Jump to content

Talk:Mike Kelly (Australian politician)

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

Untitled

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

POV Discussion

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I suggest reading our document on "Wikilawyering", and also "What about article x?". Orderinchaos 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, he's got nothing better to do with his time. Just let him mess about then when he gets bored we can change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.223.39 (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually at the election meeting that was held across the road from the council chambers in Queanbeyan. I am actually a Labor voter as most people were that was there that night. Dr Phelbs questions to Kelly where quite reasonable at the time, the problem was that he would not answer the questions, he actually would answer other questions that night either. Also Dr Phelps was fairly badly treated by the media in canberra/queanbeyan which has a notorious Left wing bias, his words where quoted out of context.
I have just added a Criticisms section that should be fairly unbias. Seeing this discussion it will more than likley be deleted. just before you guys do that just spare a thought that there are some serious concerns about Kelly and he hold a very infuletial postion in the Gov so this should be mentioned in this article some how. It would be a shame to see wikipedia help to astro turf Mike Kelly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.118.142.21 (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your edit as several of the 'Criticisms' were spurious (no criticism was identified or it was a disagreement between public figures) and most were improperly referenced. Moreover, as is clear from the above post, it's clear that the post was added by an editor seeking to advance their personal views. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and bob Carr having a go at him is not "disagreement between public figures" you have to be kidding! and the referances looked fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.84.67 (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayonet

[edit]

I've removed:

In 2011, Mike Kelly caused controversy when he claimed to have used his rifle on operational service in every way possible, including "butt stroke and bayonet". He made the claim while defending his decision not to support a private members bill to bring defence pension indexation in line with other pensions was made public. [1]

At least one user wants to keep it, so it made sense to bring it here. My concern is that it seems like a remarkably minor incident, and I can't find any evidence that it was a significant statement. I checked NewsBank, and the only newspaper I can find there that covered the story was the Townsville Bulletin, and that only on the one occasion. Outside of NewsBank, the Northern Territory Courier gave a bit more detail, but nothing more. As far as I can tell, Kelly was responding privately to a suggestion that he had only seen service from behind a desk, by claiming to have used his rifle when moving a prisioner while on duty in Somalia. That seems to be pretty much it. It feels like undue weight and a bit of a beat-up, and the real issue, if there is one, is his decision not to support the change in the defence pension, rather than this claim. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this isn't even a storm in a teacup. It's not even the actual issue being discussed in the news article (which is Kelly's attitude towards a private members bill - the story itself is rather disingenuous in that it doesn't acknowledge that as a member of the ALP Kelly is expected to tow the party line so his personal views on the bill are largely irrelevant). Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Entry for discussion

[edit]

This is factual and pertinent.

Thompson Remarks Controversy

Kelly attracted controversy when, during an appearance on Sky Television, he made, what one commmentator regarded as "the most horrible slur I can recall in federal politics."[12] Kelly, speaking about the Coalition's pursuit of Thompson, and to the disbelief of his fellow panel-members, said "The relentless focus on this individual has one outcome in mind. What is that they actually want? Do they want to see a young mother by a graveside weeping, is that the outcome they are looking for? Because this is what they said they want to happen.”[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LowLarynx (talk • contribs) 04:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be factual, but that is not the sole criteria for inclusion. WP:NOTE is a big criteria. If this was noteable, then any Thomson comment by any of the federal 226 MPs would by rights be added to 226 articles. What precisely elevates Kelly's comment above other comments? Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that my revision summary of "rv - a single MP's page is not the place for the 'standard of Australian politics'. it is not WP:NOTE, and as your change away from the status quo is disputed, you must by wiki rules gain a WP:CON on talk in order to be able to re-add it" was beaten by Bilby's revision summary of "rv - sorry, but this needs to be discussed before including, especially with potential POV problems". It would also be wise to advise LowLarynx of WP:3RR. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage I'm not inclined to support including the text unless the statement makes a lot more impact. That Chris Kenny was upset isn't surprising in itself, and not enough to really justify including it as a controversy. However if it becomes a major issue then things would change. - Bilby (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the edit record, it would appear that Bilby has a POV interest in this subject. Hence, reverted. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does Bilby have an POV on the subject, a bit of good faith would be good? First I've heard of this, the sourced is a personal opinion blog and is only supported by the blog. I'm going to need to see more media coverage of this "controversy". Also I may have photographed Kelly but I have no POV on him, but I've done the same (photograph) to many pollies whether they are the party whom I support or not. Bidgee (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I have no connection with Mike Kelly or the Labor Party. My only interest in this article is in regard to the usual issues with any BLP. My concerns with the addition pretty much Mirror Bidgee and Timeshift - the only claim that there is a controversy so far comes from a blog post by Chris Kenny, who is an ex Liberal-party staffer. I'd like to see more evidence that this is of wider significance before it would warrant inclusion. - Bilby (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing this text - it's a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Kenny, obviously, is neither a neutral nor (as a blog) really a reliable source, and as a single commentator what he thinks of the matter doesn't indicate notability. If this were to blow up, obviously, there might be cause for including this, although in NPOV language without things like "to the disbelief of his fellow panel members". Frickeg (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mike Kelly (Australian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this okay?

[edit]

Hi User:Nick-D, User:AustralianRupert Can someone please check/add cite etc, the unreferenced latest edit on this BLP please? JennyOz (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether this is really a significant part of his ministerial career, but the text largely checks out against an ABC News report, which I've added as a reference, along with a tweak to the material. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick JennyOz (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mike Kelly (Australian politician). 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) 11:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Enhancements for 2020

[edit]

The subject of this article is still active in Parliament, but right now it's not clear what he's about. I propose some restructuring - just so it's not a meandering set of points. I've entered his involvement with JPCIS and I can see that his concern for security in the new environment is going to be a matter for future friction, deserves some treatment. Other thoughts? Erasmus Sydney (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Kelly_(Australian_politician)&oldid=1207944781"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy