Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)

ACMA ordered Jones to comment on evidence

Does anyone else feel that it is humorous that ACMA have ordered Jones to comment on evidence when in recent weeks the Met have reported Global Warming has paused for 16 years despite increasing global emissions of Carbon Dioxide? In terms of the article, it might show that the fad of AGW belief captured wiki editors in a knee jerk response. Maybe we could address that by being more balanced in the presentation? DDB (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

What's the Met? What report are you talking about? Reads like push-polling to me. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The Met is the UK Meteorological society, home of Phil Jones and AGW alarmism. When emails were leaked showing that data was sexed up to appeal to alarmists, Jones was one of the authors. He retains his position atm and vigorously defends his bogy data DDB (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of Phil Jones. You really need to explain AGW too. Are you English? No Australian regularly (ever?) refers to the Met. Why should they? And why should readers of this thread know? Why are the arguments of conservatives so incoherent? HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AGW is an anachronistic term for climate change, Anthropogenic Global Warming. Interestingly the article on Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming has been taken down and now redirects to Human impact on the environment which really does not discuss the subject and includes some amazing oversimplifications like "The environmental impact of biodiesel is diverse" and "The environmental impact of nuclear power results from the nuclear fuel cycle, operation, and the lingering effects of the Chernobyl disaster".

As for why right wingers are so incoherent, they do not have any logical arguments to raise on issues like this so they cobble together a few catch-phrases to try to make do. If you understand scientific process and logic you do not support climate change denialism, and such understanding is a requirement for coherent discussion of scientific issues. Djapa Owen (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally I do not find it at all funny that ACMA's action has coincided with more nonsense from the UK Daily Mail. The article you refer to talks about a report which does not exist and cherry picks the UK Met Office data. It is thoroughly rebutted in the Met Office response here: http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/. The whole idea of Wikipedia is to use reputable peer reviewed references for scientific information, not beat-ups with no scientific credibility. On current affairs and politics of course we have less choice but when it comes to science please look for the data not the shock jock opinion piece. Djapa Owen (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Since when does a personal blog form a rebuttal? No serious scientist has referred to the blog subsequently DDB (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting definition of "personal blog" DDB, it is clearly identified as "Official blog of the Met Office news team. This is the official blog of the Met Office news team, intended to provide journalists and bloggers with the latest weather, climate science and business news and information from the Met Office. The blog will post latest news releases and related content, news diary and information supporting news stories already in the media.", and the links within it actually lead to datasets, not a couple of cherry-picked figures chosen to suit an argument. Since you have been unable to find those links, here they are; transcript of video explanation of the new data set - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/1/l/Transcript_HadCRUT4.pdf news release about the data set updates in March (didn't take the Daily Mail long to find the two figures to support their nonsense did it? Oh, yes it did.); http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/hadcrut-updates and here is the HadCRUT4 website with full datasets and plenty of other information; http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

Can you provide one example of an actual scientist who has referred to the Daily Mail article with anything except total scorn? I doubt it. As for referring to "climate-gate" have a read of the article Climatic Research Unit email controversy, it is quite well referenced and gives a balanced discussion of how those accusations were thoroughly investigated and rejected. Accept the facts Ddball, the data is in. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it that 'the data is in' or that 'it is a left wing/right wing' thing. Your last two posts give both arguments which are diametrically oppositional to each other. Yet even so, they don't address my question or undermine my position .. I am conservative, nether left wing nor right. The newspaper article was balanced, and obtained information from Phil Jones as well as others. The data isn't political. It shows no heating trend in 16 years despite substantial carbon dioxide increases. DDB (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is an excellent source, for soccer scores. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense DDB, the Daily Mail article is based on comparing one figure from the middle of a strong El Nino and another from the extreme of a double dip La Nina. That is not 'balanced' reporting, it is making stuff up. You cannot take 150 years of data and throw it out the window because two points in a variable dataset don't match the overall trend. If you don't understand that then you are just wasting our time here. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So we agree, Djapa, the 300 data points show over 16 years no global warming trend. Your excuse for that is that it lies between two local events with global ramifications which have nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide. You object that it was printed in a newspaper but not on one of your blogs? Or is the demarcation elsewhere? DDB (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Edit summary said you were going to explain something. Will the explanation start soon? HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section from the Met Office response: "The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming." Read that carefully DDB and mull it over. Eventually you will have to comprehend their argument, as it is not that difficult really. If you still have trouble there are planty of good references to explain what La Nina and El Nino are, You could start with http://reg.bom.gov.au/watl/about-weather-and-climate/australian-climate-influences.shtml?bookmark=enso, but then again that is science. You might not get it. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing that as a personal attack and I'm not seeing any relevance to improving this article. If you want to talk about the weather, take it elsewhere, please. --Pete (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Always know the right time to chime in, don't you? :) Timeshift (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole re-opening of this thread by DDB to discuss climate change, rather than this article about Alan Jones, was inappropriate. I suggest that those keen to discuss climate change take it elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I appropriately posted a relevant question. The abuse I can do without. The question is still salient to the article. The responses have not been. Time will tell, however, as the ACMA decision will be more objectively seen as time passes. DDB (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Salient? LOL. HiLo48 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Grey area. Moving on, cc or not? :) Timeshift (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In response to the original query up the top, is Alan Jones known overall as a positive or negative? When he's in the media, does it tend to be a good news story or not? If some WP:RS can be found demonstrating some positive things, then by all means it is likely warranted for inclusion in this article. So with that in mind, find me some positive Jones RS (before you start posting opinion pieces, please actually click and read the RS link). Then again, the original query up the top was submitted 5 years ago, so i'm sure the article looks very different now. I'm thinking for the purposes of a focus on article improvement, that this talk page should be archived (still viewable) and if anyone wishes to re-raise something, they are free to do so. At the moment, this talk page is a bit of a mess. Timeshift (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

