Talk:Adam Marshall

Plagarism allegations

What about the trouble he got into at school for dishonesty does that go in here too?

Criticism of Marshall by Recording Artists, Actors and Atheltes

I would have thought what this group had to say about Mr Marshall's offending was a fairly significant event in his career actually. I question whether it is excessive.

This is what I propose for inclusion in the article:

The National Director of Recording Artists, Actors and Athletes Against Drink Driving, Peter Rubinstein, claimed Marshall needed a change in attitude, and criticised his criminal record saying:

"Seventeen speeding offences doesn't mean he's been speeding 17 times, it means he's been caught speeding 17 times."

"He probably has sped a lot more times than that, and that comes under an area of repeat offending."

"The best thing I can say about Adam Marshall is that he got caught before he did something terrible, before somebody got hurt, injured or killed."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-16/anti-drink-driving-groups-concerned-by-marshall27s-driving-rec/5602584

I think the only objection could be on partisan grounds from one of his fans. You should hear what criticism his constituents are giving him in real life. Makes what Mr Rubinstein has said sound mild.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You urgently need to familiarise yourself with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The first, in particular, is extremely important, and if you read it closely you'll see why your edits are a big problem here. I'm a hard-left Western Australian, so trust me when I tell you this isn't remotely political. I also suggest for your own sake you don't get into a revert war on this, because there's at least one thing that if you're wrong about may well be legal defamation.

There was no ICAC investigation of Marshall. There was a public claim of an ICAC complaint by someone who appears to have been a political opponent; there is no evidence, let alone a reliable source, that ICAC ever took it seriously. Considering the current political situation in NSW, the claim of links to ICAC investigations carries massive implications, and in this case unless you've got a source for something more than this it's totally baseless.

You claim that he has a criminal conviction. Your source doesn't back it up. I have no idea if the claim is true, but that is a very serious allegation to make, and if you're wrong not only is it a colossal WP:BLP violation but you're opening yourself up to getting sued.

You're creating an article with a "controversies" section that is four times the length of the section on Marshall's actual career. Marshall is not, for example, Geoff Shaw. This is a walloping example of WP:UNDUE and it needs to be fixed. My summary of your section, aimed at cutting down its length, contains all the pertinent facts, and the inclusion of a press release from a drink driving orgnisation is complete overkill. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the ICAC complaint I shall need some time to look up additional sources. But as for his status as a convicted criminal. The articles say there was an admission of guilt. And he was sentenced. Isn't it a corollary then that a conviction was recorded? Otherwise it would have been reported he was given a section 10 would it not? Ordinary people don't get the benefit of that part first up for a mid range PCA matter, as if an MP is going get a spent conviction for endangering the lives of others. See here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s10.html

I understand these legal concerns. But that celebrity motoring group has been in the media quite a bit over the years. Their criticism has to be a notable event in the life of any politician.

Taking into account all these concerns, we should be able to truncate it down to something like this shouldn't we?

The National Director of Recording Artists, Actors and Athletes Against Drink Driving, Peter Rubinstein, claimed Marshall needed a change in attitude, and criticised his repeat traffic offending saying:

"The best thing I can say about Adam Marshall is that he got caught before he did something terrible, before somebody got hurt, injured or killed."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-16/anti-drink-driving-groups-concerned-by-marshall27s-driving-rec/5602584

Is it really not possible to include more of the sentencing remarks either?

We need to do something about it this has never happened to a serving lawmaker before in NSW getting booked for PCA. See my latest edits.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It might look lengthy but it should also be noted that the information about his parliamentary appointments, if it wasnt in this section it would only be somewhere else.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with the article as it stands if we want to take the tags down.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. The two WP:BLP issues have now been removed and I thank you for that but the drink driving section remains longer than Wikipedia's coverage of his entire life otherwise (excluding the other part of the "controversy" section). That's still an undue weight issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well what can I say? It was unprecedented news that made headlines all over the nation. He is well known for it around the traps these days. Maybe the only thing we will be known for. I just think that celebrity motoring group is a fairly significant organisation. I've seen their television advertisements and all. Wouldn't people like to come here and see all that in the one place?

