Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:59, 11 November 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Jones (talkback host) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rugby union High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Rugby league Low‑importance Alan Jones (talkback host) is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Australia: Queensland Mid‑importance [REDACTED] Alan Jones (talkback host) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Queensland. [REDACTED] The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment / Sports and Games This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. This article is supported by the sports and games work group. Radio This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary) Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane Maintain : Portal:Radio Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs Verify : Unreferenced BLPs Other : Collaboration of the Week: Requests for Radio peer review: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show) Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Jones (talkback host) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days

ACMA ordered Jones to comment on evidence

Does anyone else feel that it is humorous that ACMA have ordered Jones to comment on evidence when in recent weeks the Met have reported Global Warming has paused for 16 years despite increasing global emissions of Carbon Dioxide? In terms of the article, it might show that the fad of AGW belief captured wiki editors in a knee jerk response. Maybe we could address that by being more balanced in the presentation? DDB (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the Met? What report are you talking about? Reads like push-polling to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Met is the UK Meteorological society, home of Phil Jones and AGW alarmism. When emails were leaked showing that data was sexed up to appeal to alarmists, Jones was one of the authors. He retains his position atm and vigorously defends his bogy data DDB (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of Phil Jones. You really need to explain AGW too. Are you English? No Australian regularly (ever?) refers to the Met. Why should they? And why should readers of this thread know? Why are the arguments of conservatives so incoherent? HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AGW is an anachronistic term for climate change, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Interestingly the article on Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming has been taken down and now redirects to Human impact on the environment which really does not discuss the subject and includes some amazing oversimplifications like "The environmental impact of biodiesel is diverse" and "The environmental impact of nuclear power results from the nuclear fuel cycle, operation, and the lingering effects of the Chernobyl disaster".

As for why right wingers are so incoherent, they do not have any logical arguments to raise on issues like this so they cobble together a few catch-phrases to try to make do. If you understand scientific process and logic you do not support climate change denialism, and such understanding is a requirement for coherent discussion of scientific issues. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I do not find it at all funny that ACMA's action has coincided with more nonsense from the UK Daily Mail. The article you refer to talks about a report which does not exist and cherry picks the UK Met Office data. It is thoroughly rebutted in the Met Office response here: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/. The whole idea of Misplaced Pages is to use reputable peer reviewed references for scientific information, not beat-ups with no scientific credibility. On current affairs and politics of course we have less choice but when it comes to science please look for the data not the shock jock opinion piece. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when does a personal blog form a rebuttal? No serious scientist has referred to the blog subsequently DDB (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting definition of "personal blog" DDB, it is clearly identified as "Official blog of the Met Office news team. This is the official blog of the Met Office news team, intended to provide journalists and bloggers with the latest weather, climate science and business news and information from the Met Office. The blog will post latest news releases and related content, news diary and information supporting news stories already in the media.", and the links within it actually lead to datasets, not a couple of cherry-picked figures chosen to suit an argument. Since you have been unable to find those links, here they are; transcript of video explanation of the new data set - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/l/Transcript_HadCRUT4.pdf news release about the data set updates in March (didn't take the Daily Mail long to find the two figures to support their nonsense did it? Oh, yes it did.); http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates and here is the HadCRUT4 website with full datasets and plenty of other information; http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

Can you provide one example of an actual scientist who has referred to the Daily Mail article with anything except total scorn? I doubt it. As for referring to "climate-gate" have a read of the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy, it is quite well referenced and gives a balanced discussion of how those accusations were thoroughly investigated and rejected. Accept the facts Ddball, the data is in. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it that 'the data is in' or that 'it is a left wing/right wing' thing. Your last two posts give both arguments which are diametrically oppositional to each other. Yet even so, they don't address my question or undermine my position .. I am conservative, nether left wing nor right. The newspaper article was balanced, and obtained information from Phil Jones as well as others. The data isn't political. It shows no heating trend in 16 years despite substantial carbon dioxide increases. DDB (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an excellent source, for soccer scores. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense DDB, the Daily Mail article is based on comparing one figure from the middle of a strong El Nino and another from the extreme of a double dip La Nina. That is not 'balanced' reporting, it is making stuff up. You cannot take 150 years of data and throw it out the window because two points in a variable dataset don't match the overall trend. If you don't understand that then you are just wasting our time here. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So we agree, Djapa, the 300 data points show over 16 years no global warming trend. Your excuse for that is that it lies between two local events with global ramifications which have nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. You object that it was printed in a newspaper but not on one of your blogs? Or is the demarcation elsewhere? DDB (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Edit summary said you were going to explain something. Will the explanation start soon? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section from the Met Office response: "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming." Read that carefully DDB and mull it over. Eventually you will have to comprehend their argument, as it is not that difficult really. If you still have trouble there are planty of good references to explain what La Nina and El Nino are, You could start with http://reg.bom.gov.au/watl/about-weather-and-climate/australian-climate-influences.shtml?bookmark=enso, but then again that is science. You might not get it. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing that as a personal attack and I'm not seeing any relevance to improving this article. If you want to talk about the weather, take it elsewhere, please. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Always know the right time to chime in, don't you? :) Timeshift (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole re-opening of this thread by DDB to discuss climate change, rather than this article about Alan Jones, was inappropriate. I suggest that those keen to discuss climate change take it elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I appropriately posted a relevant question. The abuse I can do without. The question is still salient to the article. The responses have not been. Time will tell, however, as the ACMA decision will be more objectively seen as time passes. DDB (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Salient? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Grey area. Moving on, cc or not? :) Timeshift (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original query up the top, is Alan Jones known overall as a positive or negative? When he's in the media, does it tend to be a good news story or not? If some WP:RS can be found demonstrating some positive things, then by all means it is likely warranted for inclusion in this article. So with that in mind, find me some positive Jones RS (before you start posting opinion pieces, please actually click and read the RS link). Then again, the original query up the top was submitted 5 years ago, so i'm sure the article looks very different now. I'm thinking for the purposes of a focus on article improvement, that this talk page should be archived (still viewable) and if anyone wishes to re-raise something, they are free to do so. At the moment, this talk page is a bit of a mess. Timeshift (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A few minor and (I hope!) non-controversial changes

In the political lobbying section AJ is described as "A former candidate for Liberal Party of Australia preselection". That's true but I think it would be better to describe him as "A former candidate for the Liberal Party" or something like that. As it is now, it almost suggests he was unsuccessful in his preselection attempts.

"This time the ALP candidate was returned with an even greater majority despite the absence, on this occasion, of a Gay Liberation and another three conservative party and independent candidates." I think I understand what this is getting at although I'm not sure the absence of a Gay Lib candidate would make an increased ALP vote surprising (I would have thought people whol voted for the Gay Lib candidate at the byelection would more likely switch to Labor at the GE. Personally I think it's enough to say that the ALP increased its majority at the general elections.

In the part about North Sydney I propose the addition of unsuccessful so it reads "meanwhile unsuccessfully standing for preselection for the Federal seat of North Sydney." I understand he lost that one although I'm not really sure.

In the part re Eden Monaro ("Later that year, another parent at Kings, Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party (now the National Party of Australia) in the Australian Parliament, offered Jones a position with the party in Canberra. The next year, he sought party preselection as the candidate for the parliamentary seat of Eden-Monaro, but he was unsuccessful at the election.") I propose adding "National" just before party preselection since next para switches to his involvement as a Lib and this might ease any confusion.

Kovco comments

I've reinstated this section under Court Actions and Tribunal Findings, as it seems the more appropriate. Happy to discuss. Oracle7 (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy to discuss before changing anything. As I said, my concern at this stage is just readability. Cheers. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Comments

I'm the first to say that these comments are repulsive, but right now they are not encyclopedic. Misplaced Pages is not news (see Misplaced Pages:NOT#NEWS), and unless these comments have an enduring impact they belong in a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. If they receive widespread criticism over the next few days, lead to a change in media policy or lead to Alan Jones being suspended etc then it is appropriate to insert them (with proper sourcing and a reference to their impact), but currently this belongs in a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. Guycalledryan (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. His comments will mostly be reinforcing opinions already cast in stone about the man. Let's await developments. The one possible concrete thing so far is "A list of advertisers on 2GB was being circulated, with calls for those companies to boycott the Jones show or 2GB altogether if he is not removed or disciplined" from here. But again, we should probably wait and watch. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they will have 'enduring impact'. I'm happy to wait a while. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it has begun. While the comments from ALP figures can't really carry much weight (they hate him anyway), those from Turnbull and the Greens mean a lot more. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

When Andrew Bolt says that Alan Jones has gone too far, you know things are bad. . -- Chuq (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He has apologised. Not sure whether this makes it more significant or not. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's scarely most peoples definition of an apology, couched as it is in the normal Jones apology obfuscation. And of course, the original remark wasn't made by him, merely repeated by him. Ha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkTB (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that you're disrespecting his apology says to me that many others will be of a similar view. I also wondered what was the value or point of saying he was repeating someone else's words - when he was claiming to be apologising without qualification. Whether he coined the expression or copied it is absolutely immaterial to the issue, and he knows that. I guess it's his way of saying "It's not just me, others are saying it too, so don't single me out". His fawning supporters will buy that, because he can do no wrong, in their eyes. Anybody else will see it for what it is. -- Jack of Oz 06:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure there are too many "fawning supporters". Just popped in to see what had popped up. This article is mainly an attack piece on Alan Jones, not a biographical article. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be true. The last bit. But if you really believe he doesn't have any fawning supporters, then you don't know some of the people I've talked to. There's virtually nothing he could ever do that would be so bad that it'd make them stop believing whatever comes out of his mouth is Holy Writ. And if he does do or say something really bad such as the current incident, then blathers his way through some half-baked apology, well, that just proves what a wonderful person he is, because it takes a big man to say sorry. Oh Alan, how wonderful you are! Stay brave and true! Yeah, right. -- Jack of Oz 08:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ABC radio today played some comments from some of his fawning callers this morning. Jack, it's as if you wrote the script. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should write in bigger print from now on. I'm not sure there are too many "fawning supporters". Of course there are some, but are they as numerous as (say) Rush Limbaugh's infamous dittoheads? But that's beside the point. This article doesn't seem to provide a balanced NPOV treatment of the subject. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought he was the highest rating breakfast announcer in Sydney. That says that there's a lot of fawning, sadly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What percentage does your source say are "fawners"? Just out of interest. --Pete (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the paragraph cocerning Julia Gillard under Controversy, "insincere" is spelled incorrectly as "incencere".

58.172.153.50 (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed ...by User:Porturology. Dru of Id (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting neutrality

Just quickly reading through the article and the talk page, and I see that a Neutrality? tag has been present since 2011 and for five years the neutrality of this article has been questioned. Looking at the "Controversy" section, and it looks like a list of minor stuff, nothing concrete, just a lot of sour gripes. Some editors here refer to Jones as a convicted criminal, which doesn't seem to be the case, and take every opportunity to smear him.

I have no great love for Jones, but it seems that his biggest sin has been getting up the noses of people with a leftist political outlook. Which he does quite deliberately. Seems to me that this article has been used to kick back at Jones in a very one-sided fashion, and I'd like comments on how to deal with the tag, and how to resolve the issue.

I suggest that we delete the whole section, maybe rewrite from scratch into a paragraph. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The neutrality will be questioned by others who hate the left like Jones (you started the labelling!), but I see no major problems. More sourcing would be good in some areas, but seeing where citations are missing (mostly Cash for Comment), that would not be hard to fix. Most of the rest is very well sourced, and you want to delete it. Hmmmmm. What should probably be deleted is the Neutrality tag. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood. This isn't about slanting the article to please one group or another. This is about NPOV. As it stands, most of the article is an attack piece aimed at Jones. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have learnt from long, sad experience that there is no point discussing matters with you. You failed to discuss anything I said just then. That's normal. You presented an opportunity for me to state my view, as you had stated yours. I've done so. That's it. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the best things about Misplaced Pages is that it has policies to allow productive interaction between editors holding opposing views. You think that the tag should go rather than the section. Any reason why, in light of the points I noted above? As per WP:NPOVN I'm looking for a local resolution before raising this issue there, and you are just playing into my hands. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What? How could anything be "playing into my hands"? Are you pushing a POV? As I said, "You failed to discuss anything I said just then." (And I know I really shouldn't be continuing this. It will achieve nothing.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, you say that the tag should go rather than the section. Any reason why, in light of the points I noted above? Apart from WP:JDLI, of course. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that HiLo48's assessment of the section is pretty accurate, the parts on his early NSW convictions and Cash for Comment are short on citations, but that can be fixed. We all remember the events mentioned don't we?

All the material in the controversy section is accurate as I remember it (whether needing citation or not), and seeing as he is a 'shock-jock' who makes his living out of being controversial, the controversy surrounding him is entirely relevant. I cannot see how material about any good deeds belongs in that section, so obviously they should go elsewhere. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo isn't addressing the neutrality question. Nor are you. I haven't looked at the cites, but I dare say that they are either fine or can be fixed. As it stands, half the article is a blow by blow description of the ways in which Jones has gotten up various noses, mostly slanted so as to make Jones look like a badder boy than he is. I cannot see any charges that actually stuck. In one instance we blast Jones for having the temerity to plead not guilty, thereby forcing the prosecution to admit they had no case!

Having so much material devoted to one aspect of a life is a clear example of WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Either we expand the coverage of his life as a whole, or we drop the coverage of controversies down to an appropriate level. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not "one aspect of his life". It's a great many different aspects of his life, which just happen to have been lumped together in a single "controversies" section. I'm not fond of that approach, and frankly the article structure is a dog's breakfast ("later life" as a subsection of "earlier life", really?) - I'd rather see it told in something more of a chronology, with all these "controversies" integrated into the relevant part of his career. But I don't see that as a bias issue per se.

Yes, the article does present him in a negative light overall, but NPOV doesn't require that articles give equal space to positive and negative material. The controversies get a lot of coverage because they play a big part in his fame. Sometimes, as Stephen Colbert puts it, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". --GenericBob (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the table of contents, it's plainly unbalanced in structure, regardless of content. And it all looks pretty uniform to me. Apart from the first in the list, where the poor bloke was probably trying to score a root in a hostile environment, it's all broadcasting and the responses to broadcasting. "A great many different aspects of his life," you say. I see broadcasting as one of these great many different aspects. Perhaps you could list the many others you discern? --Pete (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to approach broadcasting as just one aspect of his life. It's by far the most notable; there's a reason this is titled Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) and not Alan Jones (sporting coach) or Alan Jones (musical performer). So inevitably the different aspects of his broadcasting career (product endorser, anti-carbon-tax campaigner, commenter on racial issues, ...) are going to get a lot of coverage here.

