Talk:Barnaby Joyce/Archives/2013

Backflip Barnaby

Definitely should be a section on this guy's nicknames and the fact he cannot make up his mind on anything! Dankru 22:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

protected

Because I'm sick of seeing this article pop up on my watchlist, I've protected it until y'all compromise or one party's bloated corpse is found floating in the Murrumbidgee, whichever is soonest. Please try to grow up and get on with each other, guys, because otherwise I'm turning this encyclopaedia right around and there'll be no reduction of systemic bias for anyone! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is (and I am no friend of Barnaby Joyce) that this statement (until it was recently deleted) preceded a statement demonstrating his opposition to extremism and thus fit in and was in no sense POV. The feel that I seem to be getting from some who are deleting it is that "because Barnaby is religious and conservative, he must be an extremist and therefore it is POV to say that he opposes extremism". I must say that that is highly offensive and is extremely POV. The comment about Barnaby opposing extremism belongs there, and no person who has opposed its placement there has made any argument here, in the discussion as to why it does not. As such, the page should be unprotected, it should be returned and those who kept on removing it should refrain from doing so. Xtra 11:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Extremism

The comments by anonymous Xtra lack logic.

If the preceding sentence before the phrase saying he opposes extremism demonstrates Joyce is not an extremist then there is no need to add the redundancy.

My dictionary defines extremism as "Any political theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies". Given Joyce's implacable opposition to abortion I think this fits.

If extremism is alternatively defined as the outlier on a normal curve and given that Joyce is among a small minority of a minority in this stance (ie catholics are a minority in Australia and catholics opposing abortion are a minority within catholics), and a tiny minority within the wider Australian population then he is indeed extremist and any attempt to say he is not is merely trying to support him politically.

Further, Joyce has said his main purpose in political life is the single issue of preventing women having choice over their pregnancies - ie preventing them choosing abortion. Such dogmatic attempts to control other people and being so focussed on the single issue is extreme. Mccready 07:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You may see Joyce as an extremist, however, from the way you are talking, he appears far more to the centre than you. Just because someone does not agree with you and those who share your ideology does not make them extremists and I find your assertion to the contrary highly offensive. Your view is not the only correct view and people like Barnaby Joyce are entitled to have their own oppinions. Or is Australia no longer a democracy with free speech? Or is free speech only reserved for left wing people? I am sick of this hypocracy. You need to respect other's views! The phrase makes perfect sense, fits in, is not POV, and is not superfluous. I am sick of defending articles about normal people against morons who do not accept that someone can hold an opinion unless it is identical to their own. Xtra 07:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 84% of Australians identify themselves as a member of a religion. The largest religion being catholocism with 27%. Gee a lot of extremists in Australia! I mean, get real! Xtra 07:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase belongs in the article, for all the reasons articulated by Extra. I will reinsert the phrase upon unprotection. I won't do it right now, because as an "interested party" (I wrote the article in the first place) it would violate policy for me to edit the article while it is protected. David Cannon 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Xtra's personal attack on me violates the wiki code and does little to address the argument. David Gannon's pre-emting of any decision and support for vituperation over logic doesn't help. I request both of you to address the arguments above. In addition, 27% of 84% and then a small minority within the 27% equals the far end of the normal curve. Joyce does not represent the views of the majority of his electorate. I know many catholics and not one supports Joyce's views on abortion. I believe that in addition to addressing the arguments, both anonymous Xtra and David Cannon owe me an apology for this type of behaviour. (Unsigned comment by Mccready)

I think you owe all people who oppose unnecessary abortion on moral grounds an apology for calling them extremists. Xtra 06:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll justifiably call them extremists too if you like. That said, it is a relative term, and if one actually reads the context of the "not extreme" statement in this article, it makes perfect sense to have it there. Ambi 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now at least the discussion begins. yes it can be a relative term and in that sense not very useful. it might be useful if the anti-abortionists would like to put a figure on the percentage of australians who share their POV. BTW it's rude and violates wiki rules to edit other people's postings on a discussion page David. Mccready 04:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the <POV> bizzo was out of line, but the "Unsigned comment by Mccready" is standard practice when somebody forgets to sign their words, to avoid confusion. In both cases, the spirit of your words weren't altered: the POV thing was clearly marked as being David Cannon's work, and the unsigned thing was entirely appropriate. David's problem here was being uncivil, not altering another's text. It was very rude. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise for having let the matter go to my head. I should not have doctored another user's comments on the talk page, and have shown more respect. Now that I've slept on it, I can see that my insertions did more to inflame than to calm the situation, and I apologise for that. David Cannon 08:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word 'extreme' (especially in relation to something as controversial as abortion) leans to a particular stance/view and hence is not NPOV. - G^t 06:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your gracious apology David, and I apologise for forgetting to sign my post. If we are agreed that saying either someone is extreme or someone is not extreme is indeed POV, then would it be better to leave it out and all get onto doing other things on wikipedia? :-) Mccready 06:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RU etc

This is the first time I have dropped by this article for a while, and I'm glad to see you have all been having fun. Can someone tell me what this section is doing in this article?

According to the Cochrane Collabortion Systematic Reviews, medical abortion using RU 486 plus a prostaglandin is both "safe and effective." This is backed up by the World Health Organisation and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Induced abortion, whether done surgically or medically, is according to the WHO one of the safest medical procedures. The risk of mortality from both surgical and medical abortion is around 1:1,000,000.

Also the paragraph on VSU is out of date since the bill has now passed. Adam 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I put the Cochrane stuff there after someone asked for evidence that Joyce's claim in the Catholic Weekly was incorrect. Mccready 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected the article and made the changes you suggested. The section on abortion wasn't necessary. --cj | talk 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article is again open to editing. Hopefully the cooling-off period was long enough.--cj | talk 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Family First Preferences

I know that this actually took place, but the tone of the text seems somewhat POV. Is there any better way to put the sentence at end of 1st section in more civil tone? --Brynic 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I actually don't see anything wrong with Barnaby's actions: There's a difference between doing preference deals, and giving and receiving preferences (Personally I find the former abhorrent). So perhaps the article should make that distinction (although it's already implied). Rocksong 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, it also says he didn't want their preferences at all. I missed that before. That is a little ironic, if that's what he said. Of course, preferences come from voters, not parties (though voting tickets and preference deals subvert this). Rocksong 07:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

who gave the majority

Joyce did not give the coalition the majority:

a) he was not the last coalition senator elected for Queensland

b) he was elected at the same time as ~ 20 others and has no claim to individualy taking the coalition over the line.

Xtra 09:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I know, I've made edits to that effect and have been reverted once by User:Ambi. Please see [1], where a similar discussion is going on. JSIN 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Article needs a revamp

Main thing needed I think is some formatting - it currently looks like a pastiche of news pieces, and given the likely importance of this guy in the next Senate, we should probably be getting ready. One starting point may be this article in today's Age - do we have a list of the 19 times he crossed the floor? Orderinchaos 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Weird, POV(?) sentence

"Nonetheless he gained office with preference flows from Family First Party, amongst many others including Pauline Hanson."

I'm really struggling to see the point of this sentence, especially the last part from the comma onwards. No idea what Hanson has to do with it. And in a secret ballot, how can we know whose preferences went anywhere? HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I can see the point of it, but agree it's pretty dreadfully worded. Basically in 2004 the Nationals in Queensland pulled off something very unusual in modern terms in getting a *fourth* senate seat for the Coalition available at an election. This means they have 2/3 of the seats. If you look at the results themselves:

Liberal        867,276      38.29      +3.39    2.6800 [quotas]  	
The Nationals  149,719       6.61      -2.55    0.4627 [quotas]

you can see the parties gained about 45% of the vote, or 3.14 quotas; and more particularly, Barnaby needed over half a quota. Hanson (Group K) was the second biggest non-major Senate group behind the Greens, way outpolling her own former party and Family First (offering 0.2195 and 0.2358 quotas respectively), and not falling far short of the Greens:

Group Total    102,824       4.54      0.3177

Her Senate group ticket (look for Group K) in key party terms went: Family First, Liberal, National, Democrat, Labor, Greens. She survived to the last count (Count 175) and ended up passing on 0.2692 quotas to Joyce and 0.2633 quotas to Trood (Lib), getting them both over the line (she and Hutton, the Greens candidate, were the only ones left by that stage - Hutton was the highest polling candidate at Count 174). In other words, her voters and the One Nation votes coming through her (ON had placed her immediately behind their own candidates for transfer), along with those of Family First, determined the election from what had been a crowded field of people at an earlier stage in the count. Orderinchaos 00:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Military Service in Politician Infobox - Undue weight

An editor has just added military service to the Infobox for this Australian politician. While the information is of value, I feel that putting it in the Infobox is placing undue weight on it. Unlike in the USA, where the Infobox was no doubt created and may work fine, Australians place a lot less emphasis on military service as a measure of a politician's (or any person's) worth.

Joyce has many other attributes. To just pick out military service and emphasise it so strongly by putting it in the Infobos, is inappropriate.

Yes, include it in the body of the article, but not where it is now.

HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Mining is not military activity

The statement "mining is banned under the Antarctic Treaty" is not correct and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.250.112 (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. FiggyBee (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Revamp - Mach III

This is the first time that I've dropped by this article and it's in a huge mess. Whilst I've tried to make some attempt in cleaning it up by adding sections; improving the citations; moving the external links to inline citations; and adding various {{cn}} templates where appropriate; it still needs much more work. There appears to be a fair amount of POV who are trying to interpret the stances made by Joyce, without citations to back them up. I welcome comments and feedbakc; especially where backed up by independent references. Rangasyd (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

riverview etc

If I can put my head above the trenches, it seems this article has been partially at least plagiarised from an article in last weekends Age. So some one has been naughty. Thus the article has a slick journalistic flavour-not encyclopediacal. Personally I cant see why BJ's wife's ethnicity should be mentioned-let alone the wedding. Further BJ was educated at Riverview (StIgnatius) in Sydney. Please see http://www.riverview.nsw.edu.au/ There is no geographical location called Riverview as such. Thus overall I would support EAWarbuton's editing. I'd fix it myself but I really dont want to suffer the possibility of hostile attack-there seems to be too much bullying going on. So I shall leave it to the experts amongst you. TransylvanianTwist 05:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hooray- vindication and some sanity-my perverse pleasure would be for Carr and gang refuse to change these mistakes out egotistical pride-they never admit mistakes. Eric A. Warbuton

There is no "Carr and gang". Your edit was innapropriate and that is why I reverted. Xtra 07:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Riverview is indeed a gazetted suburb of Sydney. See: http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/place_naming/placename_search/extract?id=ujwGwpUlGH --Humehwy 07:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

If Mr Warbuton consults the edit history he will see that I made no change one way or the other to the statement that Joyce "was educated at a boarding school in Riverview." I await his apology. Adam 08:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I still insist that you act in a gang-like manner. A small question: what secondary school did Joyce attend? -Eric A.Warbuton

A gang of one? How clever of me. At least I can spell my own surname. He went to St Ignatius Riverview [2] Adam 09:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)