Talk:Andrew Laming
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Australia: Queensland / Politics Start‑class Low‑importance ![]() ![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Santoro & McArdle Discussion
The only article which mentioned the Santoro staffer throughout the entire controversy also mentioned the McArdle staffer and mentioned McArdle by name. This article is not available online but has been used to reference the mention of Santoro in the Laming article. There is at least one further article which mentions the McArdle staffer by name but does not mention that she was working for McArdle, this article is available online. By not mentioning the possibility that the McArdle staffer could have been the "disgruntled staffer," this article leaves out some of the important speculation around the genesis of the investigation and in my opinion, unfairly targets Santoro and his staff without considering the other speculated sources of the complaint. Especially given that the McArdle staffer was mentioned in more than one article and the Santoro staffer was only mentioned in a single article which is not available online. I strongly recommend including the full details of the media speculation on the genesis of the investigation and who the "disgruntled staffer" could have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:BLP - the claims are original research and can be reverted by any editor, as you have not identified any source by which McArdle has been linked in the media to the business at hand. I have done a thorough search of the archives through Factiva and failed to find anything,[1] even though Factiva has all newspapers for the period in question (Courier Mail, Age, SMH, Australian, West and even local newspapers). It does not "unfairly target" anyone - our job here is simply to report what others have reported. People can then come to their own judgements based on what is presented. Orderinchaos 12:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The same article you used to reference the mention of Santoro mentions the McArdle staffer. It's there in the article.
I'd be happy to send you the article text which I have downloaded from Newstext. If you're genuine in your intention to cover all of the speculation on this issue then you should include this part. If it's good enough to reference one part of an article, it's good enough to reference the rest of the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- You've used this article to reference the Santoro speculation - Strutt, Sam. "Why Andrew Laming is John Howard's problem child", The Courier-Mail, 10 March 2007, p. 55.
The same article talks about the McArdle staffer - why are you practicing these double standards? Don't delete content until the debate is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Speculation does not belong on our biographies of living people. Page protected for one week. Unless you can provide a source that states a fact clearly, that fact cant be included on Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) As an admin I'm among other things expected to ensure that Wikipedia does not get into legal problems because people wish to add non-peer-reviewed information to it. The article in question is a page 55 opinion piece which openly admits to speculation, and does not mention McArdle (I have the text here). It does mention the same-named person, however, and mentions an additional person (by name) who is, according to the article, a Santoro staffer. It also quotes other unnamed sources saying neither could be the one. My actual source however was the Canberra Times article, which stated: "Mr Howard denied any factional involvement in the case, despite state powerbroker and federal minister Santo Santoro having been linked to the matter." Orderinchaos 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If that's your source then you should remove reference to the other article and you should remove reference to the speculation that the Santoro staffer was the genesis of the investigation. As far as I'm aware, Strutt's piece was the only artcile throughout the affair which mentioned any speculation that a disgruntled staffer under the employ of Santoro was linked to the affair. Instead, if you really wanted to mention Santoro, you could just say he was linked to the matter. Plus, the article I have downloaded from Newstext definitely mentions the second staffer working for McArdle. I'd really like you to consider a reword here because I think it unfairly represents the Santoro staffer and doesn't cover the full range of media speculation (which is what this entire article does, it discusses speculation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've included the text of the article I have downloaded from Newstext below (in part). Please note that I have removed the names of the staffers mentioned...