A few minor and (I hope!) non-controversial changes

In the political lobbying section AJ is described as "A former candidate for Liberal Party of Australia preselection". That's true but I think it would be better to describe him as "A former candidate for the Liberal Party" or something like that. As it is now, it almost suggests he was unsuccessful in his preselection attempts.

"This time the ALP candidate was returned with an even greater majority despite the absence, on this occasion, of a Gay Liberation and another three conservative party and independent candidates." I think I understand what this is getting at although I'm not sure the absence of a Gay Lib candidate would make an increased ALP vote surprising (I would have thought people whol voted for the Gay Lib candidate at the byelection would more likely switch to Labor at the GE. Personally I think it's enough to say that the ALP increased its majority at the general elections.

In the part about North Sydney I propose the addition of unsuccessful so it reads "meanwhile unsuccessfully standing for preselection for the Federal seat of North Sydney." I understand he lost that one although I'm not really sure.

In the part re Eden Monaro ("Later that year, another parent at Kings, Doug Anthony, leader of the Country Party (now the National Party of Australia) in the Australian Parliament, offered Jones a position with the party in Canberra. The next year, he sought party preselection as the candidate for the parliamentary seat of Eden-Monaro, but he was unsuccessful at the election.") I propose adding "National" just before party preselection since next para switches to his involvement as a Lib and this might ease any confusion.

Happy to discuss before changing anything. As I said, my concern at this stage is just readability. Cheers. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Comments

I'm the first to say that these comments are repulsive, but right now they are not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not news (see Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS), and unless these comments have an enduring impact they belong in a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. If they receive widespread criticism over the next few days, lead to a change in media policy or lead to Alan Jones being suspended etc then it is appropriate to insert them (with proper sourcing and a reference to their impact), but currently this belongs in a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. Guycalledryan (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. His comments will mostly be reinforcing opinions already cast in stone about the man. Let's await developments. The one possible concrete thing so far is "A list of advertisers on 2GB was being circulated, with calls for those companies to boycott the Jones show or 2GB altogether if he is not removed or disciplined" from here. But again, we should probably wait and watch. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they will have 'enduring impact'. I'm happy to wait a while. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it has begun. While the comments from ALP figures can't really carry much weight (they hate him anyway), those from Turnbull and the Greens mean a lot more. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

When Andrew Bolt says that Alan Jones has gone too far, you know things are bad. [1]. -- Chuq (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He has apologised. Not sure whether this makes it more significant or not. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It's scarely most peoples definition of an apology, couched as it is in the normal Jones apology obfuscation. And of course, the original remark wasn't made by him, merely repeated by him. Ha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkTB (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that you're disrespecting his apology says to me that many others will be of a similar view. I also wondered what was the value or point of saying he was repeating someone else's words - when he was claiming to be apologising without qualification. Whether he coined the expression or copied it is absolutely immaterial to the issue, and he knows that. I guess it's his way of saying "It's not just me, others are saying it too, so don't single me out". His fawning supporters will buy that, because he can do no wrong, in their eyes. Anybody else will see it for what it is. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure there are too many "fawning supporters". Just popped in to see what had popped up. This article is mainly an attack piece on Alan Jones, not a biographical article. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be true. The last bit. But if you really believe he doesn't have any fawning supporters, then you don't know some of the people I've talked to. There's virtually nothing he could ever do that would be so bad that it'd make them stop believing whatever comes out of his mouth is Holy Writ. And if he does do or say something really bad such as the current incident, then blathers his way through some half-baked apology, well, that just proves what a wonderful person he is, because it takes a big man to say sorry. Oh Alan, how wonderful you are! Stay brave and true! Yeah, right. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ABC radio today played some comments from some of his fawning callers this morning. Jack, it's as if you wrote the script. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I should write in bigger print from now on. I'm not sure there are too many "fawning supporters". Of course there are some, but are they as numerous as (say) Rush Limbaugh's infamous dittoheads? But that's beside the point. This article doesn't seem to provide a balanced NPOV treatment of the subject. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought he was the highest rating breakfast announcer in Sydney. That says that there's a lot of fawning, sadly. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What percentage does your source say are "fawners"? Just out of interest. --Pete (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 October 2012

In the paragraph cocerning Julia Gillard under Controversy, "insincere" is spelled incorrectly as "incencere".

58.172.153.50 (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed ...by User:Porturology. Dru of Id (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting neutrality

Just quickly reading through the article and the talk page, and I see that a Neutrality? tag has been present since 2011 and for five years the neutrality of this article has been questioned. Looking at the "Controversy" section, and it looks like a list of minor stuff, nothing concrete, just a lot of sour gripes. Some editors here refer to Jones as a convicted criminal, which doesn't seem to be the case, and take every opportunity to smear him.