Re. the 1988 London incident - while I suspect consensus is going to be against me on this one, I wouldn't miss it if it were removed from the article. I'd still defend including Chris Masters' comments on AJ's sexuality, since Masters specifically asserts notability. But bringing up an aborted prosecution for a victimless "crime" just seems a bit too much like muckraking. --GenericBob (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a charge which did not result in a conviction should be reported here. I had not paid enough attention to that part to see that the charges were dropped. Since they were I certainly think that part should be removed, or at least re-edited to focus on the removal of the charge in case people come to the article already aware of the charge having been made. To my knowledge Jones has never claimed not to be gay, but that does not mean a dropped charge should be allowed to dog him forever. It certainly does sound like muck raking to me. Djapa Owen (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, GB, but I don't think your view holds water. Half the article is criticism of his broadcasting behaviour, and you reckon that dividing it down into individual topics - carbon tax, endorsements, race and so on - turns it into many diverse aspects of his whole life. Wouldn't that apply to anyone in public life? Any broadcaster, journalist, politician, novelist, anybody whose views are published? So why does Misplaced Pages single out Alan Jones when we don't have similar long and detailed sections on anybody else in the public eye. You know, notable figures?

Looking at some notable public figures of the Twentieth Century - Hitler, Stalin, Adams - I don't see any long Criticism and Controversy sections. In fact, only the last has any Criticism section at all, and that boils down to a handful of sentences asking, "Why is there no right-wing Phillip Adams?". Well, here he is, and we need only compare the biographical articles of the four public figures to select the one which is a gross exception to Misplaced Pages policy. --Pete (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm normally a staunch opponent of Criticism sections, but that's not what we have here anyway. It's a section headed Controversy. Now, Jones is a shock jock. He gets paid to be controversial. The events listed are real. Maybe one or two don't deserve to be there (charges dropped, lack of sourcing, etc.), but the rest are well documented examples of what Jones is and does. He is well known precisely because of these kinds of events. It's what he is. We cannot ignore them. It's why we have this article. Each deserves a mention. Would it be better if they were just chronologically inserted in a long description of his life? Or does it actually make sense to list them in one lump as it is now? Maybe we should do that, but rename the section to "Success as a shock jock" or similar, because that's precisely what it describes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I just get you to look at our BLP and NPOV policies, HiLo? Both of them will tell you that just because something is true and well-sourced, that does not mean we automatically include it, especially when we are describing a living person. Maybe you have glanced at these fundamental policies without understanding them. Maybe you think you don't have to. But if Adolf Bloody Hitler gets a very long article without a Controversy or Criticism section and he was responsible for millions of deaths and we don't have to worry about offending him because he is dead, just what is it that you dislike about the living and listening Alan Jones that makes it worthwhile going against Misplaced Pages policy? He's more controversial than a mad dictator, maybe? Could you be precise here, please? --Pete (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just knew you wouldn't actually read what I posted. You never do. And have you heard of Godwin's Law? (I promise this will be my last attempt to communicate with you today.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My response was a direct response to your point about Jones being a "shock jock". My point is that Adolf Hitler - or any other mad dictator - doesn't have a Controversies section, and yet how much more controversial can you get than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin? Your position does not square with basic Misplaced Pages policy. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I correctly understood the specifics of your objection: I thought at first you were taking issue with the volume of negative content re. Jones, but now it seems as if the objection is with having it brought together in a Controversies section - is that correct?

The Hitler and Stalin articles have plenty of negative content. It's just that because of the weight of their subjects, those articles are much more polished and so that content is integrated into a more coherent account (or in some cases the detail is relegated to a secondary article e.g. Gulag).

I don't think Phillip Adams is really comparable to Jones. He's a far less controversial figure, with the exception of the "no right-wing Phillip Adams" issue - and as you yourself noted when deleting that section, that was more a criticism of the ABC (for not sourcing an opposing viewpoint) than of Adams himself. A closer parallel in media might be Rush Limbaugh.

But if your objection to this article is the way the negative content is ghetto-ised into a "Controversies" section... I agree absolutely. I think the article would benefit from a major restructure, with the "controversies" material integrated into other parts rather than marshalled together. I just don't see that as a "neutrality" issue - but if we're agreed that it's a problem and on how it could be fixed, perhaps we don't need to agree on how to label that problem? I can't commit the time for a rewrite but if somebody else wants to take it on, good luck to them. --GenericBob (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the section means that the article as a whole is poorly structured. Negative and controversial material should be better placed. The volume is inappropriate; not only is much of it trivial, but it is lopsided and skews the whole article. I would say that Philip Adams is at least as controversial as Jones in his savage and persistent attacks on various groups, especially organised religion. The only differences between he and Jones is that Adams has a (better) sense of humour, he has different targets, and he doesn't have as much influence. If my memory serves, .

But that's as maybe. My objection to the section is that it does not comply with BLP and NPOV. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I really can't let that bullshit through. For someone allegedly concerned about BLP to write "Adams has been in court several times on issues related to his public comments, but if there were ever any mentions, they have been whitewashed away", with no citations, is pure hypocrisy. Grow up. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(To help other editors understand, I wanted to delete that post of mine immediately above because Pete had wisely and commendably removed the offending comment, but he reckons removing my post would leave a hole in the conversation. Pete, of course, has created a hole himself by removing his own content. I don't comprehend his logic. I often don't. And I know from long and sad experience that when he gets a bee in his bonnet over something, absolutely nothing will change his mind. I don't want an edit war, even on a Talk page, so I hope this explanation helps others.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Valid point, not bullshit. The article on Adams is similarly skewed .. although favourable to Adams. Suggesting that there is bias that must be addressed at some time .. preferably now. Entertaining Hilo's assertion for a moment, can Hilo substantiate the assertion that the bias isn't evident? DDB (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Many radio personalities have Controversy sections in their articles. See, for example, Kyle Sandilands#Controversy, The Kyle and Jackie O Show#Complaints, Chris Moyles#Controversies, The Rush Limbaugh Show#Controversial incidents and Paul Holmes (broadcaster)#Controversy. I fail to see why Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)#Controversy is any different. (And please don't invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I am well aware of what that says. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that reinforces the point I made at 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC). Jones is a shock jock. He is paid to create controversy. He is good at it. The better he does it, the better his ratings (in general). I wouldn't be surprised if the management at 2GB regard our Controversies section as points in his favour. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The section name is very little of importance compared to all the controversies Alan Jones has been in. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's about time we got more eyes on this. I'm more interested in arguments based on established wikipolicy than appeals to emotion. --Pete (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhhuh. Timeshift (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one editor - Pete has raised this discussion and despite being the only one arguing his case against so many others making good arguments why the section should stay, albeit with some overhaul, has now flagged the section. I find that rather dubious Pete, you are not the only sensible one here which seems to be the basis of most of your arguments above. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? That is not my position at all, and I reject the allegation. My concern is with the neutrality or otherwise of the article structure. The section has been flagged since October 2011 and should remain flagged until the issue is resolved. My first edit to either article or talk page was only a few days ago, to initiate this discussion as a precursor to listing the article on WP:NPOVN. Some progress has been made in cleaning up items within the section, but my position is that it should be eliminated overall in compliance with wikipolicy and specific incidents integrated with the main article, if relevant. --Pete (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be three issues here being discussed concurrently: 1. do we keep the 'controversies section. 2. do we cut back on the content/ undue weight of the controversies. 3. People are annoying each other.

Am I right in reading that we agree that the section should be removed, in compliance with WP:NOCRIT? It would be a far more neutral, but still comprehensive, article if the section was pasted pretty much intact into the radio and the media section. There might not be much else- that's ok, the content will reflect his controversial nature without us needing a big bold heading for it. We'd also see a sequence of events in context- "Radio Talk Personality of the Year" just before "cash for comments" for example.

