Talk:Emma Husar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of The Australian as a source.

User:Merphee - you didn't have to do that. All I have asked, several times, is for you to share the content with those of us unwilling to give Rupert Murdoch any of our money. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The article is behind a paywall. There are 3 other sources. The Australian is not relevant to this discussion.Merphee (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Just so you're aware, WP:PAYWALL is Wikipedia's policy on such content. It is not prohibited. (But obviously not ideal.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Time to delete trivia.

The article contains two paragraphs, embarrassments over Facebook posts and over opinion polls. These are far too trivial to belong. They are clearly intended to do nothing but discredit the person. We do not include such simplistic silliness in articles. They make Wikipedia look like a political, point-scoring journal. We should leave that to the popular media. HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Firstly I must state that I did not put the paragraphs about Husar's Facebook posts and over opinion polls into the article. However I note the David Leyonhjelm article whereby everything you just said HiLo48 equally applies or should equally apply. However the Drovers wife is arguing emphatically that such trivial comments in that article are included and deleting editors attempts to maintain a neutral point of view. I see this as an attempt to be censoring Husar's comments similar to the drovers wife comments on the David Leyonhjelm article. Can the Drovers Wife explain the difference here please?Merphee (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Why Drovers Wife do you not have an issue with the exact same points HiLo makes on the David Leyonhjelm article? The whole article is filled with extremely trivial points intended to do nothing but discredit this person. Love to hear your reply Drovers Wife?Merphee (talk) 07:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is also important to treat each article individually. Comparing one with another is rarely helpful. Comparing any article to our guidelines is. I would also point out that David Leyonhjelm is a much more well known and long standing politician than this lady. Their articles will not be comparable. Wikipedia:Handling trivia is also an important policy. HiLo48 (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that Husar is not as well known. She has a very high media profile, arguably higher than Leyonhjelm whom up until now I had not even heard of. Therefore the two articles are certainly comparable. We also really need to try and maintain consistency. I am questioning the Drovers Wife opinion on this matter where they just said "agreed" and has no further comments and given her different stance on a comparable politicians. We need to critically discuss these issues here and would welcome the drovers Wife explanation.Merphee (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. You must live under a different rock from mine. Maybe yours is in Husar's electorate. I can assure you she is virtually unknown here in Victoria, and presumably elsewhere. Leyonhjelm is nationally known, with extreme views on many issues. He's in the media almost every week. Have a look at the size of his article! I'm truly surprised you haven't heard of him. Husar is a Labor backbencher. Not very important at all. Anyway, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Yes I think you might live under a different rock but that is besides the point. Husar is often interviewed on the ABC as a guest and her profile is particularly high in Victoria. Husar also has extreme views. The length of an article means nothing here. What is your point?Merphee (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Any comment on the point I made regarding the importance of consistency between article content?Merphee (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The two situations are not remotely equivalent. Leyonjhelm is a figure who deliberately courts controversy, which is covered in vast depth in reliable sources. Husar is a backbencher who a couple of people have decided to smear with trivial stuff with minimal coverage in reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The 2 Wikipedia articles you mean The Drovers Wife. As I made the point above I did not include the Facebook posts of Husar's in the article. So hope you are not pointing that finger of yours at me? Have you got sources stating Leyonjhelm is a figure who deliberately courts controversy or is this just your POV? My opinion is that he is not and seems quite fair. Back to Wikipedia editing, what have you got to say about accepting very trivial matters included in the Leyonjhel article, but not in this article. Please keep your subjective opinions of politicians out of our discussion. It is not really helpful. Thank you.Merphee (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee, this conversation is a silly one. It's really difficult to discuss this rationally with someone who thinks a minor ALP backbencher is as important, notable and controversial as David Leyonjhelm. THAT is an extreme position. The respective size of the articles, and the number of editors who have shown an interest in each one IS a valid indicator. Stop pushing that POV, and stick to using Wikipedia policy to decide what goes in an article. This thread is about trivia that should not be in Husar's article. Let's get rid of it. OK? HiLo48 (talk)

We determine significance according to what is in reliable sources. Every media outlet in the country has covered Leyonjhelm's behaviour this week alone - and repeatedly. The Husar smears had one story on one day. Trying to equate them is POV editing at its worst. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The Facebook posts that Husar deleted were covered in multiple sources and should stay regardless of them reflecting poorly on her or not. I'm ok with getting rid of the hypocrisy section relating to the polls. However the Metcher section should definitely stay and has been changed to remove any POV. I'd appreciate it HiLo if you could cut out the crap over POV. I could easily accuse you both of POV but have not, so please try and keep your comments civil and assume good faith as I am trying hard to do with both you and the Drovers Wife.Merphee (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Literally, the Facebook posts were covered in one story in the Sydney Morning Herald and one story in a local weekly newspaper, as far as I can see. The Metcher stuff was covered in one single Australian Financial Review story, period (opinion columns are not acceptable sources on Wikipedia). It isn't about whether or not they reflect poorly on her (I don't care) - it's about Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. If the newspapers don't think it's significant, neither do we. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish. The Metcher story was covered widely in some very reliable sources. Policy states we do not censor such content because the person may not like it. If it is reported in reliable sources iut gets included.Merphee (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Where are these sources (that reference Husar)? (Please see WP:COATRACK if you're attempting to use sources which don't reference Husar.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are a couple more sources contradicting your point. http://media.domain.com.au/news/federal-politics/election-2016-past-comes-back-to-bite-7492447.html https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/labor-party-bans-candidates-from-using-social-media-ahead-of-potential-election/news-story/6d4f8933330494c33c9bbc93ae3ea981 The entire Labor Party even banned Facebook posts because of these stories. Your arguments are against policy.Merphee (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A passing one-sentence mention and the video attached to the one SMH story I mentioned before doth not significant make. Please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There are other sources the drovers wife and it wasn't 1 sentence in the Australian article.Merphee (talk) 11:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

http://westernweekender.com.au/2016/06/social-media-posts-come-back-to-haunt-labor-candidate/Merphee (talk) 11:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the local weekly paper I already referred to. It was literally one sentence in The Australian article. If this was a notable story, you'd be able to turn up actual sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It was reported in the SMH and The Australian as well as many other state based papers. OI realise it may look negative for Husar but if such major sources have reported on it, we need to. As I said this was the reason the Labor party banned candidates from using social media. If anything we need to expand this section to include that point. Would that be ok?Merphee (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Where are these sources? If you want to include this kind of material in a BLP, you need to be able to produce these "major sources". You also need to back up the claim that it was "the reason the Labor Party banned candidates from using social media", a claim which no source makes - not even that one article in The Australian. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I just added the Canberra Times. Enough for you?Merphee (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, please familiarise yourself with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. Two newspaper articles on one day and a local weekly doesn't make "widely reported" in any universe, and "incriminating posts" is opinion to the point of being defamatory. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. And there are now 4 sources, 3 of which are certainly major sources. SMH, The Australian and the Canberra Times. Just including what the major sources said about this.Merphee (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not "widely reported" in any possible sense of the word. Talking about "incriminating posts" is not including what any source said about them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Facebook posts is simply trivia. And it's very easy for sensation seeking media to allege, because it's very difficult to disprove. Could you prove you didn't delete a Facebook post? (Note that Facebook tends to have no interest in cooperating on such matters.) Please go and read WP:BLP in depth. All of it. Another valuable policy is WP:10 year test. Please read it too. All of it. Then tell us what significance that piece of "news" will have in ten years time. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Major newspapers like SMH, The Australian and the Canberra Times have ethics and standards and editors. In 10 years time the fact that Husar's posts she deleted actually prompted the Australian Labor Party to establish a policy banning new candidates from using social media prior to elections will still be important as the impetus for this policy. This is why such respected newspapers chose to run this story. I have read WP:BLP and I cannot see where exactly it states that stories from major sources like the SMH, Canberra Times and the Australian are not to be used and regardless of it being embarrassing for Husar if these sources reported on it so should we. Us proving she did or didn't delete her posts is irrelevant and not our job. We just include what the reliable sources say.Merphee (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You have breached Wikipedia policy by reinstating that text. You are meant to achieve consensus here before you do that. I have every right to remove the whole lot. The fact that you are so keen to add that content against policy says a lot about your motivation. And don't plead ignorance. That won't wash. I've checked three of those sources. No mention of ALP policy changing. The fourth is The Australian, a paywalled Murdoch journal, so I cannot read it. Convince it says ALP policy changed because of Husar's actions. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Calm yourself down! The Australian was the source. It was also the first time this was added so I didn't reinstate anything. And therefore your accusation of policy breach is invalid. Your opposition to including what 3 major sources say says a lot about your motivation.Merphee (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

My motivation is the building of a quality encyclopaedia. It's a shame that a paywalled, Murdoch paper is your only source. Most readers won't pay to see it. And Murdoch is never a reliable source when it comes to the ALP. His papers lie. And I simply don't believe it was just Husar's actions that led to any change of ALP policy. Is there another source? HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow. A lot of subjective opinions there. The Australian is one of the country's most respected newspapers. Your assumption about Murdoch is concerning and irrelevant. I also deleted it, while we discussed this. I also never stated it was solely Husar's actions which led to the ban. Are you ok with saying her posts'contributed' toward the ban? Or are you just opposed outright to any negative inclusion against Labor MPs? And my motivation is the building of a quality encyclopaedia. That means not censoring stories covered in such major sources because they may or may not embarrass the individual.Merphee (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Any objective observer of Australia politics and media reporting knows not to believe negatives about the ALP from Murdoch media. That is not an extreme view. And paywalled sources are always a problem. Just find another one. If it really happened, that should be easy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you could copy the relevant text from The Australian here so others can see it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It says no such thing. It covers the existence of the policy and refers to a bunch of incidents of Labor people and social media with one-sentence references without remotely drawing the assertion that Husar's led to it. The source doesn't say that she contributed to it either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. That's why I suggested posting the text here. I had my doubts about interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

As for your comment "any objective observer of Australia politics and media knowing about The Australian newspaper bias against ALP" is definitely new to me. The Drovers wife have you ever heard that the Australian newspaper is biased against the ALP? There are many sources discussing tabloids like the dailymail.co.uk or the ABC bias, which you I remember were strenuously opposed to. Yet here you throw out wild accusations about The Australian newspaper. Have you got even one source that states The Australian newspaper is biased against the ALP? I have honestly never heard that anywhere or from anyone else but you. Even the PM cites bias against the ABC. As for The Australian newspaper story it included Husar as an example as to why the ALP banned social media. Husar was not the only reason. That's why she was mentioned in it. Obviously.Merphee (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Husar's inclusion in the article on the ALP banning social media was not random. She was included as an example of postings gone wrong. Are you both ok with wording to that effect? Or are you both opposed to including anything negative in ALP MP articles?Merphee (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. Let's not include the bit about ALP policy even though Husar deleting her embarrassing posts was clearly the reason she was included in the article.Merphee (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's trivia. Won't pass the ten year test. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Our article The Australian says it's conservative, and centre-right. It "is generally conservative in tone and heavily oriented toward business; it has a range of columnists of varying political persuasions but mostly to the right." And you'll like this one - "The Australian has often been criticised for being biased against recent Labor governments." Is that enough? HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"comfortable with a mainstream Labor prime minister Kevin Rudd, just as it was quite comfortable with John Howard" My impression of The Australian is that it is pretty balanced and thus its appeal to the masses. I'm sure it depends a lot on the editorial team of the day. Where does it say biased against recent labor governments?Merphee (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry just saw that unsourced POV comment. Might delete that statement in the article unless you could give me a reliable source. I'm amazed unsourced crap like that has remained.Merphee (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. It should have been sourced. But most people probably haven't bothered looking at that article because they are not so naive as you seem to be to think that it is balanced. It's simply not. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I restored a section that had several reliable sources. I had already removed after discussion, the trivial section on Husar's media conference and polling. I do not agree to The Drover's Wife removing the other well sourced section that is not trivia and complies with policy. Happy to discuss it with you further but please don't make unilateral decisions to remove large sections of the article.Merphee (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I fully endorse that content's removal. A look above shows that you are the only editor wanting it retained, and it was you who put it there in the first place. See WP:CONSENSUS. I recommend that you do not restore it. That would be obvious edit warring. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

There has been no sensible argument advanced for its inclusion, at least anything based in reliable sources. The bullying investigation, on the other hand, could reasonably end her career. What is the point of cluttering the article with pointless trivia? If you wanted something negative in the article, it's certainly there now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Get off the personal attacks The Drover's Wife. I'm sick of it from both of you. It has nothing to do with wanting something negative in the article. We gpo with what the sources say. I removed the trivia section but was not enough. You only want positive information in this article for some reason which is against policy. It is very much time for us to have some help with this article and dispute resolution. We are in the middle of discussing this and you went ahead and removed it with the 3 sources attached and when I tried to restore the original parts of the article HiLo came in and again deleted it. It is very well sourced and should remain. I also was not the one who added it in the first place. I reverted it and it should then remain and we discuss any such deletions which is still ongoing. Therefore it is very disrespectful to make this significant change while we are discussing it. Can't you both see that. We clearly need to get some independent opinions on this. Could you please restore the section HiLo at least while we are discussing it and trying to reach a resolution?Merphee (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In my eyes "ongoing" is not a description of a discussion where there has been no activity for almost two weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. This is absurd. It is not well-sourced and it is not relevant, nor is removing it a "significant change". There is no attempt at "resolution" happening here either - just an absolute insistence on including absolute trivia in the article without any real attempt to justify it beyond talk-page claims that could not be supported in reliable sources and seem to have been abandoned. It is obvious that the editors removing this don't "only want positive information" in the article, considering that far more negative, not-trivia information has been added and we're the same editors trying to prune trivia on conservatives as well. You're the editor who added poorly-sourced drivel to a WP:BLP without consensus, you've received zero support in trying to keep it in the article, and it's time to give it up. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you numerous times The Drovers Wife to show civility, knock off the personal attacks and only discuss content. I am offended by your attack saying "You're the editor who added poorly-sourced drivel to a..." There has been no effort to try and compromise whereas I can clearly show the ways I have compromised while trying to reach a civil resolution to our dispute. I ask you again to please restore the sections with their reliable sources included at least while we are trying to discuss this on the talk page.Merphee (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a case at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Emma_Husar Please comment there. i only want to reach a civil resolution but do not believe it was justified to go ahead and delete these very well sourced sections. Based on the talk page discussions this issue was obviously still ongoing, regardless of when last comments were made. I hope that you both can stop with the personal attacks and focus on content please.Merphee (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Merphee: If you wanted us to think you like David Leyonhjelm and dislike Emma Husar, you've done a good job at showing us that. If I could give some friendly advice, it would be that your edits on something like the bullying investigation into Husar would be constructive (and not removed) if they strictly were about the important facts and weren't designed to be as emotional as possible. WP:NPOV is critical. It's not others' responsibility to correct your work to fit an encyclopaedic format. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you drop the personal comments and focus on content. My edit summarised the 6 sources used. It was neutral and just gave the brief outline. "In July 2018, it was reported that Husar was under investigation since March due to allegations of workplace bullying, intimidation, harassment and verbal abuse. At least 20 staff have left over the 2 years she has been in the position. Staff claim Husar "treated each of them like a slave, forcing them to wash dishes and clean up after her dog" She has been under formal investigation over the claims since March 2018."Merphee (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It was not neutral. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. Finally some actual comments on proposed content rather than attacking me personally. Now, how exactly and what part was not neutral, in your subjective opinion?Merphee (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Funny you accuse us of attacking you personally when just now you edited my signature in my last comment to make my user page a red link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emma_Husar&curid=51022745&diff=851422763&oldid=851422572&diffmode=source). I'm not sure how to assume good faith on that one, pointlessly disruptive. Your contribution focused negatively on Husar, not neutrally on the investigation. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how that happened I can assure you. Will see if it happens again with this post. Why the hell would I possibly do that on purpose.Merphee (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Text not representing what all of the major sources are saying

This edit "In July 2018, it was reported that Husar was under investigation since March due to allegations of bullying and misconduct in the workplace." does not in any way represent what the major sources are saying about this event and doesn't do the article any justice or inform readers. It needs to reflect what the sources say based on Wikipedia policy.Merphee (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

What language would you suggest concerning this ca 3-days-old-thing, in line with WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS, and possibly Wikipedia:Citation overkill? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing content. It's rare I've found. Ok, I've now trimmed it to 4 sources. I would suggest including text that actually reflects what those 4 sources are saying. All or most of them talk of bullying, intimidation, verbal abuse harassment and even slavery of staff, but you put "misconduct" which is puzzling as to why you don't reflect what the sources actually say. Most talk of 20 staff members leaving in 2 years. Most talk of her being investigated since March. So a few sentences would suffice covering these main points as I did but was reverted by HiLo. What do you think? I'm open to collaboration but the current text simply doesn't cut what the sources actually say.Merphee (talk) 08:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

So to directly address your question regarding content I suggest this "In July 2018, it was reported that Husar was under investigation since March due to allegations of workplace bullying, intimidation, harassment and verbal abuse. At least 20 staff have left over the 2 years she has been in the position. Staff claim Husar "treated each of them like a slave, forcing them to wash dishes and clean up after her dog" She has been under formal investigation over the claims since March 2018." Please respond to my content suggestion.Merphee (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person (BLP). Please read what that link says. All we have is allegations. There is no need to detail more of them. If she is found guilty, we can then write precisely what she is found guilty of, but right now it would be overkill to simply list more of these unproven allegations. HiLo48 (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That, especially since it's so new. "Misconduct" is in the original Buzzfeed article, and covers stuff without going into currently unnecessary detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah read it twice thanks HiLo. If we are going to include "bullying" why not intimidation, harassment, and verbal abuse as well. Are they less important? No. So what is the difference between each form of abuse? None. And we need to reflect what most of the major reliable sources are saying. Any good reasons not to include intimidation, harassment, and verbal abuse alongside bullying? Geez I'm really trying to adopt a good faith approach here but this is ridiculous.Merphee (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The reason is that none of it is proven, and we don't saturate a BLP with unproven allegations. As I said above, if she is found guilty of something, we can then write precisely what she is found guilty of. And that could all of that list, but right now we don't say it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is forcing you to continue editing or to engage in discussion. The claims against Husar most often have been simply characterised as claims of bullying, even if news sources go into further detail. We are not a newspaper, we are an encyclopaedia. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No they have been characterised as the separate allegations they are. Workplace bullying, intimidation, verbal abuse and harassment. And they are just allegations or complaints and that is made perfectly clear. However the reality is that 20 staff members made these complaints already and left her office. Reality. There's no 'wait and see' necessary here. Nothing will change. The complaints have been made. That's what we are reporting here based on the reliable sources. So you are entirely missing my point HiLo. If you include bullying you are not doing justice to the other serious allegations that have been spoken about in most of the major reliable sources. That is undue weight given to bullying and misleading for readers which is not what Wikipedia stands for.Merphee (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Part of the point of WP:BLP is that listing a manifesto of unproven allegations is actually worse than misleading. It's potentially libellous. The owners of this site don't like being sued. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

And you Onetwothreeip saying "The claims against Husar most often have been simply characterised as claims of bullying" is untrue. Most of the sources have included the other types of complaints equally if not more serious as bullying.Merphee (talk) 10:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As in to summarise the claims, they call them bullying. They go into more detail but we're obviously not going to put an entire newspaper article in this Wikipedia article. We are not a newspaper. We are not a newspaper. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh HiLo you're funny. Wikipedia isn't going to be sued for reporting what all of the major media sources are reporting, don't worry. Was that actually a joke and your attempt at humour. And we don't just include what the header of a news story says onetwothreeip. You know that don't you. You don't do it on the David Leyonhjelm article so why just put what it says in a news story heading in this article without summarising what the actual source says. Verbal abuse, intimidation and harassment are all separate offences and should be mentioned.Merphee (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay mate, you're wasting your own time at this point. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok matey, you're not being forced to participate in content discussion. If you don't respond to my well reasoned points because you have no reply that's fine with me I will get some independent opinions.Merphee (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