I have no great love for Jones, but it seems that his biggest sin has been getting up the noses of people with a leftist political outlook. Which he does quite deliberately. Seems to me that this article has been used to kick back at Jones in a very one-sided fashion, and I'd like comments on how to deal with the tag, and how to resolve the issue.

I suggest that we delete the whole section, maybe rewrite from scratch into a paragraph. --Pete (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The neutrality will be questioned by others who hate the left like Jones (you started the labelling!), but I see no major problems. More sourcing would be good in some areas, but seeing where citations are missing (mostly Cash for Comment), that would not be hard to fix. Most of the rest is very well sourced, and you want to delete it. Hmmmmm. What should probably be deleted is the Neutrality tag. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you misunderstood. This isn't about slanting the article to please one group or another. This is about NPOV. As it stands, most of the article is an attack piece aimed at Jones. --Pete (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have learnt from long, sad experience that there is no point discussing matters with you. You failed to discuss anything I said just then. That's normal. You presented an opportunity for me to state my view, as you had stated yours. I've done so. That's it. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the best things about Wikipedia is that it has policies to allow productive interaction between editors holding opposing views. You think that the tag should go rather than the section. Any reason why, in light of the points I noted above? As per WP:NPOVN I'm looking for a local resolution before raising this issue there, and you are just playing into my hands. --Pete (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

What? How could anything be "playing into my hands"? Are you pushing a POV? As I said, "You failed to discuss anything I said just then." (And I know I really shouldn't be continuing this. It will achieve nothing.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat, you say that the tag should go rather than the section. Any reason why, in light of the points I noted above? Apart from WP:JDLI, of course. --Pete (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that HiLo48's assessment of the section is pretty accurate, the parts on his early NSW convictions and Cash for Comment are short on citations, but that can be fixed. We all remember the events mentioned don't we?

All the material in the controversy section is accurate as I remember it (whether needing citation or not), and seeing as he is a 'shock-jock' who makes his living out of being controversial, the controversy surrounding him is entirely relevant. I cannot see how material about any good deeds belongs in that section, so obviously they should go elsewhere. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

HiLo isn't addressing the neutrality question. Nor are you. I haven't looked at the cites, but I dare say that they are either fine or can be fixed. As it stands, half the article is a blow by blow description of the ways in which Jones has gotten up various noses, mostly slanted so as to make Jones look like a badder boy than he is. I cannot see any charges that actually stuck. In one instance we blast Jones for having the temerity to plead not guilty, thereby forcing the prosecution to admit they had no case!

Having so much material devoted to one aspect of a life is a clear example of WP:UNDUE: An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Either we expand the coverage of his life as a whole, or we drop the coverage of controversies down to an appropriate level. --Pete (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not "one aspect of his life". It's a great many different aspects of his life, which just happen to have been lumped together in a single "controversies" section. I'm not fond of that approach, and frankly the article structure is a dog's breakfast ("later life" as a subsection of "earlier life", really?) - I'd rather see it told in something more of a chronology, with all these "controversies" integrated into the relevant part of his career. But I don't see that as a bias issue per se.

Yes, the article does present him in a negative light overall, but NPOV doesn't require that articles give equal space to positive and negative material. The controversies get a lot of coverage because they play a big part in his fame. Sometimes, as Stephen Colbert puts it, "reality has a well-known liberal bias". --GenericBob (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the table of contents, it's plainly unbalanced in structure, regardless of content. And it all looks pretty uniform to me. Apart from the first in the list, where the poor bloke was probably trying to score a root in a hostile environment, it's all broadcasting and the responses to broadcasting. "A great many different aspects of his life," you say. I see broadcasting as one of these great many different aspects. Perhaps you could list the many others you discern? --Pete (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's misleading to approach broadcasting as just one aspect of his life. It's by far the most notable; there's a reason this is titled Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) and not Alan Jones (sporting coach) or Alan Jones (musical performer). So inevitably the different aspects of his broadcasting career (product endorser, anti-carbon-tax campaigner, commenter on racial issues, ...) are going to get a lot of coverage here.

Re. the 1988 London incident - while I suspect consensus is going to be against me on this one, I wouldn't miss it if it were removed from the article. I'd still defend including Chris Masters' comments on AJ's sexuality, since Masters specifically asserts notability. But bringing up an aborted prosecution for a victimless "crime" just seems a bit too much like muckraking. --GenericBob (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a charge which did not result in a conviction should be reported here. I had not paid enough attention to that part to see that the charges were dropped. Since they were I certainly think that part should be removed, or at least re-edited to focus on the removal of the charge in case people come to the article already aware of the charge having been made. To my knowledge Jones has never claimed not to be gay, but that does not mean a dropped charge should be allowed to dog him forever. It certainly does sound like muck raking to me. Djapa Owen (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, GB, but I don't think your view holds water. Half the article is criticism of his broadcasting behaviour, and you reckon that dividing it down into individual topics - carbon tax, endorsements, race and so on - turns it into many diverse aspects of his whole life. Wouldn't that apply to anyone in public life? Any broadcaster, journalist, politician, novelist, anybody whose views are published? So why does Wikipedia single out Alan Jones when we don't have similar long and detailed sections on anybody else in the public eye. You know, notable figures?

Looking at some notable public figures of the Twentieth Century - Hitler, Stalin, Adams - I don't see any long Criticism and Controversy sections. In fact, only the last has any Criticism section at all, and that boils down to a handful of sentences asking, "Why is there no right-wing Phillip Adams?". Well, here he is, and we need only compare the biographical articles of the four public figures to select the one which is a gross exception to Wikipedia policy. --Pete (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm normally a staunch opponent of Criticism sections, but that's not what we have here anyway. It's a section headed Controversy. Now, Jones is a shock jock. He gets paid to be controversial. The events listed are real. Maybe one or two don't deserve to be there (charges dropped, lack of sourcing, etc.), but the rest are well documented examples of what Jones is and does. He is well known precisely because of these kinds of events. It's what he is. We cannot ignore them. It's why we have this article. Each deserves a mention. Would it be better if they were just chronologically inserted in a long description of his life? Or does it actually make sense to list them in one lump as it is now? Maybe we should do that, but rename the section to "Success as a shock jock" or similar, because that's precisely what it describes. HiLo48 (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I just get you to look at our BLP and NPOV policies, HiLo? Both of them will tell you that just because something is true and well-sourced, that does not mean we automatically include it, especially when we are describing a living person. Maybe you have glanced at these fundamental policies without understanding them. Maybe you think you don't have to. But if Adolf Bloody Hitler gets a very long article without a Controversy or Criticism section and he was responsible for millions of deaths and we don't have to worry about offending him because he is dead, just what is it that you dislike about the living and listening Alan Jones that makes it worthwhile going against Wikipedia policy? He's more controversial than a mad dictator, maybe? Could you be precise here, please? --Pete (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I just knew you wouldn't actually read what I posted. You never do. And have you heard of Godwin's Law? (I promise this will be my last attempt to communicate with you today.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

My response was a direct response to your point about Jones being a "shock jock". My point is that Adolf Hitler - or any other mad dictator - doesn't have a Controversies section, and yet how much more controversial can you get than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin? Your position does not square with basic Wikipedia policy. --Pete (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I correctly understood the specifics of your objection: I thought at first you were taking issue with the volume of negative content re. Jones, but now it seems as if the objection is with having it brought together in a Controversies section - is that correct?

The Hitler and Stalin articles have plenty of negative content. It's just that because of the weight of their subjects, those articles are much more polished and so that content is integrated into a more coherent account (or in some cases the detail is relegated to a secondary article e.g. Gulag).

I don't think Phillip Adams is really comparable to Jones. He's a far less controversial figure, with the exception of the "no right-wing Phillip Adams" issue - and as you yourself noted when deleting that section, that was more a criticism of the ABC (for not sourcing an opposing viewpoint) than of Adams himself. A closer parallel in media might be Rush Limbaugh.

But if your objection to this article is the way the negative content is ghetto-ised into a "Controversies" section... I agree absolutely. I think the article would benefit from a major restructure, with the "controversies" material integrated into other parts rather than marshalled together. I just don't see that as a "neutrality" issue - but if we're agreed that it's a problem and on how it could be fixed, perhaps we don't need to agree on how to label that problem? I can't commit the time for a rewrite but if somebody else wants to take it on, good luck to them. --GenericBob (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The existence of the section means that the article as a whole is poorly structured. Negative and controversial material should be better placed. The volume is inappropriate; not only is much of it trivial, but it is lopsided and skews the whole article. I would say that Philip Adams is at least as controversial as Jones in his savage and persistent attacks on various groups, especially organised religion. The only differences between he and Jones is that Adams has a (better) sense of humour, he has different targets, and he doesn't have as much influence. If my memory serves, [redacted].

But that's as maybe. My objection to the section is that it does not comply with BLP and NPOV. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I really can't let that bullshit through. For someone allegedly concerned about BLP to write "Adams has been in court several times on issues related to his public comments, but if there were ever any mentions, they have been whitewashed away", with no citations, is pure hypocrisy. Grow up. HiLo48 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(To help other editors understand, I wanted to delete that post of mine immediately above because Pete had wisely and commendably removed the offending comment, but he reckons removing my post would leave a hole in the conversation. Pete, of course, has created a hole himself by removing his own content. I don't comprehend his logic. I often don't. And I know from long and sad experience that when he gets a bee in his bonnet over something, absolutely nothing will change his mind. I don't want an edit war, even on a Talk page, so I hope this explanation helps others.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Valid point, not bullshit. The article on Adams is similarly skewed .. although favourable to Adams. Suggesting that there is bias that must be addressed at some time .. preferably now. Entertaining Hilo's assertion for a moment, can Hilo substantiate the assertion that the bias isn't evident? DDB (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Many radio personalities have Controversy sections in their articles. See, for example, Kyle Sandilands#Controversy, The Kyle and Jackie O Show#Complaints, Chris Moyles#Controversies, The Rush Limbaugh Show#Controversial incidents and Paul Holmes (broadcaster)#Controversy. I fail to see why Alan Jones (radio broadcaster)#Controversy is any different. (And please don't invoke WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I am well aware of what that says. WWGB (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that reinforces the point I made at 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC). Jones is a shock jock. He is paid to create controversy. He is good at it. The better he does it, the better his ratings (in general). I wouldn't be surprised if the management at 2GB regard our Controversies section as points in his favour. HiLo48 (talk) 06:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The section name is very little of importance compared to all the controversies Alan Jones has been in. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it's about time we got more eyes on this. I'm more interested in arguments based on established wikipolicy than appeals to emotion. --Pete (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Uhhuh. Timeshift (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting that one editor - Pete has raised this discussion and despite being the only one arguing his case against so many others making good arguments why the section should stay, albeit with some overhaul, has now flagged the section. I find that rather dubious Pete, you are not the only sensible one here which seems to be the basis of most of your arguments above. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? That is not my position at all, and I reject the allegation. My concern is with the neutrality or otherwise of the article structure. The section has been flagged since October 2011 and should remain flagged until the issue is resolved. My first edit to either article or talk page was only a few days ago, to initiate this discussion as a precursor to listing the article on WP:NPOVN. Some progress has been made in cleaning up items within the section, but my position is that it should be eliminated overall in compliance with wikipolicy and specific incidents integrated with the main article, if relevant. --Pete (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be three issues here being discussed concurrently: 1. do we keep the 'controversies section. 2. do we cut back on the content/ undue weight of the controversies. 3. People are annoying each other.

Am I right in reading that we agree that the section should be removed, in compliance with WP:NOCRIT? It would be a far more neutral, but still comprehensive, article if the section was pasted pretty much intact into the radio and the media section. There might not be much else- that's ok, the content will reflect his controversial nature without us needing a big bold heading for it. We'd also see a sequence of events in context- "Radio Talk Personality of the Year" just before "cash for comments" for example.

We could then focus on issue 2- what is substantial about him and his career, not just what is controversial, how do we get a balance etcWotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I for one certainly don't agree with removal of the section, at least not yet. Language is being confused, and I wonder if it's deliberate with some editors here. Criticism and Controversies don't mean the same thing. Jones aims to create controversy. It's his job. By listing some controversies he's been involved with we're actually highlighting how successful he has been. Criticism is another thing. It's at another level. Those who disagree with his outbursts will criticise him, but he has still successfully created a controversy. Let's not mix up the two words. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying you'd like us to include the controversies, but remove our outright criticism of Jones?

Note that I didn't so much suggest we remove the content (at this stage) of that section as move it to a general section on his work.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The controversies definitely belong. Maybe they could be better located in some sort of description of his work, because that's what they are, his work. It would take some careful editing though. I'm not sure what "outright criticism of Jones" the article contains. It has some quotes from people he has attacked. So long as they are properly attributed and well sourced they shouldn't pose a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a bit thick. I'm just trying to understand your last points about the two words being confused, and reach a consensus.

My "outright criticism of Jones" comment was an attempt to understand what your objections were. Would I be understanding you better if I said you'd like us to include the controversies but to think carefully, and perhaps not record, criticism of Jones, since that would be reporting opinions, not facts?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The concern is that the "Controversy" section was half the article and contained some pretty dubious material. For example, the London incident (since removed) which was phrased so as to make it appear that Jones was guilty of something even though the charges were dropped. Likewise the perception that the article was being used to attack Jones in the same way he used his position as a broadcaster to unduly criticise the left of Australian politics. Wikipedia articles are not for making counterattacks. We provide the facts, we provide a balanced view, we don't give undue weight. If someone wants to launch a biased attack on Jones - or anyone else - fine, they can start a blog. I am heartened by the progress made in the past week. --Pete (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, the only thing remaining is to delete the second half of the article. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you so persistently ignore my point that creating controversy is Jones' goal, therefore to ignore it would be to ignore what he has successfully achieved? HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry? I've noted several times that Jones successfully gets up the noses of certain people. Could you stick to the subject, please. --Pete (talk) 02:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

My post was completely on subject. That you cannot see it, or feel the need to attack, perhaps puts your competence to edit here in question. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete your friend Collect missed this section, but his comment about reporting of charges which were not prosecuted inspired me to look for some resolutions to some of the charges against Jones, and I suggest we all do that. After all as editors we are all supposed to be looking for accuracy. So far the only case I found a resolution to was the allegation over the Kovco case. Seeing as that was a case where the charges against Jones were not proceeded with, I would normally be inclined to remove the reference to it from the article. However, the Kovco case and Jones' part in it was quite notorious and so I thought it would be fairer in this case to leave the mention and add reference to the resolution as I have done. Djapa Owen (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the battles we've had over the Craig Thomson thing, I wouldn't label Collect as a friend. However he revealed a far better knowledge of our BLP policy than I possess, and in the end we should be guided by policy rather than our personal feelings. Or the feelings of those political groups we support. --Pete (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Pete (aka Skyring): You've recently stated that you think we should delete half the article. I can see the need for tweaking the language, but the bulk of the content now looks appropriate to me. Do you (or anyone else) still think that major chunks of content need to be removed? I'm seeing an article that is largely about a controversial figure, so much of the content has to be taken up by the ways he has done this and the repurcussions (otherwise it wouldn't be a neutral presentation of the facts), but I'm interested in knowing if there is a consensus on this since we removed the 'controversy' section. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The essential problem remains: half the article is devoted to portraying Jones in a poor light. Each individual incident is not treated in a neutral fashion. The cumulative impression our article gives is overwhelmingly negative. This reflects the POV of many of the regular editors, I suggest, not Wikipedia's BLP policy. I asked Collect for an opinion, and it is given below. The executive summary is: too long and far too many pointed adverbs and too much trivia included … the BLP is too long by half, easily. Before I list the article on WP:BLPN, are there any other views? --Pete (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to take into account that half of Jones' career portrays him a negative light. The individual incidents need to be mentioned as they are important to the story that is Alan Jones.

I believe that they are mostly treated in a neutral fashion. I don't think that the life story and career of a man with that many complaints/ negative findings can be read without giving a negative impression. I don't belive this is reflecting my POV (of Jones, or of politics), it is reflecting the life story of the man we are describing. Others, upthread, have stated similar positions.

Regardless of the portrayal of individual incidents, i think it is a bit much to say that half the article needed to be deleted.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

half of Jones' career portrays him a negative light… Do tell? Where are you getting that from? Wikipedia? I suggest that this is an example of a circular argument. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

If anyone knows what the close paraphrasing referred to at the top of the article is, could you please remove it? Actual close paraphrasing is usually a copyright violation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you also deal with the other stuff using the Four Corners source? I noticed some of the earlier stuff you dealt with used this source and I'm concerned whoever used this source unfortunately had a poor understanding or simply didn't not care about close paraphrasing and copyvio issues, as both sections in the defamation section seem to share a similar problem. (The last sentence in David Parker and the entire sentence in Don Mackay are nearly word for word.) I don't feel I have enough experience to be able to deal with it myself beyond simply deleting the info. Nil Einne (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually looking more closely all remaining sections seem to have similar issues. The first one about Charles Perkins and Jones is nearly word for word (some change in tenses and perhaps he with names or vice versa), a lot of it is quotes but I believe that level of similarity outside the quotes is generally considered problematic. The two paragraphs under 'Adverse court and tribunal findings' without a subheading changed a bit more, but still seem fairly similar, I'm not sure that they are problematic but checking from a more experience eye would help. Given that much of this stuff seems to have come after you dealt with the earlier issues, perhaps a word with whoever is adding it would help. Nil Einne (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Current photo Alan Jones from the musical Annie in infobox

Whilst Franklin Delano Roosevelt used a wheelchair I understand Alan Jones does not. Without some explanation of this the use of the Annie photo in the info box is not appropriate. Paul foord (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

There already is an explanation: the caption says "Alan Jones as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the musical Annie". I think that should be enough for the average reader to guess that the wheelchair might be a prop, especially since it's clearly an old-fashioned model. Do we really need to tell readers that Frank Gorshin didn't usually dress in a green outfit with question marks on it, or that Harpo Marx didn't really have blonde curly hair?

If we can find a suitable free image I'd be more inclined to go with something from his radio or political activities, since they're a bigger part of his life, but I don't see a problem with the existing one. (It's a lot nicer than the one people were trying to insert into the article a few years back...) --GenericBob (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are a couple of images on Flickr which are creative commons, Alan Jones at Hanson book launch [2] and Alan Jones after Bowral Coal Seam Gas rally [3]. Neither of those is defamatory or misleading. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those! I think the CSG one would work better, cropped down to just Jones. I'd favour the book launch (iconic AJ stance, addressing an audience) except that the backdrop distracts from AJ. --GenericBob (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Both would need cropping, and they both reflect significant conflicting positions he has taken. Cheers. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the photo at the Hanson book launch is CC-by-NC, so it isn't compatible with Wikipedia's license. It would need the photographer to change the license to CC-by-SA before we could use it. The other has the correct license, but it depends a bit on how much someone wants to query if the license is accurate or not - as the person releasing the image is in the photograph, they presumably didn't take it, so they may not own the copyright. - Bilby (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I cropped one of those photos and added it to the infobox, moving the Annie photo to the correct position in the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

"Died of Shame controversy" - MOS

I suggest that the section Died of Shame controversy should be changed to Died of shame controversy or "Died of shame" controversy to comply with MOS guidelines. Ie "shame" is lower case (MOS:CAPS) and "Died of shame" is either italized (WP:ITALIC#Words as words) or surrounded by quotation marks (MOS:QUOTEMARKS). 203.176.108.99 (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Analysis of Apology

I have removed again additions to the article where editors are contributing their own analysis of Jones' apology. There are a number of sources cited, but none of them say anything about "double standards", or "critique of the Prime Minister".

The problems with this are;

• Whether he did this or not is irrelevant. It is not in the sources and not verifiable, a core Wikipedia requirement.
• It is very likely original research performed as an analysis of his words. This is not permissible on Wikipedia. We do not include what editors think was "implied" or "indicated", we include what reliable sources say was implied or indicated.
• By mentioning the "critique", when sources do not, it is advancing the opinion that he should not have done this, and should be criticised for it. Wikipedia is not interested in the opinions of editors.

This is therefore unsourced critical content on a biography of a living person. It therefore must, and should, be removed. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources - the video of the apology in full; http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/01/alan-jones-apology-gillard/, more detailed analysis of the speech and apology from ABC including reactions of various experts, politicians of various parties and references to auction items; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-30/gillard-not-interested-in-jones-apology/4288290 and ABC Insight panel discussion of the apology; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-30/insiders-looks-at-alan-jones-speech/4287980

Of course if you want some more enthusiastic analysis there is Nic Lochner's article on the Punch; http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Dont-believe-the-bull-that-this-bully-was-bullied/ and the Sydney Morning Herald article 'Jones eats pie - but without much humility'; http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/jones-eats-pie--but-without-much-humility-20120930-26tue.html#ixzz28u21HPby

Between those there are plenty of sources for analysis of his apology. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I acknowledge all these good cites, but could you show me where any of them refer to his critique of the PM during his apology? I'm not seeing it. This one does mention his complaint of what could be called "double standards", so that's ok. The video of the actual apology is not a good cite, as it is a primary source. Using that involves original analysis on the part of Wikipedia, creating criticism rather than referencing it. We cannot do this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is one more analysis of the apology from the Fairfax which includes reference to the Gillard Government's performance; saying Jones insisted, the lines about John Gillard dying of shame was not a joke, they were serious. It was the sort of thing said by people who feel a sense of frustration, and they don't feel as if they've got anywhere to turn. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-low-can-this-shameless-old-dog-of-the-old-media-go-20120930-26tqf.html#ixzz290CIQIl7 Djapa Owen (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So he said he was speaking for those who "feel a sense of frustration". Not really a critique, is it? I understand what you are trying to say here, but the fact is that none of your sources are that concerned about it. It's clear that many were unimpressed by the overall tone of the "apology", but you are highlighting an aspect that no-one else thinks is worth mentioning. I guess it's not such a big deal that he criticised a politician, that's kind of his job. The problem was that he crossed a line when he included the death of a family member. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

too long and far too many pointed adverbs and too much trivia included

Covers some of the problems with this BLP. The photo is supposed to present a fair image of the person - the current theatrical image does not do so. In short - the BLP is too long by half, easily. (opinion requested by Skyring on my UT page). Collect (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the problem with the photo, it gives a misleading picture of this person. And while Jones may make a habit of stirring up controversy (again, it's his job) the sections devoted to this could do with a radical pruning and removal of insignificant detail. Currently they account for over half the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Friends, the relevant section is "Revisiting neutrality" above. Starting a new section does not make sense. Also, what is your definition for a pointed adverb? The term is not in Wiktionary or any other dictionary I have found.

I think in the relevant discussion above there was general agreement that the wheelchair image does not make sense and that the CSG image was appropriate. I would do it but do not have time to crop it and do the upload right now. Djapa Owen (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider the use of as distinct from the University's traditional graduate and undergraduate programmes as a parenthetical and pointed SYNTH. Similarly though he retains his number one position with a slim margin. Adverbially Notwithstanding this, However, Nonetheless etc. are clearly "pointed" language ... 2.(of a remark or look) Expressing criticism in a direct and unambiguous way: "pointed comments". (see multiple dictionaries -- I am amazed that Wiktionary misses this common usage.) See WP:EDITORIAL for elucidation as to why such wording is "not done." Collect (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

POINT OF ORDER: It would be nice if this section started with a sentence explaining what it's about. As it is, it doesn't even start with a sentence. What are we talking about here? HiLo48 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Re Point of Order: It would make sense for this to be part of the "revisiting neutrality" section above as I have already mentioned. Then the discussion would be contiguous with the rest of the relevant arguments. Starting a new section with a new topic and vague heading is unnecessary to me and dismissive of all the other editors' contributions. As for the pointed language argument, the value judgement on the teaching diploma is illogical and unsubstantiated so I have removrd it. It was not important to the article. The rest of the terms mentioned are qualifiers and have a logical place in discussion of a complex issue such as this. When you have two arguments, one for and one against something, then to discuss it objectively one needs to contrast them - cars burn precious fuel, HOWEVER they are useful for getting from place to place - there is nothing subjective about using however as a conjunctive this way.

Now, can we rejoin the main discussion above please? Djapa Owen (talk) 00:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree also. As someone who is fairly new to this article, I'm finding the conversation hard to follow, with posts found elsewhere, previous personal histories and presumed political leanings playing key parts in the discussion. Can we please talk about the photo in the photo section, neutrality in the neutrality thread, and add clearly worded, sef contained sections as needed?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here here. The photo question was solved I thought, just waiting on someone doing the relevant edit, and raising it again here is just reinventing the wheel. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bias in heading "Criticisms of the Left in Australia"

This heading does not make sense to me for two reasons; 1) The material in this section relates to personal attacks on individuals, not criticism of their philosophy. Thus it should read 'Personal attacks on...' 2) The three opponents identified in the section are Julia Gillard, Clover Moore and Bob Brown. While I am sure these three all appear left wing from Geert Wilders' perspective, I am not sure that all three really qualify as being left wingers, especially when Jones has taken a stance on coal seam gas which could be argued to be more left wing than Gillard's. I think the classification is a bit subjective and therefore is questionable on NPOV grounds. I would suggest that 'political oponents' is more logical. Thus I would suggest repacing the section heading with 'Personal attacks on political opponents' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djapa84 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just out of interest, if Julia Gillard, Clover Moore and Bob Brown aren't of the left, who is? You'd place Leon Trotsky as "slight pink", maybe? --Pete (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Djapa84 - How about "...political targets", rather than "...political opponents"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Haha, yes Pete, pink with polka dots. Seriously though, Gillard and Labor are pro-nuclear, pro-CSG, pro offshore processing, unwilling to support marriage equality etc. They are left compared to the LNP naturally, but overall they are fairly moderate in their position. Clover Moore is left on some issues and not on others and the article on her does not describe her as left or right but talks more about timtams, traffic control policies and the like. As for the Greens, there is constant argument about whether they are left or not. My point is that calling them 'political targets' as HiLo suggests avoids the whole issue which is 1) open to argument and 2) not important to this article. Would you suggest that Jones has only ever criticised left wing people? I would think not. Also, Jones has criticised the state and federal governments over CSG and on that issue it could be argued his position was left of theirs. Using the term 'the Left' is oversimplifying. Djapa Owen (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The section is a subsection of

