Talk:Andrew Laming/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Removal of media speculation
Whilst the investigation was ongoing and the speculation was current, the information included was all relevant. Now that the CDPP has concluded that the investigation lead to no possible conviction, the media speculation is no longer relevant. A simple mention of the investigation as has been present since early 2008 is a sufficient reference to the event. Recommend Undo Alans1977 edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Heavily cited, supporting keep. Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just because it's cited doesn't mean there's a good reason to keep it. It's not a current investigation, the speculation was proven to be false and Laming's name was cleared. A cynic might suggest that contributors with a declared political interest might want to inflict ongoing damage to this individual's reputation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article states he was cleared. Consensus here will form whether or not it stays or goes, not arbitrary decisions by you or the new user that as their first edit decided to again remove the contribution added by Alan1977. Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is old news! the investigation is over and was shown to be such tripe that it didn't even make it to court. The media speculation should be removed. I'd suggest your intention to keep discussion of this speculation going is an attempt to damage Laming's reputation further - support remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.119.1 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anonymous IP, I am defending the removal of someone else's good faith contributions without any talkpage discussion. Get off your pedestal. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seemed comfortable enough with the edits when you made contributions on the 15th and 20th of Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and what have my contributions got to do with Alans? Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The good faith edits which you are now defending so heavily had already been removed before you started contributing to this article. You seemed to be okay with those edits then but you've taken umbrance with them now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now is the first time I noticed it. Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Media speculation should be removed. Obvious intention is to further damage Laming's reputation. Unsubstantiated speculation and defematory remarks made under parliamentary privilege about an investigation that was thrown out before it even reached court should not constitute the bulk of the article. --Beo2 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find it fascinating that this is the first contribution you decide to make as a "new user" (note the " used). You are assuming Alan's intention, why do you assume he wants to damage Laming rather than inform people? Everything added is heavily cited so nothing is added that isn't in the public domain, if you find something that hasn't been referenced then mention it. But otherwise, there is no wikipedia policy you can bring out to show that it should not be there.Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Surely the principle of "do no harm" applies in this case. Perhaps, we should call it "do no further harm." While the investigation was ongoing, all of this information was indeed relevant so I didn't touch it. No that it has passed us by and Laming hasn't even been asked to defend this nonsense in a court, it surely does him further harm to maintain such speculation on this Wiki entry. I further note that you're outnumbered 3-2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find it fascinating that this is the first contribution you decide to make as a "new user" (note the " used). You are assuming Alan's intention, why do you assume he wants to damage Laming rather than inform people? Everything added is heavily cited so nothing is added that isn't in the public domain, if you find something that hasn't been referenced then mention it. But otherwise, there is no wikipedia policy you can bring out to show that it should not be there.Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Media speculation should be removed. Obvious intention is to further damage Laming's reputation. Unsubstantiated speculation and defematory remarks made under parliamentary privilege about an investigation that was thrown out before it even reached court should not constitute the bulk of the article. --Beo2 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Now is the first time I noticed it. Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The good faith edits which you are now defending so heavily had already been removed before you started contributing to this article. You seemed to be okay with those edits then but you've taken umbrance with them now??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and what have my contributions got to do with Alans? Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- You seemed comfortable enough with the edits when you made contributions on the 15th and 20th of Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anonymous IP, I am defending the removal of someone else's good faith contributions without any talkpage discussion. Get off your pedestal. Timeshift (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is old news! the investigation is over and was shown to be such tripe that it didn't even make it to court. The media speculation should be removed. I'd suggest your intention to keep discussion of this speculation going is an attempt to damage Laming's reputation further - support remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.119.1 (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article states he was cleared. Consensus here will form whether or not it stays or goes, not arbitrary decisions by you or the new user that as their first edit decided to again remove the contribution added by Alan1977. Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The section of concern is both notable and heavily cited. As per my declared political leanings, they have nothing to do with my editing. Everyone has political leanings of some degree and description, whether declared or otherwise. If anything someone who declares their leanings is leaving themselves more open to scrutiny and thus less likely to make a POV edit. As per Laming being cleared, he was not. The DPP did not have enough evidence to proceed (a very big difference to him being cleared). Alans1977 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- So essentially, your arguement is that because the Federal Police couldn't collect any evidence to charge the man, he should be condemned to suffer ongoing discussion and suspiscion at the hands of Wikipedians with declared political bias against the him. No way, that's against Wikipedia's "do no harm" policy - it looks like you've entered into an edit war Alan. Recommend remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.105.254 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's your (incorrect) interpretation of it. It's all cited from news articles and nothing is said that is not true. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Timeshift and Alan here. He was not found not guilty in a court (the DPP dropped the charges on the basis of "no reasonable prospect of conviction", which is not an exoneration). Should be noted Sir Joh was also not found guilty after the Fitzgerald Inquiry and in that case too a trial was aborted - while I'm not arguing we should do this because of that, it does raise an interesting argument. The Phil Koperberg article is another case in point (and far worse in shape than this one, too.) Also, it would no doubt have been a factor in the huge swing against him in 2007, just as the "spouse" debacle affected Trish Draper in Makin in 2004. It's an unfortunate political reality that a situation of this nature in an MP's first term does shape the coverage of him, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a promotions agency - it's intellectually dishonest to deny such allegations were made and such raids took place and such investigations were undertaken, especially since it occurred in the full glare of the media. The tone of the page could do with a little work, and the cites are horrendously formatted (I might fix that in a sec actually) but there's nothing inappropriate here. BTW to both the IP and Timeshift, "outnumbered" is meaningless on Wikipedia - it's not a democracy and works on consensus in line with policy. Agreed with Alan too re political leanings, I think only
twothree members of WikiProject Australian Politics have no declared leaning, and it all about cancels out somewhere in the centre. Orderinchaos 08:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)- I've carefully rewritten the section from sources, being clear to scope the wider story and background circumstances so that readers can view the matter in context. It took a while! Should be noted with relation to IP's edit summary that there is no "Do no harm" policy, it's a statement of intent. Biography of living persons, which is policy, states: "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully." This has without a doubt been done per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV (I hope my edits remove any doubt about the latter of those three). Orderinchaos 09:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Timeshift and Alan here. He was not found not guilty in a court (the DPP dropped the charges on the basis of "no reasonable prospect of conviction", which is not an exoneration). Should be noted Sir Joh was also not found guilty after the Fitzgerald Inquiry and in that case too a trial was aborted - while I'm not arguing we should do this because of that, it does raise an interesting argument. The Phil Koperberg article is another case in point (and far worse in shape than this one, too.) Also, it would no doubt have been a factor in the huge swing against him in 2007, just as the "spouse" debacle affected Trish Draper in Makin in 2004. It's an unfortunate political reality that a situation of this nature in an MP's first term does shape the coverage of him, and this is an encyclopaedia, not a promotions agency - it's intellectually dishonest to deny such allegations were made and such raids took place and such investigations were undertaken, especially since it occurred in the full glare of the media. The tone of the page could do with a little work, and the cites are horrendously formatted (I might fix that in a sec actually) but there's nothing inappropriate here. BTW to both the IP and Timeshift, "outnumbered" is meaningless on Wikipedia - it's not a democracy and works on consensus in line with policy. Agreed with Alan too re political leanings, I think only
- No, that's your (incorrect) interpretation of it. It's all cited from news articles and nothing is said that is not true. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- So essentially, your arguement is that because the Federal Police couldn't collect any evidence to charge the man, he should be condemned to suffer ongoing discussion and suspiscion at the hands of Wikipedians with declared political bias against the him. No way, that's against Wikipedia's "do no harm" policy - it looks like you've entered into an edit war Alan. Recommend remove —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.105.254 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The section of concern is both notable and heavily cited. As per my declared political leanings, they have nothing to do with my editing. Everyone has political leanings of some degree and description, whether declared or otherwise. If anything someone who declares their leanings is leaving themselves more open to scrutiny and thus less likely to make a POV edit. As per Laming being cleared, he was not. The DPP did not have enough evidence to proceed (a very big difference to him being cleared). Alans1977 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- As an observer of this debate (and an AustPolitics WP member with no declared political leaning, for what that's worth), I agree with Timeshift9 and Orderinchaos that the material is verified, relevant to a biography of Laming and a potential factor in the 2007 election result. Orderinchaos' rewrite also provides an even tone, outlining both sides of the story and clarifying the sources for the casual reader. If there is a problem here, it is the usual one with political figures - undue weight to a controversy compared to their political agenda and role in shaping policies. This is inevitable given the importance of reliable sources - most media focuses on scandal not policy, so controversies appear to play a bigger role in political careers than they do in reality. The solution to this is not to expunge references to the printing controversy but to expand the remainder of the article to ensure the context is preserved. Euryalus (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications. I would also note to the IP address contributors that Orderinchaos is not just a wikipedia user, he's a wikipedia admin. Timeshift (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I simply cannot understand how details of Santoro's resignation are relevant to this article? The matters were totally unrelated... Just because it's sourced doesn't make it relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Further, I question why you selectively refer to the Santoro staffer when the article clearly mentions two possible former staffers who were speculated to have sparked the investigation. You have also ignored the supporting statement in the article which indicated that the Santoro staffer and Laming were still on friendly terms and it was unlikely that he had sparked the investigation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Santoro was named in several sources, although it generally was not attributed to Santoro himself but to his perceived faction (note that the section deals with what was reported, not trying to claim facts on the ground.) The fact that he resigned 9 days later over a hitherto-unknown situation is indeed relevant - if it had been 9 weeks later, one would have grounds to question the relevance. It's not selective by any stretch. There was many articles I chose not to include simply for relevance reasons which indicated quite clearly that there had been a faction war between Santoro and Laming for quite some time, going as far back as 2005. Orderinchaos 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- You clearly have no idea what you're talking about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is in fact the only article that mentions the Santoro staffer whilst there were numerous articles mentioning the McArdle staffer. Why ignore the McArdle staffer? Why focus on Santoro? It's ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Search Preview
- Free Text mcardle and laming
- Date 01/03/2007 to 01/06/2007
- Source All Sources
- Regions All
- No results.
- Thanks for the clarifications. I would also note to the IP address contributors that Orderinchaos is not just a wikipedia user, he's a wikipedia admin. Timeshift (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Search Preview
- Free Text mcardle and laming
- Date 01/06/2007 to 01/01/2008
- Source All Sources
- Regions All
- 1 result (excluding 9 which were related to horseracing and referenced Mrs J Laming and trainer John McArdle)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That result was: Courier Mail - "Oh heavens, 07's over" by Melanie Christensen.
- "March 5: Police raid the electoral offices of three Liberal MPs -- Gary Hardgrave, Ross Vasta and Andrew Laming -- over claims of alleged misuse of electoral funding. The three proclaim their innocence and are eventually cleared."
- "December 6: Mark McArdle emerges as the compromise candidate for the state Liberal parliamentary leadership after an embarrassing standoff between the party's eight MPs. The farcical affair includes a cameo appearance, complete with political commentary, by Monty Python's Eric Idle."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Numerous? Come on, there isn't even multiple (similar searches on Vasta/Hardgrave with McArdle turned up nought), and the only article in the entire Australian press which mentions both of them in the same place doesn't even link them. Orderinchaos 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article referenced by Orderinchaos (which is not available online other than via subscription to Newstext) mentions the MCArdle staffer. I think you'll also find McArdle's staffer mentioned in this article - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21338832-601,00.html
- Numerous? Come on, there isn't even multiple (similar searches on Vasta/Hardgrave with McArdle turned up nought), and the only article in the entire Australian press which mentions both of them in the same place doesn't even link them. Orderinchaos 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
It's so disappointing to see this charade of "reporting the facts" and "avoiding censorship" turned into a continued effort to damage reputations. There isn't a single article available online which describes the link between Santoro's staffer and Laming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.94.140.114 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