You're up to about seven "independent opinions" at this stage and not one person has supported your edits on any of your target articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about 'independent' editors. Anyway I've decided to drop it and focus on other articles as this Labor far left wing politician's article is too well guarded to make any proper edits based on policy and reliable sources. And as you say the consensus is don't put what was on national tv nightly news on all stations including the ABC and SBS because it looks bad for her.Merphee (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Again I restored workplace bullying not general bullying and there is no such thing as workplace misconduct. Can onetwothreeip or others please comment here if you want to discuss your preferred wording of workplace misconduct.Merphee (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not allowed to repeatedly restore your edits when the consensus is against it. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we don't write things as a newspaper would, this is an encyclopaedia and it's very inclusive that this is even mentioned on this article at all. Persisting with this is disruptive editing and you can be sanctioned for it. I have repeatedly asked you what you think should be included, and you have constantly ignored that question, as I imagine you will ignore it again. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

There was consensu for workplace bullying and misconduct. Please stop trying to induce an edit war. I haven't ignored anything on this article talk page. You put in workplace misconduct. There is no such thing. You also included bullying when all the sources talk about workplace bullying. Have you any comments on content? Can you please show me evidence on this article talk page, where as you believe "I have repeatedly asked you what you think should be included, and you have constantly ignored that question, as I imagine you will ignore it again"? You avoiding discussion over content can be viewed as disruptive editing for which you may be blocked. I welcome your constructive input regarding content and also your statement you just made regarding me ignoring your requests for me to respond on this article talk page.Merphee (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS! Your constant claims that there was will never help your argument. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It is this sentence "In July 2018, it was reported that Husar was under investigation since March due to staff complaints of workplace bullying and misconduct" that yoiu are talking about. I personally wanted other text from the reliable sources but compromised two days ago and also accepted consensus. Can you please provide your comments on why you think we should included bullying not workplace bullying? I would like to get this resolved.Merphee (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's already been resolved, you just don't like how it's been resolved. That doesn't make it unresolved. There is certainly no need for an internal link to the pages for workplace bullying, just like there was no need when you linked Sarah Hanson-Young to the articles for sexism and misandry on the article of David Leyonhjelm. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, is there even some difference to "workplace bullying and misconduct" than "workplace misconduct and bullying" that I'm unaware of? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The sources use "workplace bullying and misconduct", and the emphasis on the euphemism of "misconduct" makes the sentence sound a bit strange. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and I'm fine with no link to workplace bullying as well. Let's just move on now.Merphee (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't really see why "misconduct" has to be kept there either. That's what Buzzfeed says but ABC News says "bullying and misconduct" while News.com.au puts it as "bullying and abuse" but it's not as clear for a main description. Doesn't really seem to be worth much fuss either way. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh please just drop it now onetwothreeip.Merphee (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with onetwothreeip. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

What the hell are you actually agreeing with HiLo? The Drover's Wife's last edit was good and settled this. Everyone has compromised but you wanting to continuing this ridiculous crap. Please drop it. It is becoming very disruptive.Merphee (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop antagonising people? Surely you must see the irony in telling everyone else to stop. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Focus on Content, not the Contributor. And just edit something else. Your constant focus on me rather than content is a personal attack. I just don't see the point in carrying this on. It is disruptive.Merphee (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what everyone is asking you to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes Merphee, I am going get blunt here. Your behaviour has been hypocritical. That is not a personal attack. It's an accurate descriptor. You have made many negative comments about several other experienced editors over the past few weeks, alleging that their comments are based on political loyalties, among other things. Yet when logic finally wins out, you tell others to focus on content. Please stick to discussing that alone yourself. HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again you both refuse to answer my direct question relating to content? Any response? HiLo48 please be civil or you may be blocked again for personal attacks like you've been in the past.Merphee (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The article now is in better condition than it has been for a while. The section on workplace bullying is fine, although it and the section before have too many sources for my liking. Quite unnecessary. I recommend you put your efforts into trying to find a source for the section with the "citation needed" flag. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Taxpayer-funded limousine travel

It has been reported today in reliable sources that Husar has questions to answer over taxpayer-funded limousine travel. Any reasons not to put this into the article, given we have put her taking leave into the article? Merphee (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Questions to answer" is a difficult area for us to write about. I note the article says "Fairfax Media does not assert Ms Husar broke the rules." This is not in Bronwyn Bishop territory yet. What would you suggest we write in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

"Husar claimed thousands of dollars in taxpayer-funded limousine travel around her home city despite leasing her own taxpayer-funded car"Merphee (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't indicate she did anything wrong, does it? So what's the point of adding it? Remember, "Fairfax Media does not assert Ms Husar broke the rules." HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't determine if she's done anything wrong. We just report what the reliable sources say.Merphee (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

To specifically answer your question. The Sydney Morning Herald article certainly does indicate she did something wrong. Read it.Merphee (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See "Fairfax Media does not assert Ms Husar broke the rules." Given that, and WP:BLP, there is no way Wikipedia can say she did. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hilo48 is right, and it's hardly a difficult problem. A politician using money on certain vehicles isn't noteworthy itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Leave

HiLo48, I'll let you write it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

And you did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey where did developing consensus go? What is written now is ridiculous. Where is the section about her rorting the taxpayers reported by the Sydney Morning Herald and other major sources? Merphee (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

How do one rort a taxpayer? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know read the article. Also how is your edit about her taking leave compliant with WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTNEWS? Sticking to discussing content would be helpful rather than sarcastic attempts at humour. Merphee (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I need clarification. Are you saying the article shouldn't mention she is currently not doing her job as a parliamentarian? HiLo48 (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, when I wrote this [1], I thought it a reasonable update since the investigation now had had an effect, reported by a good source. BTW, someone might want to slap a "current event" template on this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry HiLo48 once again The Drover's Wife applied good judgement by removing the sentence which was way out of proportion. Funny though how you were ok leaving it there. But anyway, whatever.Merphee (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

So, if I understand you correctly, you think my sentence was out of proportion and HiLo48's sentence was way out of proportion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry Merphee, but I have no idea what you're talking about. The heading of this section is "Leave". What is your contribution to improving the part of the article about Husar taking leave? HiLo48 (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

