Talk:Mike Kelly (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
Flag
Portal
 Mike Kelly (politician) 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments


Can't find biographical information, though thought a page was needed considering the importance of the marginal seat Col Kelly is contesting in the Aus 2007 election. Bio info would be appreciated, thanks Alec.N 12:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

After my original article was pulled because of allegedly too much POV and 'synthesis', I have re-written it and intend to post, unless complainants identify SPECIFIC concerns of bias with this material Peter phelps (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft rewrite removed - it's in the history if needed. Moondyne 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Discussion

Discussion moved from WP:AWNB. Moondyne 13:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone give the Mike Kelly (politician) article a thorough going over? It's a pretty spectacular POV mess at the moment. Rebecca (talk) 08:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits by User:Peter phelps, as they were added rather recently, loaded with POV and didn't really add much to the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
I wonder if it might be worth getting that account renamed. The person behind it is either incredibly stupid (if it is who it claims to be), or someone engaging in not-particularly-subtle dirty tricks. Rebecca (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What was this pulled? Everything in the entry was appropriately referenced - much better referenced than the usual Wiki fare? What examples are there of POV - I'll get rid of them? Since when are the policy contradictions inherent in a politician's position not up for mention? "and didn't really add much to the article." - this is farcical, given that ther MAINSTREAM MEDIA found these matter sufficiently worthy of mention. Peter Phelps
It was written more like a response to a uni essay titled "Discuss..." rather than an encyclopaedic article in accordance with Wikipedia's norms and standards. None of the events elaborated in minutesque detail actually add to any understanding of the person or his notability, and if you read Wikipedia's policies, I independently came to the same conclusion as the person who removed the content and decided Wikipedia should basically start again from scratch with this one, and am quite happy to support that decision. I strongly suggest reading WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 08:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So if I detail these matters it becomes "minutesque". And presumably if I'd been briefer, you would have pulled it and accused me of leaving out contextual detail. OK - I'l have a look at it and rewrite it. But I suspect that whatever I do, you're not going to allow any critical facts on a Labor politician thru, are you? As for your suggestion "we're not actually here to raise the 'policy contradictions inherent in a politician's position' - that's the job of blogosphere and opinion pages", I suggest you re-read the Trent Lott, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond Wiki biographies. I also note that the 'excuse' has changed - it was POV, now it is 'synthesis'. Can't win can I? Peter Phelps
How about this? Any POV or Synthesis here?

{{hidden|1=Article text for Mike Kelly proposed version, moved "under the fold" to reduce clutter.|2= Colonel Dr Michael Joseph "Mike" Kelly, AM (born 23 February 1960), is a former Australian Army lawyer turned federal politician.

In my view, both the version you added and the one you now propose are clearly slanted, biased, and intended primarily to attack Kelly over his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. It also attaches undue weight to that argument - while a mention of Kelly's sometimes controversial views on the subject is definitely warranted, an entire essay containing speculative sentences like "perhaps he will rely on his usual excuse: "I was only following orders"." does not belong on Wikipedia. Your new proposed version is marginally better, but is still fundamentally flawed because it is written in such a way to be a criticism of Kelly, rather than as a neutral encyclopædia article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
Are you sure you read the revised version? The quotation that you cite as objectionable was actually removed from the Revised version! Moreover, you are absolutely wrong to assume that this article is "intended primarily to attack Kelly over his views on the Israel-Palestine conflict". My personal views are absolutely consonant with Kelly's in this regard. But the simple fact is that he has significantly intervened on a number of public policy matters, so much so that they drew media comment at the time. If significant matters relating to an individual's past policy positions - especially for a politician - are not suitable for Wiki, then what is? How he trims his moustache? So I again ask you to either provide SPECIFIC examples of a lack of neutrality in the Revised version or permit it through. If it is just your "view" that the article implies criticism of Kelly - rather than demonstrable passages in the article itself - then is the entire Wiki project to be held in abeyance, subject to suitable feelings on your part? I reiterate - EACH AND EVERY POINT IS APPROPRIATELY FOOTNOTED, at a standard which would be acceptable for university level. You you also note that I do not hide behind Pseudonyms or Pen Names - I have sufficient confidence in the accuracy of my work so as to use my own name. Peter phelps (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, if the political views and actions of a politician (both before he enters and once in Parliament) are not appropriate for mention in a politician's Wiki biography, why do these appear in the entry on Kevin Rudd? Peter phelps (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


