Talk:Gary Nairn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Flag
Portal
 Gary Nairn 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 New South Wales.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

[edit] Northern Territory Liberals

In an article in The Age on 13 September 2007, Katharine Murphy wrote "Mr Nairn is a former leader of the Northern Territory Liberals who is now Mr Howard's Special Minister of State". I've checked but can find no confirmation he was ever involved in NT politics, or has ever even lived in the NT. Is this just a journalistic stuff-up? -- JackofOz 03:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a stuffup. He certainly wasn't ever a parliamentarian in the Northern Territory (we've got a complete list of its members back to self-government), which makes it a bit hard for him to have to been party leader. It's conceivable that he could have been CLP (not "Northern Territory Liberals") party president or something similar, but in the absence of a less vague source, I'd cut it out. It's just a guess, but I wonder if she might have Nairn confused with Shane Stone or Gary Humphries. Rebecca 03:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can't imagine how she'd confuse Gary Nairn with Shane Stone (who's never been a Federal politician). Gary Humphries is getting warmer, but even there, he was Chief Minister of the ACT, not just "leader of the [ACT] Liberals". I'll put it down to Melburnian indifference to and ignorance of matters relating to Canberra and her environs. Thanks. -- JackofOz 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I take that back. Actually, I'm a moron. His parliamentary biography says that he was CLP president from 1990-94. Rebecca 06:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No morons around here, just uninformed and misinformed people - that includes me :) Thanks for the update, Rebecca. I've found a cite and added it to the article. Cheers. (Oh, and apologies to Katharine Murphy, without whom we wouldn't have this in Nairn's article.) -- JackofOz 07:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan censorship

I added the entry "Mr Nairn has voted 23 times for the controversial "Workchoices" legislation, which many believe has disadvantaged working families." The moderator has removed that entry with the explanation "Since Mr Nairn is a Liberal, it is not surprising that he did so." This is political censorship, attempting to remove an embarrassing but true comment. Readers are entitled to know how Mr Nairn voted, regardless of his affiliations, and removing that is partisan political censorship. BogongMoth 01:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BogongMoth (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not regard my edits to the wikipedia as partisan. It would take the most unintelligent reader to presume that Nairn voted other than with his party on Work Choices. In fact it would be noteworthy if he did not. I think the rest of my edits on this article, eg providing formatting for references for less than complimentary Nairn facts suggests that I am other than partisan. Furthermore another editor has also reverted the change, indicating thereby that she agrees with my reversion.--Golden Wattle talk 02:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing referance to a politician's voting record is certainly partisan. Also, everyone is entitled to know how a politician voted on any issue. Why hide it? Indeed, some websites have been set up to list politicians' voting records. Assuming that he always voted according to the party line is fraught with misguided assumptions, as some politicians have voted against the party line, see Senator Barnaby Joyce for example. I see also that earlier entries in the site have referred to Nairn's history, such as "Nairn has announced cash grants of millions of dollars to the wood chipping industry in recent years through Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package grants. In his first speech to Parliament in 1996 he argued for increased wood chipping....." So why remove all reference to his support for WorkChoices? This certainly smacks of censorship and is contrary to Wikipedia's "Neutral Point Of View" and requirements for factual entries editorial policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BogongMoth (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is not censorship in my view. The addition is nonsensical. It would only make sense if it was against the party line as per your example of Joyce who is noted for that behaviour. I will escalate the issue to the Aus politics noticeboard for an extra pair of eyes--Golden Wattle talk 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The question remains: if the statement is true, why remove it? I have heard Gary Nairn say at a public meeting that he was proud of his support for Workchoices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BogongMoth (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't encyclopaedic to say somebody has followed the party line each time they do so - this is an encyclopaedia not a soapbox. A second opinion has again confimed my reversion. On wikipedia we have a three revert rule - you will be blocked if you change the article back again within 24 hours - see WP:3RR--Golden Wattle talk 05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Saying that a party politican voted for his party's policy in Australia is not interesting and non-encyclopedic (not even close).--Grahamec 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "heckled" or "argued"

The assertion that I was heckling is not backed up by the facts of the situation. It is perjorative POV. The exchange took place in a desiginated Q&A section of the meeting, and there was substantial interplay between not just myself, but other members of the audience and Kelly. I was certainly 'arguing' with Kelly. But I was not 'heckling', and this can be seen in the fuller transcript of the debate, where the ABC journo describes the interaction not as 'heckling' but as an 'exchange': http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2038092.htm Peter phelps (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've looked for some background here, and I actually agree with you on this one. "Heckled" is a bit of a misleading term given it was the Q&A section of the meeting, and the word 'heckle' would imply that you interrupted others to make the point. I've removed that word and rewritten that sentence, does it appear better now?
As an aside, I'm glad that you're here on this article; obviously it could use some expansion, and working closely with Nairn I'm sure you've got a lot of useful insight into him that the rest of us don't have. I hope you'll stick around and positively contribute to the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC).
Better? Yes. But best of all - accurate. I'm playing nice now, after my recent admonishment. I also realise that Wiki is not fixed in stone and the senior editors are quite reasonable when things are pointed out to them - but the onus is on readers to point those things out, as they cannot be mind-readers for every article on the site. Peter phelps (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Orderinchaos 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)