As I just said The Drover's Wife removed the out of proportion sentence which was poorly placed. [2]Merphee (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

See the diff now HiLo48 and Gråbergs Gråa Sång? Good. It was way out of proportion as I said in my original comment, but don't worry it's been removed now.Merphee (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not an answer. I'm not sure what you're contributing here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

In than instance keeping crap edits out of Wikipedia articles by pointing out policy.Merphee (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to back at attacking other editors. I want to understand what your concern is about the content of the article? have you seen the most recent edit? HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Old news HiLo. Move on and focus on content.Merphee (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No manners there. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to get you off my back HiLo48. You are harassing me and belittling me constantly ands I notice you do with a lot of editors on here. You kept posting on my talk page when I'd asked you 3 times to stop and even after an administrator asked you stop.Merphee (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nothing I have written in this thread is harassment. All I have been doing was asking you for your contributions to improving the article. You have responded with deflections and insults. I have not been back to your talk page since you last asked me to stop. You are lying. Now, what is your contribution to improving the part of the article about Husar taking leave? HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Merphee: If you feel constantly harassed and belittled, why are you still here? I'm getting tired, as I'm sure others are, of these frequent accusations. If you believe we are behaving improperly, take it up with the administrators. We all know how you feel, there is no need to tell us anymore. We don't need any more insistence to "focus on content" from you either. Your views have been made clear. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Politicians, I want to be one, you can lie, steal, cheat and use other people's money to go on holiday quote

Given recent events do you think we could put this section back in the article. It seems relevant and newsworthy now?and is well sourced. In 2016 it was also widely reported that Husar deleted a series of embarrassing Facebook posts dating back to 2010 including a photo of her hugging a giant condom. Among these incriminating posts Husar stated "politicians, I want to be one, you can lie, steal, cheat and use other people's money to go on holidays – the best job in the world". Can we get some independent editor's thoughts on this.Merphee (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to be attacked by editors like onetwothreeip and HiLo48 simply for asking this genuine question either. Please keep it civil if anyone does disagree and focus on the content.Merphee (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

All of the reasons it was censored from the article in the past now don't seem to be relevant and it would certainly pass the 10 year test that Hilo48 used to keep it from the article.Merphee (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't remotely widely reported, and the fact that it hasn't crossed a journalist's mind since Husar became the subject of actual scandal makes clear that it hasn't even passed the two year test, let alone a ten year one. I've thought people have been a bit hard on some of your edits about the actual scandal, but your continued attempts to rehash absolute rubbish like this makes editors question your judgment and is clearly spurring multiple editors to take a fairly hardline stance on ensuring BLP compliance regarding your edits. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair comment. And yes, your observations of my edits bouncing and being blocked is correct. I do think that her past comments like this quote that were reported in reliable sources at the time will also be printed again in coming days but ok.Merphee (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee - what you are doing here is a classic example of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:SPECULATION. She said something once, then years later did something else, and you are saying there's a connection, even predicting a journalist will write that there is something. So, based on no actual story at all, you want something put in the article. No. Sorry. There is no story being reported, so nothing goes in the article. Oh, and congratulations on attacking me and another editor in a thread to which we haven't even contributed. And you wonder why we take a hard line here. Do think, please. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I recommend a dignified silence against pretty much anything further that Merphee says. I'm not going to give them any more opportunity to be disruptive. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

If you didn't read it. I accepted The Drover's Wife's reasoning for not including the quote. No need for further comment on this one but refrain from discussion if you like but don't go reverting my recent well sourced policy compliant addition to the article without discussion on talk. You can't have it both ways you two. You are just editors here like everyone else.Merphee (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Could be an option. I'll consider it next time I see something from him. HiLo48 (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Added the limousine allegations by former staff supported by reliable sources. "It has also been alleged by former staff that Husar used the taxpayer-funded limousine service inappropriately." This limousine story is being covered more and more by major reliable sources as we all know. No reason at all not to include it.Merphee (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Was going to add a few more major reliable sources stating the limousine allegations made by former staff but that might be citation overkill so refrained.Merphee (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Added the high quality SBS source further supporting this widely reported further allegation by staff that Husar inappropriately used her limo.Merphee (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Not one other person on Wikipedia has agreed with this content being added, yet overnight you made a unilateral decision to do so. That kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable. What on earth were you thinking? HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you please provide solid reasons based on policy why you reverted this edit with the 3 sources. Please stop the sarcastic belittling attacks too.Merphee (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have posted this on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard because I think this has become personal with you and onetwothreeip and my edits are being reverted for no good reasons. If I have been wrong I have admitted it quickly and moved on. I've tried to compromise. I haven't edit warred and I have tried to refrain from attacking you back in the face of constant sarcasm and belittling from you. When I ask to focus on content and explain why the reverts have been made you refuse to answer and instead just continue to belittle me aggressively using uppercase letters no letters to intimidate me. HiLo48. I'm not here to be constantly belittled by you HiLo48. I would be interested if you could please explain why the edit was reverted and without belittling me please HiLo48.Merphee (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the limousine/Comcar issue warrants mentioning in the article in some form, as it is now being mentioned in most coverage of Husar's problems. We need to be very careful not to suggest it was against the rules when this hasn't been determined - but there's more than enough sources labelling it it an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds regardless to warrant some mention in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks The Drover's Wife. I agree with your point to be careful and tried to word the edit accordingly. Even though as you say many sources are now covering it I was also very careful selecting 3 high quality reliable sources. I also noted that the story has now been covered sufficiently to include it.Merphee (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you think this wording would be ok or should we edit it a bit? "It has also been alleged by former staff that Husar used the taxpayer funded limousine service inappropriately"Merphee (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No media outlet is using that phrase, and the outlets reporting the story are being extremely careful about their language (as should we). I'm not sure how to refer to it succinctly here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I used this source mainly. It seems to be getting as much coverage as the bullying now. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/turnbull-government-ministers-call-for-emma-husar-s-head-as-they-rally-for-workers-welfare-20180725-p4ztjy.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feedMerphee (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your use of the word "now" is telling. See WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not supposed to be part of the instantaneous 24 hour news cycle. Just slow down. We don't have to reflect everything that is in the news today. It WILL be different tomorrow. HiLo48 (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the attitude of some editors here is getting a bit out of hand. This mess concerning Husar is indisputably the most prominent thing that has happened in her political career, as was correctly documented in a similar situation with David Leyonhjelm. WP:NOTNEWS has never meant that we intentionally refuse to update articles on subjects when notable things happen, and reactions to Merphee's behaviour are getting to the point where they are also negatively affecting the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please User:HiLo48 just stop the assumptions of bad faith, the sarcasm, the aggression, the constant belittling, the lack of civility and just focus on content. The limo allegations should be included as they are receiving almost as much coverage as her bullying allegations. It's obviously just the wording we need to get right. Would you care to suggest some wording?Merphee (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You have now written bullshit about me Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in the very first post of your latest WP:FORUMSHOPPING attempt. Where is the good faith in that? The comments about me certainly weren't a focus on content. Your behaviour is completely hypocritical. It is impossible to have a mature, honest, informed conversation with you. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you two knock it off? You're both insulting the other and it really is getting to the point where it is detrimentally affecting the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As my edit history shows today I have not reacted even when HiLo48 told me to FUCK OFF. I think they should be reported. Should any editor be told to fuck off The Drover's Wife?Merphee (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to write nothing about [User:Merphee|Merphee]], if he promises to write nothing about me. My most recent comments were entirely in response to lies about me in a brand new thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I don't appreciate being lied about. So, I agree. Let's stick to content and policy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I certainly didn't lie User:HiLo48 and you provided no diffs to show otherwise. No editor should have to be abused and attacked as ferociously as you do to other editors on Wikipedia especially telling them to fuck off. You have already been blocked for a month in the past for personal attacks and I certainly see why.Merphee (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at my own edits I must admit I have only focused on this article the last couple of days and I think that I should focus attention elsewhere. I guess that could be said for the Australian media and government too as the whole country is focused on these allegations right now. However I won't make a frenzied attempt to cover that up now by making superficial edits to other articles to make it appear otherwise. It is what it is.

