Wikipedia

Talk:Andrew Laming/Archive 1

< Talk:Andrew Laming
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Deauthorized in topic Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

Removal of media speculation

Latest comment: 16 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

Whilst the investigation was ongoing and the speculation was current, the information included was all relevant. Now that the CDPP has concluded that the investigation lead to no possible conviction, the media speculation is no longer relevant. A simple mention of the investigation as has been present since early 2008 is a sufficient reference to the event. Recommend Undo Alans1977 edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Heavily cited, supporting keep. Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's cited doesn't mean there's a good reason to keep it. It's not a current investigation, the speculation was proven to be false and Laming's name was cleared. A cynic might suggest that contributors with a declared political interest might want to inflict ongoing damage to this individual's reputation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The article states he was cleared. Consensus here will form whether or not it stays or goes, not arbitrary decisions by you or the new user that as their first edit decided to again remove the contribution added by Alan1977. Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This is old news! the investigation is over and was shown to be such tripe that it didn't even make it to court. The media speculation should be removed. I'd suggest your intention to keep discussion of this speculation going is an attempt to damage Laming's reputation further - support remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.119.1 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous IP, I am defending the removal of someone else's good faith contributions without any talkpage discussion. Get off your pedestal. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
You seemed comfortable enough with the edits when you made contributions on the 15th and 20th of Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
...and what have my contributions got to do with Alans? Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The good faith edits which you are now defending so heavily had already been removed before you started contributing to this article. You seemed to be okay with those edits then but you've taken umbrance with them now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Now is the first time I noticed it. Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Media speculation should be removed. Obvious intention is to further damage Laming's reputation. Unsubstantiated speculation and defematory remarks made under parliamentary privilege about an investigation that was thrown out before it even reached court should not constitute the bulk of the article. --Beo2 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I find it fascinating that this is the first contribution you decide to make as a "new user" (note the " used). You are assuming Alan's intention, why do you assume he wants to damage Laming rather than inform people? Everything added is heavily cited so nothing is added that isn't in the public domain, if you find something that hasn't been referenced then mention it. But otherwise, there is no wikipedia policy you can bring out to show that it should not be there.Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Surely the principle of "do no harm" applies in this case. Perhaps, we should call it "do no further harm." While the investigation was ongoing, all of this information was indeed relevant so I didn't touch it. No that it has passed us by and Laming hasn't even been asked to defend this nonsense in a court, it surely does him further harm to maintain such speculation on this Wiki entry. I further note that you're outnumbered 3-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I further note no established Wikipedia member is agreeing with you which is what counts. 2-0. And per the below, very true. He was never cleared. Timeshift (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The section of concern is both notable and heavily cited. As per my declared political leanings, they have nothing to do with my editing. Everyone has political leanings of some degree and description, whether declared or otherwise. If anything someone who declares their leanings is leaving themselves more open to scrutiny and thus less likely to make a POV edit. As per Laming being cleared, he was not. The DPP did not have enough evidence to proceed (a very big difference to him being cleared). Alans1977 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
So essentially, your arguement is that because the Federal Police couldn't collect any evidence to charge the man, he should be condemned to suffer ongoing discussion and suspiscion at the hands of Wikipedians with declared political bias against the him. No way, that's against Wikipedia's "do no harm" policy - it looks like you've entered into an edit war Alan. Recommend remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.105.254 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, that's your (incorrect) interpretation of it. It's all cited from news articles and nothing is said that is not true. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Timeshift and Alan here. He was not found not guilty in a court (the DPP dropped the charges on the basis of "no reasonable prospect of conviction", which is not an exoneration). Should be noted Sir Joh was also not found guilty after the Fitzgerald Inquiry and in that case too a trial was aborted - while I'm not arguing we should do this because of that, it does raise an interesting argument. The Phil Koperberg article is another case in point (and far worse in shape than this one, too.) Also, it would no doubt have been a factor in the huge swing against him in 2007, just as the "spouse" debacle affected Trish Draper in Makin in 2004. It's an unfortunate political reality that a situation of this nature in an MP's first term does shape the coverage of him, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a promotions agency - it's intellectually dishonest to deny such allegations were made and such raids took place and such investigations were undertaken, especially since it occurred in the full glare of the media. The tone of the page could do with a little work, and the cites are horrendously formatted (I might fix that in a sec actually) but there's nothing inappropriate here. BTW to both the IP and Timeshift, "outnumbered" is meaningless on Wikipedia - it's not a democracy and works on consensus in line with policy. Agreed with Alan too re political leanings, I think only two three members of WikiProject Australian Politics have no declared leaning, and it all about cancels out somewhere in the centre. Orderinchaos 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've carefully rewritten the section from sources, being clear to scope the wider story and background circumstances so that readers can view the matter in context. It took a while! Should be noted with relation to IP's edit summary that there is no "Do no harm" policy, it's a statement of intent. Biography of living persons, which is policy, states: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." This has without a doubt been done per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV (I hope my edits remove any doubt about the latter of those three). Orderinchaos 09:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As an observer of this debate (and an AustPolitics WP member with no declared political leaning, for what that's worth), I agree with Timeshift9 and Orderinchaos that the material is verified, relevant to a biography of Laming and a potential factor in the 2007 election result. Orderinchaos' rewrite also provides an even tone, outlining both sides of the story and clarifying the sources for the casual reader. If there is a problem here, it is the usual one with political figures - undue weight to a controversy compared to their political agenda and role in shaping policies. This is inevitable given the importance of reliable sources - most media focuses on scandal not policy, so controversies appear to play a bigger role in political careers than they do in reality. The solution to this is not to expunge references to the printing controversy but to expand the remainder of the article to ensure the context is preserved. Euryalus (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. I would also note to the IP address contributors that Orderinchaos is not just a wikipedia user, he's a wikipedia admin. Timeshift (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I simply cannot understand how details of Santoro's resignation are relevant to this article? The matters were totally unrelated... Just because it's sourced doesn't make it relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Further, I question why you selectively refer to the Santoro staffer when the article clearly mentions two possible former staffers who were speculated to have sparked the investigation. You have also ignored the supporting statement in the article which indicated that the Santoro staffer and Laming were still on friendly terms and it was unlikely that he had sparked the investigation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Santoro was named in several sources, although it generally was not attributed to Santoro himself but to his perceived faction (note that the section deals with what was reported, not trying to claim facts on the ground.) The fact that he resigned 9 days later over a hitherto-unknown situation is indeed relevant - if it had been 9 weeks later, one would have grounds to question the relevance. It's not selective by any stretch. There was many articles I chose not to include simply for relevance reasons which indicated quite clearly that there had been a faction war between Santoro and Laming for quite some time, going as far back as 2005. Orderinchaos 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This is in fact the only article that mentions the Santoro staffer whilst there were numerous articles mentioning the McArdle staffer. Why ignore the McArdle staffer? Why focus on Santoro? It's ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Search Preview
Free Text mcardle and laming
Date 01/03/2007 to 01/06/2007
Source All Sources
Regions All
No results.
Search Preview
Free Text mcardle and laming
Date 01/06/2007 to 01/01/2008
Source All Sources
Regions All
1 result (excluding 9 which were related to horseracing and referenced Mrs J Laming and trainer John McArdle)
That result was: Courier Mail - "Oh heavens, 07's over" by Melanie Christensen.
"March 5: Police raid the electoral offices of three Liberal MPs -- Gary Hardgrave, Ross Vasta and Andrew Laming -- over claims of alleged misuse of electoral funding. The three proclaim their innocence and are eventually cleared."
"December 6: Mark McArdle emerges as the compromise candidate for the state Liberal parliamentary leadership after an embarrassing standoff between the party's eight MPs. The farcical affair includes a cameo appearance, complete with political commentary, by Monty Python's Eric Idle."
Numerous? Come on, there isn't even multiple (similar searches on Vasta/Hardgrave with McArdle turned up nought), and the only article in the entire Australian press which mentions both of them in the same place doesn't even link them. Orderinchaos 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The article referenced by Orderinchaos (which is not available online other than via subscription to Newstext) mentions the MCArdle staffer. I think you'll also find McArdle's staffer mentioned in this article - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21338832-601,00.html

