Jump to content

Talk:Kim Carr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purging

[edit]

The previous material was contentious and poorly sourced, the current bio is from the ministers official website. Please do not revert to the previous bioFeadering (talk) 06:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We do not take the bio from the ministers official website or any official website of anyone for any subject matter. It is plagiarism. I have, however, removed uncited contentious information. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography, which applies equally to people close to the subject (say, staffers). The proper way to deal with problems with the article (and yes, there were some) is to raise it on the Talk page (i.e. here). Peter Ballard (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem however is the adversarial way the email is written. In this bit, it notes, and i'm quoting: If your entry is incorrect or contains inappropriate material you should immediately apply for semi-protection or full protection. This will restrict the ability of others to amend your entry. Timeshift (talk)

This Biography is still completely unreferenced. Statements such as 'Carr is a leading figure in the Victorian Labor Party's Socialist Left faction.' are simply asserted with no reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feadering (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:COI sometime. It is one thing to remove libellious incorrect statements, it is another alltogether to come on as a parliamentary MP/staffer and argue for the removal of something you know to be correct simply to censor the article. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a ref after about 1 minute's googling. There were several to choose from. But you were right to point it out. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, at least s/he is raising it on the Talk page now, which is the appropriate way to raise things if one has a COI but has issues with the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But considering their distaste for non-official references I wonder if they preferred not to have raised the issue now ;-) Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abc reference is three years old. Can a better reference be found? —Preceding unsigned comment added byFeadering (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Feadering (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I knew it. What's wrong with this ref? We all know the sentence is true, nobody can deny he is a leading member of the left faction. The cite backs it up. Being 3 years old has no bearing on it. What don't you like exactly? The fact the article isn't all positive and glossy? The fact the ref shows some negativity? Timeshift (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is this a weak reference, but it only indicates Kim Carr as a member of the socialist left three years ago. It cannot be used to support the statement 'Carr is a leading figure in the Victorian Labor Party's Socialist Left faction.'. As this is a biography of a living person i would suggest that unless this statement can be supported it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feadering (talk • contribs) 02:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: "The leader of Victoria's right faction, Senator Stephen Conroy, and the socialist left's Kim Carr accused each other of heinous crimes against the party." Are you prepared to go on the record to say that Carr is not a leading figure in the left faction? I dare you. Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found another cite explicitly calling him a leader. I resisted the temptation to use a later one, the one in which he was accused of being a "factional dalek". Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The leader of the Left, federal frontbencher Kim Carr"[1]. I'll say it just once more - I dare him to say on the record that it's untrue. Because at the moment it's not about making the article factual and removing any potential libel, it's all about censoring the article from facts they know to be true but want to take it out of the public domain as much as possible as it isn't electorally appealing. And that won't be tolerated. Timeshift (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My objection still stands. To substantiate the claim I would hope for a reference sometime since the change of government at least.Feadering (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See us not care. It's true, it's reliably referenced, and I still note you argue for it's removal but refuse to say right here that it's false. You're simply here to censor the article, but it won't work as there's no policy for you to stand on. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just some Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons. Neutral point of view (NPOV) Verifiability No original research We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.[2]

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.Feadering (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as i can see, the claims have been more than adequately referenced. Jmount (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Nothing has changed, Feadering is wrong, the status quo will remain. Feadering, read your talkpage warning. Your conflict of interest is going to get you in hot water, mark my words. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Canberra Times has some interesting stuff about recent contributions to Wikipedia by Parliamentary Library staff. See:

- Gimboid13 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo

[edit]

I have reposted the photo again and the license is supplied. Please if there are any more problems with the photo please post on discussion page first rather than deleting as every effort has been made to prove no copyright violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feadering (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it will continue to be removed. How do we know the license is for real? We do not. An acceptable licensing solution was already outlined below which you have ignored. Your images will continue to be deleted while you continue on your current licensing method. Timeshift (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current photo has been released from the Ministers office. It is for public use and is not a copyright infringement.Feadering (talk)

