Talk:Peter Dutton

Lack of consultation.

There has been a number of reverts recently, and editors in particular who have been removing content sourced by mainstream media sources only to replace them with weaker sources from other news sources such as "The Guardian" among others. We need to realise that The Guardian is not part of the mainstream media in Australia and to use it in such a way that weakens the message of sources is nothing short of meat pupetry. We need to realise this is a Wikipedia article and we are not here to be part of the pulpit preaching to Peter Dutton's choir. We are here to navigate a short encyclopaedic article based on the truth of what is actually happening. I would ask all involved to divorce themselves of their political view. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:A461:DCB1:69FB:3FEE (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you are counting "mainstream", but it surely should include both print and digital publications. The Guardian has extensive Australian coverage, although available only digitally. Among digital news sources, it ranks 7 out of 10 by circulation according to the Nielsen survey. However, a publication's circulation and the quality of its general reporting are not necessarily connected. General reporting in Guardian Australia is of the Guardian's usual high standard. Among other newspapers known to me, the Sydney Daily Telegraph (News Corp, i.e. Murdoch) has a high print circulation but its general news reporting is often sensationalist. As to politics, in the recent Australian federal election almost every News Corp paper trumpeted support for the Coalition, the Sydney Daily Telegraph day after day on its front pages with blasts for the Liberals or against Labor and Greens. I will continue to cite Guardian Australia, as a high-quality news source. Wikiain (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

IP address, if you have specific instances, cite them. The Guardian is a highly respected news outlet and is regarded as WP:RS. I have just counted 16 Guardian citations out of 142, so hardly dominating the sources. You need to be specific if you wish to have a proper discussion about this article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite sure how its not counted as mainstream, its a leftist intelligentsia publication from the UK that until a few years ago had no relevance to the Australian media landscape. Should we wish to cite current and present media it should come from reputable sources that Are Australian as an example, Fairfax, the ABC, and SBS and Newscorp, followed by the other media outlets in Australia Seven, Nine and Ten. There has been a number of entries on this article that are complete and utter crap, meanwhile in the recent days, the statistics I added from significant polling (much larger than the usual Nielson and Ipsos polls) frittered away only because of a significant agenda bias one can assume. The ignorance of over 30,000 people's polling on the ground is almost laughable and there was no synth only a true and proper account to wiki encyclopaedic standard that does not plagarise the original text. That is the point of Wikipedia after all --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian "until a few years ago had no relevance to the Australian media landscape". Quite true, but I have shown that it has established itself in this landscape and you don't challenge the quality of its reporting—which is by Australian staff, including an editor who has several times won top-rank Australian awards for journalism. Quality is all that matters here. Wikiain (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

"That is the point of Wikipedia after all". What? To rudely accuse other editors and a journal of bias, and of writing utter crap? Please revert to a more polite tone in your posts here. Your current approach won't achieve anything constructive. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree with Wikian about the Guardian. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hilo, actually, what I said about the Guardian is correct. It has no noteworthy historical connection to the media landscape and certainly not the connection that Fairfax and to a lesser extent News Corp have in Australia. The newspaper of repute in Australia is split between two major print publishers and they are The Age and the Australian. The television news sources of repute in Australia are the national broadcasters ABC and SBS and thereafter. This coming from someone who has a degree in political science and international relations among other qualifications as well as an honours thesis in cultural studies. So I am quite confident in my own ability to make these statements.

As to the comments of "complete and utter crap." I made these statements based on the reality that a hard right agenda has been left to stand for far too long. I'm responsible for taking the White South African Farmers myth which is pure garbage to task for what it is. To be honest there is no theory in it at all and it shouldn't be on Wikipedia as its non-encyclopaedic garbage. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

As to synth changing the tense to suit the content is not synth at all when it maintains the context of the original source or you would be accusing just about every person who has ever written a non-fiction book of synthesis --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Just ease back a little in your language please. And pay attention to what other people actually say. You have not refuted what Wikian said about the Guardian, just repeated what you said the first time round. I get the impression you are arguing rather than discussing. As for The Australian, as a Murdoch publication, many see it as anything but a journal of repute. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Repeating what I said is the refute, The Age is the most reputed newspaper in Australia for academic sources. David Syme would be spinning in his grave for you to suggest otherwise. The Guardian moved into publishing in Australia give or take about 5 years ago. It is a leftist intelligentsia publication from the UK. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

