Talk:Adam Bandt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Australia / Politics / Victoria (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Adam Bandt is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (marked as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Victoria.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to for other than editorial assistance.

Edit request from Kajute, 6 September 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} In info box for Adam it has him listed as divorced. This in not correct - he lives with his partner (unmarried).

I cannot find a source, but I also see that it has no source currently either.

If you could please list him as "Lives with partner" that would be greatly appreciated.

Kajute (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed the spouses line altogether seeing that no sources can be found regarding his marital status. If sources can be found, the marital status will be placed back up. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
[1], [2] - these both mention his divorce. Reliable sources? Not sure. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
There are several references about Bandt's partner, Claudia Perkins, in The Australian and The Age (which also says they are moving to Flemington from Parkville). Can't find anything about a divorce yet though. --Canley (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


From 1987 to 1989, he was a member of the Labor Party, from whom he subsequently won his seat in Parliament.

Can we say this in a slightly different way if possible? It reads as if the seat was the ALP's property or something. One can win a seat in parliament, and one can even be said to defeat a party ("he beat the ALP to win Melbourne" or "he won the seat of Melbourne, defeating the ALP"), but do we ever say one wins a seat from a party? Journos talk about someone "wresting a seat" from the current holder. In any case, parties are not humans (despite being composed of humans), so it'd be "from which". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
it's unnecessary decoration so I'm happy to cut it entirely. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

15 year old email [& Quardrant blog as sources][edit]

Yes yr right that the random email needs to be mentioned in a reliable primary before we can mention it. However weblogs don't qualify as reliable sources & especially not one from an inherently questionable source such as Quadrant.--Misarxist 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

To put this in context as it is only a single sentence this dispute is that states:

He also declared that "It is futile to try and resurrect some kind of social democratic project" and that he was advocating "Towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement" .

with direct quotes that come from a UVA archive of Marxist mailing lists and support from a magazine that has been published on politics in Australia for over 50 years.

The primary source, whose veracity you implicitly assert by accepting the date on the archive meets the wikipedia policy guidelines on primary sources that state:

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

This is clearly trivial to do in this case.

Quadrant is used as a source in other places on wikipedia so it is accepted. Please provide evidence that wikipedia regards direct quotes with sources from Quadrant as unreliable. Also as the primary source on which it relies is so easily available and is so clear it further strengthens the case.

Is there any dispute as to the factual accuracy of the quote? Is it disputed that Mr Bandt wrote these words? (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Sien

What evidence do we have that these purported archives are reliable sources? Past that: if you read the actual post, as opposed to the Quadrant coverage, you will see that these statements were framed as hypotheses. And no, I see no reason to consider Quadrant a reliable source for much of anything about people anywhere to the left of Jack van Tongeren, or at best Stan Zemanek or Brian Wilshire, given their ideological biases. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Presumably all references made to Quadrant should be removed form wikipedia. Mother Jones is also, on occasion and legitimately, used a reference which is a similarly politically slanted magazine, should that be removed as well? Also are you suggesting that the material in the archives is fake? It's a vast archive with lots of material with email addresses of people who all appear to exist and whose accuracy you also happily accept in your second point. In addition the material is also referenced and quoted from reference 4 in the article from The Australian. Adam Bandt's response to the announcement that he said these things also includes no statement that he denies making them which is also surely a confirmation that they are what he said. Is Australia's top selling National Newspaper also not a reliable source and if not should all references that use the Australian be removed from wikipedia? Your interpretation that Bandt is also merely just suggesting the idea and not advocating the position he outlines is also contestable. It appears to be clear that he thinks this is a wise course of action. Surely a reference to the source would allow readers to answer this question for themselves. Could the quote, which is in reference 4 from the Australian be included as well as a direct reference material to the sourced. This compromise would surely be a good way to present this information with an NPOV.

Would the sentence:

At that time he has been quoted as calling the Greens a "bourgeois" party and he also signed off the email as "towards an anti-capitalist, anti-social democratic, internationalist movement".

Be acceptable, with a reference to the source material?

Sien (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Sien.

Ok it's in The Oz too which's obviously fine as a reliable secondary source, so we don't need either Quadrant or the archive. As it's already there the "bourgeois" quote is a good example of what we can include because it's been mentioned by the Australian. It also more directly makes the point that his politics have changed and in such a way that is directly relevant to his current politics ie his party. I don't think we need a repetition of the same point in a more rhetorical manner (see WP:UNDUE) such as the tagline from the email the Oz quotes.--Misarxist 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)