Whether I report User:HiLo48 for telling me to "fuck off" or not and include diffs to support it - the limousine allegations are being reported as widely now as her bullying allegations. You have supported including them The Drover's Wife. If we don't include the limo we shouldn't obviously include the bullying either as they are both allegations. What do you think The Drover;'s Wife? I am fine with how we word it. I just want to achieve consensus over the wording.Merphee (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The entire country is buzzing with the Emma Husar story including ministers and opposition leader. As far as I can tell it is the limo and her alleged misuse of her entitlements as well as the workplace bullying allegations that the reliable sources are mostly talking about.Merphee (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Merphee - This is not a personal attack, but personal advice. Don't write multiple posts in a row in the one thread. It makes conversation quite difficult. The normal thing is for editors to reply immediately after a comment, but what you did just there makes that a bit hard. Anyway, I am not opposed to adding something about the limo allegations. I got cross with you doing so without consensus, but it can be done WITH consensus. I would actually like to include something like the Fairfax wording - "Fairfax Media does not assert Ms Husar broke the rules." But happy to discuss. And another tip - don't say "The entire country is buzzing..." It's not. People keen on politics might be paying attention, but many are not. As you keep saying, stick to the what the sources say. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

All of the TV channels, radio stations and newspapers are covering this story - as you know. I would call that "buzzing" If you want to put that in the article go ahead.Merphee (talk) 04:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The Drover's Wife do you agree with HiLo48's wording of "Fairfax Media does not assert Ms Husar broke the rules?" I'm looking at 10 other reliable sources which don't say that. How do editors interpret policy in this instance?Merphee (talk) 04:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't do those kinds of disclaimers. We should be careful that we don't imply that she did - but that kind of statement isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Wonder why HiLo48 said that statement from a news story a few days ago should be in the article. That doesn't sound neutral either. Anyway so as far as I can see, we should state that implicitly. Given we have already said "In July 2018, it was reported that Husar had been the subject of an internal investigation since March regarding staff complaints of workplace bullying and misconduct" could we just add "and limousine entitlements" It is also an allegation by her ex staff. What do you think?Merphee (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, FFS, it's SOoooo frustrating discussing things with you. I NEVER AT ANY POINT said THAT statement should be included in the article. I DID say "something like" and "happy to discuss". Why did you turn it around into a discussion about me? Weren't we going to stop doing that? How the bloody hell do you expect me to stick to content when you keep talking (and lying) about me? I'm still happy to discuss wording. HiLo48 (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

i am trying to resolve a content issue. You did say and I quote you exactly here - "I would actually like to include something like the Fairfax wording - "Fairfax Media does not assert Ms Husar broke the rules." Once again no lying. Please just stick to content discussion.Merphee (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "something like", which is different from what you said before. And this matters when one is discussing content. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Back to content again. And bearing in mind you were first against including the limo and entitlements allegations but at least you've changed your mind now and agreed it should be put in. Both The Drover's Wife and I agreed that your 'suggestion' would not be appropriate. Then I made a suggestion to both you and The Drover's Wife and you ignored it completely. Again. So I will repeat my suggestion again. Seeing we have already said "In July 2018, it was reported that Husar had been the subject of an internal investigation since March regarding staff complaints of workplace bullying and misconduct" So could we just add "and limousine entitlements"Merphee (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What's the source for the limousine allegation going back to March? In the source you said you mainly relied upon it says "former staff have also alleged" not a time frame. And for that matter: Mr Shorten reiterated he had no knowledge of the complaints against Ms Husar until Wednesday last week. "To the best of my knowledge, I'm certainly of the view that complaints of this nature were not made any earlier than I was aware of," he said. —DIYeditor (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Here are 3 sources relating to the travel allwances allegations made by ex staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merphee (talk • contribs) 07:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's not what —DIYeditor asked for. Merphee - You seem to be trying to combine two different, independent investigations in one sentence. That won't work. Give it a little more time, is my suggestion. Wait for others. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Merphee: Indeed I feel like you are talking right past me. The first link is the one I quoted, the second is behind some kind of paywall, and the third says the same thing (next to nothing) as the first. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

This is why I recommended a dignified silence with the particular user I mentioned before, I don't want to be accused of making personal attacks, and I don't see any constructive results from engaging with them either. I will be reading their comments, and everybody else's though. Making edits on contentious issues if there is no consensus against them is fine, but consensus has to be reached if that edit is reverted or disputed. This is basic Wikipedia procedure, this shouldn't have to be said. I really don't think the car issue is warranted in this article, at least yet. There is no comparison with what's going on with David Leyonhjelm. If this develops into something more, as in some action is taken by or against Husar, that would warrant being included in an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. The bullying investigation is somewhat tenuous too, but since there is a party investigation that itself is notable enough. There is certainly no rush, and Wikipedia is certainly not a newspaper. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and also WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Any "buzz" regarding the car issue seems to have cooled down, and the sources themselves are pretty shy about it. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried the dignified silence, and he started a thread elsewhere abusing me. HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You are both missing the point HiLo48 and onetwothreeip that very experienced editor the Drover's Wife felt the limo accusations should be included? Any comment on content and how we word it then. Other than that I don't want to discuss anything other than content as you tell editors to FUCK OFF like you did today HiLo. Merphee (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Do you think you're funny or something telling new editors to FUCK OFF...what would happen if I told you to go and FUCK YOURSELF HiLo48! just as you told me to FUCK OFF! How do you fucking like it when an editor tells you to go ansd FUCK YOUR SELF...! Doesn't REALLY HELP THINGS NOW DOES IT.Merphee (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