Firstly, your edit actually removed the main text of your proposed revision, which I kept so that others can have a look at it because I may be wrong. Restoring is hard due to the nature of the edit, and I'm not sure that you meant to do it, so I'll just point out it can be reached at this diff (at the bottom).
I thought that I was supposed to remove this because SatuSuro told me to get it off this page. Peter phelps (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, as I noted above, the new version is better than what you originally added to the article, however I still do not think that it is neutral enough. Particularly where an article is a biography of a living person, there is a legal and moral duty to make sure that everything is absolutely perfect. I believe that your draft, while improved, still has some way to go. If you wish to look at what we consider to be a "good article" biography on an Australian political figure, take a look at Wilfrid Kent Hughes, Andrew Fisher or Thomas Playford IV.
I was a professional historian before I became a staffer. Show me, with specific examples, where I am "not neutral enough" in my recitation of the facts. Everything I have included has been the subject of a great deal of research, reaching back almost a year. Show me where I have misled or distorted (especially given the extensive use of Kelly's own words) and I will rewrite or withdraw. But I am not a mind-reader. Peter phelps (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thirdly, if you are indeed Dr Peter Phelps, advisor to Gary Nairn, the man who Kelly defeated at the recent election, and a person who made some very controversial remarks along these lines in the media, do you not think that there are conflict of interest questions raised?
I was a professional historian before I became a political staffer - am I supposed to put my brain on hold because I have some involvement in the matter? But this is the crux: If you have a SPECIFIC objection to any particular phrase or sentance, then point it out, but please don't ask me to guess what you object to. That is quite unreasonable on your part. Is it possible to post the article in parts somewhere and let's have a genuine debate about the accuracy or otherwise of my FULLY REFERENCED article? And while we're on the subject, why don't you guys do anything about the abysmal referencing on the Gary Nairn page? Peter phelps (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"a person who made some very controversial remarks along these lines in the media" So I can be mentioned on a Wikipedia page (see Gary Nairn), including quotations, but Kelly and his statements cannot? Consistency of standards between articles, please? Peter phelps (talk) 11:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, it is abysmal and needs fixing. I've removed one large section with nothing to do with the former member (which also makes insinuations about him) and removed three large quotes from the article which, given the sources were linked, were not necessary to be republished on Wikipedia. Also, I do suggest reading WP:COI - amusingly, I'd had a picture in my head of the other Peter Phelps (a la Stingers) although assumed it was highly unlikely to be the same person. We've had issues previously with staffers (both Labor and Liberal) editing articles about their boss's opponents in times past and most of them ended up indefinitely blocked from editing because they couldn't separate their strongly-held views or motives from the need to edit encyclopaedically and neutrally which exists here - clearly that's a situation we'd like to avoid as no doubt your expertise could be utilised in a productive way to assist our project. Orderinchaos 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Lastly, there are formatting and referencing issues with the article, but they are just minor quibbles and I'll be happy to assist you in correcting these if you wish. (note, these are my views only and I will be happy to yield if a consensus develops against the above statements) Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC).
If extensive support for Israel is not allowed to be mentioned, then why is it so allowed on Michael Danby's Wiki biography? Peter phelps (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Very simple. We don't know what Mike Kelly's attitudes are on this subject beyond a few scattered comments which may or may not have been his own opinion. I've worked in senior customer service positions where I was in effect an official advocate for my organisation and many things I could likely be quoted on would have been opinions I did not personally share and certainly would not act upon post-employment. Michael Danby has made extensive comment - indeed, it may be the main reason for his notability - on the subject, and indeed occupies a nearly unique position within Australian politics. If Mike Kelly were to do the same now that he is in politics, then of course it would attract attention in reliable sources, and then do so here. Until then, I'm seeing very little reason to add stuff to the article which is not central to his notability, which may violate WP:BLP, and is at the behest of someone who, if their claims to identity are correct (how do we know this isn't an effort to smear the real Peter Phelps?), has a past history of attempting to publicise these views elsewhere. Orderinchaos 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If public criticism of internation bodies, such as Kelly's criticism of the ICJ, is not allowed to be mentioned, then why has this been allowed on Wikipedia for John Bolton's critisicms of the UN? Peter phelps (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest reading our document on "Wikilawyering", and also "What about article x?". Orderinchaos 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)