You did turn up here and remove content that had been here since the beginning, nevertheless I'm happy to be the one who asks for a third opinion. Please advise how you would like to proceed.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The material that had "been there since the beginning" violated WP:BLP so badly that it potentially went into the territory of legal defamation. Wikipedia places a particularly high importance on balance in biographies of living persons, and this is not an exception just because you have what you think is a great quote. The matter is, without the quote, covered adequately to get across all the facts, and if people want to read more they can look at the sources. I'm more than happy to raise the matter at the BLP noticeboard if you want to argue the point, but I don't think you'll get the answers you're hoping for. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

We could mention the ICAC referal in the body of the article. As things turned out, it probably doesn't warrant its own heading. But I've heard real people in real life still talking about that one it in the last fews days. Still.

If we are the only two people here, then I say third opinion is open to us and the way to go. I'm happy to list it if you are. I must say I detect some sympathy for Mr Marshall here you aren't hearing on the ground in his electorate.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm his political polar opposite, from the other side of the country, and the dude has, from what I know of him, always struck me as unimpressive to put it lightly. My feelings about the bloke doesn't change the fact that WP:BLP still applies to his article. Even calling it an "ICAC referral" is misleading, or at least carries misleading connotations: a political opponent said he complained to ICAC, there is no evidence that ICAC took it vaguely seriously, and WP:BLP dictates that we don't add stuff with heavily pejorative implications to biographies of living persons based on thin evidence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm still assuming good faith. But when you consider there'd be the need to write up his ministerial appointments elsewhere, then the reasons he lost them. That would involve duplication and about the same amount of words. If we take out what the RAAD people said when they weighed in, shouldn't we hear more about what the magistrate said in sentencing? That would adios about four lines.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the initial proposal is a pretty serious WP:UNDUE and, more importantly, WP:BLP violation, plus I'm really not sure why we should care what this particular organisation thinks about a minor NSW politician. Plenty of people said something about the Marshall thing when it happened. I think that The Drover's Wife's version covers the whole thing pretty adequately, actually, although I am far from a fan of having "Controversies" as a heading at all. Could this not be integrated into the section on his political career? I do agree with Ghostofthelandscape that it seems it could come pretty logically after brief coverage of his parliamentary roles to date. Frickeg (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The newspapers trumpet him as a rising star. And he's the first sitting NSW state MP to get pinged for PCA. Maybe we could collapse it further. But I see some need for a separate heading "Drink Driving Scandal" at any rate. That's how the journals of record wrote it up. Why can't we?

If we got rid of what the RAAD people said why not just hear a bit more about the magistrates sentencing remarks then? That would fairly well reduce the number of words.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"Why can't we?" Because we are an encyclopedia, not a journal or a media organisation. Our view has to be towards the bigger picture. Marshall's behaviour was pretty stupid, but he is a very, very long way from being the only Australian (or even NSW) politician to come a cropper with drink driving, and for most of them it ends up being a very minor blip in their careers. Our job is not to provide a counter-balance to any biased media coverage, it is to provide a neutral and fair picture regardless. These scandals happen many times a year; they are all over the papers for a few days, and then they vanish. This is no different, and that is why we cover it only briefly. With the sentencing remarks I think TDW's version is probably sufficient, but am happy to consider any draft proposals you might put forward. In the meantime I agree that we should revert the page back to the minimalist version in accordance with WP:BLP. Frickeg (talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am also very okay with getting rid of the "controversy" section if someone can restructure it into the main text in a way that still makes sense. Also, following on from what Frickeg said about Marshall being far from alone here: consider the weight dedicated to it in Ghostofthelandscape's draft with coverage of Troy Buswell's drink-driving charges, despite the latter being a much more heavily publicised incident with a much more high profile politician, resulting in his permanently resigning from much more senior ministries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Revision

This is my idea of what it could look like.