I see no license to that effect. Show us where the license is acceptable per wikipedia image standards, and there won't be an issue and i'll personally assist fixing it - because there's nothing i'd like more than to have all ministers, even MPs, with their official photos. This is an example of an acceptable license, note the source link indicating the license. Timeshift (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, to be brutally honest, I know the image is not exactly electorally appealing. But a free image is a free image. Timeshift (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easiest way is, if you know the Minister, to get a photo taken of him on a digital camera which can then specifically be released under the creative commons licence. (The photo of Andrew Laming on his page was done exactly that way, and a Wikipedia adminstrator helped him get it online.) Orderinchaos 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image looks high enough quality to be an original, but the license is blatently unacceptable. Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been deleted for the third time, and will continue to be deleted. I will again make it clear - the licensing you are using is unacceptable. Timeshift (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is now enough? It would be in any other case. Jmount (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the image has been released under creative commons at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Pages/creativecommonslicense.aspx it claims the image is a self-portrait? It doesn't appear to be so. Failing to give correct attribution to the photographer invalidates the claim of releasing it. It appears to be a copyright breach - who owns the copyright that it can be released? I have tagged at Commons as disputing the license.--Matilda talk 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issues at all with the image being on wikipedia now that we have this. Does it matter what they claim? It's an image of Kim Carr, on the ministers site, with a cc-by-2.5 license. Timeshift (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the image. There is no longer any issue with it. Timeshift (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the claim that the image is released under creative commons, the copyright is held by the Commonwealth of Australia and is not freely licensed. Uploader admits Commonwealth holds copyright here. The copyright relating to the image is explained here. The image is also used at http://www.pm.gov.au/team/cabinet.cfm where copyright again is held by the Commonwealth of Australia and explained quite clearly at http://www.pm.gov.au/copyright.cfm
--Matilda talk 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is an image of the minister, on the official ministerial page, explicitly released under cc-by-2.5. I continue to see no issue here. Timeshift (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page affected by parliamentary library email

[edit]

Per this story. Current user editting page is one of them. It is pity that the parliamentary library, in it's infinate wisdom *cough*, didn't also include the information at WP:COI. These MPs and staffers simply should not be editting pages related to them. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. However the article did suffer WP:BLP problems, so I have removed some unsourced material. They can of course be put back if sources can be found. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a razor to the article. Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a saying somewhere about that. The new version is much improved. Orderinchaos 08:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for the staffer's request for protection. Timeshift (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward...

[edit]

Ok, things have settled down, staffers have gotten over their parliamentary library email. At the time I took the razor to the article when this problem was becoming apparent, but as one news article noted, the branch stacking stuff had been removed. I'm just putting a diff out from before this started, until now, so changes since then can be reviewed, and added back correctly in a WP:V, WP:NPOV way, with citations, if someone believes something shouldn't have been removed. Timeshift (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Carr image source broken?

[edit]

I can't access the link, can anyone else? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Il Carr

[edit]

When a note of this commonly used nickname was included in this article, an editor stated it was "Trivial and wp:npov".

Plenty of other articles on politicians include such nicknames including those on prominent ones who have actually achieved something, eg the one on Baroness Thatcher includes:

  1. This provoked a storm of protest from the Labour party and the press, and led to the unflattering moniker "Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher".
  2. She was later nicknamed "Attila the Hen" as well.

This nickname for Carr might not suit some politically motivated editors but they do add some colour to the article, indicate that his opponents within and without the ALP to do not hold his views in high regard. Whatever the nickname is its inclusion does not breach wp:npov given that the wide use of the nickname is not an opinion but a documented fact. Silent Billy (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline just some meandering rationalisations from deletionists. So how about a proper argument rather than dredging up furphies in an attempt to "protect" an article about which you appear to have some proprietorial interest in? Noting the use of a nickname is merely an attempt to put material into the article that will give it a wider historical and social context rather than reading like a hand out given to the bruvvers at a pre-selection meeting. Silent Billy (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about a lack of WP:AGF. Because of your attitude, i'm gonna get nastier. You don't have WP:CONSENSUS for your changes, as such you cannot re-add it until you have consensus on this talk page. As you don't have it... i'm outta here! Enjoy your day. Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest that I have consensus. As for "Good Faith" coming from you that's rich seeing as on any article you have edited you argue the toss on the contributions of others that might not reflect anything other than a perfect light on the subject of your hero worship or where you feel that you have been one-upped. Have you forgotten the nasty way you bullied the editor who added the image of Nathan Rees with your carping comments until the poor fellow practically had to do handstands to get your grudging acceptance of the image? Silent Billy (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you build a bridge and get over yourself. Enjoy your day. Timeshift (talk) 04:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kim Carr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kim Carr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Carr&oldid=1211360210"