We could then focus on issue 2- what is substantial about him and his career, not just what is controversial, how do we get a balance etcWotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one certainly don't agree with removal of the section, at least not yet. Language is being confused, and I wonder if it's deliberate with some editors here. Criticism and Controversies don't mean the same thing. Jones aims to create controversy. It's his job. By listing some controversies he's been involved with we're actually highlighting how successful he has been. Criticism is another thing. It's at another level. Those who disagree with his outbursts will criticise him, but he has still successfully created a controversy. Let's not mix up the two words. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying you'd like us to include the controversies, but remove our outright criticism of Jones?

Note that I didn't so much suggest we remove the content (at this stage) of that section as move it to a general section on his work.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The controversies definitely belong. Maybe they could be better located in some sort of description of his work, because that's what they are, his work. It would take some careful editing though. I'm not sure what "outright criticism of Jones" the article contains. It has some quotes from people he has attacked. So long as they are properly attributed and well sourced they shouldn't pose a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a bit thick. I'm just trying to understand your last points about the two words being confused, and reach a consensus.

My "outright criticism of Jones" comment was an attempt to understand what your objections were. Would I be understanding you better if I said you'd like us to include the controversies but to think carefully, and perhaps not record, criticism of Jones, since that would be reporting opinions, not facts?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The concern is that the "Controversy" section was half the article and contained some pretty dubious material. For example, the London incident (since removed) which was phrased so as to make it appear that Jones was guilty of something even though the charges were dropped. Likewise the perception that the article was being used to attack Jones in the same way he used his position as a broadcaster to unduly criticise the left of Australian politics. Misplaced Pages articles are not for making counterattacks. We provide the facts, we provide a balanced view, we don't give undue weight. If someone wants to launch a biased attack on Jones - or anyone else - fine, they can start a blog. I am heartened by the progress made in the past week. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, the only thing remaining is to delete the second half of the article. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you so persistently ignore my point that creating controversy is Jones' goal, therefore to ignore it would be to ignore what he has successfully achieved? HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I've noted several times that Jones successfully gets up the noses of certain people. Could you stick to the subject, please. --Pete (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My post was completely on subject. That you cannot see it, or feel the need to attack, perhaps puts your competence to edit here in question. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete your friend Collect missed this section, but his comment about reporting of charges which were not prosecuted inspired me to look for some resolutions to some of the charges against Jones, and I suggest we all do that. After all as editors we are all supposed to be looking for accuracy. So far the only case I found a resolution to was the allegation over the Kovco case. Seeing as that was a case where the charges against Jones were not proceeded with, I would normally be inclined to remove the reference to it from the article. However, the Kovco case and Jones' part in it was quite notorious and so I thought it would be fairer in this case to leave the mention and add reference to the resolution as I have done. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the battles we've had over the Craig Thomson thing, I wouldn't label Collect as a friend. However he revealed a far better knowledge of our BLP policy than I possess, and in the end we should be guided by policy rather than our personal feelings. Or the feelings of those political groups we support. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete (aka Skyring): You've recently stated that you think we should delete half the article. I can see the need for tweaking the language, but the bulk of the content now looks appropriate to me. Do you (or anyone else) still think that major chunks of content need to be removed? I'm seeing an article that is largely about a controversial figure, so much of the content has to be taken up by the ways he has done this and the repurcussions (otherwise it wouldn't be a neutral presentation of the facts), but I'm interested in knowing if there is a consensus on this since we removed the 'controversy' section. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The essential problem remains: half the article is devoted to portraying Jones in a poor light. Each individual incident is not treated in a neutral fashion. The cumulative impression our article gives is overwhelmingly negative. This reflects the POV of many of the regular editors, I suggest, not Misplaced Pages's BLP policy. I asked Collect for an opinion, and it is given below. The executive summary is: too long and far too many pointed adverbs and too much trivia included … the BLP is too long by half, easily. Before I list the article on WP:BLPN, are there any other views? --Pete (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to take into account that half of Jones' career portrays him a negative light. The individual incidents need to be mentioned as they are important to the story that is Alan Jones.

I believe that they are mostly treated in a neutral fashion. I don't think that the life story and career of a man with that many complaints/ negative findings can be read without giving a negative impression. I don't belive this is reflecting my POV (of Jones, or of politics), it is reflecting the life story of the man we are describing. Others, upthread, have stated similar positions.

Regardless of the portrayal of individual incidents, I think it is a bit much to say that half the article needed to be deleted.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

half of Jones' career portrays him a negative light… Do tell? Where are you getting that from? Misplaced Pages? I suggest that this is an example of a circular argument. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

no one is denying that he is a shock jock (are they?). The notable parts of this shock jock's career include the adverse court rulings against him and his multiple defamation cases. Should we portray these in a positive light? Because otherwise, you're right, the cumulative impression is going to be negative.

You were suggesting cutting half the article. I don't think our criteria for cutting should be 'because it portrays someone in a negative light'. Our criteria should be 'is it noteworthy? does it give a complete picture of this person's story'. Therefore, I'm wondering about your wish to 'cut half the article' and whether it still stands because (once we removed the "controversy") section I didn't think it was a relevant comment and wanted to know why.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I turned to another editor, more experienced in BLP policy than I am, for comment. He responded here. Please read. I'll review the article when it reaches a stable condition and refer it to WP:BLPN if need be. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's said above that “The cumulative impression is overwhelmingly negative”. My response is “so what?” as long as the information is relevant, given due weight, and is made up of accurate representations of reliable sources. Then, if a certain impression is given, whether actual or perceived, that is fine. It reminds me of a discussion some years ago about the David Hicks article where, if I may paraphrase, an editor argued that “I agree that the article’s material is reliably and broadly sourced, accurate, etc, but we all know that it’s painting him in too good a light and that he’s a lot more evil and a lot less nice than the accurately represented and broad reliable sources. We need to fix that.” The argument was the slant is wrong, and we need a new slant, despite the material we have at hand.

We are not here to provide a certain pre-conceived impression, we are here to be accurate. If we state A (which of course must be relevant and reliably sourced) and A has a negative effect of say "-10", it does not mean we must automatically find something, say B, with an equal postive effect of "+10" to balance out A. B should not be included to balance A, rather it should be considered independantly of A and included only if it too is relevant and reliably sourced. --Merbabu (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think what you say here boils down to your agreement that removing "spin" from an article is entirely appropriate? --Pete (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. That would be your "spin" on my comment and your response misses the point, even if I suspect you yourself don't.--Merbabu (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Exactly right. Nevertheless, I see removing "spin" from our encyclopaedia as a useful and entertaining task. --Pete (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify further, probably unnecessarily, "spin" removal is great, but it's not what I was talking about here. --Merbabu (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

If anyone knows what the close paraphrasing referred to at the top of the article is, could you please remove it? Actual close paraphrasing is usually a copyright violation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you also deal with the other stuff using the Four Corners source? I noticed some of the earlier stuff you dealt with used this source and I'm concerned whoever used this source unfortunately had a poor understanding or simply didn't not care about close paraphrasing and copyvio issues, as both sections in the defamation section seem to share a similar problem. (The last sentence in David Parker and the entire sentence in Don Mackay are nearly word for word.) I don't feel I have enough experience to be able to deal with it myself beyond simply deleting the info. Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking more closely all remaining sections seem to have similar issues. The first one about Charles Perkins and Jones is nearly word for word (some change in tenses and perhaps he with names or vice versa), a lot of it is quotes but I believe that level of similarity outside the quotes is generally considered problematic. The two paragraphs under 'Adverse court and tribunal findings' without a subheading changed a bit more, but still seem fairly similar, I'm not sure that they are problematic but checking from a more experience eye would help. Given that much of this stuff seems to have come after you dealt with the earlier issues, perhaps a word with whoever is adding it would help. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Current photo Alan Jones from the musical Annie in infobox

Whilst Franklin Delano Roosevelt used a wheelchair I understand Alan Jones does not. Without some explanation of this the use of the Annie photo in the info box is not appropriate. Paul foord (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There already is an explanation: the caption says "Alan Jones as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the musical Annie". I think that should be enough for the average reader to guess that the wheelchair might be a prop, especially since it's clearly an old-fashioned model. Do we really need to tell readers that Frank Gorshin didn't usually dress in a green outfit with question marks on it, or that Harpo Marx didn't really have blonde curly hair?

