Talk:Andrew O'Keefe

POV issues

The lead needs to be improved with the POV taken out. I've bolded the POV issues in the quote below.

Australian entertainer, best known for being the host of the hit game-show Deal or No Deal. He is also the co-host of Weekend Sunrise. Both shows have proven to be hits for the Seven Network, and were seen as key parts of the revival of that station's fortunes, ultimately helping Seven to establish itself as the Number 1 Rating Network in Australia.

Bidgee (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

pls clarify Roger O'Keefe

what does this mean: "brother of University of Cambridge international lawyer Roger O'Keefe". - does Roger have a position at Cambridge, a degree from there, does he specialise in international law or does it mean he works internationally?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpicker99 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Roger O'Keefe works at Cambridge University as a professor of International law. (interview with Tim Saw 2UE 5/2/2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.175.5 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew O'Keefe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130516113948/http://www.formerministers.fahcsia.gov.au/1885/nat_council_violence_26may08/ to http://www.formerministers.fahcsia.gov.au/1885/nat_council_violence_26may08/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111113231502/http://au.tv.yahoo.com:80/sunrise/meet-the-team/article/-/6583423/andrew-okeefe-weekend-sunrise-co-host/ to http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/meet-the-team/article/-/6583423/andrew-okeefe-weekend-sunrise-co-host/

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) 07:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock

This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

How the heck is this related to O'Keefe? Honestyisbest (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Brief mention of O'Keefe's Assault and domestic violence charges in the Lead

I tried to include a brief mention as a summary of the significant portion of the article devoted to O'Keefe's assault and domestic violence charges which have been very widely reported in Australian media. It was reversed so I have taken the issue here for discussion. I have read the policy on BIOs of living persons but cannot see where it says not to put this in a lead? It just talks of summarising the content in the lead. Honestyisbest (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

O'Keefe has not been found guilty of any crime, so BLPCRIME has some import here. Certainly not leadworthy without guilt. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes he has admitted to the assaults and so on but has simply claimed he was in a bipolar manic episode, so the charges were dismissed I think, based on the reliable sources I have read? Honestyisbest (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The important policy here is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Opening_paragraph. It says what to include and what not to include. Further, I don't think that including it would be helpful in adhering to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view position to include it. It might be better to sum it up in a single more general sentence, i.e., "In 2021 O'Keefe was charged in a series of domestic violence-related incidents." This then allows the reader to look to the specific subsection where the allegations are written more in full. On that note, you will note that his earlier 2021 charges I have written more briefly about, because I didn't think it was useful to the reader to cover all of them. I think for the second round of chargers we should use the same rule of thumb. If the reader is interested in the full list of offences then they can view the citations. My concern, amongst other things, is that the current charges are very fresh and are likely to change. Nauseous Man (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)