpoints and his relationship with Alex Hawke. it's more than staffer many people believe. the unknown user didn't actually quote his/her friend in the main article so that's a personal attack on your part. The Liberal Party says it's a broad church, you have to acknowledge that Clarke is more on the conservative end of it. I agree that all wikipedia sites need to be in a NPOV and objective matter, but would prefer if perhaps someone not so political and has a vested interest (being a member of the club and party) edits this site. It appears to me you're trying to say Clarke is moderate or that no Liberals are ultra right wing. If you can find web references disputing media articles about Clarke put them up. Michellecrisp 04:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Michelle, I certainly realise that you have been using Wikipedia the last few weeks as a concerted attack on the NSW "right" of the Liberal Party, and as much as I hate depriving you of your joy, your conduct violates Wikipedia guidelines. In response to your comments though, I am not saying that Clarke is a moderate, nor am I saying that there are no Liberals who are ultra-right wing (although I certainly don't consider Clarke to be in that category). What I am saying is that the article, as it currently stands, is primarily a long list of attacks on Clarke, with nothing essentially in his defence. This violates NPOV guidelines. Simple. LibStu 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Libstu reveal your real name instead of hiding behind the Libstu label, do you work for David Clarke or Alex Hawke? your accusation of "your conduct violates Wikipedia guidelines" is outrageous and juvenile. report me to Wikipedia adminstrators if that is the case to get me blocked. otherwise your accusation is baseless and unAustralian. I edit various sites including politics. you even say Clarke's article should have defence, I agree. so you supply the information with evidence. I won't edit it out. Michellecrisp 04:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
In all seriousness, show some maturity. By constantly putting up only negative information about the so-called "right" of the Liberal party, and doing this on a VERY long list of sites, you voilate NPOV guidelines, which, might I re-emphasise, requires that "None of the views should be given undue weight". The history of your contributions regarding to political matters shows a steady pattern of editing that is against this guideline. There is nothing outragous/juvenile/baseless or, laughably, unAustralian about me pointing this out. Until the time when I or other editors get the time to put forward contrary viewpoints, the NPOV tag should remain. LibStu 04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Libstu who can't reveal real name, your accusation of "your accusation of "your conduct violates Wikipedia guidelines" is a serious accusation. There is no history of editting against this guideline, check my very long list of sites, most of them are sport not politics. Your history and personal attacks indicates a biased approach by taking a pro Liberal view and removing criticism (or softening it). by the way voilate is spelt VIOLATE. If you have problems with my conduct, report it to the administrators or keep quiet. Michellecrisp 04:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've checked my last 250 contributions to Wikipedia the vast majority have been on sport (which I have a major interest) or geography (specifically Australian places), to accuse me of a LONG history of editing Liberal sites (which I have on occasion but always with citation or asking for citation) is WRONG. Further false accusation will be dealt with the Administrators. Michellecrisp 04:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I am under no obligation to disclose my name to you, or to anyone else (although considering what an expert you are in the field, surley you can work it out. I realise that most of your entries are non-political, but those that are, with virtually no exception, include negative matirial about what you perceive to be the liberal-right. Whether this was done consciously or subconsicously, it is nevertheless a matter of fact. Secondly, having a 'report it to an admin or keep quiet' mentality is the very antithesis of the open exchange of information that Wiki should be founded upon. LibStu 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Libstu says "having a 'report it to an admin or keep quiet' mentality is the very antithesis of the open exchange of information that Wiki should be founded upon". it's got nothing to do with that. I am all for the exchange of information but unfounded accusation of long history of Liberal entry editing is unfounded. Personal especially unfounded attacks will not be tolerated on Wikipedia. If you have an issue with me, like your perception I'm not NPOV and you believe I'm not changing this conduct. take it up with the Administrators, as a violation of terms. Otherwise, it's a baseless accusation. Michellecrisp 05:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Liberals_%28Australia%29&diff=119912880&oldid=119866849 disprove Libstu's baseless claim that "but those that are, with virtually no exception, include negative matirial (sic) about what you perceive to be the liberal-right" But if people want to defame me, then I will take matters further. Michellecrisp 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