If we can find a suitable free image I'd be more inclined to go with something from his radio or political activities, since they're a bigger part of his life, but I don't see a problem with the existing one. (It's a lot nicer than the one people were trying to insert into the article a few years back...) --GenericBob (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of images on Flickr which are creative commons, Alan Jones at Hanson book launch and Alan Jones after Bowral Coal Seam Gas rally . Neither of those is defamatory or misleading. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those! I think the CSG one would work better, cropped down to just Jones. I'd favour the book launch (iconic AJ stance, addressing an audience) except that the backdrop distracts from AJ. --GenericBob (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Both would need cropping, and they both reflect significant conflicting positions he has taken. Cheers. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the photo at the Hanson book launch is CC-by-NC, so it isn't compatible with Misplaced Pages's license. It would need the photographer to change the license to CC-by-SA before we could use it. The other has the correct license, but it depends a bit on how much someone wants to query if the license is accurate or not - as the person releasing the image is in the photograph, they presumably didn't take it, so they may not own the copyright. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I cropped one of those photos and added it to the infobox, moving the Annie photo to the correct position in the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Died of Shame controversy" - MOS

I suggest that the section Died of Shame controversy should be changed to Died of shame controversy or "Died of shame" controversy to comply with MOS guidelines. Ie "shame" is lower case (MOS:CAPS) and "Died of shame" is either italized (WP:ITALIC#Words as words) or surrounded by quotation marks (MOS:QUOTEMARKS). 203.176.108.99 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Analysis of Apology

I have removed again additions to the article where editors are contributing their own analysis of Jones' apology. There are a number of sources cited, but none of them say anything about "double standards", or "critique of the Prime Minister".

The problems with this are;

• Whether he did this or not is irrelevant. It is not in the sources and not verifiable, a core Misplaced Pages requirement.
• It is very likely original research performed as an analysis of his words. This is not permissible on Misplaced Pages. We do not include what editors think was "implied" or "indicated", we include what reliable sources say was implied or indicated.
• By mentioning the "critique", when sources do not, it is advancing the opinion that he should not have done this, and should be criticised for it. Misplaced Pages is not interested in the opinions of editors.

This is therefore unsourced critical content on a biography of a living person. It therefore must, and should, be removed. --Escape Orbit 13:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources - the video of the apology in full; http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/01/alan-jones-apology-gillard/, more detailed analysis of the speech and apology from ABC including reactions of various experts, politicians of various parties and references to auction items; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-30/gillard-not-interested-in-jones-apology/4288290 and ABC Insight panel discussion of the apology; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-30/insiders-looks-at-alan-jones-speech/4287980

Of course if you want some more enthusiastic analysis there is Nic Lochner's article on the Punch; http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Dont-believe-the-bull-that-this-bully-was-bullied/ and the Sydney Morning Herald article 'Jones eats pie - but without much humility'; http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jones-eats-pie--but-without-much-humility-20120930-26tue.html#ixzz28u21HPby

Between those there are plenty of sources for analysis of his apology. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I acknowledge all these good cites, but could you show me where any of them refer to his critique of the PM during his apology? I'm not seeing it. This one does mention his complaint of what could be called "double standards", so that's ok. The video of the actual apology is not a good cite, as it is a primary source. Using that involves original analysis on the part of Misplaced Pages, creating criticism rather than referencing it. We cannot do this. --Escape Orbit 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is one more analysis of the apology from the Fairfax which includes reference to the Gillard Government's performance; saying Jones insisted, the lines about John Gillard dying of shame was not a joke, they were serious. It was the sort of thing said by people who feel a sense of frustration, and they don't feel as if they've got anywhere to turn. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-low-can-this-shameless-old-dog-of-the-old-media-go-20120930-26tqf.html#ixzz290CIQIl7 Djapa Owen (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So he said he was speaking for those who "feel a sense of frustration". Not really a critique, is it? I understand what you are trying to say here, but the fact is that none of your sources are that concerned about it. It's clear that many were unimpressed by the overall tone of the "apology", but you are highlighting an aspect that no-one else thinks is worth mentioning. I guess it's not such a big deal that he criticised a politician, that's kind of his job. The problem was that he crossed a line when he included the death of a family member. --Escape Orbit 09:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

too long and far too many pointed adverbs and too much trivia included

Covers some of the problems with this BLP. The photo is supposed to present a fair image of the person - the current theatrical image does not do so. In short - the BLP is too long by half, easily. (opinion requested by Skyring on my UT page). Collect (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the problem with the photo, it gives a misleading picture of this person. And while Jones may make a habit of stirring up controversy (again, it's his job) the sections devoted to this could do with a radical pruning and removal of insignificant detail. Currently they account for over half the article. --Escape Orbit 15:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Friends, the relevant section is "Revisiting neutrality" above. Starting a new section does not make sense. Also, what is your definition for a pointed adverb? The term is not in Wiktionary or any other dictionary I have found.

I think in the relevant discussion above there was general agreement that the wheelchair image does not make sense and that the CSG image was appropriate. I would do it but do not have time to crop it and do the upload right now. Djapa Owen (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider the use of as distinct from the University's traditional graduate and undergraduate programmes as a parenthetical and pointed SYNTH. Similarly though he retains his number one position with a slim margin. Adverbially Notwithstanding this, However, Nonetheless etc. are clearly "pointed" language ... 2.(of a remark or look) Expressing criticism in a direct and unambiguous way: "pointed comments". (see multiple dictionaries -- I am amazed that Wiktionary misses this common usage.) See WP:EDITORIAL for elucidation as to why such wording is "not done." Collect (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER: It would be nice if this section started with a sentence explaining what it's about. As it is, it doesn't even start with a sentence. What are we talking about here? HiLo48 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Point of Order: It would make sense for this to be part of the "revisiting neutrality" section above as I have already mentioned. Then the discussion would be contiguous with the rest of the relevant arguments. Starting a new section with a new topic and vague heading is unnecessary to me and dismissive of all the other editors' contributions. As for the pointed language argument, the value judgement on the teaching diploma is illogical and unsubstantiated so I have removrd it. It was not important to the article. The rest of the terms mentioned are qualifiers and have a logical place in discussion of a complex issue such as this. When you have two arguments, one for and one against something, then to discuss it objectively one needs to contrast them - cars burn precious fuel, HOWEVER they are useful for getting from place to place - there is nothing subjective about using however as a conjunctive this way.