It's so disappointing to see this charade of "reporting the facts" and "avoiding censorship" turned into a continued effort to damage reputations. There isn't a single article available online which describes the link between Santoro's staffer and Laming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Santoro & McArdle Discussion

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The only article which mentioned the Santoro staffer throughout the entire controversy also mentioned the McArdle staffer and mentioned McArdle by name. This article is not available online but has been used to reference the mention of Santoro in the Laming article. There is at least one further article which mentions the McArdle staffer by name but does not mention that she was working for McArdle, this article is available online. By not mentioning the possibility that the McArdle staffer could have been the "disgruntled staffer," this article leaves out some of the important speculation around the genesis of the investigation and in my opinion, unfairly targets Santoro and his staff without considering the other speculated sources of the complaint. Especially given that the McArdle staffer was mentioned in more than one article and the Santoro staffer was only mentioned in a single article which is not available online. I strongly recommend including the full details of the media speculation on the genesis of the investigation and who the "disgruntled staffer" could have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP - the claims are original research and can be reverted by any editor, as you have not identified any source by which McArdle has been linked in the media to the business at hand. I have done a thorough search of the archives through Factiva and failed to find anything,[1] even though Factiva has all newspapers for the period in question (Courier Mail, Age, SMH, Australian, West and even local newspapers). It does not "unfairly target" anyone - our job here is simply to report what others have reported. People can then come to their own judgements based on what is presented. Orderinchaos 12:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The same article you used to reference the mention of Santoro mentions the McArdle staffer. It's there in the article.

I'd be happy to send you the article text which I have downloaded from Newstext. If you're genuine in your intention to cover all of the speculation on this issue then you should include this part. If it's good enough to reference one part of an article, it's good enough to reference the rest of the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You've used this article to reference the Santoro speculation - Strutt, Sam. "Why Andrew Laming is John Howard's problem child", The Courier-Mail, 10 March 2007, p. 55.

The same article talks about the McArdle staffer - why are you practicing these double standards? Don't delete content until the debate is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong on our biographies of living people. Page protected for one week. Unless you can provide a source that states a fact clearly, that fact cant be included on Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As an admin I'm among other things expected to ensure that Wikipedia does not get into legal problems because people wish to add non-peer-reviewed information to it. The article in question is a page 55 opinion piece which openly admits to speculation, and does not mention McArdle (I have the text here). It does mention the same-named person, however, and mentions an additional person (by name) who is, according to the article, a Santoro staffer. It also quotes other unnamed sources saying neither could be the one. My actual source however was the Canberra Times article, which stated: "Mr Howard denied any factional involvement in the case, despite state powerbroker and federal minister Santo Santoro having been linked to the matter." Orderinchaos 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If that's your source then you should remove reference to the other article and you should remove reference to the speculation that the Santoro staffer was the genesis of the investigation. As far as I'm aware, Strutt's piece was the only artcile throughout the affair which mentioned any speculation that a disgruntled staffer under the employ of Santoro was linked to the affair. Instead, if you really wanted to mention Santoro, you could just say he was linked to the matter. Plus, the article I have downloaded from Newstext definitely mentions the second staffer working for McArdle. I'd really like you to consider a reword here because I think it unfairly represents the Santoro staffer and doesn't cover the full range of media speculation (which is what this entire article does, it discusses speculation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've included the text of the article I have downloaded from Newstext below (in part). Please note that I have removed the names of the staffers mentioned...