whoa whoa you two stop arguing! Kewpid makes the valid comment before "but you have to keep in mind that Clarke is at the fringe of "mainstream" politics, and invites a great deal of controversy" so Libstu you kind of expect that negative sounding publicity from various sources (which a great deal of Clarke is on) may be shown on the entry. of course, If David Clarke has made a positive contribution to NSW politics or community, find the media article and put it up! but I haven't found any. Libstu goes on and on about NPOV but this entry indicates significant pro Liberal bias, written like a glowing testimonial which is in fact a violation of the style of Wikipedia as it's an advertisement. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney_University_Liberal_Club&diff=prev&oldid=100654203 looking at the previous 500 posts of libstu they're almost all (say 99%) on the Liberal Party or watering down criticism say on politically related sites such as National Union of Students. If one Wikipedian is so focussed on one topic, there must be a significant degree of bias relating to one topic, i.e. the Liberals. that is an objective assessment of the long history of contributions. 210.56.72.9 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
More examples of LibStu/Ben Potts pro Liberal bias http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Labor_Students&diff=prev&oldid=100846258 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Liberal_Students%27_Federation&diff=prev&oldid=93315572 A POV skewed to making Young Liberals/ALSF better. In fact nothing LibStu has edited has done anything besides that. That is an objective assessment. By the way I'm not a member nor affiliated to any political movement. Michellecrisp 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


I've cleaned up the article a bit. Comment if you wish. Kewpid 10:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

do a web search on David Clarke and Alex Hawke...you'll see a connection from various sources. 210.56.73.234 11:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Third Opinion

I'm considering putting this entry up for Wikipedia:Third_opinion. This will prevent personal attacks on me from third parties and prevent third parties with vested interest from editing until neutrality is resolved. Michellecrisp 04:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying you have voilated NPOV is not a personal attack, it is an objective assessment of your history. In anycase, considering the POV issue was only raised recently, and already Kewpid and others have made significant improvements to the site, I would hope that this could be resolved amicably with no necessity for Third Opinions. But if you feel the need, go ahead. I just think it's premature.LibStu 05:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
An objective assessment of my history may be seeing my long list of sporting and geographical contributions and checking each one for NPOV. How can you be objective if you've made false accusation of long history of editing Liberal sites. Check my contributions they're all citated on Liberal related entries, nor have I removed anything (that is citated) that is perceived as providing balance. Michellecrisp 05:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DCDefender

Could he/she be any more subtle about who they work for? An identity created for the sole purpose of editing one site? Violation of Wikipedia rule "Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits" 210.56.72.9 14:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Will the DCDefender now "defend" the other David Clarkes appearing on Wikipedia. or perhaps they'll reveal their connection to LibStu? Michellecrisp 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Is DCDefender and LibStu none other than Ben Potts? Michellecrisp 03:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Let us hope others do not suffer what happened to User:Jeendan because of the political motives of others. Jeendan was a good editor. Michellecrisp 14:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Before Politics

Do you think being pictured in a book about someone is worthy of inclusion here? LibStu 07:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I only reordered it, it could be expanded with info from http://www.smh.com.au/news/obituaries/ardent-nazi-took-liberal-to-extremes/2006/03/03/1141191845008.html and http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1688866.htm Michellecrisp 07:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I recognise you reworded it, didn't add that section. Just was unsure if it was of sufficient import to warrent inclusionLibStu 08:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I believe virtually every single MP/senator has attended Young Liberal Events, i'm not quite sure why it is of note that David Clarke has as well...LibStu 08:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Love your usage of "virtually", Ben. thing is Clarkey was well known for frequenting Young Lib meetings (under the guise of picking up his daughter). how was budget night, Ben? 210.56.72.201 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By stating this without citation I fail to see how it passes Wiki rules on verification. Do you have any evidence that David attends YL events more frequently than any other member of parliament? LibStu 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

This article portrays a very negative picture of David Clarke, and has little encyclepedic or biographical content Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

well this has been debated before. there are over 30 citations in this article. Clarke is a controversial figure but there is nothing stopping you adding things on his achievements if they are citated. he seems to be more famous for his controversy than decisions or actions he's made as a MLC. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You will note that I did not make any criticisms of this article on the issue of verifiability, rather I did on neutrality. I do not dispute that he is a contraversial figure, however, this article is one which gives undue weight to the negative, has no biographical information, and starts off by implying that his entire early life was involved iwth Llyenco - Wiki guidelines on structure discuss how this can be against policies on neutrality. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said these concerns have been raised before but there is little published on what Clarke has done as a politician or before politics for that matter. He doesn't give away a lot in general. Michellecrisp (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that these concerns have been raised before, so perhaps its time to do something about it and work together to improve this article! :) Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
The main concern isn't so much with content as with tone, from what I can see. That and violations of the Manual of Style for headings and some grammatical issues, which usually to me suggest some of the content was added by one or two people at the sidelines. I would agree that he's almost synonymous with controversy - especially after the Four Corners program and the Brogden business. Will have a look tonight and see what I can do with what's there - it's always a challenge sorting the wheat from the chaff with these sorts of cases in terms of available information, but it's doable and has been done before. Orderinchaos 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)