i strongly suggest you keep your FUCK offs to your personal world and keep civil on Wikipedia. You are just another editor. nothing more than that and telling other editors to FUCK OFF just leads to heated exchanges where the other editor replicates your FUCK OFF BACK TO YOU!!Merphee (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What I don't find funny is your complete lack of respect for Wikipedia policies when they don't suit you, and for politely presented advice from experienced editors when you don't like that advice, your blatant political POV pushing, your forum shopping, your hypocrisy, your obsession with one article/person, and lying about what I have said and done. I'm glad the swearing finally got your attention. I would be delighted to see the whole sequence of behaviour go to a higher court. You may well learn about WP:BOOMERANG. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The only POV pusher is YOU HiLo48. You're as biased as they come. I am gonna give it back as hard as I get from you now! I would provide 1000 occasions to counter any claim of abuse you make. I suggest you and I are banned from communicating. Especially given we are telling each other to FUCK OFF and making accusations at each other on a Wikipedia article talk page. Very disruptive indeed. Let it go and just move on like I'm going to do.Merphee (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I had settled on not engaging with you at this Talk page, and was happy with that. Then you began a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with lies and insults about me. My choice to swear at you was deliberate. It had a purpose. Why did you choose to take the fight to yet another forum, and lie about and abuse me, after your insistence on discussing content? And at THAT forum, where content is king? HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to again try to say no more about you here, if you will return the favour. But I cannot ignore lies abut me. HiLo48 (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just as my FUCK OFF back to you is deliberate. The point is our high conflict is disrupting the article. It is very clear I didn't lie about anything. And as for the proposed edit here you're conveniently forgetting it was The Drover's Wife who disagreed with you and thought we should include the 'alleged' entitlement rorting. Our interactions are toxic. But i note you have other editor interaction bans on you already so obviously the problem doesn't lie with me know does it. You've got plenty of form creating conflict with aggression, sarcasm, belittling, and telling people who disagree with you to FUCK OFF like you did today and FIRST. So again and in reply to your FUCK OFF I again say FUCK OFF! This is what happens when you show no respect whatsoever for Wikipedia:Civility and go on about why Wikipedia doesn't want you hear and you accusing all of the administrators of being corrupt and all the other crap you've posted on your User:HiLo48 page and badly done by you are by the big bad administrators like you go on about.Merphee (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You weren't told to fuck off by HiLo48, that's really pushing it. You were told to "fuck off" with your constant trolling about "content", as if you're the one talking about content and nobody else is. This is fairly common vernacular, we're all Australians here. You've made it known that you're upset by this remark, there's no need to continue. If you start talking about content, you'll start to get somewhere (telling people "focus on content" is not focusing on content). Now you've gone and just directly told someone to fuck off in an article talk page, not making any point, just being upset at them. You really could not be any more disruptive than you're being right now. Focus on content! Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Here you are such experienced editors having a bitch fight with me on a Wikipedia talk page when I've tried to disengage and ignore you both. You should both know better. Move on now I suggest. This is very disruptive. Please just focus on CONTENT FFS! It's not hard! And leave the poor old talk page of a Wikipedia article alone. We are shaming our country by going on about this. It's not right. Why am I the only one who is trying to show respect for Wikipedia here.Merphee (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please just focus on content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Dignified ignoring of you, but please, please in future focus on content and show some respect for wikipedia policies. Now I see why  Wikipedia:Civility is such a core policy and why editors shouldn't tell other editors to fuck off in the middle of a discussion and if they do any administrator that sees it should have reported it themselves and dealt with it 'before' it goes any further and causes such disruption. There is no reason at all. None. That justifies telling another editor to fuck off. Now let it go. And move on. Please.Merphee (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Please just focus on content. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You're funny. You said you were going to ignore me. Seriously though. It really is time to move on. now.Merphee (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

How many times can this guy repeat nonsense about "fuck off" (in CAPS no less)? Seriously kicking a dead horse. Not even going to read all that. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how many times. How many did you count. However I would never ever ever have told another editor to fuck off on Wikipedia when we were discussing a content issue and spit the dummy like they did. However if you are told to fuck off like HiLo48 did and thought was a right old laugh I decided to give it back to make a point. Kind of like self defence. Point made? Hope so. End of story as far as I'm concerned. Consensus is to wait, regarding the rorting allegations in this article which is fine with me. Can we just move on now. Geez. So much drama. It's like a school yard in here.Merphee (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The absolute gall you have to lecture anybody about focusing on content over drama. I think this page is pretty much done for now as far as substantive edits go. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

So do I. Now everyone should just fuck off and go back to editing other articles. Move on peoples.Merphee (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Pretty cool though how we can get away with telling other editors to fuck off isn't it. Unbelievable actually, but you experienced editors know best and given you had no problems with HiLo48 doing it first then I have no problems using such foul language too. Drama over. Please just move on now and back to fucking content. Seriously. Geez.Merphee (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Did you just respond to yourself that you should focus on content? Wow, okay. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't you care that this talk page is being disrupted by this childish bullshit.I'm going to ignore you from now on.Merphee (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Investigation

"Investigation" is a broad term. Would it be doable to add some precision? I don't know if there's any specific term to use. "“We have got a procedure in place,” he told reporters in Tasmania on Tuesday. “The complaints were made to the New South Wales Labor party. “They’re investigating it, and until that investigation has concluded I’m not going to add any more.”" [3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that there is no such thing as the New South Wales Labor Party. There is only the New South Wales division of the Australian Labor Party. I think something like "internal investigation" makes it clear enough for the reader. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

So do I. Now everyone should just fuck off and go back to editing other articles. Move on peoples.Merphee (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And yet you stuck around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

"I really don't see the point in those changes"

HiLo48, per [4]

• I don't see why you want that dot after "4.1%"
• I don't think "conducted by barrister John Whelan" adds anything since he has no article.
• "already" is probably subjective. Seemed unnecessary to me.
• "on 8 August" As long as the chronology is right, exact date is often too much detail, IMO.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that you failed to write Edit summaries for any of your changes. That means nobody could tell what your goal was in making them. Please use Edit summaries in future. I still feel the earlier wording is more to my liking on most areas. You are right about the dot. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. I usually don't when it's something I consider "minor", but eye of the beholder and all that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Per my Edit count I use ES 93.1% of the time, but I think it counts m as an ES. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis?