Political career

Elected to Gunnedah Shire Council in 2004, aged 19, Marshall became Deputy Mayor and then Mayor of Gunnedah, an office his father once held, after the 2008 local government elections. During his time as Mayor, Marshall served as President of the Country Mayors' Association and Senior Vice-President of the Shires Association of NSW. Marshall moved to Armidale in 2012, resigning from the Council, and commenced studying commerce at the University of New England, prior to his endorsement as a candidate for the 2013 by-election held following the sudden resignation of Richard Torbay in March as the National's candidate for the federal electoral district New England and state member for Northern Tablelands, amid allegations of corruption.

Marshall was the National's endorsed candidate to replace the outgoing member, and he would claim victory on the night having receiving over 60% of the vote, subsequently being declared the winner with a margin of more than 30%.

During his preselection bid it was revealed that Marshall once held concurrent membership with both the Nationals and the Labor Party from 2001 to 2003, whilst also being employed on the staff of independent Member for Tamworth, Peter Draper. Former Tamworth based Labor MLC Christine Robertson claimed Marshall was working against the Labor party during his time as Mr Draper’s staffer saying "Adam was busy playing everybody."

Country Labor organiser Courtney Roche said Marshall would have been deemed to be a card carrying member of the party until 2004, after which his membership expired.

Drunk Driving Scandal

Marshall plead guilty to an indictment of mid range drink driving on 15 July 2014 at Glen Innes Local Court. On 27 June 2014, he had been stopped for a random breath test while driving and returned a blood alcohol reading of 0.112. Marshall's counsel argued in mitigation that he was suffering from a head cold which may have impaired his senses as to his level of intoxication. He was disqualified from driving for nine months and fined $2,000. The presiding magistrate noted that Marshall's driving record was "not good" and that he had 17 speeding offences since 2002 finding he "had been aware that he was at risk" of returning a postive reading and had "knowingly chosen personal convenience over public safety".

At the same time as expressing his disapointment New South Wales Nationals leader Andrew Stoner subsequently announced that Marshall had resigned his parliamentary appointments of temporary speaker and deputy chair of the state regional development committee.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Generally I am OK with this, although I would remove Robertson's comment; she wasn't even a sitting MP, plus of course she would say that. I would still like to get rid of the heading, though, and we could definitely use a paragraph between the membership stuff and the drunk driving stuff (we cover him getting sacked, but not him getting appointed). Frickeg (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I second this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we at least keep the picture then? If you are fine with the write up about his recent conviction until anything more comes of it, I'm happy to let you have your way with the rest of it then. I believe it was The Drover's Wife who initiated the changes.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with the image staying, but the defamatory caption needs to go and I should have caught that earlier. Either you find a reliable source that a conviction was recorded, or you really need to quit claiming it. Guesswork with something this serious doesn't vaguely cut it on a BLP article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

How much more convincing do you think you will need that there was a conviction recorded?

You're inn the position that you will need a source that he got a section 10 won't you? No one much gets a spent conviction for mid range PCA. Certainly not lawmakers.

How about this one: Adam Marshall MLA leaves Glen Innes Local Court after receiving the maximum non custodial sentence for mid range PCA.

Here is the relevant part. Upon an admission of guilt that's the only way to avoid a conviction in NSW: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s10.html

I can't find a source this any of this happened:

(a) an order directing that the relevant charge be dismissed,

(b) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into a good behaviour bond for a term not exceeding 2 years,

(c) an order discharging the person on condition that the person enter into an agreement to participate in an intervention program and to comply with any intervention plan arising out of the program.

He was convicted. I'll stake my reputation on it. I was there.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If he got a section 10 you'd know about it. As if. We might have to go to mediation then. You can't tell me black is white.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you really have to prove that the Sydney Harbour Bridge is there? Its plain he was only spared a custodial sentence.

"Now, he faces a criminal conviction, even a maximum penalty of imprisonment, at least a fine of 20 penalty units and maybe a few thousand dollars, and automatic loss of licence for 12 months."

http://www.northerndailyleader.com.au/story/2383923/mps-licence-suspended-adam-marshall-to-face-court-over-drink-driving-charge/

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

"if he's convicted". If it's this certain, why has no source whatsoever said so? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It even says in the article what happened at his sentencing hearing. So doesnt follow on that has convicted? If you get a section 10(1)(a) it never goes to sentencing. There is no mention of a section 10 bond. No intervention program. Only convicted men get sentenced. You can take my word for it. As I've given you a source as to the way things work in NSW, I think the onus is on you to obtain a record of the proceedings and correct me if I'm wrong. Can you image what a controversy it would have been if he went unpunished under that part?