• Political lobbying by issue, and we divide that up into

• Criticisms of the Left in Australia (you want Personal attacks on political targets)
• Infrastructure and
• Coal seam gas mining

So, despite CSG having its own subsection, you think it should be rolled into the first. You also think we should relabel that subsection so that it pretty much means the same as the section as a whole. I'm not seeing how this does anything but confuse the readers. --Pete (talk) 05:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I said no such thing. Trying to put words in my mouth does not help Pete. First you come up with the rediculous assertion that Gillard, Moore and Brown are just as left as Trotski and now you make this nonsense up. Try staying with the plot for goodness sake. You cannot carry an argument this way, it is just childish and offensive. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed all those sub-headings, mainly because they are not really necessary. As for "Criticisms of the left", this is synthesis. While it's a valid summary of the content (what reasonable person is suggesting Jones generally is towards the right and not the left?), it's not a npov summary, and most importantly, it's wikiepdia's summary and hence commentary. So, one could say I'm removing those sub-headings as they are not necessary, which has the effect of removing the non-neutral "Criticisms" heading. However, the section itself is now a bit stunted - each section starts with "Jones said". --Merbabu (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring; Fire Brigade Employees' Union

Lets stop edit warring over the mention of the Fire Brigade Employees' Union accusation. It is properly cited, and clearly a number of editors consider it relevant. It illustrates how desperate 2GB is feeling the pressure of the anti Jones campaign, and I beleive including it is appropriate. However, the most important point is that we should abide by Wikipedia policy and keep the status quo (inclusion) until it has been discussed here and consensus reached. Please do the right thing and join the discussion here and do not keep deleting the section unilaterally. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Entirely relevant, and references cited. It has been deleted by the same contributor again 60.225.80.123 (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I could equally maintain that the "status quo" was the content prior to the addition of the union material. There is also WP:BRD, which acknowledges the revert position. While the topic may be relevant elsewhere in Alan Jones or 2GB, it has no relevance to the "died of shame" controversy, which is not mentioned in the reference.WWGB (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my double entry WWGB. Of course it is relevant to the "Died of Shame" section. The backlash to the controversy has put pressure on 2GB's advertising income and the pressure they in turn are putting on the FBEU is an illustration of that.

Pete it would be good if you behaved a little more civilly and perhaps abided a little more by the rules of Wikipedia. The entry you deleted has proper citation and is perfectly relevant, but you do not want to enter the discussion. Presumably that entry does not fit your agenda? If you do not have a rational argument as to why you feel this is not relevant you should not be removing it simply because it does not fit your personal POV. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This is an article on the whole life and career of AJ. It is meant to take a broad view. No one is arguing that the “Died of Shame” stuff is not a major event in the career/life of Jones – indeed, everyone seems to agree that it needs its own section.

However, relevance/importance does not mean we have to create a excessively long section that details it to the nth degree of detail. Especially when the event/s has its own article.

This article needs to mention the following highly notable and relevant events:

• A sentence or two on comments themselves
• A sentence or two on the overwhelmingly negative reaction
• A sentence or two on the loss of sponsors

That only requires a paragraph, and these points can be developed into much further detail in the other article. Anything else (eg, fire fighters stuff) is comparatively irrelevant to the life and career of Jones.

Your argument that it is relevant is merely based on “it’s relevant” doesn't stack up. Indeed, the way it is currently written, it doesn't link in or show the connection. That's basic, and it's not done. It may be relevant to the saga (so put it in that article), but it’s quite a minor thing in AJ’s overall life and career. WP:SUMMARY style is fundamental to wikipedia writing style and the encyclopedia’s very structure.

As for process, it is not “unilateral”. There is at least 3 editors who do not want it. And, my own *explained* edit to initially remove the mention was reverted with *no* explanation. That’s poor form. It as also a relatively recent addition, and hence not the “status” quo.

Please note that I’m more than happy to pursue this further. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. I see Djapa has beaten me to the punch in adding the material to the appropriate article, where it is entirely relevant. Thank you. I would have made it myself, but I was out the back getting in the eggs and refilling the water. Only one egg so far from four chooks, but I remain ever hopeful. --Pete (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Merbabu I appreciate your points above. This process works so much better with a little discussion. I looked back at the history, and I see the original entry was quite recent and so does not qualify as status-quo as you say. I actually thought it had been added a week or so ago. You may be right that this section belongs in Alan Jones shame controversy, and so I have added it there. Incidentally, the title of that article is rather vague. I think it should be renamed 'Alan Jones "Died of Shame" controversy' so that it will come up higher in 'died of shame' searches. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Further...

So, I should have read the source earlier: [4]. It makes no mention of Gillard or the comments and her father. Correct me please if I have missed it. So what is the relevance to this section? Or indeed to the article on the "Died of Shame" events? --Merbabu (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)