- If that's your source then you should remove reference to the other article and you should remove reference to the speculation that the Santoro staffer was the genesis of the investigation. As far as I'm aware, Strutt's piece was the only artcile throughout the affair which mentioned any speculation that a disgruntled staffer under the employ of Santoro was linked to the affair. Instead, if you really wanted to mention Santoro, you could just say he was linked to the matter. Plus, the article I have downloaded from Newstext definitely mentions the second staffer working for McArdle. I'd really like you to consider a reword here because I think it unfairly represents the Santoro staffer and doesn't cover the full range of media speculation (which is what this entire article does, it discusses speculation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
"There are also plenty of theories about just who blew the whistle on Laming. Party sources now claim the woman thought responsible, xxxx xxxxxxxx, a supposedly disgruntled ex-employee, had nothing to do with sparking the investigation. She's no relation to Jeff Williams, and was said to have sparked the raids after a complaint to the Crime and Misconduct Commission was passed on to the AFP. But xxxx xxxxxxxx, who is is about to take up a position on the staff of state Liberal deputy leader Mark McCardle, is ``not your smoking gun, said one source. ``It's just not her style. The finger was also pointed at former Laming staffer yyyyy yyyyyyy, who recently left his employment to take up a position in the office of factional chief Senator Santo Santoro, the ambitious federal Minister for Ageing. No way it was yyyyyyy, says another source. He and Laming are still on friendly terms."
Surely this warrants inclusion of the McArdle speculation or removal of any mention of the Santoro staffer. Instead, we could just mention that there was speculation that Santoro was linked to the affair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.75.36 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. The text I have says "a senior Liberal figure". Even so, the above is clearly speculation by the authors of the article. If I saw it in an actual article (as in, not a page 55 opinion piece), I'd be more accommodating. BTW I have modified the wording to "person associated with", as a couple of the sources use such wording. Note the text only makes the assertion that such an allegation was made. Orderinchaos 22:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What I don't understand is that if these anonymous IPs care so much about what is and isn't on wikipedia, why don't they sign up? The only logical conclusion is that they have a conflict of interest... (and i'm not talking about simply supporting a party either...) Timeshift (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of some discussion on that topic offline. Studying the evidence, I've concluded we're dealing with the debris of a Young Libs internal factional fight in the Brisbane/Gold Coast area, and it's not just at this article. (This reminds me of some of the early 2007 cases involving schools articles.) Orderinchaos 22:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the change made. I still don't understand how you've weighted the Santoro mention over the McArdle mention in the same article. Seems unfair. Seems like the link to Santoro's been targeted for reasons unknown while the same level of speculation over McArdle has been avoided. Almost as though you're trying to perpetuate rumours unfairly. I maintain that the speculation over a link to McArdle should be included if you are (as you seem) so intent on maintaining the speculation over a link to Santoro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.180.39 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I made the change because, on consideration, the source we should be using is the Canberra Times as they staked their editorial integrity on it and put it on page 5 as an actual article, whereas the other one is an opinion piece which disclaims editorial responsibility (although it meets the legal requirements necessary to be published, it's not entirely certain that WP:RS would consider it a reliable source without further backup). Interestingly, the new edition of Political Chronicle (part of a generally reliable academic peer-reviewed journal called the Australian Journal of Politics and History) suggests the raid was led by the estranged wife of someone called Paul Lucas. The plot thickens, it seems. Orderinchaos 10:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just looked him up, he appears to be a current Labor minister. Will definitely have to investigate further. Orderinchaos 10:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- The edits just made to the article were sound (only had citation formatting issues which I've now fixed) - I also added the journal link. I hope this points to how this article is going to progress in future. Orderinchaos 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I appreciate the change made. I still don't understand how you've weighted the Santoro mention over the McArdle mention in the same article. Seems unfair. Seems like the link to Santoro's been targeted for reasons unknown while the same level of speculation over McArdle has been avoided. Almost as though you're trying to perpetuate rumours unfairly. I maintain that the speculation over a link to McArdle should be included if you are (as you seem) so intent on maintaining the speculation over a link to Santoro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.180.39 (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Unwanted images of Laming
Rather than warring over it, i'm putting it on the record that we have two free good quality images of Laming that keep being removed. This image, and this image. Both were taken on the 2007 election campaign trail. He is happy to be snapped in both of them, look at his reaction hugging a bear, and his thumbs up in the second one. I was happy to just have one added near his 2007 election bit in the article, but that was removed too, it appears neither are acceptable so we can ONLY use the image that was given to us by Laming - that is not in the spirit of Wikipedia and I for one am highly disappointed his and one of the flickr images cannot co-exist. Timeshift (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Timeshift, thanks for posting here instead of continuing the edit warring. I don't mean to be rude or to offend the photographer because I really appreciate the people on Flickr who license their pictures under Creative Commons so that we can get pictures of people we don't have much chance of getting photos of, but I actually thought those pictures were pretty poor quality. They're okay for a blog or maybe even a news report about the "Big Switch" program but I don't think they're right for an encyclopedic biography and I wanted to remove them when I first saw them because I thought they were poor quality and not good enough for an Australian Member of Parliament's encyclopedia biography. So I contacted Andrew Laming myself and I suggested he consider providing a replacement image of equal or greater quality if he also didn't like the images we had. I explained that there were no guarantees and that we wouldn't use promotional images, and so if he had sent me a photo of himself kissing babies or rescuing little old ladies, I would have declined to use it myself. But he sent me an excellent professional head shot of himself that doesn't even compare to what we had. I don't think bio subjects should have right of content oversight, but I do believe in showing some basic human compassion and recognising that it must be horrible having pictures of yourself that you don't like in an article which always shows up as one of the first google searches for your name. If we had no other free images, then fine, we're going to use whatever we can access, but if the subject doesn't like our images and is willing to donate a replacement of equal or greater quality, then I just don't see the problem. This is entirely supported by guidelines, too, by the way, specifically AUTO which states:
- "If you do not like the photo, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license. If you have a promotional photo you are willing and able to release under such a license, that's ideal for us and you."
- No guarantees, of course, but if we're going to offer the opportunity to provide a new image in the very guideline that is designed to help and advise article subjects, and they then decide to take us up on it and provide us with a better quality image which we accept and happily use, then we need to respond to them ethically and with some integrity and not turn around and say, "well, gee, thanks for the nice image, but screw you, we're going to use the crappy pictures as well just to show you who's in charge". And we can't turn around and suggest that the person who follows WP:AUTO and provides a new image is violating the spirit of Wikipedia. I understand your concerned about letting BLP subjects dictate what we can and cannot use, but Andrew Laming is not trying to dictate to us, he is simply trying to provide us with a better quality image, which, as WP:AUTO says, is good for him and good for us. Please note also that other article subjects have provided images in the same way and one prior case that comes to mind is Mike Farrell. He didn't like the original image that we had of him Image:Mike Farrell by David Shankbone.jpg and so he contacted us and asked if he could provide a replacement image, which he released under the GFDL - Image:Mikef.jpg. Mike Farrell's replacement image has been in the article for more than six months now without problem. And we haven't tried to add the old image into the article as a second image or anything. So I think what I have done here is quite appropriate and well within the "spirit of Wikipedia".
- Also, this isn't the reason I personally wanted to replace the image, but it is a further reason to consider: there is nothing in this article about "Big Switch", so it seems kind of strange that we would include Big Switch images that depict Andrew Laming with a dude in a polar bear (?) suit unless we're just being pointy and trying to send the message that we'll do whatever we damn well please, regardless of how the subject of the article may feel. I don't think that is in the spirit of Wikipedia and you can be sure that it would undermine any future attempts to obtain professional images from other political figures. Sarah 12:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- The photo was taken whilst Laming was on the hustings in the 2007 election. I placed it in the 2007 section, as a second image, not to replace the one provided, two is better than one. I didn't mind just one of the two flickr images either, I can understand how the non-closeup might be considered pointy but when hes willingly hugging the polar bear and smiling for the camera in the other one, and decent quality - I don't see the issue? I'm an inclusionist not an exclusionist, we have not one but two free images currently unused. It's a pity. Timeshift (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- It was take in the leadup to an election, IMHO its the mascot of an interest group unless Laming wanted to have his picture on the front page of every QLD paper being lambasted by the group as rejecting their ideal he didnt have much choice. Also because its a political interest group its use should be as a last resort, unless its part of critical commentary or the subject has an actual association. Gnangarra 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- What a copout! You honestly think it would make front page news, let alone news, if he snubbed the bear? Oh please. Nothing made him pay attention to them except himself. Timeshift (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite sure it would not have made the news, especially not the front pages of any mainstream paper, but I take Gnang's point that had Laming ignored them, they would have used it against him. Just like they gave him a hard time for not completing their survey and complained that while he hugged the polar bear on their first meeting, he became progressively "cooler" each day they approached him. But anyway, I don't see what difference it makes that he posed for the photo. Posing for a photo doesn't automatically make a photo appropriate. Sarah 02:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting, Gnang. Yes, these are politically motivated images taken by activists. The protesters are from The Big Switch, a coalition of various activist groups that include Greenpeace, Get Up, and various state level conservation groups. The images are from a set of similar images and the description for the set, says: "These slides tell the story of the project as it unfolded in South East Queensland." ([2]) And the images were taken by James Whelan, an activist, and co-director of The Change Agency, an activist organisation, which was "engaged...to coordinate the campaign." ([3]). I really don't think we should have been using these pictures in the first place. As for Laming posing for the photos, I don't see what difference that makes. We all pose for photos that I'm sure we would not want placed prominently on Wikipedia. And I highly doubt the photographer said, "Please pose for a photo for your Wikipedia biography!" so the fact he was posing is not relevant at all IMO. Sarah 02:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is all meaningless. The fact remains we have Andrew Laming smiling wide and hugging the bear in a decent quality closeup, with nothing negative about the photo, which was taken whilst Laming was on the hustings at the 2007 election. I'm not a fan of these arbitrary decisions lately where images cannot be used. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that:
- if the subject supplies us with a better image for free, per the instructions at WP:AUTO
- if the image we have from previously adds nothing to the article of its own
- if the text does not support its inclusion over and above any available image of the person
- if there (maybe related to 2 and 3) may be an undue weight issue caused by their inclusion (as may be the case in this one, where activists took the photos as part of a campaign in part against him)
- then we're sort of ethically obliged to use the supplied image over the other one. The guy being able to think on his feet and being a good sport doesn't come into it - it's a red herring. I'm definitely not in favour of censorship or sterile images over "interesting" ones, but I honestly can see no advantage to keeping these ones over the one supplied on this article, and I think the debate over it is a serious time sink. We've had too many ludicrous debates this week over images and templates and things which are marginal to articles and I know at least on my part it's not helping to get things done. Orderinchaos 04:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that:
- This is all meaningless. The fact remains we have Andrew Laming smiling wide and hugging the bear in a decent quality closeup, with nothing negative about the photo, which was taken whilst Laming was on the hustings at the 2007 election. I'm not a fan of these arbitrary decisions lately where images cannot be used. Timeshift (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Take a good look at this image - using your above four points, should it be deleted? Yes. Should it really be deleted? Heck no. Timeshift (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how this has anything to do with Andrew Laming. If the points I have raised were to be taken as criteria, the image you have highlighted would pass at least three of them. There is no issues with it. Orderinchaos 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was taken by the same group. The bear is poking out to the right of Kevin. The source here has a second photo here. The points you raise above could all be applied to this image, as we have other free alternatives. But we don't just remove a free image because another is available do we? Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is WP:POINT in action, personally. Odd how nobody else in over a month has seen fit to spring to the image's defence. Orderinchaos 03:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I am making a point on the talk page, how else can one argue a case if they don't have points to make? This article doesnt exactly get the same exposure as some other more important MPs. Just bursting the bubble on the above four points with another image comparison. Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is WP:POINT in action, personally. Odd how nobody else in over a month has seen fit to spring to the image's defence. Orderinchaos 03:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was taken by the same group. The bear is poking out to the right of Kevin. The source here has a second photo here. The points you raise above could all be applied to this image, as we have other free alternatives. But we don't just remove a free image because another is available do we? Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how this has anything to do with Andrew Laming. If the points I have raised were to be taken as criteria, the image you have highlighted would pass at least three of them. There is no issues with it. Orderinchaos 03:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Take a good look at this image - using your above four points, should it be deleted? Yes. Should it really be deleted? Heck no. Timeshift (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Does this really belong in the lead?
"Laming is the son of former Queensland state Liberal MP Bruce Laming who held the seat of Mooloolah from 1992 until 2001 and served as Deputy speaker of the Queensland Legislative Assembly." I doubt if this is lead material. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- That sentence is there for the time being out of necessity. I intend it to become part of a paragraph about Laming's early life in PNG and such which will sit above the "early career" section. Currently that sentence does not belong in the lower career sections and would look silly sitting on it's own. It's a factual piece of information sourced to a reliable source and I don't see the problem with it being where it is for the time being. Kthx. Sarah 09:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Racist Remarks on Twitter
While serving as Federal Opposition Indigenous Health spokesman in January 2013, Andrew Laming posted inflammatory remarks on social media site Twitter about racial tensions south of Brisbane. At the time, dozens of police are blockading a street in Woodridge in Logan after weekend clashes between Indigenous and Pacific Islander groups.[1]
Mr Laming tweeted: 'Mobs tearing up Logan tonight. Did any of them do a day's work today, or was it business as usual and welfare on tap?'
He repeated the comment on Twitter four hours after the original post. Both Members of Parliament and local Indigenous people have condemned the comments.
Twelve hours after posting the original comment, Mr Laming sought to "clarify" his statement. To clarify: Working together to resolve these riots the priority. Training and a chance for jobs are key. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.52.136 (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Lead
The text about Lamings racist remarks on Twitter has been deleted and reposted a few times now in the lead of the article. The text definitely belongs in the article somewhere and given it is perhaps what he is best known for, would placing it in the lead be appropriate or not? Would other editors care to share their opinions? Hughesdarren (talk) 09:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the concern about the text is the assertion that Laming "was revealed as a racist". Publishing an opinion that "Laming is a racist" would contravene WP BLP policy and may be libellous. I found out the hard way after being blocked for reposting that text. I personally feel that it is appropriate that the Twitter incident is placed in the lead, it is after all the event of Laming's political career that achieved the greatest media and public interest. Laming himself seems to appreciate the publicity his comment received, subsequently tweeting, "Hmm, this Fbook page now 50 times more talked about than 'Stand up for Julia Gillard.' She should tweet more." and, "Australia's most controversial tweet for 2013!" A comprehensive record of Laming's Twitter comments and links to relevant social media and news reports can be found here. [2] It is worth noting that Laming previously made insulting Twitter comments about Aboriginals in May 2012, "'Brisbane Sovereign Embassy' in Musgrave Park. Hoping kids arent missing school, or adults 'work' if they are able." [3]
Perhaps a solution would be report in the leader that Laming made remarks on Twitter that were regarded as "inflammatory"[4], "disgraceful and callous"[5] and "racist"[6]? RussHawk (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/coalition-mp-tweet-on-racial-tensions-labelled-disgraceful-/4464988
- ^ http://greenshack.info/index.php/newmania/tensions-in-logan.html
- ^ http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/mps-inflammatory-tweet-slammed-20130115-2cqc7.html
- ^ http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/mps-inflammatory-tweet-slammed-20130115-2cqc7.html
- ^ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-15/coalition-mp-tweet-on-racial-tensions-labelled-disgraceful-/4464988
- ^ http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/andrew-laming-mp-apologise-to-logan-residents-and-all-cald-indigenous-australians
- Biography articles of living people
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- Start-Class Queensland articles
- Mid-importance Queensland articles
- WikiProject Queensland articles
- Start-Class Australian politics articles
- Mid-importance Australian politics articles
- WikiProject Australian politics articles
- WikiProject Australia articles