Now, can we rejoin the main discussion above please? Djapa Owen (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree also. As someone who is fairly new to this article, I'm finding the conversation hard to follow, with posts found elsewhere, previous personal histories and presumed political leanings playing key parts in the discussion. Can we please talk about the photo in the photo section, neutrality in the neutrality thread, and add clearly worded, sef contained sections as needed?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here here. The photo question was solved I thought, just waiting on someone doing the relevant edit, and raising it again here is just reinventing the wheel. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias in heading "Criticisms of the Left in Australia"

This heading does not make sense to me for two reasons; 1) The material in this section relates to personal attacks on individuals, not criticism of their philosophy. Thus it should read 'Personal attacks on...' 2) The three opponents identified in the section are Julia Gillard, Clover Moore and Bob Brown. While I am sure these three all appear left wing from Geert Wilders' perspective, I am not sure that all three really qualify as being left wingers, especially when Jones has taken a stance on coal seam gas which could be argued to be more left wing than Gillard's. I think the classification is a bit subjective and therefore is questionable on NPOV grounds. I would suggest that 'political oponents' is more logical. Thus I would suggest repacing the section heading with 'Personal attacks on political opponents' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, if Julia Gillard, Clover Moore and Bob Brown aren't of the left, who is? You'd place Leon Trotsky as "slight pink", maybe? --Pete (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Djapa84 - How about "...political targets", rather than "...political opponents"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yes Pete, pink with polka dots. Seriously though, Gillard and Labor are pro-nuclear, pro-CSG, pro offshore processing, unwilling to support marriage equality etc. They are left compared to the LNP naturally, but overall they are fairly moderate in their position. Clover Moore is left on some issues and not on others and the article on her does not describe her as left or right but talks more about timtams, traffic control policies and the like. As for the Greens, there is constant argument about whether they are left or not. My point is that calling them 'political targets' as HiLo suggests avoids the whole issue which is 1) open to argument and 2) not important to this article. Would you suggest that Jones has only ever criticised left wing people? I would think not. Also, Jones has criticised the state and federal governments over CSG and on that issue it could be argued his position was left of theirs. Using the term 'the Left' is oversimplifying. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The section is a subsection of

• Political lobbying by issue, and we divide that up into

• Criticisms of the Left in Australia (you want Personal attacks on political targets)
• Infrastructure and
• Coal seam gas mining

So, despite CSG having its own subsection, you think it should be rolled into the first. You also think we should relabel that subsection so that it pretty much means the same as the section as a whole. I'm not seeing how this does anything but confuse the readers. --Pete (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Trying to put words in my mouth does not help Pete. First you come up with the rediculous assertion that Gillard, Moore and Brown are just as left as Trotski and now you make this nonsense up. Try staying with the plot for goodness sake. You cannot carry an argument this way, it is just childish and offensive. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed all those sub-headings, mainly because they are not really necessary. As for "Criticisms of the left", this is synthesis. While it's a valid summary of the content (what reasonable person is suggesting Jones generally is towards the right and not the left?), it's not a npov summary, and most importantly, it's wikiepdia's summary and hence commentary. So, one could say I'm removing those sub-headings as they are not necessary, which has the effect of removing the non-neutral "Criticisms" heading. However, the section itself is now a bit stunted - each section starts with "Jones said". --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring; Fire Brigade Employees' Union

Lets stop edit warring over the mention of the Fire Brigade Employees' Union accusation. It is properly cited, and clearly a number of editors consider it relevant. It illustrates how desperate 2GB is feeling the pressure of the anti Jones campaign, and I beleive including it is appropriate. However, the most important point is that we should abide by Misplaced Pages policy and keep the status quo (inclusion) until it has been discussed here and consensus reached. Please do the right thing and join the discussion here and do not keep deleting the section unilaterally. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Entirely relevant, and references cited. It has been deleted by the same contributor again 60.225.80.123 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I could equally maintain that the "status quo" was the content prior to the addition of the union material. There is also WP:BRD, which acknowledges the revert position. While the topic may be relevant elsewhere in Alan Jones or 2GB, it has no relevance to the "died of shame" controversy, which is not mentioned in the reference.WWGB (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my double entry WWGB. Of course it is relevant to the "Died of Shame" section. The backlash to the controversy has put pressure on 2GB's advertising income and the pressure they in turn are putting on the FBEU is an illustration of that.

Pete it would be good if you behaved a little more civilly and perhaps abided a little more by the rules of Misplaced Pages. The entry you deleted has proper citation and is perfectly relevant, but you do not want to enter the discussion. Presumably that entry does not fit your agenda? If you do not have a rational argument as to why you feel this is not relevant you should not be removing it simply because it does not fit your personal POV. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an article on the whole life and career of AJ. It is meant to take a broad view. No one is arguing that the “Died of Shame” stuff is not a major event in the career/life of Jones – indeed, everyone seems to agree that it needs its own section.

However, relevance/importance does not mean we have to create a excessively long section that details it to the nth degree of detail. Especially when the event/s has its own article.

This article needs to mention the following highly notable and relevant events:

• A sentence or two on comments themselves
• A sentence or two on the overwhelmingly negative reaction
• A sentence or two on the loss of sponsors

That only requires a paragraph, and these points can be developed into much further detail in the other article. Anything else (eg, fire fighters stuff) is comparatively irrelevant to the life and career of Jones.

Your argument that it is relevant is merely based on “it’s relevant” doesn't stack up. Indeed, the way it is currently written, it doesn't link in or show the connection. That's basic, and it's not done. It may be relevant to the saga (so put it in that article), but it’s quite a minor thing in AJ’s overall life and career. WP:SUMMARY style is fundamental to[REDACTED] writing style and the encyclopedia’s very structure.

As for process, it is not “unilateral”. There is at least 3 editors who do not want it. And, my own *explained* edit to initially remove the mention was reverted with *no* explanation. That’s poor form. It as also a relatively recent addition, and hence not the “status” quo.

Please note that I’m more than happy to pursue this further. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I see Djapa has beaten me to the punch in adding the material to the appropriate article, where it is entirely relevant. Thank you. I would have made it myself, but I was out the back getting in the eggs and refilling the water. Only one egg so far from four chooks, but I remain ever hopeful. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Merbabu I appreciate your points above. This process works so much better with a little discussion. I looked back at the history, and I see the original entry was quite recent and so does not qualify as status-quo as you say. I actually thought it had been added a week or so ago. You may be right that this section belongs in Alan Jones shame controversy, and so I have added it there. Incidentally, the title of that article is rather vague. I think it should be renamed 'Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy' so that it will come up higher in 'died of shame' searches. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I added reference on 14 October 2012, the day published. Happy for it to go in alternate section, and agree it would be better named 'Alan Jones "Died of Shame" Controversy' Oracle7 (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Further...

