Jump to content

Talk:Steven Ciobo

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

Untitled

[edit]

Should this be moved to Steven Ciobo? This seems to be the way the name is spelt on his site and on the Parliamentary website. --Canley 05:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move it, it seems Wikipedia is the only place that says "Steve". I'll check the redirect. Any objections, let me know here. --Canley 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Steven Ciobo. 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 01:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steven Ciobo. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Steven Ciobo. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gillard

[edit]

Ciobo made some remarks on the ABC's Lateline program on 7 June 2013 implying that a named politician would switch his support for the Labor leadership from Julia Gillard to Kevin Rudd. Which, given Rudd's behaviour at the time and his eventual success less than three weeks later, is entirely reasonable. An IP editor is attempting to portray the colourful language used as having more weight than was intended, given the context. Nobody present or listening would imagine that an actual attempt on the then Prime Minister's life was being contemplated.

Using nothing more than a blog to support such an allegation is a violation of BLP policy. The ABC transcript eventually provided carries more weight, but does not support the wording not only used by this IP editor but inserted into the lede without any body reference at all. If someone talked about backstabbing, immediately before Rudd toppled Gillard, Wikipedia cannot reasonably present this as implying a death threat. That is ridiculous.

The language went a little further - but not much - beyond stabbing someone in the back, but I don't think that using colourful language is something we need highlight in the biography of a politician.

Perhaps the IP editor would like to discuss his position here with reference to Wikipolicy and simple common sense? --Pete (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for applying your lunatic right-wing bias to Wikipedia. I find it disgraceful that Wikipedia allows political staffers to set the agenda here. However I'm sure if I were paid a lucrative salary by the taxpayer to vandalise Wikipedia I would feel quite smug too.
You can call IA a blog as many times as you please, your bias doesn't make it so. Repeating the lie over and over might work for your political masters but it doesn't work here.
It is never entirely reasonable to promote violence against women and Ciobo's comments were nothing more than this, extremely thinly veiled. You "thinking" that "using colourful language" isn't "something we need highlight" is yet another example of your bias and/or your affiliation with Ciobo or the government.
The language used by politicians and members of the government DO CARRY WEIGHT. This is the reason the current Prime Minister and government rail so hard in the face of facts and reason. The media gives weight to the language that these "leaders" use, normalising and validating it. If you don't understand this, perhaps you are unfit to be editing Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps you should also read the IA article by the same author which examines the extreme act of violence against US politician Gabrielle Giffords which was only made possible by rhetoric like Ciobo chose to use on prime time television - https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/manufactured-outrage-and-aggressive-conservatives,5373 124.170.177.40 (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IA is a political opinion blog. "Partisan polemic" is an apt description. It is not a reliable source. The ABC in its transcript of Lateline is one where we will encounter no difficulties in reliability, and we may accept that it is accurate in its reporting of Ciobo's remarks in a popular public forum.
I wish I had the lucrative taxpayer salary you suggest above. I do not. Nor am I a political staffer. Nor "lunatic right wing", though perhaps from your perspective that describes all supporters of Bernie Sanders, of whom I am one.
Could you address the points I raise above, please, with reference to Wikipedia's practices, rather than risibly inaccurate personal commentary? Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think it's acceptable to engage in hubris but then ignore the point of a rebuttal due to hubris????????????????????
It is never entirely reasonable to promote violence against women and Ciobo's comments were nothing more than this, extremely thinly veiled. You "thinking" that "using colourful language" isn't "something we need highlight" is yet another example of your bias and/or your affiliation with Ciobo or the government.
The language used by politicians and members of the government DO CARRY WEIGHT. This is the reason the current Prime Minister and government rail so hard in the face of facts and reason. The media gives weight to the language that these "leaders" use, normalising and validating it. If you don't understand this, perhaps you are unfit to be editing Wikipedia articles.
Perhaps you should also read the IA article by the same author which examines the extreme act of violence against US politician Gabrielle Giffords which was only made possible by rhetoric like Ciobo chose to use on prime time television - https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/manufactured-outrage-and-aggressive-conservatives,5373
Or are your feelings too hurt, like those on the lunatic left whenever their hypocrisy is deflected back upon them? 124.170.177.40 (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will also reference the following for your satisfaction: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/reith-echoes-throat-slit-comment-20130611-2o2sf.html 124.170.177.40 (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think an apology might be in order. Your personal attacks were not only out of order but wildly incorrect. The context of the remarks, as made plain by the transcript, were concerning Kevin Rudd and his supporters backstabbing the then PM, a couple of weeks prior to the actual event. This sort of discussion is commonplace, especially amongst members of the opposing party keen to talk up government disunity. --Pete (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of the assertion "This sort of discussion is commonplace, especially amongst members of the opposing party keen to talk up government disunity." specifically in the context of that language being used on a male prime minister rather than a female one? 124.170.177.40 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the ALP, currently and gleefully talking about government disunity as Malcolm Turnbull's leadership falls into disarray. I'm also wondering about WP:WEIGHT - do you have any reliable sources stating that this is at all notable in Ciobo's career? --Pete (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided you three reliable sources, two directly referencing the remark's controversy. You just dodged a direct request for a reference to male politicians using the words "slit his throat" about a sitting male prime minister. Stop removing citations from the article or I will escalate your edits as abuse. 124.170.177.40 (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to add "context" to the abusive language deployed by Ciobo, perhaps you'd care to cite and write a few paragraphs about the ongoing use of violent and extremist language by right-wing thugs and opposition politicians during Gillard's prime ministership. Then you could add some real context to the comments, not just some apologist's downplay as the context124.170.177.40 (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please show the RS wording you rely upon to demonstrate notability. The ABC transcript is enough to show that the remarks were made, but it does not highlight them as controversial. The tangential piece on Reith, likewise. Any news item in a major metropolitan daily or national broadcaster will be fine. Also take heed of the warning on edit-warring I have provided on your talk page. --Pete (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at two of your recent reversions - this and this you accuse me of removing sources, but in fact you merely add or replace an in-line reference which is already there in a well-formed citation. Kindly pay attention. --Pete (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying quote the Murdoch press or it didn't happen/doesn't exit? You're pathetic.124.170.177.40 (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My preference for the ABC must have slipped by you. Quote The Guardian, if you wish. Just comply with Wikipedia's RS policy, that's the way to roll. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how much did Mr Ciobo donate to Wikimedia?124.170.177.40 (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected for 3 days. The parties are invited to discuss changes to the article here...preferably without having to resort to accusations and personal attacks. Lectonar (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh start

[edit]

Here are the problems with the mention:

  1. Weight: in this politician's career, is this really his biggest controversy?
  2. On that note, there are no sources describing this as a controversy, let alone notable. Some people may well have been outraged, but that didn't translate into media attention at the time or since.
  3. IndapendentAustralia is not a reliable source. It is a political opinion blog, and many of the "contributors" appear to have been published elsewhere and copied without obtaining permission.
  4. On that note, IA appears to have a history of support here from various IP editors [1], for example. Given that your IP address geolocates to the same area and you appear to share the same fringe-left views, is there anything you'd care to disclose here?
  5. If we include this mention, the context is important. Two weeks before Kevin Rudd successfully challenged Julia Gillard, talk of backstabbing etc. was commonplace. Ciobo's comments didn't come out of nowhere, and in fact were specifically directed to the Rudd supporter on the same panel in a discussion of Rudd's chances as Gillard's leadership began to flatline.
  6. Perhaps we could get more eyes on the discussion - always a worthwhile exercise when the number of participants in a discussion is few - through an RfC.

Let me know your position(s) on the above. At the moment, given the lack of sources supporting notability, I'm inclined to kick off an RfC on whether we should delete the mention entirely. --Pete (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Or, if I'm the only editor that seems interested, then I'll just delete it entirely. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not necessarily agree with the exact wording or order in which the issue was originally placed on the page (as I am not going to look at every edit to know which is original etc), I do believe it should be mentioned here.
1. It has as much, or even more, weight than half the other things mentioned on Ciobo's page. If you are suggesting it shouldn't be included because it isn't his "biggest" controversy, we need to delete most the page for the same reasons. Perhaps it shouldn't be under a "controversy" title because I believe this is not the recommended Wikipedia style.
2. It was a controversy. There were reports of it, it was a talking point, people who care about such things still remember it. Just because there wasn't widespread media attention at the time doesn't mean it didn't happen or wasn't controversial. Some analysis of the mainstream media from that time period suggests that it was biased against Julia Gillard [2] In one survey "almost 8 in 10 respondents (77.48 percent) described the media treatment of Gillard as “more demeaning than other politicians,” with over 6 in 10 participants (66.16 percent) describing it as “unfair and unbalanced.” "many answered that they thought Gillard’s media portrayal was unfair and that no Australian male politician or Prime Minister has ever been treated in this way." [3] Whether or not the media chose to report it widely is not the measure of it's worth for inclusion.
3. As you've mentioned, there are other articles and transcripts that can be cited if you are not satisfied with IA. However, what you can consider is that there were many left wing media and commentators who discussed it (i.e. it was a controversy amongst people who care this issue, and it is not valid to infer "well if only left-wing progressives were upset, it wasn't really an issue").
4. I agree the context is important. And part of the context: Ciobo was one player in an ongoing campaign of violent and misogynistic speech and behaviour against Julia Gillard.[4] Part of the normalisation of violent imagery, degrading language, and stunts designed to humiliate and intimidate. His offence might not have been the worst of the lot, but it contributed to it. At the same time there were other high profile men making the same kind of casually violent misogynistic comments about other high-profile women - some of those incidents got more media coverage - and it all contributed to the climate of the time, and the discussions that were being had.
You may personally not see the issue with Ciobo saying what he said, but that is your personal opinion. Fact is Ciobo said what he said. And he didn't use the familiar term "backstabbing" (which no one would consider violent due to its common usage to mean simply mean betrayal) - he used the term "slit her throat" at a time as there was media reports about a man who slit his wife's throat[5]. The same phrase was then picked up and reused by another of his colleagues [6]. Powertothepeople (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that how I came to this page today, by round about way... I saw a newspaper article talking about how people in the UK had used a Freedom of Information Request to find out their Parliament's IP addresses and then used this to track any changes they made to wikipedia... so out of curiosity I looked to see if there was something similar for Australia... found the wikiwatchdog... put in the aph.gov.au address for tracking... which revealed that Ciobo's page is the most highly edited from unregistered users at that governmental IP address. The bit about "slit her throat" is one of the things the person has deleted from this page in the past. This page should have a COI label put on it and be cleaned up to achieve neutrality. Powertothepeople (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ciobo's Lateline contribution

[edit]

(NOTE: I have edited my talk here as it unnecessarily and unreasonably cast aspersions upon another editor.)

I added two paragraphs to this article earlier today, regarding Mr Ciobo's appearance on Q&A, exchange with Zaky Mallah, and the Prime Minister's subsequent banning of front bench ministers from appearing on ABC programs until the ABC changed its policy.

This change was reverted about an hour later; the reversion included two edits, and lacking other evidence I am left to assume that it was caught up in a reversion that was aimed mainly at the other edit, which dealt with the 'Julia Gillard' incident discussed elsewhere in this talk.

For the moment I will leave the page unchanged, pending any other input to this discussion - I am not interested in some reversion war. Nevertheless, this was a significant moment in the Member's career, as is shown by the other Wikipedia entries that discuss it (and from which I gratefully plagiarised most of the material I used). I look forward to discussing how this issue is to be included in the article. Ambiguosity (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there has been no further comment, and it appears that the reversion was intended to address another part of the article, I will reinsert the information about Lateline (through editing, rather than an all-or-nothing reversion). If you have any objections to this material being on the page, please come to this 'talk' page before making further changes, and explain your rationale. The reader may also consider whether this - and the issue discussed in section 5 of this 'talk' page - should be moved into a separate section on Controversies within the main article. Ambiguosity (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment - and interesting speculation. The idea of WP:BRD is to discuss the topic, rather than attack other editors. The Gillard thing is a bit of fluff that has no part here, and has been discussed previously. I reverted your Q&A stuff because it looked like more of the same. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Pete if you felt my comments above were an attack - they were not intended as such, and I am happy to delete anything you feel was such (I am unsure what the convention is on editing previous comments?). Re-reading what I wrote, it was not particularly well worded and does come across as an attack (probably written in haste, as such things normally are), so I will correct that now on the assumption that editing talk pages is okay.
I am presumably incorrect in my assumption that reversions are normally discussed on the talk page before-hand; yes, I'm a novice. Clearly the Gillard issue has been discussed previously, and while I have largely ignored that discussion if I do ever care enough about this article to want to include it I will talk it in the above section before making any changes.
Now, a few words on the importance of the Zaky Mallah incident. It was an important part of the subject's career, and had an enormous impact on the government's interactions with the national broadcaster. It also resulted in a major change in the national broadcaster's ongoing relationship with government - for better or for worse (something that is outside of Wikipedia's remit to judge) - and the way the ABC programmed. I feel safe in saying that if Steven Ciobo's name were mentioned to any Australian, it is likely that he would be most remembered for this event - most of the other discussion of his political career is either 'names-and-dates' or events that nobody but Mr Ciobo is likely to remember long-term, but this event had an impact on the nation.
I have difficulty seeing how it could be argued that this incident was 'fluff', but welcome further discussion on it. (Darn it, now I want to read more about the Gillard 'controversy'! I have other stuff to do than discuss the merits of Wikipedia articles:(.) Ambiguosity (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite so fluffy as I thought on first glance, and indeed the article has developed reasonably well. I had a quick look at your sources and they seem okay. Looks like I erred, but that's what BRD is for, to sort things out. This article has seen a fair bit of tendentious editing to insert material against consensus, and I should have been more discriminating. Sorry to upset you.
One of the beauties of WP is that material doesn't get lost at edit level. It's always available to be restored. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steven Ciobo. 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) 10:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Defence Industry

[edit]

After the 2018 LNP spill and the cascading shuffle of ministries, Minister Ciobo took over the Defence Industry portfolio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.155.20 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steven_Ciobo&oldid=1257446574"