"There are also plenty of theories about just who blew the whistle on Laming. Party sources now claim the woman thought responsible, xxxx xxxxxxxx, a supposedly disgruntled ex-employee, had nothing to do with sparking the investigation. She's no relation to Jeff Williams, and was said to have sparked the raids after a complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission was passed on to the AFP. But xxxx xxxxxxxx, who is is about to take up a position on the staff of state Liberal deputy leader Mark McCardle, is ``not your smoking gun, said one source. ``It's just not her style. The finger was also pointed at former Laming staffer yyyyy yyyyyyy, who recently left his employment to take up a position in the office of factional chief Senator Santo Santoro, the ambitious federal Minister for Ageing. No way it was yyyyyyy, says another source. He and Laming are still on friendly terms."

Surely this warrants inclusion of the McArdle speculation or removal of any mention of the Santoro staffer. Instead, we could just mention that there was speculation that Santoro was linked to the affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The text I have says "a senior Liberal figure". Even so, the above is clearly speculation by the authors of the article. If I saw it in an actual article (as in, not a page 55 opinion piece), I'd be more accommodating. BTW I have modified the wording to "person associated with", as a couple of the sources use such wording. Note the text only makes the assertion that such an allegation was made. Orderinchaos 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that if these anonymous IPs care so much about what is and isn't on wikipedia, why don't they sign up? The only logical conclusion is that they have a conflict of interest... (and i'm not talking about simply supporting a party either...) Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of some discussion on that topic offline. Studying the evidence, I've concluded we're dealing with the debris of a Young Libs internal factional fight in the Brisbane/Gold Coast area, and it's not just at this article. (This reminds me of some of the early 2007 cases involving schools articles.) Orderinchaos 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the change made. I still don't understand how you've weighted the Santoro mention over the McArdle mention in the same article. Seems unfair. Seems like the link to Santoro's been targeted for reasons unknown while the same level of speculation over McArdle has been avoided. Almost as though you're trying to perpetuate rumours unfairly. I maintain that the speculation over a link to McArdle should be included if you are (as you seem) so intent on maintaining the speculation over a link to Santoro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.180.39 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I made the change because, on consideration, the source we should be using is the Canberra Times as they staked their editorial integrity on it and put it on page 5 as an actual article, whereas the other one is an opinion piece which disclaims editorial responsibility (although it meets the legal requirements necessary to be published, it's not entirely certain that WP:RS would consider it a reliable source without further backup). Interestingly, the new edition of Political Chronicle (part of a generally reliable academic peer-reviewed journal called the Australian Journal of Politics and History) suggests the raid was led by the estranged wife of someone called Paul Lucas. The plot thickens, it seems. Orderinchaos 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just looked him up, he appears to be a current Labor minister. Will definitely have to investigate further. Orderinchaos 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The edits just made to the article were sound (only had citation formatting issues which I've now fixed) - I also added the journal link. I hope this points to how this article is going to progress in future. Orderinchaos 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this really belong in the lead?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"Laming is the son of former Queensland state Liberal MP Bruce Laming who held the seat of Mooloolah from 1992 until 2001 and served as Deputy speaker of the Queensland Legislative Assembly." I doubt if this is lead material. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That sentence is there for the time being out of necessity. I intend it to become part of a paragraph about Laming's early life in PNG and such which will sit above the "early career" section. Currently that sentence does not belong in the lower career sections and would look silly sitting on it's own. It's a factual piece of information sourced to a reliable source and I don't see the problem with it being where it is for the time being. Kthx. Sarah 09:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unwanted images of Laming

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Rather than warring over it, i'm putting it on the record that we have two free good quality images of Laming that keep being removed. This image, and this image. Both were taken on the 2007 election campaign trail. He is happy to be snapped in both of them, look at his reaction hugging a bear, and his thumbs up in the second one. I was happy to just have one added near his 2007 election bit in the article, but that was removed too, it appears neither are acceptable so we can ONLY use the image that was given to us by Laming - that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and I for one am highly disappointed his and one of the flickr images cannot co-exist. Timeshift (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Timeshift, thanks for posting here instead of continuing the edit warring. I don't mean to be rude or to offend the photographer because I really appreciate the people on Flickr who license their pictures under Creative Commons so that we can get pictures of people we don't have much chance of getting photos of, but I actually thought those pictures were pretty poor quality. They're okay for a blog or maybe even a news report about the "Big Switch" program but I don't think they're right for an encyclopedic biography and I wanted to remove them when I first saw them because I thought they were poor quality and not good enough for an Australian Member of Parliament's encyclopedia biography. So I contacted Andrew Laming myself and I suggested he consider providing a replacement image of equal or greater quality if he also didn't like the images we had. I explained that there were no guarantees and that we wouldn't use promotional images, and so if he had sent me a photo of himself kissing babies or rescuing little old ladies, I would have declined to use it myself. But he sent me an excellent professional head shot of himself that doesn't even compare to what we had. I don't think bio subjects should have right of content oversight, but I do believe in showing some basic human compassion and recognising that it must be horrible having pictures of yourself that you don't like in an article which always shows up as one of the first google searches for your name. If we had no other free images, then fine, we're going to use whatever we can access, but if the subject doesn't like our images and is willing to donate a replacement of equal or greater quality, then I just don't see the problem. This is entirely supported by guidelines, too, by the way, specifically AUTO which states:
"If you do not like the photo, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you."
No guarantees, of course, but if we're going to offer the opportunity to provide a new image in the very guideline that is designed to help and advise article subjects, and they then decide to take us up on it and provide us with a better quality image which we accept and happily use, then we need to respond to them ethically and with some integrity and not turn around and say, "well, gee, thanks for the nice image, but screw you, we're going to use the crappy pictures as well just to show you who's in charge". And we can't turn around and suggest that the person who follows WP:AUTO and provides a new image is violating the spirit of Wikipedia. I understand your concerned about letting BLP subjects dictate what we can and cannot use, but Andrew Laming is not trying to dictate to us, he is simply trying to provide us with a better quality image, which, as WP:AUTO says, is good for him and good for us. Please note also that other article subjects have provided images in the same way and one prior case that comes to mind is Mike Farrell. He didn't like the original image that we had of him Image:Mike Farrell by David Shankbone.jpg and so he contacted us and asked if he could provide a replacement image, which he released under the GFDL - Image:Mikef.jpg. Mike Farrell's replacement image has been in the article for more than six months now without problem. And we haven't tried to add the old image into the article as a second image or anything. So I think what I have done here is quite appropriate and well within the "spirit of Wikipedia".
Also, this isn't the reason I personally wanted to replace the image, but it is a further reason to consider: there is nothing in this article about "Big Switch", so it seems kind of strange that we would include Big Switch images that depict Andrew Laming with a dude in a polar bear (?) suit unless we're just being pointy and trying to send the message that we'll do whatever we damn well please, regardless of how the subject of the article may feel. I don't think that is in the spirit of Wikipedia and you can be sure that it would undermine any future attempts to obtain professional images from other political figures. Sarah 12:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The photo was taken whilst Laming was on the hustings in the 2007 election. I placed it in the 2007 section, as a second image, not to replace the one provided, two is better than one. I didn't mind just one of the two flickr images either, I can understand how the non-closeup might be considered pointy but when hes willingly hugging the polar bear and smiling for the camera in the other one, and decent quality - I don't see the issue? I'm an inclusionist not an exclusionist, we have not one but two free images currently unused. It's a pity. Timeshift (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
It was take in the leadup to an election, IMHO its the mascot of an interest group unless Laming wanted to have his picture on the front page of every QLD paper being lambasted by the group as rejecting their ideal he didnt have much choice. Also because its a political interest group its use should be as a last resort, unless its part of critical commentary or the subject has an actual association. Gnangarra 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What a copout! You honestly think it would make front page news, let alone news, if he snubbed the bear? Oh please. Nothing made him pay attention to them except himself. Timeshift (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite sure it would not have made the news, especially not the front pages of any mainstream paper, but I take Gnang's point that had Laming ignored them, they would have used it against him. Just like they gave him a hard time for not completing their survey and complained that while he hugged the polar bear on their first meeting, he became progressively "cooler" each day they approached him. But anyway, I don't see what difference it makes that he posed for the photo. Posing for a photo doesn't automatically make a photo appropriate. Sarah 02:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting, Gnang. Yes, these are politically motivated images taken by activists. The protesters are from The Big Switch, a coalition of various activist groups that include Greenpeace, Get Up, and various state level conservation groups. The images are from a set of similar images and the description for the set, says: "These slides tell the story of the project as it unfolded in South East Queensland." ([2]) And the images were taken by James Whelan, an activist, and co-director of The Change Agency, an activist organisation, which was "engaged...to coordinate the campaign." ([3]). I really don't think we should have been using these pictures in the first place. As for Laming posing for the photos, I don't see what difference that makes. We all pose for photos that I'm sure we would not want placed prominently on Wikipedia. And I highly doubt the photographer said, "Please pose for a photo for your Wikipedia biography!" so the fact he was posing is not relevant at all IMO. Sarah 02:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is all meaningless. The fact remains we have Andrew Laming smiling wide and hugging the bear in a decent quality closeup, with nothing negative about the photo, which was taken whilst Laming was on the hustings at the 2007 election. I'm not a fan of these arbitrary decisions lately where images cannot be used. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that:
  1. if the subject supplies us with a better image for free, per the instructions at WP:AUTO
  2. if the image we have from previously adds nothing to the article of its own
  3. if the text does not support its inclusion over and above any available image of the person
  4. if there (maybe related to 2 and 3) may be an undue weight issue caused by their inclusion (as may be the case in this one, where activists took the photos as part of a campaign in part against him)
then we're sort of ethically obliged to use the supplied image over the other one. The guy being able to think on his feet and being a good sport doesn't come into it - it's a red herring. I'm definitely not in favour of censorship or sterile images over "interesting" ones, but I honestly can see no advantage to keeping these ones over the one supplied on this article, and I think the debate over it is a serious time sink. We've had too many ludicrous debates this week over images and templates and things which are marginal to articles and I know at least on my part it's not helping to get things done. Orderinchaos 04:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a good look at this image - using your above four points, should it be deleted? Yes. Should it really be deleted? Heck no. Timeshift (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this has anything to do with Andrew Laming. If the points I have raised were to be taken as criteria, the image you have highlighted would pass at least three of them. There is no issues with it. Orderinchaos 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
It was taken by the same group. The bear is poking out to the right of Kevin. The source here has a second photo here. The points you raise above could all be applied to this image, as we have other free alternatives. But we don't just remove a free image because another is available do we? Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is WP:POINT in action, personally. Odd how nobody else in over a month has seen fit to spring to the image's defence. Orderinchaos 03:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am making a point on the talk page, how else can one argue a case if they don't have points to make? This article doesnt exactly get the same exposure as some other more important MPs. Just bursting the bubble on the above four points with another image comparison. Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Racist Remarks on Twitter

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While serving as Federal Opposition Indigenous Health spokesman in January 2013, Andrew Laming posted inflammatory remarks on social media site Twitter about racial tensions south of Brisbane. At the time, dozens of police are blockading a street in Woodridge in Logan after weekend clashes between Indigenous and Pacific Islander groups.[1]

Mr Laming tweeted: 'Mobs tearing up Logan tonight. Did any of them do a day's work today, or was it business as usual and welfare on tap?'

He repeated the comment on Twitter four hours after the original post. Both Members of Parliament and local Indigenous people have condemned the comments.

Twelve hours after posting the original comment, Mr Laming sought to "clarify" his statement. To clarify: Working together to resolve these riots the priority. Training and a chance for jobs are key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.52.136 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/coalition-mp-tweet-on-racial-tensions-labelled-disgraceful-/4464988

Lead

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The text about Lamings racist remarks on Twitter has been deleted and reposted a few times now in the lead of the article. The text definitely belongs in the article somewhere and given it is perhaps what he is best known for, would placing it in the lead be appropriate or not? Would other editors care to share their opinions? Hughesdarren (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently the concern about the text is the assertion that Laming "was revealed as a racist". Publishing an opinion that "Laming is a racist" would contravene WP BLP policy and may be libellous. I found out the hard way after being blocked for reposting that text. I personally feel that it is appropriate that the Twitter incident is placed in the lead, it is after all the event of Laming's political career that achieved the greatest media and public interest. Laming himself seems to appreciate the publicity his comment received, subsequently tweeting, "Hmm, this Fbook page now 50 times more talked about than 'Stand up for Julia Gillard.' She should tweet more." and, "Australia's most controversial tweet for 2013!" A comprehensive record of Laming's Twitter comments and links to relevant social media and news reports can be found here. [1] It is worth noting that Laming previously made insulting Twitter comments about Aboriginals in May 2012, "'Brisbane Sovereign Embassy' in Musgrave Park. Hoping kids arent missing school, or adults 'work' if they are able." [2]

That's an improvement, but what about the people who defended him? Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Greg Hunt and Warren Truss are quoted in the body of the article articulating a somewhat reserved defence of Laming's Twitter comments. Probably the most notable thing about Laming's defence is that Laming himself blatantly misrepresented the original Tweet in his "clarifying statement" later that day.[3] The Twitter comments are notable because they generated such an overwhelming response, and they generated that response because so many people considered the comments to be deliberate, insensitive, inflammatory, racist and unacceptable.RussHawk (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://greenshack.info/index.php/newmania/tensions-in-logan.html
  2. ^ http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/mps-inflammatory-tweet-slammed-20130115-2cqc7.html
  3. ^ http://greenshack.info/index.php/newmania/tensions-in-logan.html

Political Career

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think we, as contributors, need to bear in mind that Wikipedia is not newspaper; Wikisource and Wikinews are such platforms, but most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. As a result of these guidelines, I recommend the removal of the last paragraph of this article's 'Political Career' section as it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If other contributors are not agreeable to this suggestion, perhaps a rewording of the last paragrpah is appropriate. Language like "Twitter gaffe" reads like a newspaper, is not fair and balanced, and is not appropriate language for an encyclopedia. Furthermore, the last half of this paragraph does not invovle Andrew or his tweet, but reports on the whereabouts of the Deputy Prime Minster and former Premier of Victoria. Cheers, BL190426 (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Andrew Laming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Andrew Laming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Andrew appears to be very conscious of this page

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this Facebook comment, he links directly to this page. It may be possible that he is editing his own article.--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Andrew Laming. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've re-removed the infobox photo (File:Andrew Laming MP crop 2007.jpg). The Commons record gives this Flickr image as the source. The image appears to be photoshopped - Laming's head looks too large for his body, and is at a very strange angle. As the photo was taken by someone protesting against Laming, it should also be treated with a degree of caution. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that some caution should be exercised and the photo isn't great or ideal, but I disagree with the assertion that the image is photoshopped and dishonest. Firstly, there is a lengthy discussion above raised by User:Timeshift9 in 2008 about the use of this image, however the main objection seemed to be that the photo originally included the whole bear costume which was inappropriate for a bio profile, and once it was cropped this was not as much of an issue. Secondly, I analysed the photo in Photoshop and cannot see any evidence of digital manipulation (other than the crop which probably was done in Photoshop and why it appears in the EXIF data, but the RGB channels match up perfectly so if this was photoshopped it is an outstanding job); I also cannot find an original of the face in a reverse image search; the angle is a little odd, but not impossible if he was hugging the bear and facing the camera. Thirdly, this appears to be the modus operandi of the polar bear climate protester—ambushing politicians (including Laming, John Howard, Ross Vasta and Kevin Rudd) at campaign events or their electoral offices and getting photos with them holding a sign asking where they are on climate action—frankly, given recent events it seems like hugging the protester for a photo is the sort of "funny" thing Laming would do—and there are no other apparently photoshopped images which seems to indicate that the uploader isn't faking these photos. --Canley (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Autobiography?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
(Note: As User:Canley reveals below, the content I'm challenging was written by an editor in good standing - but it is based on the unverified autobiographical assertions of the subject. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

Above, someone suspected this article may be the work of its subject. I wouldn't rule the possibility out.