So, I should have read the source earlier: . It makes no mention of Gillard or the comments and her father. Correct me please if I have missed it. So what is the relevance to this section? Or indeed to the article on the "Died of Shame" events? --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Jonestown

The section on Jonestown has been removed recently, after a bit of reverting. It seems to have been removed because the section included the allegations of Jones' homosexuality. These are two seperate issues- the allegations and the book. 1. I think it was excessive to remove the whole section because of the allegation- the book is a noteworthy element of Jones' life. I will reinsert it.
2. There is now more than one citation for the allegations of homosexuality issue- Jonestown, the 'enough rope' interview with John Laws, the cottaging incident (and perhaps others). At what point does it become enough of a trend to get a mention? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Editors here should know that there's a discussion on this issue at WP:BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The book excerpt is not a "secondary source" - simply a verbatim republication of part of the book, hence deprecated as a reliable source. We do not use a book to verify a claim made in that same book in any way for a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any issue with inclusion of this info. It's by a respected journalist, and numerous other sources have picked it up (and we've used some of them). If it was not reliable info, then they wouldn't use it. Further, the conversation at WP:BLPN supports the inclusion. --Merbabu (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Marr was asked about the issue by Piers Akerman on Insiders. Marr, homosexual, said he didn't approve of homophobia but felt that Jones' behaviour was suspect. He pointed out Jones had been a teacher at a boys school. It is a terrible smear without substance. I have not read the book, but note Marr is unable to publicly justify his position. So I say it has no place in this article as it is un-encyclopedic innuendo. DDB (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There's two separate issues here: (1) a mention of the book - it's notable due to the heavy media coverage at the time and should thus be mentioned here, and (2) exactly how and what is part of that mention. A read of the book's article (Jonestown: The Power and the Myth of Alan Jones) suggests to me that a mention of the book is relevant, but that we shoudl review the focus of this article's mention of the book. It was quite something in the news that the ABC had initially decided not to publish it (fearing "commercial loss"). --Merbabu (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, just confirming that the book's author was Chris Masters, not David Marr. --Merbabu (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

... which makes Marr's SMH article a reliable secondary source, and not just a "book excerpt". WWGB (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Military trial commentary and criticism of Brigadier McDade

I've reinstated this section, which has been part of the article since 26 October 2010, including contributions since by numerous authors. The controversy received widespread media attention at the time, with coverage in all major news bulletins, as well as an entire ABC Media Watch program devoted to the story. There were also numerous print articles in the Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age (see references) etc. I don't believe it should be removed simply because "no charges were laid" due to a legal technicality, but of course happy to discuss.Oracle7 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Where charges are actually made and a trial was held - yes, the matter would be relevant to a BLP. Where no charges are filed, and no trial is held, it is a matter of weight decided by consensus - and you would need a good consensus for contentious claims to start with. This is due to WP:BLP. Cheers. Now gewt WP:CONSENSUS for your edit. Collect (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What does 'gewt' mean in the above sentence??? I've decided it must be a challenge to get consensus. I think the section as I originally wrote it reflected what the sources said and I don't think the current (neutered) version does. I will go back to the original sources and think about it. Ariconte (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the original text and I think it correctly reflects the sources. The current version of this section effectively says nothing and might as well be deleted. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that this goes beyond sourcing material correctly. BLP is a sensitive and important area, and while I don't agree with everything Collect says, especially in areas where he has no local familiarity, he is solid on BLP policy and we would be foolish to ignore informed advice. We can get more eyes on it, and I'm always comfortable with that. --Pete (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm unsure why all reference to Brigadier McDade have been expunged, and links to all articles except the Media Watch transcript have been deleted. Jones's criticism of both her and of the charges laid was the basis of controversy, the Media Watch program, and other news articles. The section as it stands gives readers no understanding of these events. 60.225.80.123 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BLP and read some of the discussions at WP:BLP/N dealing with such stuff. That is "why" the material which does not belong in this BLP has been removed from the BLP, and material which reasonably can be defended for being in a BLP remains in the BLP. We follow policy, not what we "want" to say about a person. Collect (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the BLP policy, particularly WP:WELLKNOWN and the section on 'Due weight'. I have searched WP:BLP/N for Jones, Alan Jones, and Jonestown with negative results. Please tell me what part of BLP/N you mean by 'such stuff'? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Try: If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out., and then look at He also vilified Brigadier McDade which is not only a matter of opinion at best, it injects a third party living person into the article, is not neutrally worded, is sourced to an opinion article (MediaWatch), which seems not to meet the BLP requirements for contentious claims about a living person. And "The Australian" is also clearly labelled "opinion." Using opinion articles to make claims of fact is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy. See also: , and other discussions. One could conceivable say "xxx has the opinion that Jones vilified yyy" but that is the limit. And reading Jones' quotes, it does not look like "vilification" to me ("vilification" requires that the claim be both defamatory and false). Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have to ask what the point is of including the issue at all if all meaningful content is removed? "In 2010 someone on TV said something about something Jones aid about some soldiers but no charges were laid" Is that your idea of BLP? What about fairness to Lyn McDade? Djapa Owen (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for charges to be laid for events to be included in a BLP. Perhaps you could be more specific about the "stuff" to which you refer and its relevance here.Oracle7 (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I also believe the section, in a more complete manner than the current edited version, should remain. RE: vilification:Collect has said: "One could conceivable say "xxx has the opinion that Jones vilified yyy". Cool. Let's do that. Vilification is a public act of hatred, and of inciting hatred- there is no need for claims to be both defamatory and false. RE:WP:BLP, WP:WELLKNOWN asks if the incident "is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented". I believe it meets all three criteria. RE: "it injects a third living person into the article"- I can't see a problem with that either. We've been respectful of Brigadier McDade. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me make two points. For any material to be inserted into the article (or remain there) it must have: 1. Compliance with wikipolicy and 2. Consensus. We can talk about the first, referencing specific points, but clearly we do not have the second at this stage. One editor talked about needing consensus to remove material. This is not the case. Anybody may remove material for whatever reason - and BLP is specific on this point - but to reinsert it in the face of multiple editors citing policy is inviting a trip to ANI. BLP and other policies developed over the years do not support biographical articles consisting of lists of the subject's supposed sins, especially when the sources used are weak or opinionated. The McDade remarks do not merit a section to themselves, especially when no court or tribunal has found any wrongdoing and there was no great controversy generated. --Pete (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"is inviting a trip to ANI". That looks like a threat to me or maybe attempting to build consensus????? Ha!!! Ariconte (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not intended that way. Just stating the way things work around here. If editors are found to go against policy on any subject, then there are realistically two ways to proceed. We reason together and see if we can all understand the rules and work within them, or the offenders are cited to a "higher court". I see us at the reasoning stage, though the repeated attempts to insert contentious material without consensus is not a promising sign. --Pete (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree we don't have consensus- yet. I thought that was what we're working towards. I'm not seeing "lack of consensus" as a permanent condition, and hope these discussions are a measure towards that status. I don't think it is appropriate to just say "we don't have consensus" and leave it at that.

BTW, I do think that BLP supports lists of the subject's notable events- whether they are "supposed sins" is up to the reader. If many of the notable events can be read as "negative", that reflects the subject's life, not our biases.

Do we at least have consensus that it was a notable event, well documented? We can then move on to decide on which parts of the content are allowable (if any)?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it was a notable event. Jones' career depends on creating drama and controversy. This was yet another of his successes. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

An event may be well-sourced, as noted above, and not be appropriate for a BLP. Likewise notability, and I disagree about the significance of this. Jones gets up a lot of noses, and as HiLo48 points out, this is routine for him. What makes this event extra-special, as opposed to every other daily show that gets a certain type of person spluttering into their yoghurt? --Pete (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying it is notable, or not? (I'm genuinely wanting to know- Ithought that was part of the criteria)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a biography should include material that illustrates the life of the subject. We should cover important facts of life and death, notable successes and failures, and we should explain to our readers about the facts, the activities, the circumstances for which that subject is widely known and for which readers seek further details. A biography is not a Samuel Pepys diary of daily trivia, listing everything that happened. Nor is it an attack (or praise) piece, presenting an opinionated view of the subject. We want to provide a summary of a life, well-rounded, written with fairness and understanding. Now, even though Alan Jones does not do this in his own public life, and every broadcast contains further examples of his political biases, this does not mean that we follow the same path. We are not a rival talk show, balancing the scales by presenting an opposing point of view, trying to push our readers towards a certain opinion.

We have a great many sources to work with here. Almost every day Alan Jones is mentioned somewhere in the media. We could write a book, well-sourced and trivial and tedious. Let us not do that. Let us hit the heights. The controversy over Julia Gillard's father was widely discussed, leading to all sorts of public reaction. I think that is a notable event. The event(s) we are discussing here, somewhat less so. If we are reduced to using opinion pieces as sources, I think that, regarding the great many far more objective sources at our disposal, we should let this one slide.

The voices raised here in support of inclusion do not resonate with me. They do not convince me. They are largely statements of personal opinion, and in some cases that opinion is coloured by hatred. Find a way to convince me that the material is essential to understanding Alan Jones the man, and I will drop my opposition. That point has not been reached. On the contrary, my feeling is that the material is being supported for more personal factors, and I am not one to be persuaded by vigorous hand-waving. --Pete (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the remnants. WotherspoonSmith, I appreciate your rephrasing, but all it did was highlight the fact that Jones did nothing improper. If the soldiers had not been charged, then there was no contempt of court, and we were just saying that Media Watch made a mistake in saying there was. Perhaps that belongs in Media Watch. But not here. --Pete (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove this section, so until we achieve same, it should not be continually removed. Jones' position that serving personnel should be above the law illustrates a significant facet of his mindset and as such is noteworthy. As an ex-serviceman I have had the importance of the rule of law in warfare drummed into me and Jones' rejection of that says a lot about his position. If he was saying a farmer should not be charged for shooting a sheep that would not be significant, but he is suggesting there should be no investigation of the behaviour of our troops overseas - that they should be above the law. I cannot see how that is less significant than a detailed account of his rugby coaching career. As for the troops not being charged, they were not charged at the time of the article, there were charges pending. That is not the same as no charges laid. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not required for removal. This is a BLP matter, we need consensus for inclusion. We do not have that. We are discussing the matter. We may achieve consensus. Let's work through the procedures as established by the community. There was no contempt of court in Jones' remarks, because the soldiers had not been charged. As for your own observations on Jones' character, military service and so on, they have no place at all in the article and carry as much weight as anybody else's here. --Pete (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On reflection (and probably a week too late), an entirely different approach might be called for here. I think perhaps we could scrap the whole section from the 'courts and tribunals' section. It was a political opinion, and could go there- something like this:

Jones fought hard on behalf of four soldiers accused of wrongdoing in Afganistan, stating that they should not be punished for doing what they were sent there to do. He lobbied for the case to be dismissed without trial, including encouraging people to sign an on line petition to this effect. Observers noted that this would be considered 'contempt of court' if a court had been convened at the time. Commentators also felt that Brigadier McDade had been vilified by Jones in the process.

this would meet the need for neutrality (I suspect Jones and his supporters would agree with it, while still stating the facts) while accepting the view of all those above who felt it was notable. It could add balance to what is seen by some as an unbalanced article. Thoughts, anyone?WotherspoonSmith (talk)

Consensus?

I'm finding that repeated claims of consensus having been achieved ring somewhat hollow when multiple editors cannot agree. Clearly we do not have consensus for inclusion, and it is hard to believe claims by editors to the contrary when they once again insert disputed material. May I suggest that before any repetition of a spurious claim, WP:Consensus gets a thoughtful reading? We are, after all, guided by policy, and this is a fairly significant one. --Pete (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't see anyone saying we've reached consensus, personally. I recently inserted a revised statement in an attempt to reach consensus- do you see a problem with it? Or are you referring to different 'disputed material'?

(to clarify: I feel "Commentators felt that McDade was vilified" is quite a different one to "McDade was also vilified", and consistent with comments made in the discussion above.

Adding just enough detail to make it understandable was also seeking something everyone would agree to. None of what I added, I felt, was reinserting disputed material) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You should check with this editor and see if you can get your story straight. His edit summary sings a different tune. Re your latest attempt, inserting material and saying that it may gain consensus is a very different thing to gaining consensus and then inserting the material. I hope this clarifies things. --Pete (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

So, the three issues I can see are:

1. Should we include the section at all?

2. Can we make the section clearer, so it 'actually says something'?

3. Should we include anything at all about McDade?

RE: 1. We're still working on it. I understand. Discussion continues upthread, I won't start it again here.

RE: 2. Does the following sentence meet with everyone's approval? I think it is factual, and non opinionated (ie I think Jones himself would be happy with it).

He lobbied for the case to be dismissed without trial, including encouraging people to sign an on line petition to this effect.

RE: 3. Does the following sentence meet with everyone's approval? It seems to me that it meets the requirements of most editors upthread, including Collect, but, as requested, I am including it here for discussion before adding to the article:

Commentators also felt that Brigadier McDade had been vilified by Jones in the process. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do we have consensus for inclusion? I believe we did have consensus for over a year up until Skyring and Collect weighed in. I think we should be asking whether there is consensus to delete the section, not deleting it and then asking if there is consensus to include it. As usual you are marching in ignoring everyone else. Signed "this editor" Djapa Owen (talk) 11:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, other than Skyring/ Pete and Collect, we had consensus, but now we don't. The majority of the thread above seems to be in favour also- which is why I'm trying so hard to understand Pete/ Skyring's objection (hence the is it notable or not? question). For a BLP it seems reasonable to err on the side of deletion until a good faith effort has been made to resolve the issue, IMHO. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Something being in an article for a hundred years does not mean that WP:BLP does not apply. In the case at hand, I rather think my edit is proper and correct on all grounds - including the criticism by commentators, but not injecting anything more. Collect (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Best that everyone stops adding and removing the section, since what is happening on the article is edit warring day by day (3RR has gone out the window long ago) and if any Admin see's it, then the article will be protected or you will be blocked.

With my opinion of the content, I'm not taking sides for or against the inclusion but I am on the fence with it, I have concerns with the Media Watch transcript and The Australian articles as they are the opinions of the presenter (Paul Barry) and the jurno (Peter van Onselen) but should they be used? Well it is a tough case to answer as everyone's viewed are different but the reliable source policy does states that it is ok to use but not always for "statements of fact".

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. (WP:NEWSORG)"

Now it gets tougher with the WP:BLP! There are a few sections I could quote within the policy that a Collect and Pete are raising, however I want to keep the text down to a minimum but I do think they are vaild concerns since the two sources used are opinions, to solve that would be trying to find other news articles or legal papers which should help to solve the "statements of fact" issue that could solve the WP:BLP issue. Again I have no opinion on the matter, just making an opinion based on the discussion. If the no consensus continues then take it to WP:BLP/N if you want to have the matter resolved. Bidgee (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I personally don't see MediaWatch as an opinion piece- more as a short piece of investigative journalism, thoroughly researched and referenced on line (moreso than most news references we accept in the rest of the article). This is quite different from an opinion piece.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference MediaWatch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. van Onselen, Peter (2010-10-16). "Inaccurate vilification beyond Jones's remit". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
3. van Onselen, Peter (2010-10-16). "Inaccurate vilification beyond Jones's remit". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2010-10-26.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class rugby union articles
• High-importance rugby union articles
• WikiProject Rugby union articles
• B-Class rugby league articles
• Low-importance rugby league articles
• WikiProject Rugby league articles
• B-Class Australia articles
• Mid-importance Australia articles
• B-Class Queensland articles
• Low-importance Queensland articles
• WikiProject Queensland articles
• WikiProject Australia articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• B-Class biography (sports and games) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Radio articles
• Unknown-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles