|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"progressive political views"
Im prepared to concede that "progressive political views" can be used here with regard to the republic, becaue one side wants to keep the status quo and the other wants to "progress toward change", but the despite it technically being the same situation for Euthanasia and Asylum seekers, I think the connotations for these touchy issues causes a POV problem when tying the word "Progressive" to a person's views on them. For example, someone could argue that a change from mandatory detention of asylum seekers to instantly turning them back to their port of disembarkation could be "A progression" and thus labeling a point of view mandating a softening of Asylum seeker laws is POV in the other direction.
Add all this to the fact that we had just come off setting up a binary opposition of conservative v progressive, where we suddenly have the conservatives with the new IR laws (in this article where we mention the 'conservative position on Workchoices'), where the conservatives make the change and the so-called "progressives" want to keep the status quo. - You see the problem here.
I don't see the problem here. You can Bend it anyway you like but It is not the case of "turning them back to their port of disembarkation" as being a Progressive point of view as his the reference to his progressive point of is that Gerrard Henderson is against such treatment of Asylum Seekers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
private or secret
User:Rumcorp keeps changing 'privately funded' to 'secretly funded' to describe the Sydney Insititute. I've given up reverting, mainly because edit wars achieve nothing. I don't think 'secretly funded' can stay because it implies the he runs some sort of shadowy organisation, which raises concerns with WP:BLP.Teiresias84 10:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
[User:Teiresias84] keeps changing secretly funded to privately funded, calls me mate and wants to put the law onto me. If no one knows who funds the Sydney Institute, and all readers are encouraged to ask them where their funding comes from, then why is it not secret, the shareholders in private companies are easily established, thus in this context, private is a poor choice of wording.Rumcorp 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Challenge for Rumcorp. Please tell me how to identify the shareholders of Big 4 tourist parks. Not so easy is it? Greglocock (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's rules practically mean that we cannot call the Sydney Institute "secretly funded" unless we cite a "reliable source" which explicitly describes the funding as "secret" or "concealed" or something very similar. Going from a source which says (fx) that the SI does not report who backs it to saying that the SI is secretly funded counts as "original research". Cheers, CWC 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
critic of the chasers?
Henderson simply kicked them out of the Sydney institute when the American ambassador was giving a talk and they ran in with a sign saying "fuck Hicks". Hardly a well known critic
I've just made a large edit to the article. Here are some comments and questions.
- Why do we mention GH's 2006 article on The Culture Wars? I'm not objecting, just asking.
- Some of the article was taken word for word from GH's bio at the SI website, but that bio was never mentioned. I've fixed both these problems.
- I've removed all the tags from the start of the article; I think I fixed all those defects.
- I removed some uncited info about media appearances that are not mentioned in the SI bio, on the assumption that the article was out-of-date. Of course, it could be that the SI bio is out of date and the article was correct. Corrections welcome.
- In his bio, GH says that his "important articles include (i) his 1983 essay “The Industrial Relations Club”, (ii) his 1985 re-assessment of Australia’s involvement in World War I titled “Exploding the Myth that they Died in Vain” , (iii) the introduction to his 1990 book Australian Answers (where he introduced the concept of the Federation Trifecta to explain the bipartisan agreement between political conservatives and social democrats after the creation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901) and (iv) his January 1993 critique of the left-wing interpretation of Australian history “Rewriting Our History” which was published in the Australia Day issue of The Bulletin."
Perhaps we should say something about these? IIRC, the first item there played a significant role in Australian economic/political history.
I think this article could stand a lot more work, but at least it is not as bad as it was. Cheers, CWC 12:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)