Talk:Margo Kingston
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
Margo Kingston 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Openly "left-of-center"? Wouldn't "openly left wing" be a lot more accurate?
I find the statement that she is "generally respected by all sides of politics for her political journalism" very hard to believe. Can we find some authority for that statement?
More importantly: shouldn't "she writes Webdiary" be "she founded, edits, manages and writes for Webdiary" or something like that? I don't think the current text gives her enough credit.
A personal note: IMHO Off the Rails is by far the most useful book about Pauline Hanson. Thoroughly recommended.
- Chris Chittleborough 09:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a parellel thought - some aspects of Australian 'larrikin' journalism seem to me to have parellels in Hunter S. Thompson's gonzo journalism. Any takers?? Mercurius 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by fairfax staff
While checking edits by 203.26.177.2 , I noticed this edit in 2005 removing a claim about a breach of contract by Fairfax. Andjam 06:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Banning of Webdiary contributors
The evidence offered to support the claim that Kingston banned contributors to Webdiary for questioning her editorial guidelines is poor. The soures states that 'Phil' was banned for abusive emails and 'Craig' was banned for identity theft. Though both questioned the policy, the reason they were banned was clearly the abuse and identity theft, respectively.
---
The citation provided is not poor. It does not prove what Dylan Kissane aka Kisdm001 claims it does. For example, the citation states that 'Craig' was banned on 14 September because Margo Kingston was "too busy" to answer his requests for review of the decision to ban 'Phil'. It also makes it very clear that 'Craig' was banned by Margo Kingston a "few days" before he is alleged by the Managing Director of Webdiary Pty Ltd to have "created a number of other identities". No material to support those allegations by the Managing Director of Webdiary Pty Ltd has ever been provided or cited, therefore they are unsubstantiated allegations. The entry for which the citation was provided clearly does reflect the facts correctly. It is Dylan Kissane's ability to comprehend a simple chronology that would seem to be very poor indeed. Parsons&White 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
---
Fari enough. I still read it differently but you seem to have your heart set on including it so why start an edit war, I say. Perhaps if the 'allegations' are substantiated we can think about whether the artcile needs changing again. Kisdm001 10.10am, 6 October 2007 (CET)
---
Yes it is fair enough Dylan, and it is nothing to do with having a 'heart set on' anything. This is Wikipedia, so it's about being factual and recording the history accurately in a way that is in line with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. No more; no less. You are correct to point out that if the allegations by Webdiary's Managing Director are proven then by logic the entry should be updated to reflect that. Parsons&White 07:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Update: Subsequent to agreeing not to start an edit war, Dylan Kissane [1] (aka Kisdm001) tried to add detail on unsubstantantiated and possibly defamatory allegations. His motive for doing so must be questioned. Dylan Kissane is on the record having said: "Guys: did I miss a meeting? I thought the whole Zionist control of Webdiary was going to be next week." [2] Parsons&White 08:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
---
It's not an edit war. I just outlined the allegations you wrote about being very careful not to name either of the banned persons (as you were also careful to do in the article). This made the article more precise and, keeping your earlier point in mind, being that the allegations remain unsubstantiated, there was no need to mention the names of the people.
I suggest we leave this section of the article alone as is until either (a) some response is made by the WD team to support the claims or (b) evidence emerges elsewhere that disputes/supports the claims. Thoughts? Kisdm001 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
--- Thoughts? The first one to mind is that leaving this section of the article alone until condition (a) or (b) occurs is what was being done until you felt the need to add detail on the unsubstantiated allegations. Parsons&White 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Then it's agreed - great! :) Kisdm001 10:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole thing as the wording was so vauge as to be meaningless and this seems to have been a storm in a teacup - I don't think that arguments on internet forums really need to be memorialised for all time in Wikipedia. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] See Also
What is the reason for the See Also: link for Miranda Devine? --Russell E (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems pointless to me, too. Deleted. 86.67.51.134 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