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This is what the firm I go through says about it. They are talking about NSW law:

"The starting point for a sentencing court in a mid range drink driving matter will always be the recording of a criminal conviction, together with an automatic licence disqualification of 12 months for a first offender or three years for a repeat offender."

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/traffic-law/drink-driving/mid-range-pca?gclid=CjwKEAjw9LKeBRDurOugs43jnlgSJACUXqHxGxyiLKTESfAc-GOKMGn90f4PeRpvPmqKRp6tb38oqBoCKIfw_wcB

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You can't impute something this serious. Why are there apparently no sources that refer to him having been convicted? Even if true, if no reliable source considers it significant enough to mention, then neither should we. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed: that caption must go. (By the way, where did you get the infobox image from? You haven't included any licensing information which means it will get deleted.) Frickeg (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We can find an image OK. Or mention something about his conviction in the body of the article at any rate. But the point is it goes without saying as they way things work. Tell me one thing. You're saying he made an admission of guilt AND got sentenced AND got a spent conviction. I don't know that that is possible. What mechanism do you propose that allowed that to happen? I was at the hearing and I can tell you right now you won't find the words section 10 in the transcript. There's no authority for it in the articles. I think you'll find The Queen v Adam John Marshall is a sufficient citation for that proposition. There's no way that would come against wikipedia. Trust me we'd all know if he got section 10 alright. For one thing the RAAD people would have been up in arms. As if a lawmaker going up for mid range PCA with 17 prior speeding offences was ever going to avoid a conviction. That's not what they do.

Because it does go without saying. To be fair to Mr Marshall. We will have to mention his section 10 if he got one won't we? I'm not wasting my time looking for references for that. A lady he served with in local government got a section 10 when she went to court and wrote letters to the editor wanting to make sure everyone knew about it.

I'm only familiar with third opinion. But we can't use that unless only two editors are involved right?

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You cannot impute a criminal conviction in the absence of a clear source. This is an extremely unambiguous WP:BLP issue. No reliable source has used the term "convicted" in regard to Marshall, and thus neither do we. Either find a reliable source for the claim, or drop the argument: this is one of the clearest-cut BLP issues I've ever seen. You've also uploaded two images which you didn't take, apparently without permission, and which are also as such being used in breach of the Copyright Act. This is not giving one a great deal of confidence in your ability to interpret the law even if this kind of guesswork was ever allowed on Wikipedia. Nothing "goes without saying" when you're claiming that somebody has a criminal conviction in their Wikipedia biography, and if you want that claim included, you're going to need to "waste your time looking for references for that". The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given you links to the legislation. I think Mr Marshall would want us to mention his section 10 wouldn't he? I'm not the one saying he got one. We will have to resolve it because look at some of the categories.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Find a source backing up what you want and it can go in. Don't find a source and it stays out. It is that simple. You can talk about the legislation all you like, and all I'm going to do is direct you to Wikipedia:Original research in addition to the policies I've mentioned before, since that's another thing you're trying to do that is banned in core Wikipedia policy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at some of the categories though. If you study those links I gave you long enough you can how he didn't get a section 10. No other MP done ever done for drunk driving has ever escaped a conviction. We will have to list it for mediation. You seem like an experienced user. Whats the options?

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not comprehending me. If you want this article to claim that this man had a criminal conviction, you need a source stating, in clear and unambiguous terms, that this is the case. You cannot impute this. Wikipedia policy is absolutely unambiguous about this point. You can take it to any noticeboard you like, and you won't get a more charitable answer: in fact, including defamatory claims without citation in BLP articles is a brilliant way of getting banned. For the love of god, take some advice before it gets to that point. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've put up a new tag. You see the thing is he didn't get a section 10 and none of the articles say so. Sure he was convicted. And sentenced. And put off the road.

Whats the best meditation option?

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I know much about meditation. I prefer yoga. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The local paper in Gunnedah mentioned his conviction. But its hardcopy only. And you seem to have a suspicious mind. But will that do?

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise I can request some comments.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I can go with the local paper in Gunnedah as a source, but you'll need to prove that it actually happened after the above discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I threw it out. I can certainly go look it up today at the library. But once I you give the name of the newspaper, the edition and page number, that ought to be alright. As I say, once you make it to a sentencing hearing, there's no mechanism that allows to avoid a conviction anyway. Because at that point, you have actually been convicted. Sentencing hearings are for punishing criminals.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

In the 15 July edition of Mr Marshall's hometown newspaper the Namoi Valley Independent there was an article on page 3 that was not drawn from syndicated sources. It discussed the impact of his conviction on his eligibility to run for office, saying there would be no such effect

I'm not doubting anyone's good faith. But I have no evidence he was given a section 10 and I witnessed the proceedings live. Think about it. With 17 prior speeding fines, could an MP of all people really be seen to make a section 10 submission for leniency that was not going to succeed in any event? Poor Adam go easy on him! I think the sources even have him saying he was ready to accept the punishment.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You are referring, I assume, to this article (although given that you talk about eligibility, and the article doesn't, I wonder if maybe it wasn't?). You will notice that that article, once again, does not use the term "convicted". Therefore, neither do we in this case. We can detail the loss of license and fine no problem, but "convicted" has serious connotations and if no sources use it we shouldn't be either.

It's one or the other. If you don't mention conviction, its still implied because we are saying he appeared at a sentencing hearing. We'd really want to say either way to be sure wouldn't we? Believe it or not its not rocket science and if you can get some reasonable people together it can be determined to their satisfaction.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well The Drover's Wife I still think its crazy to require someone to make out the default position - one that is such a long established legal norm court reporters hardly ever bother to reiterate it - where the only way to get a spent conviction is by order of the court.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Lets just say you could be sentenced AND get a spent conviction. How would you know if he was being defamed on the strength of those sources?

49.182.137.89 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

References

RfC: Should Adam Marshall be added to the list of Australian politicians convicted of crimes?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the Adam Marshall be added to the list of Australian politicians convicted of crimes? The sources say he admitted his guilt and was sentenced. And there is no authority that says he received a section 10 spent conviction order which is a sentencing option for magistrates in New South Wales. As for the lack of mention of any explicit mention of his conviction in the online articles, it goes without saying that once a charge case proceeds to sentencing in that jurisdiction, then there's no procedural mechanism that allows the offender to escape conviction at that stage anyway. This is easily shown to the satisfaction of any reasonable person by a cursory examination of the relevant statute that covers sentencing. Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, unless we have a solid, reliable source that explicitly says he was convicted. Something this serious cannot just be extrapolated, especially for a WP:BLP. (As an aside, the list is a mess anyway and not even close to comprehensive.) Frickeg (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the claim in the article that On 15 July 2014 in the Glen Innes court, Marshall pleaded guilty to mid range drink driving charge is both (a) true and (b) judged significant, then we can expect that it will be reported by Australian news sources on the interwebs. (NB the claim is about 2014, and not, say, 1964. Politicians' goofs [and worse] of this kind occurring in 2014 tend to be written up.) So let's see such evidence. If the only evidence requires a trip to either a library in one smallish area, or a trip to an extraordinarily large library, then forget it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Since we cannot actually show the subject was convicted of anything, per WP:BLPCAT. The proposing editor should go read WP:SYNTH and WP:OR inserting this above because wow §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There is a valid concern here. In the state of New South Wales there is a option available to magistrates in the form of a section 10 spent conviction. This allows a charge case to be dismissed before proceeding to a conviction. But there's no indication this happened. I can tell you right now it wasn't dealt with under this part. We'd all know about that if it happened. Don't you think that would have been the bigger scandal? Just think about this for a start. Wouldn't it be poor form for a parliamentarian with 17 prior speeding tickets to be seen to be asking for this form of leniency to begin with? Especially when he wouldn't be a candidate for a section 10 with such a poor driving record in any event? It's more a first time offenders thing. Not the 18th time. To be fair to Mr Marshall, if he did get a section 10, wouldn't he like some mention of that here? When he was in local government one of his colleagues went to court and got a section 10 and they wrote a letter to the editor just to tell everyone about their section 10. I'm not wasting my time searching for such a non existent source. In fact, in the print edition of his hometown Namoi Valley Independent, 15 July, page 3, there was a report drawn from non syndicated sources that discusses any legal barriers to his running for office again as a result of his "conviction". It stands to reason in any event that if the charge case went as far as a sentencing hearing, then the time for section 10s has come and gone.

