Talk:Andrew Laming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Flag
Portal
 Andrew Laming is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
Archives

[edit] Santoro & McArdle Discussion

The only article which mentioned the Santoro staffer throughout the entire controversy also mentioned the McArdle staffer and mentioned McArdle by name. This article is not available online but has been used to reference the mention of Santoro in the Laming article. There is at least one further article which mentions the McArdle staffer by name but does not mention that she was working for McArdle, this article is available online. By not mentioning the possibility that the McArdle staffer could have been the "disgruntled staffer," this article leaves out some of the important speculation around the genesis of the investigation and in my opinion, unfairly targets Santoro and his staff without considering the other speculated sources of the complaint. Especially given that the McArdle staffer was mentioned in more than one article and the Santoro staffer was only mentioned in a single article which is not available online. I strongly recommend including the full details of the media speculation on the genesis of the investigation and who the "disgruntled staffer" could have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:BLP - the claims are original research and can be reverted by any editor, as you have not identified any source by which McArdle has been linked in the media to the business at hand. I have done a thorough search of the archives through Factiva and failed to find anything,[1] even though Factiva has all newspapers for the period in question (Courier Mail, Age, SMH, Australian, West and even local newspapers). It does not "unfairly target" anyone - our job here is simply to report what others have reported. People can then come to their own judgements based on what is presented. Orderinchaos 12:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The same article you used to reference the mention of Santoro mentions the McArdle staffer. It's there in the article.

I'd be happy to send you the article text which I have downloaded from Newstext. If you're genuine in your intention to cover all of the speculation on this issue then you should include this part. If it's good enough to reference one part of an article, it's good enough to reference the rest of the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You've used this article to reference the Santoro speculation - Strutt, Sam. "Why Andrew Laming is John Howard's problem child", The Courier-Mail, 10 March 2007, p. 55.

The same article talks about the McArdle staffer - why are you practicing these double standards? Don't delete content until the debate is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong on our biographies of living people. Page protected for one week. Unless you can provide a source that states a fact clearly, that fact cant be included on Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As an admin I'm among other things expected to ensure that Wikipedia does not get into legal problems because people wish to add non-peer-reviewed information to it. The article in question is a page 55 opinion piece which openly admits to speculation, and does not mention McArdle (I have the text here). It does mention the same-named person, however, and mentions an additional person (by name) who is, according to the article, a Santoro staffer. It also quotes other unnamed sources saying neither could be the one. My actual source however was the Canberra Times article, which stated: "Mr Howard denied any factional involvement in the case, despite state powerbroker and federal minister Santo Santoro having been linked to the matter." Orderinchaos 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If that's your source then you should remove reference to the other article and you should remove reference to the speculation that the Santoro staffer was the genesis of the investigation. As far as I'm aware, Strutt's piece was the only artcile throughout the affair which mentioned any speculation that a disgruntled staffer under the employ of Santoro was linked to the affair. Instead, if you really wanted to mention Santoro, you could just say he was linked to the matter. Plus, the article I have downloaded from Newstext definitely mentions the second staffer working for McArdle. I'd really like you to consider a reword here because I think it unfairly represents the Santoro staffer and doesn't cover the full range of media speculation (which is what this entire article does, it discusses speculation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I've included the text of the article I have downloaded from Newstext below (in part). Please note that I have removed the names of the staffers mentioned...

"There are also plenty of theories about just who blew the whistle on Laming. Party sources now claim the woman thought responsible, xxxx xxxxxxxx, a supposedly disgruntled ex-employee, had nothing to do with sparking the investigation. She's no relation to Jeff Williams, and was said to have sparked the raids after a complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission was passed on to the AFP. But xxxx xxxxxxxx, who is is about to take up a position on the staff of state Liberal deputy leader Mark McCardle, is ``not your smoking gun, said one source. ``It's just not her style. The finger was also pointed at former Laming staffer yyyyy yyyyyyy, who recently left his employment to take up a position in the office of factional chief Senator Santo Santoro, the ambitious federal Minister for Ageing. No way it was yyyyyyy, says another source. He and Laming are still on friendly terms."

Surely this warrants inclusion of the McArdle speculation or removal of any mention of the Santoro staffer. Instead, we could just mention that there was speculation that Santoro was linked to the affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. The text I have says "a senior Liberal figure". Even so, the above is clearly speculation by the authors of the article. If I saw it in an actual article (as in, not a page 55 opinion piece), I'd be more accommodating. BTW I have modified the wording to "person associated with", as a couple of the sources use such wording. Note the text only makes the assertion that such an allegation was made. Orderinchaos 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is that if these anonymous IPs care so much about what is and isn't on wikipedia, why don't they sign up? The only logical conclusion is that they have a conflict of interest... (and i'm not talking about simply supporting a party either...) Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of some discussion on that topic offline. Studying the evidence, I've concluded we're dealing with the debris of a Young Libs internal factional fight in the Brisbane/Gold Coast area, and it's not just at this article. (This reminds me of some of the early 2007 cases involving schools articles.) Orderinchaos 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the change made. I still don't understand how you've weighted the Santoro mention over the McArdle mention in the same article. Seems unfair. Seems like the link to Santoro's been targeted for reasons unknown while the same level of speculation over McArdle has been avoided. Almost as though you're trying to perpetuate rumours unfairly. I maintain that the speculation over a link to McArdle should be included if you are (as you seem) so intent on maintaining the speculation over a link to Santoro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.180.39 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I made the change because, on consideration, the source we should be using is the Canberra Times as they staked their editorial integrity on it and put it on page 5 as an actual article, whereas the other one is an opinion piece which disclaims editorial responsibility (although it meets the legal requirements necessary to be published, it's not entirely certain that WP:RS would consider it a reliable source without further backup). Interestingly, the new edition of Political Chronicle (part of a generally reliable academic peer-reviewed journal called the Australian Journal of Politics and History) suggests the raid was led by the estranged wife of someone called Paul Lucas. The plot thickens, it seems. Orderinchaos 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just looked him up, he appears to be a current Labor minister. Will definitely have to investigate further. Orderinchaos 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The edits just made to the article were sound (only had citation formatting issues which I've now fixed) - I also added the journal link. I hope this points to how this article is going to progress in future. Orderinchaos 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)