Take this from == Education and early career == :

"After graduating from the University of Queensland in 1990, Laming worked as a rural GP in Gundagai, New South Wales, and the rural Queensland towns of Goondiwindi, Mungindi, Dirranbandi and St George. In 1991, he researched anterior cruciate ligament injuries at the Perisher ski fields. In 1992, he worked as a gym manager and rigger in South Africa as well as three months in Afghanistan clearing land mines with the British charity Halo Trust and doing basic war surgery with the International Council of the Red Cross in Kabul.[4][5]"

[4] is the subject's maiden speech to parliament and [5] is a radio interview. That is, they are primary sources: the subject's own, unsupported claims.

Look at [5]:

  • The Conversation Hour, 26 October 2006, Richard Fidler, in Federal Government Broadcast Alerts, Media Monitors Australia

Media Monitors Australia was a subscription news clipping service. Whoever added this citation was looking at a Media Monitors Australia alert about Andrew Laming. Who is most likely to subscribe to clippings of Andrew Laming?

It is important that we don't defame BLP subjects, but it's also important that we don't allow them to mislead the reader about their experience and accomplishments.

I propose we delete the above-quoted claims as both unsourced and possibly largely or partly the pure invention of the subject. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not done You seem to be implying that the passages above were added by Laming or a related party—in fact they were added nearly 13 years ago by a long-standing and well-regarded editor and administrator on the English Wikipedia, who was trying to balance the content of the article which was at the time 80% about a printing entitlements scandal. The references cited are sufficient: as you say they are from the subject's own words – a first speech and an interview – but both are passed through the prism of secondary sources: firstly ABC Radio's editorial process for the interview and for the speech, Parliamentary Hansard, for which their can be significant penalties for misleading parliament if an MP was to make up lies in their speech. Anyway, we'll need more than some anonymous "suspicions" (that are quite a stretch) with no additional evidence, before deleting long-standing, referenced content. --Canley (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Ah. OK. [4] I don't doubt Sarah's integrity for a moment. But no, this can't stand. The interview and the maiden speech are not reliable sources. We don't treat the testimony of the subject as reliable (except maybe for their beliefs and opinions) especially not for their achievements and qualifications. WP:BLP says any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. His own words are not a reliable source, even if they're broadcast by ABC or published in Hansard. Neither the ABC nor the publishers of Hansard are endorsing his claims; they're reporting them. I'm OK with these claims remaining in the article, so long as they're preceded by "Laming claims.." or words to that effect. And I'm happy for them to stay, in Wikipedia's voice, if you can provide a reliable source for them, obviously.
I'm going to invite comment from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andrew_Laming. 175.38.215.178 (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits Canley. You have improved things - though there are still unsourced claims, and I suspect some citogenisis. (Not much anyone can do about the latter, though, after 13 years.) 175.38.215.178 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

IS ANDREW LAMING MARRIED?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Is Andrew Laming married?  There is nothing in the article about his family (only to say he is the son of Bruce Laming, an ex-MP).  So who is or was, his wife/wives?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.30.15.86 (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I feel this page needs to be updated to reflect today's reporting that the MP has misused (and continues to misuse) Facebook. The report from The Guardian (link below) reveals the MP set up 30 fake Facebook accounts to attack opponents, pretend to be an education institution (but was merely a cover for climate denialism) and fake sites purporting to be news sites. Many of these activities are contrary to rules set out by the Australian Electoral Commission.

This page received semi-protected status today, possibly in order to prevent this information being added.

Protecting this page from updates to include this information means readers/uses coming to Wikipedia do not get a full account of this public figure's behaviour.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/06/liberal-mp-andrew-laming-used-dozens-of-facebook-pages-to-promote-lnp-and-attack-opponents OSINTer13 (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy—I renewed the semi-protection on the article over a week ago (on 29 March) due to persistent vandalism and BLP violations, not today to censor or prevent any mention of Laming's latest scandal. I agree, that should be added and I'll do it myself. --Canley (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  Done by Canley. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Laming/Archive_1&oldid=1204191166"