Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit request on 1 October 2012

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

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)

Close paraphrasing

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

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 [2] and Alan Jones after Bowral Coal Seam Gas rally [3]. 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 Wikipedia'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. St Anselm (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Died of Shame controversy" - MOS

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia requirement.
It is very likely original research performed as an analysis of his words. This is not permissible on Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 ^(Talk) 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 Wikipedia, creating criticism rather than referencing it. We cannot do this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 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 ^(Talk) 09:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

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 ^(Talk) 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"

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

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)

Revisiting neutrality

Latest comment: 11 years ago53 comments9 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, [redacted].

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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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? Wikipedia? 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 [of the article] 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)

Edit warring; Fire Brigade Employees' Union

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 wikipedia 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: [4]. 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

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

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)

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

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Military trial commentary and criticism of Brigadier McDade

Latest comment: 11 years ago61 comments11 people in discussion

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 Wikipedia policy. See also: [5], 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.^[1]^[2]

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)

I don't think Jones' behaviour has any supporters here. I find that sort of chauvinism unattractive, regardless of whether it are boosting a political party, a sports team or a religion. I do not see this event as notable - the sources are sparse and the subject matter unexceptional. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

just to clarify: I wasn't referring to "Jones' supporters" here at Wikipedia. I was making the point that, since contentiousness and neutrality are sticking points, this would make it non- contentious.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am no fan of Jones, but I am leaning towards the exclusion of the military trial material. Basically, Jones said something nasty, to which someone took offence, but no charges were laid against him. That scenario probably happens in every one of his programs. This topic was more significant, but the notability is questionable. WWGB (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that perhaps minimises the notability of the attack on Brigadier McDade. Jones' criticism of the Brigadier and her office had the potential to undermine Australian military justice and discipline, which was the reason it was widely reported and condemned at the time. No charges could be laid as the court had yet to convene Oracle7 (talk) 03:31, 12 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)

There is another reference also deleted from Tim Dick in the Sydney Morning Herald, "A devoted soldier finds herself in the line of fire" http://www.smh.com.au/national/newsmaker-lyn-mcdade-20101015-16nmy.html. I believe the Military Commentary section is worthy of inclusion, does not contravene WP:BLP, and should/can be restored using suitably WP:NPOV.Oracle7 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Beliefs are fine, but could you say why? References to policy would be helpful. The source you quote looks pretty lightweight to me. Light on detail, that is. --Pete (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to Bidgee regarding additional references. This one is from Ben Saul in the Sydney Morning Herald, "Criticism of military charges a shameless political attack" http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/criticism-of-military-charges-a-shameless-political-attack-20101014-16lps.html Oracle7 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

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.^[1]^[3] 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)

I see WotherspoonsSmith's edit has been deleted too. Could we perhaps start with the last edit of the section by Collect (as follows) and build from there?

"===Military trial commentary===

− The ABC's Media Watch was devoted to Alan Jones' pre-trial comments on the charging of three soldiers; the comments were seen by the commentators to be 'in contempt of court' but as the court has not been convened Jones could not be charged.^[1]"

Does anyone have an objection to anything contained in the above?Oracle7 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. See my specific comments above. --Pete (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

and if we could provide a bunch of citations (to demonstrate notability) would you then still object? (I have provided a non contentious version above if required) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am beginning to suspect that Pete is going to object to anything which is even moderately critical of Jones. Are we sure that Pete is not actually Mr Jones himself? (kidding) In response to Oracle7's question above, I do not object to anything included. Rather I would add a little more filling out 'three soldiers' to 'three Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan' and adding reference to his attack on BRIG McDade as that is only fair. She has a right to BLP consideration as well. Djapa Owen (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears MarkOfBondi also has no objection, as he has reinstated Collect's edit. I'd suggest we also accept Djapa Owen's suggestion and amend 'three soldiers' to 'three Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan'. I'd also change the 'has not' to 'had not yet', as follows:

"===Military trial commentary===

− The ABC's Media Watch was devoted to Alan Jones' pre-trial comments on the charging of three Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan; the comments were seen by the commentators to be 'in contempt of court' but as the court had not yet been convened, Jones could not be charged.^[1]"

The associated criticism and/or vilification of Brigadier McDade seems to have been the part that has caused the most angst. Perhaps we could attempt to gain agreement on the above part first, and move on from there as required. Does anyone (with the exception of Pete Skyring, comments already noted) have a specific objection to anything contained in the above?Oracle7 (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Did Alan Jones do anything illegal? It turns out he was right: ^[4].Server10 (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Server10 the question is not whether Jones did anything illegal but whether his actions were noteworthy. Surely you would agree that the result was appropriate - they were accused of a crime, they were given a fair trial and ended up being found not guilty. If they were not tried then the accusation would always be hanging over them and weighing on their concience. Jones was arguing that serving their nation put them above the rule of law. IMHO think their exoneration proves that Jones was wrong to object to due process. There should probably be a sentence added to clarify the result, i.e.: "The soldiers involved were tried and found not guilty^[5]." Djapa Owen (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be so good as to provide the date of this trial? And a reference? You did read the link provided, hmmmm? --Pete (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

As per the suggestion, I've added another sentence with a couple of mainstream media sources from legal experts, both of whom are specialised in military law and provide a lot more detail on the incident. They support Jones' comments. Important to have a fair and balanced approach, I think. Media Watch clearly got their facts wrong. Jones was 100% entitled to comment on what he rightly viewed as a failure in the justice system, and the soldiers had no case to answer; the charges were dropped. --Pete (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

'had not yet' is more accurate and removes ambiguity. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems quite sufficient, and avoids the problematic insertion of opinions more than the one now properly cited as such. I am still unsure as to whether it still reaches UNDUE, but I assert that anything more would absolutely reach that level IMO. Collect (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"An episode of the ABC's Media Watch (etc)" would read betterer. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If we are to include this incident, I think it is important to note that Jones' comments were legal, Media Watch were wrong, and the soldiers never went to a court-martial; the charges were dropped. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is any truth to the claim that MediaWatch was wrong. They were saying that the claims would be in contempt of court if the court had been convened- this still stands true. They go to reasonable lengths to explain that the case is not in contempt of court, and why. They go to reasonable lengths to specify that the soldiers may or may not be guilty- that the point is that this the court's decision, not the media's (or parliament's).

You seem to have confused the issue. It is not in any way MediaWatch's point whether they were guilty. (As a side note- I don't recall it being Jones' either.) The issue was whether there should be a trial at all.

The quotes you have provided as 'legal experts' were the opinion pieces of the defence counsel/ advisors. I think you are ignoring your own advice by submitting them as fact. It is irrelevant whether the soldiers were guilty.

I am not a lawyer- but the articles you link to say the charges were dropped at a pre trial hearing- this sounds like a hearing, nvertheless. So they might not have faced a court marshal (IANAL) but they did face a hearing/ court, which was what Jones opposed.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the wording in our article uses the phrase 'contempt of court'. There was no contempt of court, so where did that wording come from? Jones' view was indeed supported by legal experts. Highly qualified, specialised and experienced experts. Jones is patently not such a person. Nor are the Media Watch presenters. The charges were dropped three months before the court was scheduled to be convened. In fact, it is my understanding that it was a telephone conference, rather than any actual meeting. --Pete (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree- we should rephrase to make it clear that the MediaWatch article is saying that they "believe it would be comtempt of court if the case had already been convened," not that they "believed it was contempt of court", but they were wrong because it had not been convened.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So we have a BLP article containing a section that attacks the subject for something he didn't do! There was no contempt of court, so we should not imply that there was. Jones was spot on. The soldiers did nothing wrong, the charges were ill-advised, the case was dropped. There's even a long document detailing the Defence Department strategy for damage control. They stuffed up, not Jones. Why is Wikipedia sinking the boot into an innocent man? --Pete (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Innocent? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I do take your point Pete Skyring, and that's why think it's important to clarify the issue here, particularly given the fact that the charges were dismissed. During the recent "Died of Shame" controvery, quite a number of publications made reference to the Military Trial incident (see for example http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/prissy-shrieks-of-fear-and-loathing-20121005-274a2.html), and readers of these who were unfamiliar with the case would not have known the outcome. I don't see it as an attack or "sinking the boot in" at all: in fact quite the reverse. If anything it's a clarification that the case ended as Jones' indicated it should, that it was never contempt, and that the charges were dismissed (his methodology and criticism of Brigadier McDade is another matter, and might be best left for a subsequent discussion). However, I don't think you can make the sweeping statement that "Jones' views were supported by legal experts" (as I see you've already addded to the article) given that other legal experts took and entirely different view (see for example http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/criticism-of-military-charges-a-shameless-political-attack-20101014-16lps.html by Saul Band, Assoc Professor at the University of Sydney, and Co-Director of the Sydney Centre for International Law). Oracle7 (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the section, I agree we should use WotherspoonSmith's better wording, and make it clear that it was not contempt of court. I'd also add the clarification that the charges were dismissed:

"===Military trial commentary===

An episode of ABC's Media Watch was devoted to Alan Jones' pre-trial comments on the charging of three Australian soldiers serving in Afghanistan.^[1]" The commentators believed that if the case had already been convened, Jones' comments would have been in contempt of court. The charges against the soldiers were eventually dismissed at a pre-trial hearing. ^[6]"

Does anyone have any specific objections to anything in the wording above? Oracle7 (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of building consensus, I'd accept it- but I'd like it noted that I think the results of the pre-trial hearing are irrelevant. The issue Media Watch makes is not related to their guilt or otherwise- it is to do with Jones' lobbying for no trial to occur, for parliament to intervene, for people to petition for dismissal without trial, without even hearing any details of the case, undermining the court's role, and McDade's authority- to dismiss the case on the basis that the soldiers should not be charged because they were doing their job. "Jones' pre trial comments" doesn't really say what he said, just that he made some comments.

...but if no- one else feels this way, I'm happy with it as suggested above..WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you WotherspoonSmith, but for the sake of trying to get some concensus let's go with the above, and we can move on. Oracle7 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The two counts of outraging public decency

Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion

Why is it not mentioned anywhere that he was charged with two counts of outraging public decency in a London public toilet in 1988? see: [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.44.165 (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources on the matter. Can you point us to them? HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We had this story, but during the recent review it was felt that the mention was inappropriate under existing Wikipedia policy. The charges were dropped and Jones had no case to answer. "Innocent until proven guilty" carries a good deal of weight around here. --Pete (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

...unless it's a discussion of the sins of Julia Gillard in the AWU scandal article. (Note, I've given up over there. It's not that what's in the article is correct. I just don't want a fight.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a matter of WP:WEIGHT. If we had an Alan Jones indecency scandal article, then we could go into detail. But I doubt such an article would be notable. The AWU scandal is notable, and the involvement of the PM is a major part of it. Even though nobody's found her guilty of anything, the mere fact that the Prime Minister's integrity is under widespread scrutiny is enough to make her involvement weighty enough to warrant inclusion. Look at the Petraeus scandal - normally an affair is not notable, but in this case it is so. --Pete (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow - Skyring can always justify implementing his biases. No matter how contradictory - the Gillard comparison is completely inconsistent. The standard of inclusion is not "proven guilty" but reliable sources. BLP is being waved around far to loosely here and in previous conversations. --Merbabu (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. I didn't raise the AWU example, but it is a good fit for how wikipolicy operates. I think WP:WEIGHT is the big factor here. Is an old incident where Jones had no case to answer worth mentioning in the story of his life? Only if it is seen by many other sources as significant, and I don't think we have that. If there was a pattern of behaviour, or it represented some high level of hypocrisy in his public statements, then sure. --Pete (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've got mixed feelings on this. Most people who have heard of Alan have heard about the incident in the West End public lavatory, and it's well-covered in many reliable sources. A number of my friends didn't know the Crown had withdrawn the charges; two thought he'd been convicted. So, we could include it here to put the record straight. But it's a long time ago; a trivial, salacious, embarrassing, harmless (funny) incident. I lean towards leaving it out.

Did Masters conclude that Jones is a closet homosexual (or was that David Marr's interpretation)? If he actually said that in so many words, I think we should report that in the Jonestown section, but we don't need to make the case here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This whole issue has been dealt with in detail not long ago. It relates to two charges of a victimless crime which were withdrawn. There are far more notable issues around Jones. It might make sense to mention the case in order to make it clear that the charges were withdrawn, but I think Jones can do that himself if he cares. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information (in this case about the man), not prosecute or defend him. Djapa Owen (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: did master conclude that Jones is a closet homosexual: Previous version says "The book claims that Jones is a homosexual and that his denial of this is "a defining feature of the Jones persona". (I have not read the book, but can't see anyone denying that it says this).

I tend to agree with Anthonyhcole: writing an appropriate entry would probably help dispell the rumours, thus being respectful of BLP standards. If it was not well known, I'd leave it out. (Can't find any evidence of it being "well-covered in many reliable sources" though- would like to see these, as it 'would' make a difference.) Am open to being convinced otherwise.

background discussion: see also BLP discussion here, which seems mostly in favour of this version.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If we're to include a mention, that's the kind of wording I'd prefer (but the charges were withdrawn by the Crown not the police). Including these erroneous charges in isolation would on its face breach WP:BLP. Including them as part of our case for his purported homosexuality would be WP:OR. Including them in order to dispel common misonceptions about the incident may be justified but I'm not entirely convinced the good would outweigh the harm, so I oppose inclusion. Since Masters has concluded he is gay, though, I believe it would be remiss of us to leave that very significant conclusion out of our section Jonestown. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Masters did say so. Here's an extract from 'Jonestown', in which he writes: "The masking of his homosexuality is a defining feature of the Jones persona". In the full book, he also comments on a contradiction between Jones' apparent homosexuality and his listeners' propensity for anti-homosexual views. GenericBob (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we're starting to deviate from the original question. Yes, it would be appropriate to say that Masters made this statement about Jones' sexuality. But what about the West End incident? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

AFD

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Style improvements

Latest comment: 11 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

When passionate about a topic, he occasionally discusses it on air and during ad breaks with his panel operator Ross Geddes. Being consistent with the Wikipedia "How to write a great article" this statement could read. Jones discusses topics both on and off air with panel operator Ross Geddes. ^{[citation needed]} CamV8 (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Maintaining consistency with "How to write a great article" Alan Jones should be referred to as Jones in this article. CamV8 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both your points. Your first point needs a citation to a WP:RS first, while your second should be implemented immediately. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

After leaving school, he trained as a teacher at the Kelvin Grove Teachers College (now part of the Queensland University of Technology) in Brisbane. The "(now part of the Queensland University of Technology)" information can be discovered by the reader if they click on Kelvin Grove Teachers College. This statement could read. After leaving school, Jones trained as a teacher at the Kelvin Grove Teachers College in Brisbane. CamV8 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

However, Jones also pulled out of the Liberal preselection for the Federal Division of Wentworth in Sydney. ^{[citation needed]} Liberal preselection facts perhaps could be in a new section "Political aspirations" and combined with other preselection and candidate facts. CamV8 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this statement relevant to Rugby Union? perhaps it would read better as a fact in the political comments section.CamV8 (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the 2010 Australian Federal Election, Jones has been critical of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's decision to reverse her pre-election promise to not introduce a price on carbon. Being consistent with the Wikipedia "How to write a great article" this statement contains opinion and is unreferenced. Perhaps this could be rewritten as. Jones disagrees WP:RS with the Gillard Governments' decision to introduce a price on carbon. CamV8 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the opinion in the existing text? Jones' position is standard for the right wing shock jocks. It's where the term Juliar came from. She certainly broke a promise. She had to to get Greens support for her party in government. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I was attempting to improve the readability of this sentence. for example in this sentence is Jones critical of 1.a decision. 2.Gillard 3.reversing a pre election promise or 4.a price on carbon? In order to Maintaining consistency with "How to write a great article" Being specific here may help. Any suggestions. CamV8 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is fine. Jones is critical of everything about Gillard, including the decision, the reversal, a price on carbon (if it comes from Labor) and the colour of her socks. HiLo48 (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be clear on all the things he is critical of, rather than give an ambiguous sentence.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It could be argued that (AFAIK) gillard didn't promise not to introduce a 'price on carbon', but a 'carbon tax' (I'm not on either side- but there are contrary opinions on this). Others may recall more accurately/ specifically- i though a price on carbon was always on the table. Anthing that says 'reverse a pre election promise' sounds a lot more value laden/ opinion driven than 'changed a pre election policy'. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement. In 1990, Jones in his role with 2UE was ordered by a court to pay over $55,000 damages for defaming David Parker, a former councillor of the NRMA, the NSW Motorists' organisation; 2UE was also ordered to pay $80,000. Parker claimed he was defamed during the NRMA election campaign in October 1986.[26] This is referenced from the ABC 4 corners chronology of Jones. Note the court had made a decision that Parker was defamed.I propose rewrite of the last sentence. Parker was defamed during the NRMA election campaign in October 1986.[26]CamV8 (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In February 1984, Jones replaced Bob Dwyer as coach of the Australian Rugby Union national team (the Wallabies) and he was to coach the Australian team for 4 years with victories in 102 matches including 23 victories in 30 Tests, making him one of the more successful Australian coaches.[16] Reference[16] is a generic link to the 2gb web site. The reader is not provided with any supporting information. Citation is required for the victories in 102 matches. The peacock term "one of the more successful" requires citation. CamV8 (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The Official website in the info box. My question is what is acceptable in wiki as the official website? In this case it currently has a link to the 2GB AJ page. The 2GB page is as you would expect all about "The Alan Jones Show on 2GB". This wiki article is a bio of Alan Jones not an advertising link to his current employer. ie If Jones resigned from 2GB next week would wiki keep the link? I expect not. CamV8 (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is "his" website as much as http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/barry-ofarrell is Barry O'Farrell's website. If O'Farrell resigned from the Liberal Party next week would wiki keep the link? I expect not. WWGB (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough I agree. Thanks for the feedback. CamV8 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the o'Farrell page. Have a look at the Personal webpage link in the external links section. It doesn't go to the barry o page. hmm CamV8 (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Political Comments

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I can't edit the article (at least not yet) but there is a glaring inaccuracy in the 'political comments' section. The second paragraph, second sentence says:

"Since the 2010 Australian Federal Election, Jones has been critical of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's decision to reverse her pre-election promise to not introduce a price on carbon."

This is incorrect. The Federal Labor party went to the 2010 election promising to price carbon via an emmissions trading scheme. Gillard was asked whether she'd instead consider a carbon tax as an alternative, but responded that they were committed to the ETS and wouldn't introduce a carbon tax. After the election, after various shenanigans, the ETS was dropped in favour of a carbon tax. The broken promise related only to the method of pricing carbon, not of pricing carbon at all. I don't have a succint reference for this, but the original comment is also unreferenced, so at worst should be removed and at best an appropriate reference included for the correct statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdanovist (talk • contribs) 01:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a reference. It isn't great as it's an opinion peice (with strong opinions!) but does provide direct quotes from the relevant issues surrounding the carbon tax and alleged broken promise. This reference doesn't belong in this article, but is does demonstrate that the above sentence currently in the article is factually incorrect. ^[7] Bogdanovist (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What needs to be correct is not what the ALP actually said and did, but what Jones SAYS they did. It's his bullshit that the article is reporting on. We should, however, make sure that any statements on that front are prefaced with something like "Jones claims..." He has no great record for honesty. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is presented in the article as a plain fact that Jones critises (as opposed to someone else who might be happy with that fact). I don't think presenting as Jones' opinion without counter is a neutral point of view though; the article really needs to at least state the facts if they contradict his stated views.Bogdanovist (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree, when Jones claims something which is patently false, such as the case mentioned above or some of his statements on climate change then we are being biased if we report those claims without stating clearly that they are false. If it is a grey area then identifying it as a claim not a statement should be fair, but if it is demonstrably false then we should be making that clear one way or another. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has come up with any compelling argument to support the article stating that Gillard had broken a promise I have edited the article to separate the statement of Jones' opposition to a carbon price from his assertion of a lie. This is surely more neutral. Djapa Owen (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.change.org/alanjones
Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.change.org/alanjones
Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cyberbot II has detected links on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.change.org/alanjones
Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Paul, Barry (2010-10-25). "All's not fair with Jones and war". Media Watch. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
^ van Onselen, Peter (2010-10-16). "Inaccurate vilification beyond Jones's remit". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
^ van Onselen, Peter (2010-10-16). "Inaccurate vilification beyond Jones's remit". The Australian. News Limited. Retrieved 2010-10-26.
^ [7]
^ [8]
^ McCormack, Tim (2011-05-25). "Commandos finally get justice". The Age. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2011-05-25.
^ http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/why-julia-gillard-didnt-lie-about-her-carbon-tax-plans-before-election/story-e6frerdf-1226421929786

[MediaWatch-1] Paul, Barry (2010-10-25). "All's not fair with Jones and war". Media Watch. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2010-10-26.

[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.

[4] [7]

[5] [8]

[The_Age-6] McCormack, Tim (2011-05-25). "Commandos finally get justice". The Age. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2011-05-25.

[7] ttp://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/why-julia-gillard-didnt-lie-about-her-carbon-tax-plans-before-election/story-e6frerdf-1226421929786

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)/Archive 2

Contents

Recent Comments

Edit request on 1 October 2012

Close paraphrasing

Current photo Alan Jones from the musical Annie in infobox

"Died of Shame controversy" - MOS

Analysis of Apology

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

Bias in heading "Criticisms of the Left in Australia"

Revisiting neutrality

Edit warring; Fire Brigade Employees' Union

Further...

Jonestown

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

Kovco comments

Military trial commentary and criticism of Brigadier McDade

Consensus?

The two counts of outraging public decency

AFD

Style improvements

Political Comments

Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)