Talk:Michael Leunig

Description of cartoon style

How is Leunig a 'very different cartoonist'? If anything, I'd say he was extremely typical of Australian cartoonists other than being rather more successful and slightly more left wing. As for his prayers being 'treasured'... I mean really. Unless anyone leaps to it's defence I'm going to edit these. --RaiderAspect 14:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Add section on controversies

I believe that there should be a section on controversies as there are multiple examples. In addition to the recent Age cartoon, I recall another one from 2002:

During Israel's Operation Defensive Shield, the editor of the Age refused to publish a cartoon of Leunig's that contrasted a Jew entering a concentration camp during World War II with an Israeli soldier entering a refugee camp. This was exhibited and discussed on ABC's Media Watch. Here are the links:

• Transcript of segment
• The Cartoon

--Viclamb 11:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There was also the "Suckhole of steel" cartoon. John Dalton 22:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed Text

I've removed the following text.

Leunig has been criticised repeatedly for misogyny, including attacks on working mothers [1], women soldiers [2] and male-female relationships [3]. Leunig has also been attacked for anti-semitism, most notoriously in 2002, when The Age refused to run a cartoon equating Israeli actions with the Holocaust.[4]

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has also provided considerable airtime to Leunig to disseminate his views on a range of political and philosophical issues, despite his lack of expertise in any areas he is asked to discuss.

Quite simply the allegations made in the text are WP:POV and the references do not back them up. Agnte 13:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A summary of the edit can be seen here[5] Agnte 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Block/Lock

Is it possible to block Beucephalia OR Pussycat69 from making any changes, since they are just vandalising? If not, how about locking the article until they go away? Any suggestions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D3j4vu (talk • contribs) .

Block & controversies

a well-written section on the controversies would be fine, but what we're getting is vandalism and POV. I'd support a lock after it's been rewritten. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.23.138.75 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure how useful the semi-protection will be but a number of editors are watching the article, I'm sure we'll be able to keep things tight. Agnte 10:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you there, hopefully we can keep it clean and not get too personal about it —d3j4vu

A section on criticisms would be a good idea. Please do not over-protect this self-indulgent and over-indulged Victorian artist. It is astonishing that no one has seen fit to mention the Olympic Games 'boy and his duck' fiasco, which irritated and mortified sizeable sections of the Australian public and was, no doubt, an enormous puzzle for the rest of the world. (A big mistake by the local organisers of the Games.) Ombudswiki (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Leunig Interview

There is a very good interview with leunig in an australian book called "heroes" (not the pilger book) or something like that. the book also has interviews with other australians. I cannot find the reference for the book since I dont know the exact title or author. In the interview, leunig discusses the reaction he has received from readers. Also has a lot of good biographical material.

m3b

Making a goose of myself!

Just after the opening of the 2006 Commonwealth Games I was talking to a family member who their knows ducks and geese and who swore to me that it was a goose rather than a duck that was used. Accordingly, I inserted, "(A live white goose was substituted, presumably because it would be easier to handle and better visible by cameras.)" That person has since seen footage of the duck in question and has recognised the error of the ways. Accordingly, I too must take responsibility and apologise to the Wikipedia community in general and the Games organisers in particular. Peter Ellis 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The Beucephalia edit

Am very amused that my persistent efforts to provide some balance to the hagiography that this entry consists of were met with claims of "POV" and lack of evidentiary support. And then you complain about me vandalising it! Much simpler simply to vandalise than to bother assembling the ample evidence that Leunig has attracted regular criticism for misogyny and anti-semitism, only for it to be rejected as not fitting the glowing endorsement the article is clearly intended to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.200.3 (talk • contribs)

Are you willing to discuss the edit you are trying to make? The edit has problems: it blanks large portions of the article, and it has rather obvious POV issues (I can see you dislike Leunig with a passion, and it shouldn't be possible to see the editor's bias in an article!). I have reverted the edit a couple of times and I'm not entirely happy doing so. But your style of blanking, big undiscussed rewrites, sockpuppetry, and refusal to discuss and compromise gives little choice. Please see the the Wikipedia policy on verifiability and neutrality. Is there some relevant verifiable encyclopedic fact you want reflected in the article? Weregerbil 10:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simply that you Leunig fans are incapable of accepting any objective evidence that Leunig's cartoons have on occasion reflected anti-semitic and sexist views. You stick to this absurd claim that you are being objective while rejecting anything that inconveniences your installation of Leunig in some sort of pantheon of great Australians. My favourite example was the patronising clown who tried to deal with Leunig's sexism by saying his notorious childcare cartoon had been criticised by "feminists" (whoever they are). As if you'd have to be a "feminist" to be offended by abuse of working women.

But that's fine, stick to your hagiography, enjoy it. Just don't annoy those of us with some critical faculties by pretending to be objective.

This talk page is not a soapbox. Either answer the question Is there some relevant verifiable encyclopedic fact you want reflected in the article? or go away. Snottygobble 01:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing how you Leunig fans will cope with his latest disgusting example of sexism in The Age of 1 November. I anticipate you'll duck (ha!) the issue by denying any implied or explicit criticism of Leunig as "POV". Let's see some rigour from you, rather than defensive censorship.

Fair use rationale for Image:Gyanleunig.jpg

Image:Gyanleunig.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Why the Agro? I thought that these pages were supposed to be impartial, not a dog fight. Leunig has been alive for over half a century, and I can remember his work from when I was teenager, and because he is not set in stone, his ideas and opinions have changed over time. Some his work I love, some I don't like at all, and some I think is ho-hum. HOWEVER the job of a cartoonist is to provoke thought, so apparently he is good at his job. Coralhue (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)