JUST SLOW DOWN! And read what others actually write, carefully. I said absolutely nothing about The Age. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're getting into the old issue here of deciding which side of the fence you lean on. The two major broadsheets in Australia though for the longest time were The Age and The Australian. This historical fact stands by itself. Unfortunately unlike the United States due to the apparent lack of press freedom we do not have an academic journal of repute like the Grey Lady in Australia. Nor do we have a press organisation of such repute as Reuters or the BBC. Unfortunately as a result we have to take to task that we have two newspapers of general popularity and then we have the ABC and SBS. We can't really argue the point about The Australian a lot of people choose to go to it as their main source of credibility no matter what people think of Rupert Murdoch. This page is not about Rupert, its about a guy called Peter. Failing that... What I said... The Guardian has a history of being in Australia for 5 or 6 years and that's about it. It promotes a leftist non-neutral agenda... Unfortunately what people fail to do when they're doing media analysis is reading through the middle wherever it comes from. I have attempted to remove some of the bias here, but people keep coming back with their agenda mongering. So in all practicality, I give up --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 07:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian is very obviously a reliable source; as is pointed out above, it may be newish but has certainly established itself on the Australian media scene and it is definitely a top-five media source online. Perhaps it might be helpful, IP, if you listed some of the specific claims or articles you have an issue with; my reading of your original post seems to suggest you feel the Guardian is too sympathetic to Dutton, which surely can't be right ... Frickeg (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This is quite obviously a position where you have to defer to someone with more knowledge and capability than yourself, though this rarely happens on Wiki... Everyone here is an expert about something (apparently). I don't know how you get to the fact that The Guardian is too sympathetic to Peter Dutton especially when I have reiterated its a leftist intelligentsia tabloid. If anything on the basis of that, it's far too sympathetic to Labor and particularly The Greens. I'm not sure how you can use "Mumbrella" as a justification for your beliefs about anything. See this is what happens when you haven't been to school to do source analysis properly.

1) I have listed several issues, one of those is the continued revert of my edit in what is "claimed" to be synth where I have posted two separate citations and one that is simply a quote that has been changed from first to third person voice to suit the rest of the article. I have listed those sources to add neutrality to the point of view that GetUp should be taken to heal. This is entirely problematic on the basis of things... We have a bunch of right-wingers who want to label an advocacy group/think tank as an "activist" group while trying to also state a survey contingent upon the results of more than 30,000 people is irrelevant.

2) We have issues going on that far-right meat puppets keep trying to find ways to excuse far-right extremist views about white supremacy in this article. As I have reiterated countless times, there is no theory about White South African farmers. The Suidlaners myth has been discredited by every notable publication in the world, and perhaps the most credible news source in the world, the New York Times. to be honest it doesn't deserve to be here. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:2D69:667D:261B:5B73 (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. I suggest you give us a proposal of what you want to include and we'll see what we can do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

How's about you read this rather than assuming you know best and locking another person out of an article. You wonder why people develop a syndrome where they give up. Where common sense is replaced by people who think they are gatekeepers to all knowledge on Wikipedia you end up with this problem repeatedly. As this is going nowhere I am going to take the "whatever" approach and walk away. --2001:8003:641C:4B00:D52B:FCAF:64B5:7BFB (talk) 09:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's on WP:RS 20WattSphere (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Multiple sections on the same topic

This article has a few issues - coherence being the major one - but I'll start with one thing that jumps out. Why are there two separate sections on South African farmers? Is this intentional, are we trying to separate out his views from his actions somehow? Or did someone just not notice there was already a section in the article - any objection to combining? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi there @Ivar the Boneful - just noticed your comment and, yes, coherence is a massive problem on this article. Lots of items that deserve one or two sentences are 200 words. And, yes, two separate sections on South African farmers! Odd. Would happily support you in making relevant improvements. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Image

It is my view that the image used on the Wikipedia page of Peter Dutton is just not very appropriate. I highly recommend we use the image below as it is clearer and more appropriate compared to the current one.

File:Peter Dutton May 2018.jpg SymeonHellas (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)