Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:55, 12 June 2012

Craig Thomson affair

Craig Thomson affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Australian silly season WP:COATRACK split of Australian politician Craig Thomson. While subject matter is probably notable enough to merit its own section in Thomson's bio article, this is an attack page, although some editors are attempting to redeem it. I hold out little hope of their success. This should be deleted, although any WP:NPOV content could be merged into the main article on Thomson. - Jorgath (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Craig Thomson (politician). The in-merging piece will need to be trimmed substantially to maintain balance at the biography. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge Agree with Carrite. Seems excessive coverage of one allegation of sleazy use of funds. COATRACK might be a bit of a push, but I just don't see the article as being necessary: it's not exactly like the main article is too long at the moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge (if there is anything worth merging, rather than simply finding a good news review article and noting a summary at Craig Thompson.) Regarding COATRACKing, no item cited describes the narrative present in the article, and the selection of material for inclusion has been conducted with considerable original research and excessive insights derived from interpretation of primary sources. This is what happens when original research and synthesis are the basis of article development. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge only the important material from this "article" which had become a POV exemple of the first water. Collect (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete there is already adequate coverage at Craig_Thomson_(politician)#Use_of_credit_cards JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge Unless that's already been done to sufficient degree, as suggested by the editor above. -- Despayre   18:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge for all the reasons above and I don't see that title in the source provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete ...rather than Merge. The latter would suggest that this once had a valid existence. It didn't. It was being used to attempt to remove a government. As someone who tried to redeem the article, I have no qualms about my efforts disappearing forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  Comment I respect your deep knowledge of Australian politics and years of service as an editor here, HiLo, but if you truly think that this is an article that could be "used to remove a government", then doesn't that make it notable enough to keep? --Pete (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

No, because that's precisely not what Misplaced Pages is for. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you think that the article could be used to remove a government, as you say above, then clearly you think it is important, powerful and notable. It would certainly be more notable than any other Misplaced Pages article ever if it had the power to topple a government! --Pete (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah. You don't get it. It COULD be used that way. That's precisely why it SHOULD'NT exist. It's not Misplaced Pages's job. We are observers and editors, not activists. (Well, not here, anyway.) You really have a strange idea of what Misplaced Pages is about. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If the article could be used to bring down a government, then surely the subject is notable and important. I'm not sure as to the mechanics of how one could actually do that, unless it's some superuser coding feature not available to regular editors like me. All I intend doing - in any article I edit - is to use WP:RS and WP:NPOV and all the rest of the wikipolicies. Nothing secret about that. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good, but with all due respect, I think you need to work a little more on WP:NPOV, and perhaps begin to also think about WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably getting off the topic of power-editing a democracy-killing article here, but perhaps we could take this to the article talk page? --Pete (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. This is an Australian political scandal that has been ongoing in the public eye for the past year, generating immense media coverage. Not a "silly season" story or a storm in a teapot, the Thomson affair is something that threatens the existence of the minority Gillard government and outrages the public. The political conflict between Julia Gillard, with 71 seats in Parliament and Opposition leader Tony Abbott with 72, is tense, and Thomson is in the unfortunate position of being a political football. He is the most currently visible of several senior figures of the dysfunctional Health Services Union, so this is something wider than the troubles of one junior politician. With ongoing police investigations, pending court actions and a parliamentary inquiry under way, this is a story that will continue on for months or years to come, and Misplaced Pages should provide an article and reliable sources for readers seeking information. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per JoeSperrazza. Not seeing anything worth merging. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: this appears to be an incoherent article about a minor political scandal. Anything important from it can just as easily be covered in the Craig Thomson article. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes GNG by a million miles so the only question is does it violate anything in WP:NOT? It's not "just news" - it's been going on for several years now and may have serious implications. I can't quite see how anyone could suggest this is not a notable topic. The only qualm I have with it is that while the investigation is ongoing, there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL about a lot of it, and of course WP:BLP must be carefully followed. But non-notable? Seriously?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Reply - Um, I didn't ever claim it wasn't notable, although I think it's better covered in the original Thomson article. I claimed it was a WP:COATRACK, and implied that it was a POV-fork, too. I think that the subject matter is impossible to present in a WP:NPOV way in its own article, because doing so gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Yeah, it's notable. It's an extremely notable attack against a living person. WP:NOTSCANDAL. - Jorgath (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  WP:NOTSCANDAL seeks to prohibit the use of Misplaced Pages to disseminate rumours and hearsay, under the broader prohibitions in WP:NOR. It does not apply here - the allegations ( and more importantly, the findings of FWA) have been reported in reliable secondary sources. We must certainly ensure that this does not turn into an attack page, hence I support moving the page to a more neutral title as suggested below (and for another thing, it may not be Thompson alone who ends up being the villain in this whole affair).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: 1. The so-called "reliable secondary sources" consist of (a) one media empire (ie Fairfax), whom the subject of the article sued as a defamation defendant; and (b) the Murdoch media, which has made no secret regarding its bias towards the subject and its push for a change of government. If you accept the foregoing, how really reliable and NPOV are those secondary sources for Misplaced Pages's use as citations in this particular matter? 2. The "findings" of the FWA Report do not meet the rules of evidence which meet the standard of the Evidence Act 1995 - which the FWA Report itself concedes, and forms part of the reason why it was tabled in the Senate and not released outside of parliamentary privilege; note the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph of the General Manager's statement for one of the main reasons why it was done that way. Please also note that Lindy Chamberlain was completely cleared of murdering Azaria today - while that's totally irrelevant to this article, it's of prime relevance here insofar as the principle of presumption of innocence - which the continued presence of this article in Misplaced Pages violates. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  IP, it's been raised on the article talk page that you may be Craig Thomson himself. Investigation of the IP address you are using (among other factors) makes this plausible. Would you like to rule this out? Although there is always the probability that a subject of a BLP will read his article - and I've seen how much stress that can cause - it does raise problems when a subject attempts to influence what is written about him. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, per John Profumo and Profumo Affair, both the man and the affair need an article. The political ramifications of the affair are complex and important, but many are undue for a BLP. Reducing our coverage of the affair to a section of Craig Thompson would result in either the loss of important detail or the overwhelming of the man's biography with elements of the scandal that are undue for a BLP. If there is a neutrality problem with the article, fix the article; if you can't be bothered with that, trim it to a stub and protect it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

John Profumo and Profumo Affair were created long after the latter happened, and thus with the wisdom and perspective of history. Because of its currency it has been impossible to keep editors with obvious POV intentions (such as members of the major opposition party) away from the article under discussion here. It has been used primarily as a political tool, and those of use working hard to prevent that really do have better things to do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Then cut it to a neutral stub and fully protect it. For those of you outside Australia, this thing is called the "Craig Thomson affair" in Australia. That's it's common name here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Bill Heffernan's allegations against Michael Kirby were explosive, and if confirmed would've undoubtedly led to the toppling & probable jailing of a High Court judge. Malcolm Turnbull's "Utegate" allegations, if confirmed, would probably have led to the resignation of a Prime Minister. But in both cases what actually happened was quite different; we should be cautious about any arguments that rely on speculation about how this might turn out. The affair definitely merits coverage, but while the fur's still flying we should be cautious; it will probably be easier to put this one in perspective when we have more distance. --GenericBob (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge This belongs together with the subject. I'd suggest a bit of paring down as well. I don't think delete is the answer. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to something along the lines of "Health Services Union expenses affair". This is obviously something that will need to be watched closely, but as Yeti Hunter said this passes GNG with flying colours and is clearly a notable event. It is, however, wider than merely Thomson, and restructuring the article to express this would counteract some of the (justified) concern about WP:BLP violations and attack tendencies. GenericBob above, however, is very much on the mark; this needs close monitoring for crystal-balling (although we do, in fact, have an article on Utegate, for what it's worth). Frickeg (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Attack page. The page was started only to push a POV supported by the subject's political opponents. From the time the article was created, it used unreliable, biased sources to disparage and defame the article's subject. When the POV was challenged and balanced, and the defamation removed, WP:GAMEs began. As the article's subject engaged in defamation proceedings against one media empire, and the other media empire present in the country admits it has bias against the living person (and is owned by Murdoch), finding reliable NPOV secondary sources will be a problem. The Craig Thomson article also needs serious clean-up work by NPOV editors with BLP experience. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep This topic is quite distinct enough to merit a content "fork" from his bio article given the length and detail of the material. The opposition to the article and the wide array of attacks brought to bear against it seem to be from supporters or sympathizers of his. Obotlig ☣ 02:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Reply I don't give a rat's ass about him. I found this article through a message on User talk:Jimbo Wales, evaluated it as a previously uninvolved and completely neutral editor, and found it to be a blatant WP:COATRACK and in violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL. And this AFTER several editors had done major cleanup on it. I will thank you to assume good faith, which means not making blanket assertions about other editors' motivations to create a strawman argument. - Jorgath (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as its already covered in his bio and at least one more location (merge a bit back but not unduly) , if keeping then rename and completely rewrite to the suggested Health Services Union expenses affair - Youreallycan 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm undecided on whether the article should be deleted per WP:TNT: while the article is no longer the total disgrace it was and is on a clearly notable topic it still sucks. However, it obviously needs a new title - this scandal is about the Health Services Union, and not just Thompson (though he's obviously a key figure in what's been alleged to date). It's worth noting that this matter a) concerns living people so WP:BLP applies b) is currently under investigation by the police and c) is certain to result in civil court cases and possibly criminal cases, so it needs to be very carefully written. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd have my doubts about the court cases. If, for some inexplicable reason, the balance of power suddenly changed in Australian federal politics such that Thomson's vote was no longer of any importance or, heaven forbid, he died, or something like that, the heat would completely disappear from this. Most if not all legal threats would disappear. If all we had was allegations of unacceptable behaviour by a union official who wasn't also a major political figure, there wouldn't be an article. Nobody outside that union and the police would care. The ONLY reason this article exists is because Her Majesty's Opposition smells blood, and that's a very dangerous reason. HiLo48 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And quite wrong. The political impact of the affair is significant, but what is driving public discussion, as opposed to the Parliamentary Press Gallary hanging over the railings every Question Time, is the misuse of union fees. My son, as a kitchen hand in Calvary Hospital, exemplifies the membership of the HSU. He and thousands of others in similar jobs depend on their union to maintain or improve their dismal conditions and low pay. When they learn that the money they earn from stacking dirty plates in a dishwasher or hosing out bedpans or whatever is being spent on prostitutes, they question the purpose of their union membership. Forget what may or may not happen in the Reps, what is happening is that these workers are leaving the Health Services Union in their thousands. Get out and about and listen to people. The reason the article is here is because it describes an important social matter, and that has its own existence, regardless of what is said here or in Parliament. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nicely put, Skyring. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment as nominator: if consensus does turn to "keep", I advocate that it should still be given a WP:TNT deletion because of the indisputable attack-page status that this had at one point. - Jorgath (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point actually. It's important that the edit history not contain defamatory material. Recreate current article at new title, delete old one entirely. Possibly immediately re-create a redirect at this title as a plausible search term?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - notable controversy; not a BLP violation, at least in its current form. Merging is a possibility, but I don't think it's obligatory here; there seems to be enough to say to justify a separate article, at least for the time being. However, I would advise renaming to get Craig Thomson's name out of the title, to something less contentious like Health Services Union expenses affair. Robofish (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  As an aside, I just came across Category:Political controversies in Australia. Yikes. Is anyone else concerned about having biographies of living people categorised as 'controversies'? Robofish (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Ugh, that should be rectified immediately. A person is not a scandal. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Except the SMH and ABC refer to this as the "Thompson affair" regularly. Preponderance of sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Too much detail for a relatively straightforward political spat. How much mention, if any, on the main BLP can be discussed at that talk page. There's just not enough here to justify forking the coverage to its own article. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Looking at what links the Craig Thomson page, there's over a hundred links, though many are routine. The Gillard Government article has a section, complete with photograph. As for naming controversies after living people, it seems commonplace enough around the world. Petrov Affair, Profumo Scandal, , and so on. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates
• Political sex scandals
• Political sex scandals in the United States