User:Sampajanna you made this edit, "This implies why she was not part of the 2017 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis." I removed this edit. This is not what the sources say. How is this justified?Merphee (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SampajannaYou also made this edit. "Media reports of visiting her divorce lawyer indicate that she has previously been married" Again this is not what the source actually says. How is this not SYNTH?Merphee (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with this, be careful about WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Also, Sampajanna, please just use the customary WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Merphee : Suffice to say, a holistic approach to the entire article has and should be consistently taken when writing and editing. Thank you. Sampajanna (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what that is supposed to mean Sampajanna, but we just need to strictly stick to what the sources actually say and word the article in line with Wikipedia:Biographies of living personsMerphee (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Merphee: Noted accordingly. Sampajanna (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Defamation

I do not think we need a separate section on Husar's threat to sue for defamation do we. She said it under parliamentary privilege as a reaction to being dumped from the ALP. Very likely she won't follow through to the end of a full defamation case and then what for this section. How about we wait and see eh. Can whoever put this in justify it please? Interestingly and a side note, the story about her staff coming out and saying they are being defamed is not rating a mention.  https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-not-a-few-bad-apples-emma-husar-s-staff-break-their-silence-20181202-p50jpp.htmlMerphee (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I merged it to the Investigation section, sources seem ok to me, and there's more of them:[5]. Not sure we should name Alice Workman though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: Reporter's name removed as suggested. Sampajanna (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Btw, this article could use a "2016 federal election" or similar section, something in the body that tells us she got elected. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: Between assuming office in July 2016 and July 2018, Husar was virtually an unknown backbencher. The investigation into staff complaints brought her into media and public attention. There probably isn't a great need for a separate '2016 federal election' section. Nevertheless, I have inserted one sentence including the 2016 election at the start of the 'Endorsement' section. Sampajanna (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I BOLDly moved stuff around. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

On birthplace, I know nothing about Australian geography, but the cite says Penrith. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: Kingswood, New South Wales is a suburb in the local government area of the City of Penrith. Sampajanna (talk)Sampajanna (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good, but it's not in the cite, so there's no reason to have it in the article. WP:BLP is important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: See User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång comments @ 12:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC). Matter now resolved. Sampajanna (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If Husar doesn't follow through with her defamation case what then?Merphee (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess we won't write anything else about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: The outcome of court proceedings is not known at this stage. The first mention in court is scheduled for 21 December 2018. SampajannaSampajanna (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Can someone tell me what "first mention in court" means? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: to User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång : You have mentioned at 15:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC) that you know nothing about Australian geography and it seems that you are not based in Australia, so that may explain why you cannot simply do a Google, Wikipedia or other search of Australian locations or legal terms. As for "first mention in court": in the Husar v BuzzFeed context, the first time that someone goes to court is called a 'mention'. You may care to follow these two links for further details. Sampajanna (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the legal. Google search is not enough. If you want this article to say Husar was born in Kingswood, add a cite that says Husar was born in Kingswood. There no reason to ignore that practice here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: to User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång : The edit was being done while you were responding. If memory serves me correct, there was previously two conflicting birthplace locations (Kingswood and Penrith) duly cited on Husar's page. The matter appears now to be resolved. Sampajanna (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sampajanna, what are you doing? None of the sources you added states that Husar was born at Nepean Hospital. IMO it's not even interesting, but why are you adding this stuff that's not in the cites? Why is Kingswood so important you have to have it without a cite? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

And no, Kingswood is still uncited. Find a good cite that says Husar was born in Kingswood or leave it out. And again, WP:INDENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, Nepean Hospital is cited. And located in... Good enough, I guess. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

SAMPAJANNA REPLY: Apology noted and accepted. Sampajanna (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Three weeks later

Sampajanna, about [6]. Keep "Three weeks later" if you like, but " in an interview on the ABC's 7.30" has no value in the article. It matters that we can RS cite it, not where she said it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Again, I do acknowledge and appreciate that you are not based in Australia. The significance of mentioning the TV interview is that no suggestion of slut-shaming was made at the time (3 weeks earlier) Husar advised the ALP that she would not re-contest her marginal seat. Labor accepted her decision. Separately, Husar's defamation case (re slut-shaming, etc) against the media is listed for first mention in court on 21 December, just over one week from now. Why not wait until then before editing further as parliament has gone into recess until 12 February 2019, and a federal election will quite possibly be called soon after. For now, the next step is for Husar to decide / confirm if she is going to contest as an independent or otherwise, seeing as she has already been replaced as a Labor candidate. Sampajanna (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see the use of where she said it in this article. We'll see if there's more opinions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: This is becoming far too time-consuming. I have now deleted the words three days later. In a spirit of friendly cooperation, let's just move on. Sampajanna (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently you misunderstand me. In "Three weeks later in an interview on the ABC's 7.30, Husar said "slut shaming" led to her decision to resign.[19]" the part I (most) object to is "in an interview on the ABC's 7.30,". That part I see as quite unnecessary. "Three weeks later" I can live with, though as I see it chronology is implied by the sequence of words. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: As a matter of courtesy, your opening query was addressed promptly and courteously to fill you in on the big picture downunder (same as I have previously done). What is or isn't apparent to you personally is purely subjective. My own time zone in Australia is 9 hours ahead of yours (if you are in Sweden), and it is getting onto 1.30am. I have previously looked at the range of topics that you normally edit (e.g. mythology and fiction). The connection with or interest in a beleaguered potentially one-term Australian backbencher politician is anybody's guess. Recently, you apologised for something that you kept wanting to (falsely) argue about. What exactly is your agenda (if any)? Sampajanna (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, what you mean by "falsely argue" is unclear to me, but it's probably not important. My agenda is to slightly improve this WP-article, from my own subjective view of course. It's been on my watchlist since July and I'm a little interested in what happens to it.You and I currently disagree on a particular sentence, it's no huge thing and the article will survive whatever we do/don't agree on. Like I said, other editors may have an opinion, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Expenses breaches, worth including?

I think I read about this at the time, and it is reasonably sourced. IMO though, this $2300-thing [7] is pretty WP:UNDUE. Also, there's no need to mention in-text who reported it, the cite is enough. 19:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Twenty-one breaches of travel expenses is quite a significant number regardless of the $ amount. Also, the source does not state when she actually repaid the monies. It was just reported in March 2019. Sampajanna (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We'll see if other editors have an opinion. I'm a little ambivalent, so I didn't remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Incidentally, it would seem that Husar will very soon become a 'historical' figure for Wikipedia purposes. On her Twitter page, her blurb says "Former Member of Parliament | Private Citizen | Own Views" Sampajanna (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

We'll see, maybe she'll get a job at Buzzfeed. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)