This is what his counsel would have advised him:

http://www.armstronglegal.com.au/traffic-law/drink-driving/mid-range-pca?gclid=CjwKEAjw9LKeBRDurOugs43jnlgSJACUXqHxGxyiLKTESfAc-GOKMGn90f4PeRpvPmqKRp6tb38oqBoCKIfw_wcB

And this is the way the machinery works in detail:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cpa1999278/s10.html

Sentencing hearings are for punishing convicted criminals and you can easily see from the sources this is where things ended up. Where does it say a section 10(1)(a) order was made? Or a section 10 bond? Or a section 10 intervention order? Anything outside of that is conviction territory. Do you have to prove the grand canyon is still there around here? He was put off the road and fined. He was only spared a custodial sentence. One day in the fullness of time surely someone is going to write a book about infamous Australian criminals. And there will be a chapter on politicians convicted of crimes. And Mr Marshall will have his small footnote.

I think its over to whoever still thinks there is still some tiny minute chance he got a section 10 to explain how that could have happened and who is saying so?

I submit the reference "The Queen v Adam John Marshall" is the bare minimum you need to keep Wikipedia out of trouble.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You really aren't getting the message. It doesn't matter how inevitable or obvious the conclusion is, if no published source says specifically that he was convicted (and you have not been able to provide one), then neither do we. I didn't read those links you gave, because they are irrelevant. They do not say "Marshall was convicted". They are general works. Therefore they are of no use in this situation. We can't just put two and two together in this situation, we need a source that says they make four. That is how Wikipedia works. Frickeg (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The starting point is a conviction recorded. Where does it say he got a section 10? Wouldn't he like it mentioned if it did in fact happen? That's why we need to get to the bottom of it. It's one or the other. The implication would be he was convicted, even if we remove the caption. If he did get a section 10 and we don;t say so, can't he sue Wikipedia then? You apparently know more about it then me who was there.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You being there has nothing to do with it. Neither you, nor I, nor any other individual editor, is a reliable source. The "implication" is not enough in this case. And are you saying he could sue Wikipedia if we don't say he was convicted? Really? You are even admitting that we don't know exactly what happened. This really is very simple: we say what we do know (i.e. what we have a source for), which is that he lost his licence and paid a fine. That's it. Problem solved. Frickeg (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove the caption. But if he got a section 10 he'll still sue us won't he? I'm saying you don't understand. There is no way you get put off the road and fined AND get a section 10.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

We will have to ask for binding arbitration.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You can ask for binding arbitration, if you wish. But here's an alternative idea that's going to save a lot of trouble, particularly for you: Read and digest the policies and guidelines about "original research", "original synthesis", "verifiability", and "neutrality". And believe them. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I just thought I followed this one. I'm a bit believer in wikipedia. I thought I'd add to this great body of knowledge. I just want to satisfy you all won't get sued. He either had a conviction recorded, or he got a section 10. I've just never seen any evidence he got a section 10. And no one here has supplied any. We are saying he appeared at a sentencing hearing so the implication is a conviction was recorded even if we removed the caption.

It's not about original research. It's about people out there knowing the way things work even if some of us don't and where that leaves wikipedia in terms of liability.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

How many people do you want to hear it from that you're fundamentally not comprehending core Wikipedia policy? Adding negative material of this nature to a BLP without a source is seriously frowned upon across the project, and if you really want to try to take your case to the people with the capacity to ban you or restrict your editing because of your edits here, no one here is going to stop you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If no one can supply a source such that the article can say he was given a section 10 why was the category taken away then if it is one or the other? People know the way things work. You'd read that he was put off the road and fined and think he was convicted and sentenced.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Not one of those articles mentioned his section 10. Some bloke on his 18th offence gets let off. And an MP. Imagine that.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If he got a section 10 thats all you could say about it because thats finalisation of the proceedings right there.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes after hearing a section 10 submission and argument from the prosecution thats the magistrate does say. "Section 10. You're free to go".

10:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You can argue about the likelihood for the next ten years, but the onus remains on you to prove that a conviction was recorded, and Wikipedia policy clearly mandates that your claims stay out of the article until such time as you can provide a source for that claim. Another ten pages of arguing "but it was really likely!" does not and will not change that fact. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what the Wife says. And another thing: A look through either this talk page or your list of contributions suggests an obsession with this single, minor politician. People here make a certain degree of effort to avoid judging edits ad hominem; but Wikipedia (notoriously) has a considerable number of time-wasters among its contributors, and so those who are in a position to ban or block do tend to skimread or just ignore whatever substantive arguments may be put forward by those who appear to be monomaniacs. So: You'd be wise to diversify. -- Hoary (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

There already has been much debate. Yet the article still makes no mention of his section 10. Why can't we add the category "Australian politicians convicted of crimes" then? We know what his sentence was and all.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If he got a section 10 he been majorly defamed. When you do find a source. We'll need to remove all that about sentencing hearing and his being put off the road and fined. And then either say the charge was dismissed without conviction. Or he was given a section 10 bond. Or a section 10 intervention order.

It's not an obsession. It is just that some people really take an exception to being told black is white.

The article doesn't say he avoided a conviction. What's your stake in keeping him off that inglorious list?

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think being made a pedestrian for nine months and handing over 2000 dollars is being let off under section 10 do you?

23:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Why be sooooooo worried about defaming this gentleman if you are ignorant of how things work in any case? We need some New South Wales editors on this one.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have a source that he received a Section 10, that can go in the article. If you have a source that he received a criminal conviction, it can go in the article. Otherwise, neither of these claims go in the article, and a further ten pages of "but I think it was really really likely!" still doesn't change Wikipedia policy on this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Why should the onus be on me when the default position is to record a conviction? After his admission of guilt the court ordered he stay off the road for nine months and pay a 2000 fine. Why didn't the order that no conviction be recorded attract any publicity? According to the sources there was no such order.

Instead of removing the category you should have put up a tag then found a source that says he did get get a section 10. And then I would drop this.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The implication already is he was convicted because we are saying he fronted a sentencing hearing. So why not reinstate the disputed category then? We are already proclaiming to the world he is a convicted man. And if he did get a section 10 wikipedia is defaming right now.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Will that do? http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/story/2426136/marshall-pays-price-for-his-poor-driving-record

?

This says: Adam Marshall was full of remorse when he was convicted of drink-driving in Glen Innes Local Court this week. / The MP was fined $2000 and disqualified from driving for nine months. / The drink-driving offence follows 17 counts of speeding, which Marshall said contributed to a driving record he was not proud of. Thank you. Any further comments on whether/how the article should be changed? (Incidentally, it's not necessary to make line breaks before signing a comment, and not making them saves space on the page.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The disputed categories can certainly be reinstated now. Apart from that I think we had a consensus as to what the article should look like. I see the magistrates sentencing remarks have been pared back though. I was going to leave the mooted structural edits to those who suggested it. I will chase up an image we can use in due course.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that will do. I hope you've gained a better understanding of sourcing requirements on Wikipedia. With the image, generally with Australian politicians the only free images we can use are the ones we take ourselves, so if you do find one make sure you very carefully check the licensing provisions. Frickeg (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

