Talk:David Leyonhjelm/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reverted Edits

WWGB, if you look on the Sydney Morning Herald website: http://www.smh.com.au/ or see snapshot here: http://i67.tinypic.com/voofow.jpg The article I've referenced is the third article on the website. There are currently 420 people reading the article and there's been over 30 comments on it. You may say "Fitzsimons opinion is not important" but there's plenty of people who disagree. As I've already mentioned although you keep reverting, this is an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, NSW's second largest paper by readership it's a mainstream media article about this person. It's written by a prominent journalist, Peter FitzSimons who's as per his Wikipedia page received an Order of Australia medal for his, "literature as a biographer, sports journalist and commentator, and to the community through contributions to conservation, disability care, social welfare and sporting organisations." He's also received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Western Sydney, as per the news link you can see here: http://www.westernsydney.edu.au/newscentre/news_centre/more_news_stories/renowned_author_peter_fitzsimons_receives_honorary_doctorate where he's introduced as, "Dr Peter FitzSimons AM is a well-respected columnist, author..." The source is important and prominent as is the writer please state your case why you don't believe the article should be included on this page? --Zscnmdinon (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably thousands of people loathe Leyonhjelm. Fitzsimons is just one of them. He is not a noted political commentator, and his comments on politics and politicians carry no more weight or notability than any other citizen. This is a breach of WP:NPOV. WWGB (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Melbourne 2017 attacks

Please can we not delete this section again? The first person to erase it completely said it was non notable and needed second sources.

It's all over the news now and is referenced accordingly. So there's no need to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.155.41 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Leyonhjelm. 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/20141205160756/http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1147-energy to http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1147-energy

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Can someone point to where in the Sky News article Leyonhjelm is described as 'spreading rumours'? I can only find a quote attributable to Hanson-Young saying "But you don’t ever stoop to the low point of attacking somebody’s character, spreading rumours, sexual innuendo, sexist slurs, just because you’ve lost the argument," (see https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sarah-hanson-young-opens-up-about-a-decade-of-slut-shaming-in-australian-politics-20180703-p4zp5s.html). The way news articles are covering it, they are just decribing it as an attack on her personal character, and the article should reflect that.

In addition, the current citation just takes you to the 730 iView page, and doesn't give the date of the interview. A better citation should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.147.74 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality (Hanson-Young controversy)

Appears that some biased editing is still going on here. I've tried as best I can to keep it neutral but this merits a discussion as to what words should and shouldn't be used. This should also be expanded to include the exchange with Angela Bishop. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny coming from the person who added back in loaded language and removed the source for the statement made by Hanson-Young. His statement has not been "largely rejected", it has been rejected by Hanson-Young. Kylesenior (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I always find discussions like this intriguing. I'm guessing User Onetwothreeip assumes we all know what kind of bias he is complaining about, but I truly have no idea. HiLo48 (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I do assume that, but because I wasn't the first one to point it out. I was alerted to this from the WikiProject talk page. The bias in question would be those that want to make it better for Leyonhjelm. I suppose I did assume people would associate me as more of a regular editor of Australian political pages rather than this group of people who have seemingly come out of nowhere, but are still certainly allowed to contribute. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kylesenior: The source for Hanson-Young saying that women shouldn't need pepper spray has been sourced by other references, but you are free to add back in the source as far as at least I'm concerned. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Full quotations

I would like to include the full quotation "Leyonhjelm went on to say "free speech is important. But so is calling out sexism, so is misandry.” Hanson Young replied “I wasn’t guilty of misandry!”. This is the full quotation. Why then did Bilby say it wasn't supported by the source and why is misandry not included? Interested in why editor Bilby reverted my edit and cut the quote off after the word sexist? Including the full quote would be much clearer and less confusing.Merphee (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hanson-Young didn't say "I wasn't guilty of misandry". - Bilby (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

What?? Read the source. Here: "Ms Bishop went on to ask if he was using his “moment in the limelight” as a way of getting re-elected.

“It wasn’t part of a plan. Remember it was Sarah who stood up in the Senate, making it public what was an interchange between us.

“I don’t want to shut Sarah down. In fact in many ways it’s the gift that keeps on giving. I’m not resiling from the principles I’m raising. Free speech is important. But so is calling out sexism, so is misandry.”

“I wasn’t guilty of misandry!” she fired back. “I defended your right to prosecute your argument. I just took issue with the language you used. So why call me a b**ch?”

“Oh OK, alright,” he responded. “So if you took offence at that, I’m sorry you took offence at that.”

???Merphee (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Any reply now Bilby?Merphee (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't Hanson-Young. That was Bishop. - Bilby (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not the full quote, it seems the newspaper has not taken the full quote. There is no need for hyperlinks on the words sexism and misandry either. If you want to make another paragraph detailing the exchanges with Angela Bishop, you are free to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Bilby. You are right that Hanson-Young didn't say that. I have included the last part of the quote that was cut off the end where it now reads “I’m not resiling from the principles I’m raising. Free speech is important. But so is calling out sexism, so is misandry.”Merphee (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip I didn't include the full quote. Can you explain and talk with me about why you just paraphrased this short quote?Merphee (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Our aim isn't to include all the possible quotes that people have said on the matter. All that's relevant from that quote is that Leyonhjelm believes his actions are justified because he is calling out sexism and misandry. We don't need to quote him in order to say that. Is there anything else, said by Leyonhjlem or anyone, that you think should be expressed in the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Obviously we shouldn't include "all the possible quotes that people have said on the matter" however the way it's been done so far is biased. These selected quotes for example are too misleading to be included as paraphrases. "In 2018, Leyonhjelm said "fuck off" and "stop shagging men" to Greens senator. We need to keep neutral here and including such provocative statements with no context or the full quotes is against policy. It would be good to have a robust discussion about which quotations are used in this section before further edits are made.Merphee (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

So tell us what context you want added. It's not as if all that's said is Leyonhjlem saying fuck off and stop shagging men, there is plenty of context there, and not only that but also what Leyonhjelm claims to be the reason he did what he did. We can't exclude "fuck off" and "stop shagging men", it's this that started everything else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

References