As Frickeg says, that's sufficient to note that he was convicted. However, two of the categories can not go back, because the criteria for the general "criminals" categories is "people who have "been convicted of crime of a notable nature or notable Australians who have been convicted of serious crimes", Marshall is neither, and this is still a BLP article. The "politicians who have been convicted of crimes" category is fine though. The undue weight issue will reappear if you continue to try and once again pad out the coverage of the drink driving charge to as long or longer as our coverage of the remainder of his life. Please note Frickeg's comments about the images. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 23 July 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article says that this person pleaded guilty to a criminal offence was ordered to stay off the road for nine months and pay a fine of 2000 dollars. Is there any reason we can't add the category "Australian politicians convicted of crimes" then? Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We are still waiting for you to provide a single reliable source that a conviction was recorded, and you have failed to do so despite repeated requests. And so WP:BLP dictates that it stays out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The default position is for a conviction to be recorded. I can't seem to see where he was given the benefit of a section 10. The article itself doesn't even say he escaped a conviction. Instead it says he's a pedestrian for nine months and 2000 dollars poorer. This article needs attention from an expert.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Will that do? http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/story/2426136/marshall-pays-price-for-his-poor-driving-record

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 23 July 2014

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we put up a tag that the article needs the attention of an expert? People who aren't familiar with jurisprudence in New South Wales don't have a lot to offer here just at the moment. Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hands up the editors who think that this article doesn't need the attention of an expert; all it needs is a lack of attention from those who have an axe to grind.

I raise my hand.

If you think that the article needs others' help, you are welcome to ask for this at whichever you think is/are most relevant among the talk page for "WikiProject Law", the talk page for "WikiProject Australian politics", the talk page for "WikiProject Australian crime", and (my own suggestion) the noticeboard for "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons". -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading about this barking mad European King who issued a proclamation saying night is day and day is night.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Only convicted criminals need attend a sentencing hearing in New South Wales. Show me where in the article itself it says a spent conviction order was made? Certainty it says he was ordered to stay off the road for nine months and had over 2000 dollars.

The default position is to record a conviction. We need to put that category back until a source for his section 10 emerges.

He got a section 10 on his 18th offence? He must have had Jesus Christ as his counsel.

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Will that do? http://www.inverelltimes.com.au/story/2426136/marshall-pays-price-for-his-poor-driving-record/

Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It might be possible or probable that he was convicted of something. But under our WP:BLP policy, we don't make guesses based on the balance of probability, we need a reliable source to say that, otherwise it quite simply cannot go into the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC).

This page has gotten a bit confusing because Ghostofthelandscape has created so many new sections repeating the same argument, but he's finally come up with a source for his claim, so at least this bit of the argument is now moot. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think wikipedia needs to review something somewhere. Original research? In some jurisdictions around the world you cant avoid a conviction following an admission or finding of guilt. If this was one of them and the main syndicated article never mentioned the word conviction, hed still never be added to that category then would he? Ghostofthelandscape (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

You're never going to get Wikipedia to back away from requiring reliable sources for negative claims in biographies of living persons articles. This is neither a jurisdiction or a charge where it was impossible to avoid a conviction, and no amount of "but it was really really likely" is going to cut it. It needed a source, and you eventually provided one, as you were required to do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversies

I note the very long debate at this article cause by one single purpose account who just wasn't getting it. Now that that person is thankfully no longer active on wikipedia, what do other editors suggest we do with this section? I already shortened it as per WP:UNDUE, as it was too long in proportion to the rest of the article. I'm satisfied enough with the section now that it is shortened, though I am happy to hear other opinions. If there are no objections, I will remove the tag on the article. Freikorp (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't like the headings much (especially the "drunk driving scandal" one). Could we not do without them altogether and just have them as paragraphs under "political career"? Otherwise it looks fine. Frickeg (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adam Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130504015155/https://www.nswnationals.org.au/northern-tablelands to http://www.nswnationals.org.au/northern-tablelands

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ALP membership

Shouldn't his membership of the ALP be included in the infobox. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Due to a lack of response I since put that in the infobox. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversies -> Personal Life

Hi team, I note some of your passionate discussion about the subheading surrounding his speeding/drunk driving incidents. I hope you don't mind, but I've fleshed out to a more broad Personal life category, and included his COVID diagnosis and some of his 'extracurriculars'. I'd love some feedback on this, just wanted to get a rapid edit in for the amount of people who'd be looking up who he was, in light of the news. Nauseous Man (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

"Most Likely to be Prime Minister"

Can we please remove this line from the article? I know it's a minor thing, but it is also a blatant falsehood. --114.78.112.219 (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)